Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Ad hominem

2016-09-10T17:10:07Z

HelpJazz: Move example to correct form, add actual tu quoque example, remove unencyclopedic text and link to unrelated article, change title

An ''argumentum '''ad hominem''''' ([[Latin]]: "argument against the man"), is a [[logical fallacy]] consisting of denigrating one's opponent or otherwise introducing irrelevant premises about one's opponent, instead of dealing with the flaws in the form and function of the opponent's argument. Note that the statement made in an ''ad hominem'' argument does not have to be false for this type of fallacy to have been committed; it just has to be irrelevant to the topic of the debate.

== Classical structure ==
Classically, this fallacy is aimed at casting doubt on what a person is saying because of (imputed) flaws in the person's character, or circumstances peculiar to the person, that are unrelated to the matter at hand. Its usual structure is:

# A makes claim X.
# A has a flaw in his character, or else his circumstances mean that X somehow serves a special interest of A, etc.
# Therefore, X is false.<ref name=Nizkor>The Nizkor Project, [http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html Fallacy: Ad Hominem] (retrieved April 9, 2007)</ref><ref name=Lander>Lander University, Department of Philosophy, ''[http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html Philosophy 103, Introduction to Logic: Argumentum ad Hominem]''. (Retrieved April 9, 2007)</ref>

== Why Ad Hominem is Objectionable ==
The ''ad hominem'' is objectionable and usually fallacious practice because:

# It is an [[appeal to emotion]] rather than to fact.<ref name=heritage>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad%20hominem Definition of ad hominem] from ''The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language'', 4th ed., Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006 (retrieved April 9, 2007)</ref>
# It introduces an irrelevant consideration.<ref name=Engel>S. Morris Engel, ''With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies'', 5th ed., St. Martin's Press, 1994, pp. 198-206. Retrieved April 9, 2007, from [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html The Fallacy Files]</ref>

That is, it has no bearing on the truth value of the other person's assertion.

== Forms of Ad Hominem ==
The ad hominem fallacy can take several forms, the most common of which are personal abuse<ref name=Engel/> and the introduction of an irrelevant circumstance.<ref name=Engel/> Some debaters use the ''ad hominem'' attack pre-emptively, a technique known as ''poisoning the well.''<ref name=Engel2>Engel, ''op. cit.'', pp. 206-209. Retrieved April 9, 2007, from [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html The Fallacy Files]</ref>

'''Example:''' Atheist scientist A might present arguments that there is no [[God]]. Opponent C might respond by stating that A is fat and should be able to use science to control his weight. This would be an example of the ''ad hominem'' fallacy.

In a special form of ''ad hominem'' that is closely akin to [[special pleading]], a debater attempts to deflect criticism of himself by asserting that his opponent has the identical character flaw. This form is called ''tu quoque'' ([[Latin]], "thou too"). The proverbial expression of this fallacy is "It takes one to know one" or "Let the pot call the [[kettle]] black."<ref name=Warburton>Nigel Warburton, ''Thinking from A to Z'', 2nd. ed., "Politician's Answer", pp. 103-104. Retrieved April 9, 2007, from [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html The Fallacy Files]</ref>

'''Example:''' A [[liberal]] states that people should not vote for the [[Republican Party|Republican]] candidate because he is a racist. A [[conservative]] replies with "well you are also a racist so your argument doesn't count!". In this case, while the liberal may in fact be a racist, this doesn't preclude them from voting against a racist candidate.

== Example ==
The statement

:'[[Richard Wagner]] was an opera composer much admired by the Nazis'

might be considered an ad hominem attack on Wagner's music. It is true, and in some contexts might be a relevant comment. But if someone says it in order to suggest that Wagner was a bad composer, then it's an ''ad hominem'' attack, because whether some bad people liked his music is not a relevant comment on the quality of his music. Additionally, the Nazis' misdeeds had nothing to do with their ability to critique opera. However, even if a tone-deaf person, who is not a good judge of music, said he liked Wagner, it would still be an ''ad hominem'' attack to conclude Wagner is bad.

==When ad hominem isn't ad hominem==
* The ad hominem attack is usually fallacious, and becomes reasonable ''only'' when the consideration being advanced is directly relevant to whether the other person is generally truthful or reliable, or whether he is telling the truth in this instance, or whether he is engaged in a logical fallacy of his own. The usual case occurs when the other person is engaging in [[special pleading]].<ref name=Lander/> Exposure of special pleading is a valid counterargument—so long as the accusation itself is valid. Technically, this is ''not'' an example of ''ad hominem'', because it is an attack on the specific argument and/or the evidence advanced to support it.

* In the modern legal system, most judges allow the prosecutor to attack the credibility of those who testify on the stand; such [[witness impeachment]] can call into question the character, impartiality, honesty, or competence of a witness. Again, however, this is not technically an ''ad hominem'' argument.

==Other meanings of ad hominem==
American Heritage Dictionary says:
:The expression now also has a looser use in referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of an argument, as in "It isn't in the best interests of the nation for the press to attack him in this personal, ad hominem way." [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad%20hominem]

== See also ==
* [[Special pleading]]
* [[Argumentum ad populum]]
* [[Yellow journalism]]
* [[Journalistic malpractice]]
* [[Slander]] and [[gossip]]

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]
[[Category:Morality]]

Logical fallacy

2016-09-10T15:55:17Z

HelpJazz: /* Appeal to Consequences */ clear up wording, remove non-sequitur, remove unneeded third example

A '''logical fallacy''' is an error in [[formal logic|logical]] reasoning. While the common usage of the word ''fallacy'' would include ''any'' error in [[reason]]ing, in logic a fallacy is defined as a particularly [[deceit|deceptive]] argument which seems correct, but upon further examination is found to be incorrect.<ref name="copi">Copi, Irving M. and Carl Cohen. "Introduction to Logic, 12e". Pearson Education: 2005</ref> The maker of such an argument, however, need not be aware of its fallacious nature.

Logical fallacies fall into two general categories: formal fallacies and informal fallacies. Formal fallacies apply to [[deductive argument]]s, and are those which relate to an improper application of a rule, whereas informal fallacies apply to [[inductive argument]]s, and are those which involve the improper use of the content of an argument. That is, an informally fallacious argument gives a conclusion which may be true or false, but which the fallacious argument does not prove; a formally fallacious argument gives a conclusion which is always false.

There are four categories of informal fallacies: fallacies of relevance, fallacies of defective or weak induction, fallacies of presumption, and fallacies of ambiguity.

A logical fallacy ''is not'' the same as [[lie|lying]], although it is still an error if you commit one (and dishonest if you know you are committing one). A ''lie'' in logic is a [[premise]] that one offers while knowing that it is false.

==Fallacies of Relevance==
Fallacies of relevance are fallacies which are due to a lack of a relevant logical connection between [[premise]] and [[conclusion]].

===Appeal to force===
An appeal to [[force]] (Lat: ''argumentum ad baculum'') is an argument which uses a threat of [[violence]] or force as a justification for the conclusion. An appeal to force argument follows the form:

*If person A does not accept P, then Q
*Q is a threat of force
*Therefore, P is true

For example: "If you do not pay me $30 I will break your leg. Therefore you owe me $30." It is fallacious because no amount of force can change the truth or falsity of the initial proposition.

===Appeal to pity===
Also called [[emotion]]al appeal, (Lat: ''ad misericordiam'') this fallacy is characterized by a use of emotion as a justification for the conclusion. An appeal to [[pity]] follows the form:

*Person A argues P
*Person B agrees P, but adds X, where X is an emotional argument unconnected to P

For example: "Yes, [[police|officer]], I realize I was speeding, but you shouldn't give me a ticket because I was racing to see my wife who is in the [[hospital]]." While this argument uses an emotional appeal to convince the officer not to hand out a citation, there is no logical connection between the conclusion ("you shouldn't give me a ticket") and the premise ("I was racing to see my wife").

Appeals to pity are very commonly seen in business. A factory manager may make the following argument: "our factory's overheads are too high, and we cannot maintain our business if we continue here. Therefore we should relocate to an area where labor is cheaper." An appeal to pity would be of the following type: "but our workers have bills to pay, families to support, we cannot fire them." That statement may be true, but is fallacious because it is not relevant to the manager's argument.

===Appeal to Consequences===
An ''appeal to consequences,'' or, more fully, ''appeal to adverse consequences'' or ''appeal to consequences of a belief,''<ref>[http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-consequences.html Fallacy: Appeal to Consequences]</ref> is an attempt to motivate belief with an appeal either to the good consequences of believing or the bad consequences of disbelieving. This may or may not involve an appeal to force. Such arguments are fallacious because the consequences of believing or disbelieving have no bearing on the truth or falsity of a belief. The following is an example:

* If you believe in evolution, then you'll be miserable, thinking that life is meaningless
* Therefore, evolution is false

This argument commits the ''appeal to consequences'' fallacy because it provides no evidence for its conclusion; all it does is appeal to the consequences of believing in evolution. Evolution is not disproven because it leads to bad consequences for those who believe in it. The following is a similar example:

* If you believe in evolution, then you'll be more respected in academic circles
* Therefore, evolution is true

This makes an appeal to the positive consequences of believing in evolution, without actually providing any proof of evolution itself. Just because belief in evolution makes you more respected in acedemic circles, this does not mean that evolution is correct.

A particular form of the appeal to consequences is the [[appeal to personal interest]], which is fallacy of appealing to the personal likes and interests (preferences, prejudices, predispositions, fears, etc.) of others in order to have an argument accepted, when those personal likes and interests are irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the argument.

===''Argumentum ad hominem''===
: ''Main Article: [[Ad hominem]]''

''Ad hominem'' arguments (Lat: "argument directed toward the man") fall into two forms: ''ad hominem'' abusive and ''ad hominem tu quoque'' (circumstantial).

====''Ad hominem'' abusive====
An ''ad hominem'' is an argument which tries to disprove another argument by attacking the person who made it, rather than by focusing on the actual logical reasoning. The goal of an ''ad hominem'' argument is usually to take focus off of the actual argument by calling attention to a flaw of the person making it. This form of argument follows the form:

*Person A argues that P
*Person A is Q
*Q is some derogatory description not related to the argument at hand
*Therefore, P is false

====''Ad hominem tu quoque''====
A ''tu quoque'' argument (Lat: "you're another") is one which argues that, because someone does that which they are arguing against, that person must be wrong. This form of argument follows the form:

*Person A argues that P should not happen
*Person A does P
*Therefore, Person A's argument is incorrect

For example: "You can't tell me not to eat cheeseburgers, I just saw you eating one last week!" Another common example is often found in business: "why are you punishing me for dumping waste in the river? My rival does the exact same thing and you don't punish him!" In this case, dumping waste into the river is wrong (and illegal) regardless of how it is enforced for any other company.

===="False Causality" ====
A false causality fallacy is when a person argues that A caused B when there is little evidence to support the claim. Specifically, a false causality is committed when the basis for A causing B is based on some superficial coincidence.

*"Our house was robbed the day after that family moved in, they must have done it!"

In this example, it is only a coincidence that a new family has moved in at the same time another house has been robbed, and this is not grounds for evidence.

====''Poisoning the well''====
Poisoning the well is a particular type of ''ad hominem'' argument. It consists of attempts to discredit a speaker (and, by extension, their argument) by criticizing unrelated opinions that they hold or, alternatively, by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person to discredit in advance any argument that that person may make.<ref>[http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html Fallacy: Poisoning the Well]</ref> The first variant of the argument follows this form:

*Person A makes argument X.
*Person B counters that person A also believes Y, where Y is something unacceptable, foolish, or easily disprovable, but unrelated to X.
*Person A is wrong about Y.
*Therefore, person A must also be wrong about X.

The second variant follows this form:

*Person B, knowing that person A will make argument X, introduces unfavorable information about person A that is unrelated to X.
*Person A makes argument X.
*Therefore, person A must be wrong about X.

One example of the first variant was by the actor [[Matt Damon]], who attempted to discredit [[Sarah Palin|Sarah Palin's]] political credibility on the basis that she was a young-earth creationist: {{cquote|You know, the hockey mom, you know, "I'm just a hockey mom from Alaska," and she's the president. And it's like she's facing down Vladimir Putin and you know, using the folksy stuff she learned at the hockey rink, you know, it's just absurd. It's totally absurd, and I don't understand why more people aren't talking about how absurd it is. I...it's a really terrifying possibility. The fact that we've gotten this far and we're that close to this being a reality is crazy. Crazy. I mean, did she really - I need to know if she really thinks dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago. That's an important - I want to know that. I really do. Because she's gonna have the nuclear codes. You know, I wanna know if she thinks dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago, or if she banned books or tried to ban books. I mean, you know, we can't have that.<ref>Page F30. [http://www.pagef30.com/2008/09/matt-damon-on-sarah-palin-with.html ''Matt Damon on Sarah Palin with transcript''] (2008)</ref>}}

An example of the second variant is to introduce information (true or false) about a distateful or objectionable aspect of someone's personal life to persuade the listeners to reject out of hand whatever that person may say, when that aspect of the person's personal life may have nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the positions that that person will take.

When spelled out in the above form, the fallacy is easily seen, but it is used very frequently in political debate where skillful use of rhetoric can mask the underlying fallacy. The argument is fallacious because a person's opinions on one subject do not affect the truth or falsity of their statements on other subjects or because the asserted unfavorable information has no bearing on the truth or falsity of the position being attacked. There is some overlap between poisoning the well and ''ad hominem'' abusive, although poisoning the well in the second sense is used to mean introducing the irrelevant information preemptively.

===Genetic fallacy===
In general, this is the attempt to assert or reject a theory by citing its origins as either reputable or disreputable. The usual expression of this fallacy is "consider the source!" Thus it becomes a form either of ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' or of ''argumentum ad hominem'', depending on whether one seeks to verify or disprove the theory by this method. This type of argument follows the form:

*If P then Q
*P is false
*Therefore, Q is false

Formally, the error arises in confusing "If P, then Q" with "If and only if P, then Q."

When the origin of ''evidence'' or of ''premises'' is relevant to the reliability of the same, then asking a hearer to "consider the source" is valid. Judges in courts of [[law]], for example, routinely reject as unreliable the testimony of any witness who has demonstrably lied about a point that matters in the case at hand. The facts that such a witness is asserting might still be true, but they cannot stand without corroboration from another, more reliable witness.

But when corroboration is established, the origins of a conclusion, however tainted, become irrelevant.

As an example, [[Gregor Mendel]] established the genetic theory that remains current today, even though Mendel's experimental technique was badly flawed, and he even stands accused of falsifying key data. But succeeding [[science|scientists]], using accepted methods of verification and statistical assessment, have achieved results consistent with this theory. Thus the theory remains valid even though Mendel's original presentation was fraudulent. Any attempt today to discredit Mendel's theory on account of Mendel's sloppy methods would be an example of a genetic fallacy.<ref name=Genetic>[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html Genetic Fallacy] on [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ The Fallacy Files]</ref>

===Proof by numbers===
{{main|Argumentum ad populum}}
Also known as "appeal to the people" (Lat: ''ad populum''), this is an argument that a person bases on the numbers of people holding to its conclusion, rather than on the premises that might support that conclusion. An appeal to the people follows the form:

:Most people believe P
:Therefore P is true

"Ninety nine point nine percent of all respondents can't be wrong" is the classic phraseology of this fallacy One does not effectively disprove such an argument by challenging the numbers. Instead, one reminds the other person that the numbers of people holding to any given conclusion are irrelevant to establishing the truth or falsehood of that conclusion. [[History]] is in fact replete with multiple examples of conclusions that memorable [[science|scientists]] and other great discoverers have shown to be false even though large numbers of people believed them. [[Antoine Lavoisier]], who disproved "phlogiston" as the principle of fire, was one such person. [[Christopher Columbus]] and [[Ferdinand Magellan]] are two others. After all, millions of people believed in the roman gods, but they were proven wrong.

===Special pleading===
: ''Main Article: [[Special pleading]]''

[[Special pleading]] means applying to other people a set of standards that one is not willing to apply to oneself, without offering sufficient grounds, called the ''relevant difference'', to support such exemption. Special pleading follows the form:

*If Person X is in set P then Q happens to person X
*Person A is in set P
*Person A cites R circumstance, unrelated to P or Q
*Therefore, Person A is not subject to Q

For example: a political or military leader who urges his subjects (or those under his command) to observe "iron rations" without similarly depriving himself leaves himself open to a charge of special pleading.

===Fallacies of relevance based on the age of an idea===
The '''appeal to antiquity''', also known as the '''appeal to tradition''', holds that an idea must be right just because it is old.<ref>[http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-tradition/ Appeal to Antiquity / Tradition]</ref> Its opposite is the '''appeal to novelty''', which holds that an idea must be right just because it is new.<ref>[http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-novelty/ Appeal to Novelty]</ref> Both are fallacies of relevance because the mere age of an idea does not tell us whether it is true. For example, an old idea could be a time-tested and sound concept, or it could be an ancient [[superstition]] like [[astrology]]. Similarly, a new idea could be the result of new [[information]] or an intellectual fad like [[postmodernism]].

==Fallacies of Defective or Weak Induction==
Fallacies of defective or weak induction are fallacies which are due to a lack of understanding for how well premises lead to a conclusion.

===Argument from silence===
''Argument from silence'' (in [[Latin]], ''argumentum ab silencio'') or ''argument from ignorance'' (Lat: ''ad ignorantium'') is an assertion which states that, because there is no evidence to support a given argument, the opposite must be true. The fallacy follows the form:
*If P then Q
*P cannot be shown true
*Therefore, Q is false

For example: "Nobody has ever seen God, so clearly he doesn't exist".

This fallacy is often associated with and best remembered by the phrase: "the absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence." However, sometimes, absence of evidence can be so overwhelming that it constitutes strong evidence of absence. Such a situation arises when we have good reason to believe that the absent evidence would have been uncovered by now if it existed. For example, since evidence of the existence of the [[Loch Ness Monster]] would surely have come to light by now, but has not done so, it is reasonable to assume that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist, i.e., that the [[null hypothesis]] is true. In such cases, absence of evidence, while perhaps not conclusive, is strong evidence of absence.

A particular form of the argument from silence is the ''argument from personal incredulity,'' which takes the form "I cannot believe/understand/explain ''P;'' therefore, not-''P.''" For example, someone who does not understand why [[God]] would condemn [[homosexuality]] or condemn sinners to eternal [[hell]] may commit this fallacy and conclude that the relevant Bible passages should be [[Cafeteria Christianity|rejected]]. Another particular form is the [[black-swan fallacy]].

The argument from silence often results from a misplaced [[burden of proof]].<ref>[http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html Fallacy: Burden of proof]</ref>

===False cause===
False cause (Lat: ''non causa pro causa'') is a fallacy which arises when a poor cause/effect link is used within an argument, especially if coincidence or chance are not taken into account. The fallacy follows the form:

*''P'' is true.
*''Q'' is true.
*Therefore, ''P'' causes ''Q.''

For example: "I used to be a well paid teacher until I started being a tougher grader. When my students' grades went down, so did my salary. Therefore, I must have been paid based on my students' grades." While this sounds like a logical explanation, not all factors are taken into account. For example, the teacher's school could have been subject to budget cuts, or maybe the teacher was overpaid at first and now his salary corrects his true worth.

====''Post hoc ergo propter hoc''====
{{main|Post hoc ergo propter hoc}}
''Post hoc ergo propter hoc'' (Lat: "after this; therefore, because of this") is a subcategory of false cause fallacies. In this type of argument, a close temporal proximity is used as a justification of a cause/effect relationship. ''Post hoc ergo propter hoc'' arguments follow the form:

*P happened, and then Q happened
*Therefore, P caused Q

For example: "Right around the time the sun goes up my alarm clock goes off, so the sun causes my alarm clock to go off." Clearly this is not the case.

====Texas sharpshooter fallacy====
Another form of false cause is the '''Texas sharpshooter fallacy'''. The name comes from a failed marksman who shoots at a barn, draws a bullseye around the biggest cluster of bullet holes, and proclaims himself to be a skilled marksman. In the fallacy, a cluster of data points is assumed to be caused by an apparent cause at that location. The assumption is fallacious because the clustering could be random, or there could be some other cause.<ref>[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/texsharp.html The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy]</ref> Other ways of explaining the fallacy are that the hypothesis is constructed after the fact to conform to the very data that are used to "test" the hypothesis<ref>[http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~tiseda/works/Mayo-2.html Severe Testing]</ref> and that the same data are used to formulate and test the hypothesis.<ref>[http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3073771#post3073771 Precognition paper to be published in mainstream journal]</ref>

===Non sequitur===
: ''Main Article: [[Non sequitur]]''

A ''non sequitur'' (Lat: "It does not follow") is an argument which moves from a premise to a conclusion without showing a valid connection, or sometimes any connection at all. This form of argument follows the form:

*P
*Therefore, R is true

For example: "Crime rates are high, so we should increase the penalty for drug possession."

===Overgeneralization===
Overgeneralization (also called hasty generalization, converse accident, or painting with too broad a brush) is an error in reasoning which comes about by making a logical leap far greater than what the data allow. Overgeneralization follows the form:

*P is/does Q.
*P is a member of the set R.
*Therefore, everyone/everything in the set R is/does Q.

For example: "I just read that three kids were arrested yesterday for drug possession. Teens in this country are really going downhill!"

Overgeneralization the central problem in trying to conclude something about a population from a non-representative sample, or about a larger group from a non-representative subset of that group.

====Proving too much====
Proving too much is a form of overgeneralization in which one attempts to use a set of premises to sustain more conclusions than he can reasonably sustain using the argument presented. Proving too much includes reaching a conclusion that contradicts either things known to be true or [[stolen concept|the premises used to reach that conclusion]]. The term comes from the medieval saying, "What proves too much proves nothing."

===Proof by authority===
Also known as ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' ("argument proceeding from clout") or ''argumentum ad verecundiam'' ("appeal to unqualified authority"), this is an argument that a person bases on authority, either his own or that of another person, rather than on the merits of the position. When the authority involved is a relevant source who has access to more information about the topic than the people discussing it, then the argument becomes a ''citation.'' However, a valid citation must be in an area of study, research, or mental discipline in which the authority being cited is a recognized [[expert]].

*P says Q
*P is an authority in his field
*Therefore, Q is true

A classic example of argument from unqualified authority is a reference to a celebrity or religious leader for their opinion on a matter of science or public policy, when that celebrity or cleric has never adequately studied the subject. A standard argument from authority is often used by evolutionists. A notable scientist claims that evolution is true, and based on that the average person is expected to believe in it as well. This becomes fallacious if the "notable scientist" has never considered alternatives which also provide the answers to the asked questions.

==Fallacies of Presumption==
Fallacies of presumption are fallacies in which an unstated or shaky presumption is made.

===Accident===
The fallacy of accident occurs when a generalization is inappropriately applied to an individual. A fallacy of accident follows the form:

*Some P are Q
*R is in P
*Therefore, R is Q

For example: "You are from [[Ohio]], which is a [[red state]], so you must be a [[Republican]]".

===Contradiction===
{{Main|Contradiction}}

A contradiction is a statement that contradicts its own terms. [[Aristotle]] famously stated that contradictions cannot exist. In any case of a contradiction, some of the premises must be false. A contradiction is an argument which includes in its reasoning:

*P
*Not P

===Loaded question===
: ''Main Article: [[Loaded question]]''

A [[loaded question]] is a question that assumes facts, usually unflattering, that are not in evidence, with the intent of trapping the other person into admitting those facts. The classic loaded-question example is "When did you stop beating your wife?" Another example is, "Do you disbelieve in [[global warming]], which 99.9 percent of all reputable scientists now accept?"

===Proof by assertion===
Proof by assertion is an argument that states something as true without offering supporting evidence or attempting to construct a valid argument. This form of argument follows the form:

*P is true

Often the argument is simply [[Fallacy of invincible ignorance|repeated over and over]], and no evidence for support is given. Statements beginning with [[weasel words|expressions]] such as "It goes without saying that ..." or "Everyone knows ..." are commonly proofs by assertion.

Proof by assertion can also be broken down into several subcategories of fallacies: circular reasoning, infinite regression, manufacturing facts from a theory, and your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong.

====Circular reasoning====
{{Main|Circular reasoning}}

[[Circular reasoning]], also called begging the question (Lat: petitio principii), is a form of proof by assertion in which one asserts a premise, then asserts a conclusion from that premise (directly or indirectly), and then tries to show that the last conclusion ''supports'' the original premise.

====Infinite regression====
: ''Main Article: [[Infinite regression]]''

An infinite regression results when one asserts that a given event caused another, and yet that first event requires another, identical event, to cause ''it.'' An infinite regression follows the form:

*P1 causes Q1
*Q2 causes P1
*P3 causes Q2
*Q4 causes P3
*And so on, forever

For example: [[Panspermia]], an alternative to [[abiogenesis]] as a proposition about the origin of life, suffers from the infinite-regression flaw so long as it fails to state positively what conditions could have brought about an origin of life on a planet other than the earth, ''other than'' the alleged mechanism of the "seeding" of life on the earth itself.

====Manufacturing facts from a theory====

Manufacturing facts from a theory is the assertion as fact of an undemonstrated, unobserved idea for no better reason than that a given theory requires that fact. In law, it is called assuming facts not in evidence. It should not be confused with formulating a prediction to test a hypothesis

In the early stages of formulating a model, this sort of behavior is acceptable. But when repeated efforts to demonstrate such a new fact have failed, the proper logical response is to discard or revise the theory, and not merely to assume that the "fact" still exists and someone hasn't tried hard enough to find it. This is especially true when someone develops evidence that the inferred "fact" could not possibly exist.

====Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong====
: ''Main article: [[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]]'' 

This fallacy occurs when one theory is judged by the premises and assumptions of another theory, rather than against its own premises and assumptions. This form of fallacy follows the form:

*Theory A says that if P then Q
*Theory B says that if P then R
*Q and R are mutually exclusive
*Therefore, theory A is wrong

For example: "Dinosaurs died 65,000,000 years ago, so the earth couldn't have been created 6,000 years ago."
It should be noted that although the above argument by itself is a fallacy, strong evidence supporting the death of dinosaurs 65 million years ago, as well as other evidence, would result in the argument being a proof by contradiction, not necessarily a fallacy.

A similar fallacy is [[No true Scotsman]], which in effect says, "Your facts do not work under my theory, so your facts must be wrong."

===Straw man===
{{Main|Straw man fallacy}}

A straw man fallacy occurs by first incorrectly attributing an argument to someone, disproving this argument, then claiming that the person was wrong. A straw man argument follows the form:

*If P then Q
*Person A says P
*Therefore, Q

Straw man arguments can sometimes be hard to detect, because a valid statement may be used in a distorted fashion. For example:

*Person A believes that a military program should be cut
*Person B argues that since Person A wants to cut military funding, he wants to leave the country defenseless to attack

This is fallacious reasoning, because there is no way to know ''why'' person A believes what he does, and Person B has used one reason which suits his own purpose. For example, it's quite possible that Person A wants to cut the program because he wants to change the funding to something which he thinks does a ''better'' job at defending the country.

===Tautology===
{{Main|tautology}}

A [[tautology]] ([[Greek]] '''ταυτο-''' ''tauto-'', "the same") is an argument that becomes a repetition of a definition. Literally it means "the study of the same." Such an argument, or statement, can prove nothing beyond itself and is useless as a premise.

==Fallacies of Ambiguity==
Fallacies of ambiguity are fallacies which arise from ambiguity in language used.

===Amphiboly===
Amphiboly is an ambiguity which arises though loose or awkward phrasing:

For example: "Save soap and waste paper".

===Composition===
The fallacy of composition occurs when the parts of a whole are incorrectly used to describe the whole.

For example: "Since one of the battleships is ready to deploy, the whole fleet is ready to deploy".

===Conflation===
Conflation is the treatment of two different concepts as one.

For example: "Comparing apples to oranges".

===Division===
The fallacy of division occurs when it is argued that what is true for the whole must be true for its parts.

For example: "That company is very important. Since Joe works at that company, he must be very important."

===Equivocation===
Equivocation is the use of word with multiple meanings, and then using a different meaning in the conclusion than in the premise.

For example: "The coach said we should eat light, so take your heavy coat off."

===Moving the Goalposts===
[[Moving the goalposts]] is jargon used almost exclusively by evolutionists to decline to answer a question that is the logical next step in their argument. This next step is avoided by evolutionists by claiming that their critics are "moving the goalposts."

For example, Darwinists claim that asking how the theory of evolution explains the origin of life is "moving the goalposts," even though it is a logical question to ask.

==References==
<references/>

==See also==

* [[Atheism and logical fallacies]]

* [[Liberal logic]]

* [[Specious reasoning]]

Debate:

* [[Debate:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?]]

==External links==
*[http://creationwiki.org/Logical_fallacy Logical fallacy] by [[CreationWiki]]
*[http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm The Baloney Detector]
*[http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp SGU-Top 20 Fallacies]
* Sagan, Carl. "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection" in ''The Demon-Haunted World, Science As a Candle in the Dark';' Ballantine: New York, pp. 201–218 (1996)

{{Liberalism}}
[[Category:Logic]]
[[Category:Logical Fallacies| ]]

Logical fallacy

2016-09-10T15:51:46Z

HelpJazz: /* Appeal to pity */ premise and conclusion reversed, 'merican spelling

A '''logical fallacy''' is an error in [[formal logic|logical]] reasoning. While the common usage of the word ''fallacy'' would include ''any'' error in [[reason]]ing, in logic a fallacy is defined as a particularly [[deceit|deceptive]] argument which seems correct, but upon further examination is found to be incorrect.<ref name="copi">Copi, Irving M. and Carl Cohen. "Introduction to Logic, 12e". Pearson Education: 2005</ref> The maker of such an argument, however, need not be aware of its fallacious nature.

Logical fallacies fall into two general categories: formal fallacies and informal fallacies. Formal fallacies apply to [[deductive argument]]s, and are those which relate to an improper application of a rule, whereas informal fallacies apply to [[inductive argument]]s, and are those which involve the improper use of the content of an argument. That is, an informally fallacious argument gives a conclusion which may be true or false, but which the fallacious argument does not prove; a formally fallacious argument gives a conclusion which is always false.

There are four categories of informal fallacies: fallacies of relevance, fallacies of defective or weak induction, fallacies of presumption, and fallacies of ambiguity.

A logical fallacy ''is not'' the same as [[lie|lying]], although it is still an error if you commit one (and dishonest if you know you are committing one). A ''lie'' in logic is a [[premise]] that one offers while knowing that it is false.

==Fallacies of Relevance==
Fallacies of relevance are fallacies which are due to a lack of a relevant logical connection between [[premise]] and [[conclusion]].

===Appeal to force===
An appeal to [[force]] (Lat: ''argumentum ad baculum'') is an argument which uses a threat of [[violence]] or force as a justification for the conclusion. An appeal to force argument follows the form:

*If person A does not accept P, then Q
*Q is a threat of force
*Therefore, P is true

For example: "If you do not pay me $30 I will break your leg. Therefore you owe me $30." It is fallacious because no amount of force can change the truth or falsity of the initial proposition.

===Appeal to pity===
Also called [[emotion]]al appeal, (Lat: ''ad misericordiam'') this fallacy is characterized by a use of emotion as a justification for the conclusion. An appeal to [[pity]] follows the form:

*Person A argues P
*Person B agrees P, but adds X, where X is an emotional argument unconnected to P

For example: "Yes, [[police|officer]], I realize I was speeding, but you shouldn't give me a ticket because I was racing to see my wife who is in the [[hospital]]." While this argument uses an emotional appeal to convince the officer not to hand out a citation, there is no logical connection between the conclusion ("you shouldn't give me a ticket") and the premise ("I was racing to see my wife").

Appeals to pity are very commonly seen in business. A factory manager may make the following argument: "our factory's overheads are too high, and we cannot maintain our business if we continue here. Therefore we should relocate to an area where labor is cheaper." An appeal to pity would be of the following type: "but our workers have bills to pay, families to support, we cannot fire them." That statement may be true, but is fallacious because it is not relevant to the manager's argument.

===Appeal to Consequences===
An ''appeal to consequences,'' or, more fully, ''appeal to adverse consequences'' or ''appeal to consequences of a belief,''<ref>[http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-consequences.html Fallacy: Appeal to Consequences]</ref> is an attempt to motivate belief with an appeal either to the good consequences of believing or the bad consequences of disbelieving. This may or may not involve an appeal to force. Such arguments are fallacious because the consequences of believing or disbelieving have no bearing on the truth or falsity of a belief. The following is an example:

* If you believe in evolution, then you'll be miserable, thinking that life is meaningless
* Therefore, evolution is false

This argument commits the ''appeal to consequences'' fallacy because it provides no evidence for its conclusion; all it does is appeal to the consequences of believing in evolution. Evolution is not disproven solely because it leads to bad consequences for those who believe in it. The following is a similar example:

* If you believe in evolution, then you'll be more respected in academic circles
* Therefore, evolution is true

This makes an appeal to the positive consequences of believing in evolution, without actually providing any proof of evolution itself. Just because belief in evolution makes you more respected by [[liberal]] professors, this does not mean that evolution is correct.

To use a more extreme example, but one doubtless familiar from everyday life, the mere fact that a child's belief in [[Santa Claus]] can have positive consequences does not prove that Santa Claus exists.

A particular form of the appeal to consequences is the [[appeal to personal interest]], which is fallacy of appealing to the personal likes and interests (preferences, prejudices, predispositions, fears, etc.) of others in order to have an argument accepted, when those personal likes and interests are irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the argument.

===''Argumentum ad hominem''===
: ''Main Article: [[Ad hominem]]''

''Ad hominem'' arguments (Lat: "argument directed toward the man") fall into two forms: ''ad hominem'' abusive and ''ad hominem tu quoque'' (circumstantial).

====''Ad hominem'' abusive====
An ''ad hominem'' is an argument which tries to disprove another argument by attacking the person who made it, rather than by focusing on the actual logical reasoning. The goal of an ''ad hominem'' argument is usually to take focus off of the actual argument by calling attention to a flaw of the person making it. This form of argument follows the form:

*Person A argues that P
*Person A is Q
*Q is some derogatory description not related to the argument at hand
*Therefore, P is false

====''Ad hominem tu quoque''====
A ''tu quoque'' argument (Lat: "you're another") is one which argues that, because someone does that which they are arguing against, that person must be wrong. This form of argument follows the form:

*Person A argues that P should not happen
*Person A does P
*Therefore, Person A's argument is incorrect

For example: "You can't tell me not to eat cheeseburgers, I just saw you eating one last week!" Another common example is often found in business: "why are you punishing me for dumping waste in the river? My rival does the exact same thing and you don't punish him!" In this case, dumping waste into the river is wrong (and illegal) regardless of how it is enforced for any other company.

===="False Causality" ====
A false causality fallacy is when a person argues that A caused B when there is little evidence to support the claim. Specifically, a false causality is committed when the basis for A causing B is based on some superficial coincidence.

*"Our house was robbed the day after that family moved in, they must have done it!"

In this example, it is only a coincidence that a new family has moved in at the same time another house has been robbed, and this is not grounds for evidence.

====''Poisoning the well''====
Poisoning the well is a particular type of ''ad hominem'' argument. It consists of attempts to discredit a speaker (and, by extension, their argument) by criticizing unrelated opinions that they hold or, alternatively, by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person to discredit in advance any argument that that person may make.<ref>[http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html Fallacy: Poisoning the Well]</ref> The first variant of the argument follows this form:

*Person A makes argument X.
*Person B counters that person A also believes Y, where Y is something unacceptable, foolish, or easily disprovable, but unrelated to X.
*Person A is wrong about Y.
*Therefore, person A must also be wrong about X.

The second variant follows this form:

*Person B, knowing that person A will make argument X, introduces unfavorable information about person A that is unrelated to X.
*Person A makes argument X.
*Therefore, person A must be wrong about X.

One example of the first variant was by the actor [[Matt Damon]], who attempted to discredit [[Sarah Palin|Sarah Palin's]] political credibility on the basis that she was a young-earth creationist: {{cquote|You know, the hockey mom, you know, "I'm just a hockey mom from Alaska," and she's the president. And it's like she's facing down Vladimir Putin and you know, using the folksy stuff she learned at the hockey rink, you know, it's just absurd. It's totally absurd, and I don't understand why more people aren't talking about how absurd it is. I...it's a really terrifying possibility. The fact that we've gotten this far and we're that close to this being a reality is crazy. Crazy. I mean, did she really - I need to know if she really thinks dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago. That's an important - I want to know that. I really do. Because she's gonna have the nuclear codes. You know, I wanna know if she thinks dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago, or if she banned books or tried to ban books. I mean, you know, we can't have that.<ref>Page F30. [http://www.pagef30.com/2008/09/matt-damon-on-sarah-palin-with.html ''Matt Damon on Sarah Palin with transcript''] (2008)</ref>}}

An example of the second variant is to introduce information (true or false) about a distateful or objectionable aspect of someone's personal life to persuade the listeners to reject out of hand whatever that person may say, when that aspect of the person's personal life may have nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the positions that that person will take.

When spelled out in the above form, the fallacy is easily seen, but it is used very frequently in political debate where skillful use of rhetoric can mask the underlying fallacy. The argument is fallacious because a person's opinions on one subject do not affect the truth or falsity of their statements on other subjects or because the asserted unfavorable information has no bearing on the truth or falsity of the position being attacked. There is some overlap between poisoning the well and ''ad hominem'' abusive, although poisoning the well in the second sense is used to mean introducing the irrelevant information preemptively.

===Genetic fallacy===
In general, this is the attempt to assert or reject a theory by citing its origins as either reputable or disreputable. The usual expression of this fallacy is "consider the source!" Thus it becomes a form either of ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' or of ''argumentum ad hominem'', depending on whether one seeks to verify or disprove the theory by this method. This type of argument follows the form:

*If P then Q
*P is false
*Therefore, Q is false

Formally, the error arises in confusing "If P, then Q" with "If and only if P, then Q."

When the origin of ''evidence'' or of ''premises'' is relevant to the reliability of the same, then asking a hearer to "consider the source" is valid. Judges in courts of [[law]], for example, routinely reject as unreliable the testimony of any witness who has demonstrably lied about a point that matters in the case at hand. The facts that such a witness is asserting might still be true, but they cannot stand without corroboration from another, more reliable witness.

But when corroboration is established, the origins of a conclusion, however tainted, become irrelevant.

As an example, [[Gregor Mendel]] established the genetic theory that remains current today, even though Mendel's experimental technique was badly flawed, and he even stands accused of falsifying key data. But succeeding [[science|scientists]], using accepted methods of verification and statistical assessment, have achieved results consistent with this theory. Thus the theory remains valid even though Mendel's original presentation was fraudulent. Any attempt today to discredit Mendel's theory on account of Mendel's sloppy methods would be an example of a genetic fallacy.<ref name=Genetic>[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html Genetic Fallacy] on [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ The Fallacy Files]</ref>

===Proof by numbers===
{{main|Argumentum ad populum}}
Also known as "appeal to the people" (Lat: ''ad populum''), this is an argument that a person bases on the numbers of people holding to its conclusion, rather than on the premises that might support that conclusion. An appeal to the people follows the form:

:Most people believe P
:Therefore P is true

"Ninety nine point nine percent of all respondents can't be wrong" is the classic phraseology of this fallacy One does not effectively disprove such an argument by challenging the numbers. Instead, one reminds the other person that the numbers of people holding to any given conclusion are irrelevant to establishing the truth or falsehood of that conclusion. [[History]] is in fact replete with multiple examples of conclusions that memorable [[science|scientists]] and other great discoverers have shown to be false even though large numbers of people believed them. [[Antoine Lavoisier]], who disproved "phlogiston" as the principle of fire, was one such person. [[Christopher Columbus]] and [[Ferdinand Magellan]] are two others. After all, millions of people believed in the roman gods, but they were proven wrong.

===Special pleading===
: ''Main Article: [[Special pleading]]''

[[Special pleading]] means applying to other people a set of standards that one is not willing to apply to oneself, without offering sufficient grounds, called the ''relevant difference'', to support such exemption. Special pleading follows the form:

*If Person X is in set P then Q happens to person X
*Person A is in set P
*Person A cites R circumstance, unrelated to P or Q
*Therefore, Person A is not subject to Q

For example: a political or military leader who urges his subjects (or those under his command) to observe "iron rations" without similarly depriving himself leaves himself open to a charge of special pleading.

===Fallacies of relevance based on the age of an idea===
The '''appeal to antiquity''', also known as the '''appeal to tradition''', holds that an idea must be right just because it is old.<ref>[http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-tradition/ Appeal to Antiquity / Tradition]</ref> Its opposite is the '''appeal to novelty''', which holds that an idea must be right just because it is new.<ref>[http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-novelty/ Appeal to Novelty]</ref> Both are fallacies of relevance because the mere age of an idea does not tell us whether it is true. For example, an old idea could be a time-tested and sound concept, or it could be an ancient [[superstition]] like [[astrology]]. Similarly, a new idea could be the result of new [[information]] or an intellectual fad like [[postmodernism]].

==Fallacies of Defective or Weak Induction==
Fallacies of defective or weak induction are fallacies which are due to a lack of understanding for how well premises lead to a conclusion.

===Argument from silence===
''Argument from silence'' (in [[Latin]], ''argumentum ab silencio'') or ''argument from ignorance'' (Lat: ''ad ignorantium'') is an assertion which states that, because there is no evidence to support a given argument, the opposite must be true. The fallacy follows the form:
*If P then Q
*P cannot be shown true
*Therefore, Q is false

For example: "Nobody has ever seen God, so clearly he doesn't exist".

This fallacy is often associated with and best remembered by the phrase: "the absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence." However, sometimes, absence of evidence can be so overwhelming that it constitutes strong evidence of absence. Such a situation arises when we have good reason to believe that the absent evidence would have been uncovered by now if it existed. For example, since evidence of the existence of the [[Loch Ness Monster]] would surely have come to light by now, but has not done so, it is reasonable to assume that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist, i.e., that the [[null hypothesis]] is true. In such cases, absence of evidence, while perhaps not conclusive, is strong evidence of absence.

A particular form of the argument from silence is the ''argument from personal incredulity,'' which takes the form "I cannot believe/understand/explain ''P;'' therefore, not-''P.''" For example, someone who does not understand why [[God]] would condemn [[homosexuality]] or condemn sinners to eternal [[hell]] may commit this fallacy and conclude that the relevant Bible passages should be [[Cafeteria Christianity|rejected]]. Another particular form is the [[black-swan fallacy]].

The argument from silence often results from a misplaced [[burden of proof]].<ref>[http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html Fallacy: Burden of proof]</ref>

===False cause===
False cause (Lat: ''non causa pro causa'') is a fallacy which arises when a poor cause/effect link is used within an argument, especially if coincidence or chance are not taken into account. The fallacy follows the form:

*''P'' is true.
*''Q'' is true.
*Therefore, ''P'' causes ''Q.''

For example: "I used to be a well paid teacher until I started being a tougher grader. When my students' grades went down, so did my salary. Therefore, I must have been paid based on my students' grades." While this sounds like a logical explanation, not all factors are taken into account. For example, the teacher's school could have been subject to budget cuts, or maybe the teacher was overpaid at first and now his salary corrects his true worth.

====''Post hoc ergo propter hoc''====
{{main|Post hoc ergo propter hoc}}
''Post hoc ergo propter hoc'' (Lat: "after this; therefore, because of this") is a subcategory of false cause fallacies. In this type of argument, a close temporal proximity is used as a justification of a cause/effect relationship. ''Post hoc ergo propter hoc'' arguments follow the form:

*P happened, and then Q happened
*Therefore, P caused Q

For example: "Right around the time the sun goes up my alarm clock goes off, so the sun causes my alarm clock to go off." Clearly this is not the case.

====Texas sharpshooter fallacy====
Another form of false cause is the '''Texas sharpshooter fallacy'''. The name comes from a failed marksman who shoots at a barn, draws a bullseye around the biggest cluster of bullet holes, and proclaims himself to be a skilled marksman. In the fallacy, a cluster of data points is assumed to be caused by an apparent cause at that location. The assumption is fallacious because the clustering could be random, or there could be some other cause.<ref>[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/texsharp.html The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy]</ref> Other ways of explaining the fallacy are that the hypothesis is constructed after the fact to conform to the very data that are used to "test" the hypothesis<ref>[http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~tiseda/works/Mayo-2.html Severe Testing]</ref> and that the same data are used to formulate and test the hypothesis.<ref>[http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3073771#post3073771 Precognition paper to be published in mainstream journal]</ref>

===Non sequitur===
: ''Main Article: [[Non sequitur]]''

A ''non sequitur'' (Lat: "It does not follow") is an argument which moves from a premise to a conclusion without showing a valid connection, or sometimes any connection at all. This form of argument follows the form:

*P
*Therefore, R is true

For example: "Crime rates are high, so we should increase the penalty for drug possession."

===Overgeneralization===
Overgeneralization (also called hasty generalization, converse accident, or painting with too broad a brush) is an error in reasoning which comes about by making a logical leap far greater than what the data allow. Overgeneralization follows the form:

*P is/does Q.
*P is a member of the set R.
*Therefore, everyone/everything in the set R is/does Q.

For example: "I just read that three kids were arrested yesterday for drug possession. Teens in this country are really going downhill!"

Overgeneralization the central problem in trying to conclude something about a population from a non-representative sample, or about a larger group from a non-representative subset of that group.

====Proving too much====
Proving too much is a form of overgeneralization in which one attempts to use a set of premises to sustain more conclusions than he can reasonably sustain using the argument presented. Proving too much includes reaching a conclusion that contradicts either things known to be true or [[stolen concept|the premises used to reach that conclusion]]. The term comes from the medieval saying, "What proves too much proves nothing."

===Proof by authority===
Also known as ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' ("argument proceeding from clout") or ''argumentum ad verecundiam'' ("appeal to unqualified authority"), this is an argument that a person bases on authority, either his own or that of another person, rather than on the merits of the position. When the authority involved is a relevant source who has access to more information about the topic than the people discussing it, then the argument becomes a ''citation.'' However, a valid citation must be in an area of study, research, or mental discipline in which the authority being cited is a recognized [[expert]].

*P says Q
*P is an authority in his field
*Therefore, Q is true

A classic example of argument from unqualified authority is a reference to a celebrity or religious leader for their opinion on a matter of science or public policy, when that celebrity or cleric has never adequately studied the subject. A standard argument from authority is often used by evolutionists. A notable scientist claims that evolution is true, and based on that the average person is expected to believe in it as well. This becomes fallacious if the "notable scientist" has never considered alternatives which also provide the answers to the asked questions.

==Fallacies of Presumption==
Fallacies of presumption are fallacies in which an unstated or shaky presumption is made.

===Accident===
The fallacy of accident occurs when a generalization is inappropriately applied to an individual. A fallacy of accident follows the form:

*Some P are Q
*R is in P
*Therefore, R is Q

For example: "You are from [[Ohio]], which is a [[red state]], so you must be a [[Republican]]".

===Contradiction===
{{Main|Contradiction}}

A contradiction is a statement that contradicts its own terms. [[Aristotle]] famously stated that contradictions cannot exist. In any case of a contradiction, some of the premises must be false. A contradiction is an argument which includes in its reasoning:

*P
*Not P

===Loaded question===
: ''Main Article: [[Loaded question]]''

A [[loaded question]] is a question that assumes facts, usually unflattering, that are not in evidence, with the intent of trapping the other person into admitting those facts. The classic loaded-question example is "When did you stop beating your wife?" Another example is, "Do you disbelieve in [[global warming]], which 99.9 percent of all reputable scientists now accept?"

===Proof by assertion===
Proof by assertion is an argument that states something as true without offering supporting evidence or attempting to construct a valid argument. This form of argument follows the form:

*P is true

Often the argument is simply [[Fallacy of invincible ignorance|repeated over and over]], and no evidence for support is given. Statements beginning with [[weasel words|expressions]] such as "It goes without saying that ..." or "Everyone knows ..." are commonly proofs by assertion.

Proof by assertion can also be broken down into several subcategories of fallacies: circular reasoning, infinite regression, manufacturing facts from a theory, and your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong.

====Circular reasoning====
{{Main|Circular reasoning}}

[[Circular reasoning]], also called begging the question (Lat: petitio principii), is a form of proof by assertion in which one asserts a premise, then asserts a conclusion from that premise (directly or indirectly), and then tries to show that the last conclusion ''supports'' the original premise.

====Infinite regression====
: ''Main Article: [[Infinite regression]]''

An infinite regression results when one asserts that a given event caused another, and yet that first event requires another, identical event, to cause ''it.'' An infinite regression follows the form:

*P1 causes Q1
*Q2 causes P1
*P3 causes Q2
*Q4 causes P3
*And so on, forever

For example: [[Panspermia]], an alternative to [[abiogenesis]] as a proposition about the origin of life, suffers from the infinite-regression flaw so long as it fails to state positively what conditions could have brought about an origin of life on a planet other than the earth, ''other than'' the alleged mechanism of the "seeding" of life on the earth itself.

====Manufacturing facts from a theory====

Manufacturing facts from a theory is the assertion as fact of an undemonstrated, unobserved idea for no better reason than that a given theory requires that fact. In law, it is called assuming facts not in evidence. It should not be confused with formulating a prediction to test a hypothesis

In the early stages of formulating a model, this sort of behavior is acceptable. But when repeated efforts to demonstrate such a new fact have failed, the proper logical response is to discard or revise the theory, and not merely to assume that the "fact" still exists and someone hasn't tried hard enough to find it. This is especially true when someone develops evidence that the inferred "fact" could not possibly exist.

====Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong====
: ''Main article: [[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]]'' 

This fallacy occurs when one theory is judged by the premises and assumptions of another theory, rather than against its own premises and assumptions. This form of fallacy follows the form:

*Theory A says that if P then Q
*Theory B says that if P then R
*Q and R are mutually exclusive
*Therefore, theory A is wrong

For example: "Dinosaurs died 65,000,000 years ago, so the earth couldn't have been created 6,000 years ago."
It should be noted that although the above argument by itself is a fallacy, strong evidence supporting the death of dinosaurs 65 million years ago, as well as other evidence, would result in the argument being a proof by contradiction, not necessarily a fallacy.

A similar fallacy is [[No true Scotsman]], which in effect says, "Your facts do not work under my theory, so your facts must be wrong."

===Straw man===
{{Main|Straw man fallacy}}

A straw man fallacy occurs by first incorrectly attributing an argument to someone, disproving this argument, then claiming that the person was wrong. A straw man argument follows the form:

*If P then Q
*Person A says P
*Therefore, Q

Straw man arguments can sometimes be hard to detect, because a valid statement may be used in a distorted fashion. For example:

*Person A believes that a military program should be cut
*Person B argues that since Person A wants to cut military funding, he wants to leave the country defenseless to attack

This is fallacious reasoning, because there is no way to know ''why'' person A believes what he does, and Person B has used one reason which suits his own purpose. For example, it's quite possible that Person A wants to cut the program because he wants to change the funding to something which he thinks does a ''better'' job at defending the country.

===Tautology===
{{Main|tautology}}

A [[tautology]] ([[Greek]] '''ταυτο-''' ''tauto-'', "the same") is an argument that becomes a repetition of a definition. Literally it means "the study of the same." Such an argument, or statement, can prove nothing beyond itself and is useless as a premise.

==Fallacies of Ambiguity==
Fallacies of ambiguity are fallacies which arise from ambiguity in language used.

===Amphiboly===
Amphiboly is an ambiguity which arises though loose or awkward phrasing:

For example: "Save soap and waste paper".

===Composition===
The fallacy of composition occurs when the parts of a whole are incorrectly used to describe the whole.

For example: "Since one of the battleships is ready to deploy, the whole fleet is ready to deploy".

===Conflation===
Conflation is the treatment of two different concepts as one.

For example: "Comparing apples to oranges".

===Division===
The fallacy of division occurs when it is argued that what is true for the whole must be true for its parts.

For example: "That company is very important. Since Joe works at that company, he must be very important."

===Equivocation===
Equivocation is the use of word with multiple meanings, and then using a different meaning in the conclusion than in the premise.

For example: "The coach said we should eat light, so take your heavy coat off."

===Moving the Goalposts===
[[Moving the goalposts]] is jargon used almost exclusively by evolutionists to decline to answer a question that is the logical next step in their argument. This next step is avoided by evolutionists by claiming that their critics are "moving the goalposts."

For example, Darwinists claim that asking how the theory of evolution explains the origin of life is "moving the goalposts," even though it is a logical question to ask.

==References==
<references/>

==See also==

* [[Atheism and logical fallacies]]

* [[Liberal logic]]

* [[Specious reasoning]]

Debate:

* [[Debate:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?]]

==External links==
*[http://creationwiki.org/Logical_fallacy Logical fallacy] by [[CreationWiki]]
*[http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm The Baloney Detector]
*[http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp SGU-Top 20 Fallacies]
* Sagan, Carl. "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection" in ''The Demon-Haunted World, Science As a Candle in the Dark';' Ballantine: New York, pp. 201–218 (1996)

{{Liberalism}}
[[Category:Logic]]
[[Category:Logical Fallacies| ]]

United Kingdom

2016-09-10T15:32:00Z

HelpJazz: Undo revision 1276058 by Thorin Oakenshield (talk) fallacy of composition

{{Country
|name =''The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland''
|map =United kingdom rel87.jpg
|map2 =UK location.png
|flag =Union_jack.jpg
|arms =UK Royal Coat of Arms.png
|capital =London
|capital-raw =
|government =Constitutional monarchy
|government-raw =
|language =English
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =HM Queen [[Elizabeth II]]
|president =
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =David Cameron
|pm-raw =
|area =94,526 sq mi
|pop =62,698,000
|pop-basis =2011
|gdp =$2.006 trillion
|gdp-year =2006
|gdp-pc =$35,051 (2006)
|currency =Pound Sterling
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland''' ('''UK''') is a sovereign [[state]] north-west of mainland [[Europe]]. It comprises [[England]], [[Scotland]] and [[Wales]], which occupy the island of [[Great Britain]], and [[Northern Ireland]] on the island of [[Ireland]]. It attained its current identity in 1922 after most of Ireland was granted independence.

The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy. Its [[head of state]] is Queen [[Elizabeth II]], and its [[head of government]] is Prime Minister [[Theresa May]].

The United Kingdom has lost the preeminence in the world that it enjoyed 100 years ago, due to its decline into [[socialism]], [[Darwinism]] and godlessnes/[[atheism]].<ref>
*[http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~nfergus/publications/Economics%20Religion%20and%20the%20End%20of%20Europe%20as%20published%20in%20Ec%20Aff.pdf ECONOMICS, RELIGION AND THE DECLINE OF EUROPE] by the [[Harvard University]] historian Niall Ferguson
*[http://creation.com/why-is-england-burning Why is England Burning?]
*[http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Godlessness-has-doomed-Britain Godlessness has doomed Britain], [[Shmuley Boteach]],'' Jerusalem Post''
*[http://creation.com/christianity-as-progress A review of The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success by Rodney Stark, Random House, New York, 2005], reviewed by Lael Weinberger
*[http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/scotland-still-has-a-job-on-its-hands-to-reverse-decline.21330686 Scotland still has a job on its hands to reverse decline], The Herald, Thursday 13 June 2013
*[http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/census-reveals-huge-rise-in-number-of-non-religious-scots.22270874 Census reveals huge rise in number of non-religious Scots].'' The Herald'', Friday 27 September 2013
*[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9594221/Scotlands-vitality-was-the-envy-of-the-world.html Scotland’s vitality was the envy of the world], ''The Telegraph'', By Allan Massie, 8:06PM BST 08 Oct 2012
*[http://blog.tifwe.org/the-protestant-work-ethic-alive-well-in-china/ The Protestant Work Ethic: Alive & Well…In China] By Hugh Whelchel on September 24, 2012
*The prominent investor Jim Rogers declared: "If you were smart at the start of the 19th century, you made your way to [[London]]. If you were smart at the start of the 20th century, you moved to New York. And if you are smart at the start of the 21st century, you will find your way to Asia."[http://www.asiancenturyinstitute.com/international/198-jim-rogers-on-asia-singapore-and-life]
</ref> It has fallen from having by far the world's strongest economy to a distant fifth place.

The United Kingdom is a member of the [[European Union]], [[NATO]] and the [[United Nations]].

British values, culture and institutions were spread throughout many parts of the world during the period of the [[British Empire]], 1600-1960, and British contributions to world culture include the English language, the [[parliament]]ary form of government, the [[Church of England|Anglican]] Church ("Church of England"), a tradition of personal liberty, and the [[common law]] legal system. Note, however, that the United Kingdom does not have the constitutional [[free speech]] protections or an energetic [[Christian]] culture that exist in the [[United States]].

In 2015, the UK was ranked 12th on the World Democracy index, above countries such as the US and France, and below those like Germany and Canada.<ref>[http://democracyranking.org/wordpress/rank/democracy-ranking-2015/ World's Democracy Index]</ref> Due to the lawlessness of the [[Obama Adminstration]] America has lost some of its freedoms.

==Name==
[[File:London Thames Sunset panorama 2008.jpg|thumb|left|London - Thames panorama.]]
The official name of the nation (since 1927) is ''The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland''.<ref>From 1801 to 1927 the official name was ''The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland''.</ref> The full official name is seldom used except in very formal or legal documents. The short version for historical topics is either "Britain" or "Great Britain." The short version for recent events (since the 1970s) is "United Kingdom" or "UK" The adjective is always '''"British"'''.

Britain was part of the [[British Empire]], which has become the "British Commonwealth", and is mostly a discussion club. Britain has a few scattered minor possessions, such as [[Gibraltar]], but gave up its last important colony--[[Hong Kong]]—in 1997.
[[File:Westminster in the evening.jpg|thumb|280px|Westminster in the evening.]]
* '''England''' is the largest of the four components of the United Kingdom. "England" was often used to stand for the nation in older literature published before 1970. However use of "England" to refer to the entire country is now sometimes considered offensive by many citizens of the other three member countries and is thus discouraged.
* The standard language of the UK is English; [[Welsh]] has parity in Wales, and [[Gaelic]] is widely used on official documents, roadsigns, etc. in remote Gaelic-speaking areas of western Scotland.

MacColl (2008) explores the use of the term 'Britain' in English, French, and Latin texts from the 12th century to the 16th. The term was flexible, used in a variety of ways (geographically, politically, and ethnically), and not always indicative of any specific meaning. The English at first tended to conflate 'Britain' with England or the southern portion of the island of Great Britain, though the term 'Greater Britain' was applied starting in the 14th century to refer to the entire island. The Scottish, beginning in the 15th century, used the term in the modern sense - as reflective of the entire island of Great Britain and the 'polity' of England, Wales, and Scotland. This latter usage paved the way for the relatively smooth ideological transition after the 1707 Acts of Union.<ref>Alan MacColl, "The Meaning of 'Britain' in Medieval and Early Modern England." ''Journal of British Studies'' 2006 45(2): 248-269</ref>

===Anthem===
The national anthem of the UK is currently ''[[God Save the Queen]]''. Should a male heir accede to the throne, the anthem will become "God Save the King".<ref>This same melody is also sung by American schoolchildren (with different words) as "[[My Country, 'Tis of Thee]]".</ref>

The constituent nations have their own unofficial anthems. In the case of Wales, this is ''Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau'' (''Land of My Fathers''), and for Scotland it is ''Flower of Scotland''. England does not have its own distinctive anthem in the same way, but at sporting events in which England is competing as a separate nation, [[Edward Elgar]]'s patriotic song ''Land of Hope and Glory'' is sometimes used (although ''God Save the Queen'' is more commonly used). Additionally the hymn "Jerusalem" has a large number of supporters in England as an alternative to, or replacement for, the national anthem. In Northern Ireland, the Protestant and Catholic communities respectively use ''God Save the Queen'' and ''Amhran na bhFiann'', the Irish national anthem. ''Londonderry Air'' is often used as the anthem for Northern Ireland competitors in sporting events.

==People==
[[Image:Tower Bridge London.jpg|thumb|340px|Tower Bridge, London.]]
The United Kingdom's population in 2004 surpassed 60 million—the third-largest in the European Union. Its overall population density is one of the highest in the world. Almost one-third of the population lives in England's prosperous and fertile southeast and is predominantly urban and suburban—with about 7.2 million in the capital of London, which remains the largest city in Europe.

A net total of 408,000 people were added to the UK population in 2008, the largest numerical increase since 1972. This was partly due to the highest fertility rate in more than three decades. More than half of the increase in births last year was due to non-UK born mothers.

There is also an ever-increasing aging population with the number of people over 85 now at a record 1.3 million, the equivalent of one in every 50 people.

===Education===
[[File:Royal College of Music 2007.jpg|thumb|left|Royal College of Music.]]
The United Kingdom's high literacy rate (99%) is attributable to universal public education introduced for the primary level in 1870 and secondary level in 1900. Education is mandatory from ages 5 through 16, although this is in the process of being raised to 18 for England and Wales. "Public" schools are elite private prep schools, such as [[Eton]] and [[Rugby School|Rugby]], attended by youth whose families can afford to pay high tuition rates.

All state-funded schools in the UK are required to start the day with a collective assembly that is 'wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character',<ref>[http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=387464 Times Educational Supplement]</ref> although this is not always ahered too and there are small numbers of state-funded [[Muslim]], [[Jew]]ish and [[Hindu]] schools.

About thirty six percent of British students go on to post-secondary education.

Higher education has been a speciality for over 500 years at Oxbridge ([[Oxford University|Oxford]] and [[Cambridge University|Cambridge]]), with new "red brick" universities added in the 19th century and many others in the late 20th century. Universities contribute £33 billion a year to the economy. Britain has a strong attraction for international students, with 342,000 attending in 2007 (compared to 672,000 in the U.S. and 183,000 in Australia). They spend £1.5 billion in tuition in Britain annually, plus another £0.4 billion off campus.

===Demographics===
[[File:Youth UK.JPG|thumb|British youth.]]
A group of islands close to continental Europe, the British Isles have been subject to many invasions and migrations, especially from Scandinavia and the continent, including Roman occupation for several centuries. Contemporary Britons are descended mainly from the varied ethnic stocks that settled there before the 11th century. The pre-Celtic, Celtic, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, and Norse influences were blended in Britain under the Normans, Scandinavian Vikings who had lived in Northern France. Although Celtic languages persist in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, as well as Cornwall in south-west England, the predominant language is English, which is primarily a blend of Anglo-Saxon and Norman French.
*Population (2007 est.): 60.8 million.
*Annual population growth rate (2007 est.): 0.275%.
*Major ethnic groups: British 91%, Irish 2%, West Indian and African 3%, South Asian 3%, others 1%.
*Major religions: Church of England (Anglican), Roman Catholic, Church of Scotland (Presbyterian), Muslim.
*Major languages: English
*Minority languages: Welsh, Gaelic, Lowland Scots (including Ulster Scots), Cornish.
*Education: Years compulsory—12. Attendance—nearly 100%. Literacy—99%.
*Health: Infant mortality rate (2007 est.)--5.01/1,000. Life expectancy (2007 est.)--males 76.23 yrs.; females 81.3 yrs.; total 78.7 years
*Work force (2007, 31.1 million): Services—80.4%; industry—18.2%; agriculture—1.4%.

===Ethnic tensions===

Britain is home to 2.4 million Muslims from numerous ethnicities. This population is growing 10 times faster than the national average. Regarded as one of the most tolerant countries in Europe, Britain struggles with questions of Islamic integration, as well as the psychological aftermath of the July 2005 suicide bombings on London’s public transport system carried out by young Britons of Pakistani descent, which left 52 people dead and over 700 injured.

===Religion===
[[File:Canterbury Cathedral.jpg|thumb|left|350px|Canterbury Cathedral (photographed during 1890-1900).]]
Religious faith, according to a 2011 survey, has declined sharply in Britain over the last two decades. Now only 42% of people describe themselves as Christian, as opposed to 66% in 1990. Most of the decline is due to a drift away from the Church of England, it is claimed, with only 20% claiming allegiance, down from 40%.

In 2003 the Office of National Statistics estimated 29% of the population identified with Anglicanism, 10% with the Catholic Church, and 14% with other Protestant churches. A 2007 survey reported that the number of Catholics (mostly Irish) attending Sunday services has overtaken the number of Anglicans doing so. A September 2006 English Church Census reported that Methodists were decreasing as a percentage of the population, while members of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints (Mormons), Pentecostal churches, many churches from Africa, and the Eastern Orthodox Church, almost entirely immigrants, were increasing.<ref>According to [http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2008/108478.htm U.S. State Department Report, 2008]</ref>

Individuals with no religious belief comprised 21% of the population in 2009. Muslims comprise 3% of the population. The Muslim community is predominantly South Asian in origin, but other groups from the Arabian Peninsula, Africa, Southeast Asia, and the Levant are represented. In addition, there is a growing number of indigenous converts. Although estimates vary, the Government places the number of mosques in the whole country at one thousand. Groups comprising 1% or less of the population include Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, and Buddhists. Individuals from Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, and Sikh backgrounds are concentrated in London and other large urban areas, primarily in England.

Attendance at religious services was significantly different from the number of adherents. According to a report released on May 8, 2008, by Religious Trends, only 4 million Christians attend services on a regular basis (defined as at least once a month) in the country. These figures do not include Northern Ireland, where higher%ages reportedly attend both Catholic (more than 60%) and Protestant (more than 35%) services. The Religious Trends report stated that more than 50% of Muslims regularly worship at mosques. Figures for Jews and other religious groups were unavailable.

Religious affiliation was not evenly distributed among ethnicities. According to the 2001 census, approximately 70% of the white population described themselves as Christians. Nearly 75% of black Caribbean respondents stated that they were Christians, as did 70% of black Africans. Meanwhile, 45% of Indians were Hindus and 29% were Sikhs. Approximately 92% of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis were Muslims.

In Northern Ireland, where divisions between nationalists and unionists evolved largely along religious lines, the 2001 census showed that 53.1% were Protestants and 43.8% were Catholics. Many Catholics and Protestants continued to live in segregated communities in Northern Ireland, although many middle-class neighborhoods were mixed communities. The policy of the Government remained one of promotion of religious tolerance.

There are two established (or state) churches—The [[Church of England]] (Anglican) and the [[Church of Scotland]] (Presbyterian). The Act of Settlement, enacted in 1688, states that no Catholic, or person married to a Catholic, may ascend the throne.
====Religion in schools====
The Government provides financial support—up to 90% of the total capital costs of the buildings and 100% of running costs, including teachers' salaries - to sectarian educational institutions that are commonly referred to as "faith schools".
[[File:Matthew Boulton College.jpg|thumb|Matthew Boulton College.]]
The Government also helps fund the repair and maintenance of all listed places of worship for religious groups nationwide and contributes to the budget of the Church Conservation Trust, which preserves "redundant" Church of England buildings of architectural or historic significance.

The Government has not classified the Church of Scientology as a religious institution and therefore has not granted the organization recognition for charitable status.

More than 30% of state schools had a religious character. Nearly all of the 6,949 "faith schools" are associated with Christian denominations, although there are 31 Jewish, 7 Islamic, and 2 Sikh schools. An additional two Jewish, three Islamic, and two Sikh schools have also been tentatively approved by the Government to open. In addition, several hundred independent schools of a religious nature receive no state support but must meet government quality standards. Controversy arose in 2006 over 100 Islamic schools when an Office of Standards in Education (Ofsted) evaluation of these schools showed many were "little more than places where the Koran was recited." The schools were given time to correct their deficiencies. A review is due in 2010. Some Christian faith schools also faced controversy. Some were accused of not following the national curriculum in science, teaching creationism instead. During the reporting period, a further controversy erupted when it was learned that some faith schools were not following an "open" admission policy as required by law, denying admission to both special needs children and those outside the faith of the school administrators. The Catholic Church and the Church of England have an agreement to voluntarily accept up to 25% of places for pupils from another religious group or no religious group.

Almost all schools in Northern Ireland receive state support. More than 90% of students attended schools that were either predominantly Catholic or Protestant. Integrated schools served approximately 5% of school-age children whose families voluntarily chose this option, often after overcoming significant obstacles to provide the resources to start a new school and demonstrate its sustainability for 3 years before government funding begins. Demand for places in integrated schools outweighed the limited number of places available. The May 8, 2007, devolution, or granting of power, authorized the Northern Ireland Assembly to decide on academic selection. Now there are more than 50 integrated schools, and the new Government permits existing schools to petition to change from sectarian to integrated. More petition for that status than are granted it. Some have accused the Government of a go-slow approach to avoid sectarian animus.

The law requires religious education for all children, ages 3 to 19, in publicly maintained schools. In England and Wales it forms part of the core curriculum in accordance with the Education Reform Act of 1988. In Scotland, religious education of some sort is mandated by the Education Act of 1980. However, the shape and content of religious instruction throughout the country is decided on a local basis. Locally agreed syllabi are required to reflect the predominant place of Christianity while taking into account the teachings and practices of other principal religions in the country. Syllabuses must be nondenominational and refrain from attempting to convert pupils. Schools with a religious designation follow a syllabus drawn up by the school governors according to the trust deed of the school. All parents have the legal right to request that their children not participate in religious education, but the school must approve this request.

Daily collective prayer or worship of "a wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character" is practiced in schools in England and Wales, a requirement that may be waived for students who obtain permission of the school authorities. The Education and Inspections Act 2006 permits sixth form students (generally 16-19-year-olds) to withdraw themselves from worship without their parents' permission or action. This new law does not exempt sixth form students from religious education classes. Non-Christian worship is permitted with approval of the authorities. Teachers have the right not to participate in collective worship, without prejudice, unless they work for a faith school.

After several controversial court decisions prohibiting full-face veils in school (but not head scarves) and the wearing of a Christian chastity ring, the Department of Education provided guidance that advises schools to "… act reasonably in accommodating religious requirements," under human rights legislation. Some Muslim groups, including the Islamic Human Rights Commission, said it was inappropriate for the Government to provide guidance that regulated Muslim communities in matters concerning the expression of their religious beliefs. But it is also legally possible under the act, according to the guidance, to have a school uniform policy that "restricts the freedom of pupils to manifest their religion" on the grounds of health and safety and the "protection of the rights and freedoms of others." The Government's guidance is meant to remind "head teachers" to act with a degree of sensitivity when considering decisions that will impact the cultural complexion of their communities.

====Census====

According to the 2011 Census the religious make-up of the UK at that time was:

{| border="1" cellspacing=0 cellpadding=3
|+'''Religions in United Kingdom'''
!Belief
!Thousands
!Proportion
|-
|Christian ||29,000 ||51.6
|-
|No Religion ||9104 ||15.5
|-
|Muslim ||1591 ||2.7
|-
|Hindu ||559 ||1.0
|-
|Sikh ||336 ||0.6
|-
|Jewish ||267 ||0.5
|-
|Other ||179 ||0.3
|-
|Buddhist ||152 ||0.3
|-
|Pagan & Wicca ||40 ||0.1
|-
|Total religious ||45,163 ||76.8
|-
|No answer ||4289 ||7.3
|}
The answers were distorted by an internet campaign just prior to the census, encouraging people to actually question religion that claimed that if at least 50,000 people stated their religion as 'Jedi Knight' it would be officially classified as a religion. This was not true, though the Office of National Statistics does aggregate very small religions into the 'Other' category whereas a religion of 50,000 would be itemised separately. This separate listing does not constitute any form of official recognition.

It should be noted that non-practising Christians and the non-religious group are growing in the UK and Europe. At the same time, there is growth in the Islamic group due to immigration.

Two of the four states of the United Kingdom, England and Scotland, have official state religions. The [[Church of England]] is the official religion of England and the (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland is the official religion of Scotland. The (Anglican) Church of Ireland was [[disestablished]] in 1871 and the (Anglican) Church of Wales was disestablished in 1920, whereupon it was renamed the [[Church ''in'' Wales]].

===Crown Dependencies===
A number of the smaller [[British Isles]], most importantly [[Jersey]], [[Guernsey]] and the [[Isle of Man]] are '[[Crown dependencies|British Crown Dependencies]]' and not members of the UK. Their governments are independent of that of the UK other than foreign and defense policy (the UK government retains the legal power to overrule the governments of the Dependencies, but this power has not been exercised since 1967), and they are not members of the [[European Union]].

==Sports and Pastimes==
[[File:Wembley Stadium.jpg|thumb|230px|Wembley Stadium.]]
Many of the most popular [[sport]]s in the world today were developed or codified in the UK. These include [[soccer|football]] (which is called ''soccer'' in North America), [[cricket]], [[Rugby (Sport)|rugby]], [[tennis]], [[hockey]], [[baseball]] and [[golf]]. The UK is represented in international competitions by the individual nations (such as in football, the one-day form of cricket and rugby) and by the whole of the UK in other sports (such as [[athletics]], golf and tennis). The Test cricket team is that of 'England & Wales' (colloquially, just 'England') but from time to time has had Scottish and Irish players.

The UK remains a major sporting force both in competition and the administration of sport. It is dominant in several Olympic sports, notably cycling, rowing and sailing and a leading force in cricket, rugby union, and golf.

Certain venues have their own distinct and historical recognition and host a number of international competitions. These include Wimbledon for tennis, Silverstone for motor racing, and St Andrews for golf. There are several major venues for football, rugby and cricket.

Domestic sport is dominated by football with one of the strongest and most popular leagues in the world - the Premier League. This league is sponsored by Barclays Bank, so has the official name "Barclays Premier League". Many of the Premier League's teams are well known outside the United Kingdom, especially the "big four" (Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool) and maintain followings around the world. Cricket and both codes of rugby also have strong and popular domestic leagues. Other popular sports include snooker, rowing, golf, tennis, athletics, cycling, darts, horse racing, and motor racing. These most popular sports are well covered by both the print press and television.

Some sports which are more popular in other countries such as volleyball, handball, American football and basketball have small but dedicated followings.

The [[U.K.]] is also renowned for its music, and is the home of bands like [[The Beatles]], [[Rolling Stones]], [[Pink Floyd]], [[The Who]], [[Oasis]], [[Coldplay]] and [[Radiohead]], as well as festivals such as [[Creamfields]], [[Isle of White]] Festival and [[Glastonbury]].

==Government==
''See also [[British politics]]''
[[File:Jewel House guard in the Tower of London.JPG|thumb|200px|Jewel House guard in the Tower of London.]]
Nationalist movements exist in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, seeking (in the case of Scottish and Welsh nationalists) to dissolve the United Kingdom and to win independence for their respective territories, and in the case of Northern Ireland nationalists and republicans to create a sovereign united Ireland. At the present time, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own legislatures.

The United Kingdom does not have a written constitution. The equivalent body of law is based on statute, common law, and "traditional rights". Changes may come about formally through new acts of Parliament, informally through the acceptance of new practices and usage, or by judicial precedents. Although Parliament has the theoretical power to make or repeal any law, in actual practice the weight of 700 years of tradition restrains arbitrary actions.

Executive power rests nominally with the monarch but actually is exercised by a committee of ministers (cabinet) selected from among the members of the House of Commons and, less frequently, the House of Lords. The prime minister is normally the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons, and can remain in office for so long as he or she has the support of a majority in that body.

==Parliament==
[[File:Westminster palace Charles Barry.jpg|left|380px]]
Parliament was authorized in the [[Magna Carta]] (1215), and first summoned by King Edward I in 1296, making it one of the oldest governing bodies in the world. Parliament represents the entire country, and can legislate for the whole or for any constituent part or combination of parts. Elections are called by the Prime Minister, but the maximum length of a parliament is usually 5 years (except in wartime). The focus of legislative power is the 646 member [[House of Commons]], which has sole jurisdiction over finance. Normally the government—the Prime Minister and cabinet with their supporting MPs—have full control of the House. If they lose control an new general election may be held. The House of Lords, although shorn of most of its powers, can still review, amend, or delay temporarily any bills except those relating to the budget. In 1999, the government removed the automatic right of hereditary peers to hold seats in the House of Lords. The current house consists of appointed life peers who hold their seats for life and 92 hereditary peers who will hold their seats only until final reforms have been agreed upon and implemented. The judiciary is independent of the legislative and executive branches, but cannot review the constitutionality of legislation.

Members of the House of Commons are elected to represent specific geographic constituencies. Members are elected on a "First past the post" system as opposed to proportional representation or other electoral systems. In effect this means that a third party with less than 25% of the vote typically obtains very few seats.

==Constituent countries==
[[File:Scottish Eilean Donan castle.jpg|thumb|300px|Scottish Eilean Donan castle.]]
The separate identities of each of the United Kingdom's constituent parts are also reflected in their respective governmental structures. Up until the recent devolution of power to Scotland and Wales, a cabinet minister (the Secretary of State for Wales) handled Welsh affairs at the national level with the advice of a broadly representative council for Wales. Scotland maintains, as it did before union with England, different systems of law (Roman-French), education, local government, judiciary, and national church (the Church of Scotland instead of the Church of England). In addition, separate departments grouped under a Secretary of State for Scotland, who also is a cabinet member, handled most domestic matters. In late 1997, however, following approval of referenda by Scottish and Welsh voters (though only narrowly in Wales), the British Government introduced legislation to establish a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly. The first elections for the two bodies were held May 6, 1999. The Welsh Assembly opened on May 26, and the Scottish Parliament opened on July 1, 1999. The devolved legislatures have largely taken over most of the functions previously performed by the Scottish and Welsh offices.

Northern Ireland had its own Parliament and prime minister from 1921 to 1973, when the British Government imposed direct rule in order to deal with the deteriorating political and security situation. From 1973, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, based in London, was responsible for the region, including efforts to resolve the issues that lay behind the "the troubles."

By the mid-1990s, gestures toward peace encouraged by successive British governments and by President Clinton began to open the door for restored local government in Northern Ireland. An Irish Republican Army (IRA) cease-fire and nearly 2 years of multiparty negotiations, led by former U.S. Senator George Mitchell, resulted in the Good Friday Agreement of 10 April 1998, which was subsequently approved by majorities in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Key elements of the agreement include devolved government, a commitment of the parties to work toward "total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations," police reform, and enhanced mechanisms to guarantee human rights and equal opportunity. The Good Friday Agreement also called for formal cooperation between the Northern Ireland institutions and the Government of the Republic of Ireland, and it established the British-Irish Council, which includes representatives of the British and Irish Governments as well as the devolved Governments of Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. Devolved government was reestablished in Northern Ireland in December 1999.

The Agreement (more commonly known as the "Good Friday Agreement", and more rarely as the Belfast Agreement<ref>http://www.nio.gov.uk/index/key-issues/the-agreement.htm</ref>) was reached on Friday, April 10, 1998 in Belfast and provides for a 108-member elected Assembly, overseen by a 12-minister Executive Committee (cabinet) in which unionists and nationalists share leadership responsibility. Northern Ireland elects 18 representatives to the Westminster Parliament in London. However, the five Sinn Féin Members of Parliament (MPs), who won seats in the 2004 election, have refused to claim their seats.

===Political conditions===
[[David Cameron]] became Prime Minister on May 11, 2010, after [[Gordon Brown]] resigned, and led a [[Conservative Party|Con]]-[[Liberal Democrats|Dem]] coalition in 2010.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8676607.stm "David Cameron and Nick Clegg pledge 'united' coalition"] ''BBC News'', Election 2010.</ref> In 2015, a general election was called<ref>Under the provisions of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 (c. 14), parliamentary elections in the UK must be held every five years, beginning in 2015. The Act received Royal Assent on 15 September 2011. Fixed-term Parliaments, where general elections ordinarily take place in accordance with a schedule set far in advance, were part of the Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition agreement which was produced after the 2010 general election.</ref> and Cameron's Conservative Party won a majority of seats, against all odds.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11599600/How-did-the-Conservatives-win-the-general-election.html "How did the Conservatives win the general election?"] ''The Daily Telegraph''</ref>

===Membership in the European Union===
The [[Conservative Party|Conservative]] government of [[Edward Heath|Sir Edward Heath]] took the UK into the [[European Union]] in 1973. The [[Labour Party]] under [[Harold Wilson]] won the 1974 general elections and due to splits within the party, called the only national [[referendum]] asking the people if they wanted to stay in the Union. The "yes" vote won by a margin of approximately two to one. The Labour and Conservative parties have since had deep divisions over Union membership. Labour's 1983 manifesto promised to leave the Union, and whilst the Conservative party have never pledged to leave the Union, a growing band of "Eurosceptics" threatened to tear the party apart in the 1990s. The Labour, Conservative and Scottish National parties wish to stay in the Union although disagree over the level of integration, but smaller parties such as the [[UK Independence Party]] and the Referendum Party campaigned on the single issue of sovereignty being lost to the Union.

The United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, is scheduled to take place in the United Kingdom and [[Gibraltar]] on 23 June 2016.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2015-2016/0002/cbill_2015-20160002_en_2.htm#pb1-l1g5 |title=European Union Referendum Bill (HC Bill 2) |publisher=Publications.parliament.uk |date=2015-05-28 |accessdate=2015-06-12}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|author=Rowena Mason , Nicholas Watt, Ian Traynor, Jennifer Rankin |url=http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/20/cameron-set-to-name-eu-referendum-date-after-cabinet-meeting |title=EU referendum to take place on 23 June, David Cameron confirms | Politics |publisher=The Guardian |date=20 February 2016 |accessdate=2 February 2016}}</ref> In accordance with a [[Conservative Party]] manifesto commitment, the legal basis for a referendum was established by the passage of the European Union Referendum Act 2015 by the British Parliament. It will be the third plebiscite to be held throughout the United Kingdom, and the second time the British electorate has been asked to vote on the issue of European Union membership: the first was held in 1975, when it was known as the EEC. Membership was approved in that referendum by 67% of voters – but the nature of the EU has changed dramatically since then and the result of this referendum is expected to be significantly closer.<ref>Adrian Williamson, [http://www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/the-case-for-brexit-lessons-from-1960s-and-1970s The Case for Brexit: Lessons from the 1960s and 1970s], History and Policy (2015).</ref>

==Defense and Foreign Relations==
[[File:11943452 115b299206.jpg|right|240px]]
The United Kingdom is a founding member of the [[North Atlantic Treaty Organization]] (NATO) and is one of NATO's major European maritime, air, and land powers; it ranks third among NATO countries in total defence expenditure. The United Kingdom has been a member of the European Community (now European Union) since 1973. In the United Nations, the United Kingdom is a permanent member of the Security Council. The U.K. held the Presidency of the G-8 during 2005; it held the EU Presidency from July to December 2005.

The British Armed Forces are charged with protecting the United Kingdom and its overseas territories, promoting Britain's wider security interests, and supporting international peacekeeping efforts. The 37,000-member Royal Navy, which includes 6,000 Royal Marine commandos, is in charge of the United Kingdom's independent strategic nuclear arm, which consists of four Trident missile submarines. The British Army, consisting of approximately 99,200 personnel, the Royal Air Force, with 42,000 personnel, along with the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, are active and regular participants in NATO and other coalition operations. Approximately 9% of the British Armed Forces is female, and 4% of British forces represent ethnic minorities.
[[File:Royal Naval college UK.jpg|thumb|center|380px|Royal Naval College.]]

===Iraq===
The U.K. was the United States' main coalition partner under the designation Operation TELIC. Under UN Security Council Resolution 1483, the U.K. also shared with the United States responsibility for civil administration in Iraq and was an active participant in the Coalition Provisional Authority before the handover of Iraqi sovereignty on June 28, 2004. Britain's participation in the Iraq war and its aftermath remains a domestically controversial issue.

<blockquote>
Iraqi oil supply was considered to be 'vital' to British interests. The British Government saw Iraqi oil as "vital" to the UK's long-term energy security, and the effective privatisation of its oil industry was central to the post-invasion plan for the country, according to previously unseen Whitehall documents. [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iraqi-oil-supply-was-considered-to-be-vital-to-british-interests-2270072.html] ''The Independent.''
</blockquote>

The Iraq Inquiry is conducted to identify lessons that can be learned from the Iraq conflict; the inquiry is concerned over Mr. Blair's evidence on the legal advice he received before agreeing to join the invasion, and the timing of the decision to go to war. [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/chilcot-to-grill-blair-on-how-he-misled-iraq-war-inquiry-2185725.html] The Chair of the Inquiry, Sir John Chilcot (1939) was Staff Counsellor to the Security and Intelligence Agencies (1999-2004) and the National Criminal Intelligence Service (2002–06).

===Afghanistan===
Britain stood shoulder to shoulder with the United States following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the U.S., and its military forces are part of the coalition force in Afghanistan. The British force in [[Afghanistan War|Afghanistan]] is at 9,000 in late 2009 and will rise by an extra 500 troops in 2010. British forces are primarily based in the Helmand region, where they are on the front line in the war against continued Taliban operations. In addition, Britain has contributed more than £500 million to Afghan reconstruction—the second-largest donor after the U.S.
===Israel===
Britain has shown a greater willingness than the United States to criticize the Israelis over settlements and what some call the disproportionate responses to provocations from Gaza and southern Lebanon. (Jewish Labour MP Gerald Kaufman is among the most vocal.) Like his predecessors, both Labour and Conservative, former Foreign Secretary Milliband has been unequivocal: "Settlements are illegal under international law," he told Parliament in 2008; "They are a major blockage to peace in the Middle East on the basis of a two-state solution." His successor William Hague, on 20 March 2011, "expressed our serious concern over the recent announcement of 400 new housing units in the West Bank. Continued settlements run contrary to peace.” A BBC poll in March 2011 found that 14% of British subjects have a generally positive opinion of Israel while 66% have a generally negative opinion.

===Relations with the United States===
[[File:Send_a_gun_to_a_British_home.jpg|thumb|right|[[Second Amendment]]-supporting [[American]] [[citizen]]s gifted their [[firearm]]s to [[gun free zone]]-[[gun control]] supporting British citizens during [[World War II]] via [[The American Committee for the Defense of British Homes]]]]

The United Kingdom is one of the United States' closest allies, and British foreign policy emphasises close coordination with the United States. Bilateral cooperation reflects the common language, ideals, and democratic practices of the two nations. Relations were strengthened by the countries' alliances during both World Wars, and its role as a founding member of NATO, in the Korean conflict, in the Persian Gulf War, and in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The United Kingdom and the United States continually consult on foreign policy issues and global problems and share major foreign and security policy objectives.

The United Kingdom is the fifth-largest market for U.S. goods exports after Canada, Mexico, Japan, and China, and the sixth-largest supplier of U.S. imports after Canada, China, Mexico, Japan, and Germany. U.S. exports of goods and services to the United Kingdom in 2006 totaled $92 billion, while U.S. imports from the U.K. totaled $93 billion. The United States has had a trade deficit with the United Kingdom since 1998. The United Kingdom is a large source of foreign tourists in the United States. In 2005, 3.4 million U.S. residents visited the United Kingdom, while 4.2 million U.K. residents visited the United States.

The United States and the United Kingdom share the world's largest foreign direct investment partnership. U.S. investment in the United Kingdom reached $324 billion in 2005, while U.K. direct investment in the U.S. totaled $282 billion. This investment sustains more than 1 million American jobs.

==Economy==
[[File:London.jpg|thumb|left|280px|London's financial center.]]
Britain has been hard hit by the [[Recession of 2008]], with its major banks taken over or subsidized by the government. Real gross domestic product declined by 4.6% in 2009, and is expected to rise by 0.6% before 2010 and probably will continue to increase by 1% in 2011.

Britain has the fifth-largest economy in the world, is the second-largest economy in the European Union, and is a major international trading power. A highly developed, diversified, market-based economy with extensive social welfare services provides most residents with a high standard of living. Unemployment and inflation levels are amongst the lowest within the European Union.

Since 1979, the British Government has privatised most state-owned companies, including British Steel, British Airways, British Telecom, British Coal, British Aerospace, and British Gas, although in some cases the government retains a "golden share" in these companies. The previous Labour government continued the privatisation policy of its Conservative predecessor, particularly by encouraging "public-private partnerships" (partial privatisation) in such areas as the London Underground. The economy of the United Kingdom is now primarily based on private enterprise, accounting for approximately four-fifths of employment and output.
[[File:Bluewater Shopping Centre, Kent, England Crop 2009.jpg|thumb|440px|Bluewater Shopping Centre, Kent, 2009.]]
London ranks alongside New York as a leading international financial centre. London's financial exports contribute greatly to the United Kingdom's balance of payments. Ratings agencies rank the United Kingdom's banking sector as one of the strongest in the world and its banks are amongst the most profitable in the G-8. It is a global leader in emissions trading and is home to the Alternative Investment Market (AIM). It is also a government priority to make London the leading center of Islamic finance.

Britain is the European Union's only significant energy exporter. It is also one of the world's largest energy consumers, and most analysts predict a shift in U.K. status from net exporter to net importer of energy by 2020, possibly sooner. Oil production in the U.K. is levelling off. While North Sea natural gas production continues to rise, gains may be offset by ever-increasing consumption. North Sea oil and gas exploration activities are shifting to smaller fields and to increments of larger, developed fields, presenting opportunities for smaller, independent energy operators to become active in North Sea production.
*GDP (at current market prices, 2007 est.): US$1.93 trillion.
*Annual growth rate (2009 est.): -4.6%
*Per capita GDP (2006 est.): US$31,800.
*Natural resources: Coal, oil, natural gas.
*Agriculture (1.1% of GDP): Products—cereals, oilseed, potatoes, vegetables, cattle, sheep, poultry, fish.
*Industry: Types—steel, heavy engineering and metal manufacturing, textiles, motor vehicles and aircraft, construction (5.2% of GDP), electronics, chemicals.
*Trade (2006 est.): Exports of goods and services—US$468.8 billion: manufactured goods, fuels, chemicals; food, beverages, tobacco. Major markets—U.S., European Union. Imports of goods and services—US$603 billion: manufactured goods, machinery, fuels, foodstuffs. Major suppliers—U.S., European Union, Japan.

===Currency===
The currency of the United Kingdom is the [[Pound|Pound Sterling]], commonly called Pound and written £ or GBP, divided into 100 New Pence (now commonly just called pence or 'p'). Traditionally the UK had a complicated triple currency structure of 20 [[shilling]]s to the Pound and 12 "old pence" (represented by a "d" from the Roman ''denarius'') to the shilling, making a total of 240 pence to the Pound. This system was abandoned in 1971 due to difficulties with computerised accounting systems, in favour of the current [[decimal]] system.

The UK has never joined the [[Euro]] zone.

==History==
[[File:Stonehenge.jpg|thumb|left|Stonehenge.]]
The Roman invasion of Britain in 43AD and most of Britain's subsequent incorporation into the Roman Empire stimulated development and brought more active contacts with the rest of Europe. However, there was no permanent Roman imprint apart from roads and locations for cities. As Rome's strength declined, the country again was exposed to invasion—including the pivotal incursions of the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes in the fifth and sixth centuries AD—up to the Norman conquest in 1066. Norman rule effectively ensured Britain's safety from further intrusions; certain institutions, which remain characteristic of Britain, could develop. Among these are a political, administrative, cultural, and economic centre in London; a separate but established church and distinctive and distinguished university education.

====Union====

Both Wales and Scotland were independent kingdoms that resisted English rule. The English conquest of Wales succeeded in 1282 under Edward I, and the Statute of Rhuddlan established English rule 2 years later. To appease the Welsh, Edward's son (later Edward II), who had been born in Wales, was made Prince of Wales in 1301. The tradition of bestowing this title on the eldest son of the British Monarch continues today. An act of 1536 completed the political and administrative union of England and Wales.

While maintaining separate parliaments, England and Scotland were ruled by the same king beginning in 1603, when James VI of Scotland succeeded his cousin Elizabeth I as James I of England. In the ensuing 100 years, strong religious and political differences divided the kingdoms. Finally, in 1707, England and Scotland were unified as Great Britain, sharing a single Parliament at Westminster.

Ireland's invasion by the Anglo-Normans in 1170 led to centuries of strife. Successive English kings sought to conquer Ireland. In the early 17th century, large-scale settlement of the north from Scotland and England began. After its defeat, Ireland was subjected, with varying degrees of success, to control and regulation by Britain.

The legislative union of Great Britain and Ireland was completed on January 1, 1801, under the name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (normally shortened to "Great Britain" or "Britain"). However, armed struggle for independence continued sporadically into the 20th century. The Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 established the Irish Free State, which subsequently left the Commonwealth and became a republic after World War II. Six northern, predominantly [[Protestant]], Irish counties have remained part of the United Kingdom.

====British Expansion and Empire====
[[Image:Sir Francis Grant's Portrait of Queen Victoria.jpg|right|200px|thumb|''Queen Victoria'', by [[Sir Francis Grant]].]]
The '''British Empire''' was the [[List of largest empires|largest empire]] in history and, for over a century, was the foremost [[Great power|global power]]. It was a product of the [[Age of Discovery]], which began with the maritime explorations of the 15th century, that sparked the era of the European [[Colonialism|colonial]] empires. By 1921, the British Empire held sway over a population of about 458 million people, approximately one-quarter of the world's population.<ref>Angus Maddison. ''The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective'' (p. 98, 242). [[Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development|OECD]], Paris, 2001.</ref> It covered about 36.7 million km² (14.2 million square miles),<ref>Bruce R. Gordon. [http://www.hostkingdom.net/earthrul.html ''To Rule the Earth...''] (See [http://www.hostkingdom.net/Bibliography.html Bibliography] for sources used.)</ref> about a quarter of Earth's total land area. As a result, its political, linguistic and cultural legacy is widespread. At the peak of its power, it was often said that "[[The empire on which the sun never sets|the sun never sets on the British Empire]]" because its span across the globe ensured that the sun was always shining on at least one of its numerous [[colonies]] or subject nations.<ref>This phrase had already been used a few centuries before by the king [[Charles I of Spain]], referring to the [[Spanish Empire]].</ref>

Begun initially to support William the Conqueror's (c. 1029-1087) holdings in France, Britain's policy of active involvement in continental European affairs endured for several hundred years. By the end of the 14th century, foreign trade, originally based on wool exports to Europe, had emerged as a cornerstone of national policy.

During the five decades following [[World War II]], most of the territories of the Empire became independent. Many went on to join the [[Commonwealth of Nations]], a free association of independent states.<ref>T. O. Lloyd, ''The British Empire, 1558-1995. 2nd ed. (1996).</ref> Some have retained the [[British monarch]] as their [[head of state]] to become independent [[Commonwealth realm]]s.

====Sea Power====
The foundations of sea power were gradually laid to protect English trade and open up new routes. Defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 firmly established England as a major sea power. Thereafter, its interests outside Europe grew steadily. Attracted by the spice trade, English mercantile interests spread first to the Far East. In search of an alternate route to the Spice Islands, John Cabot reached the North American continent in 1498. Sir Walter Raleigh organized the first, short-lived colony in Virginia in 1584, and permanent English settlement began in 1607 at Jamestown, Virginia. During the next two centuries, Britain extended its influence abroad and consolidated its political development at home, as the Royal Navy dominated the seas.
====Industrial Revolution====
[[File:Bradford Industrial Museum.jpg|thumb|left|Bradford Industrial Museum.]]
Britain's [[industrial revolution]] greatly strengthened its ability to oppose Napoleonic France. By the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815, Britain was the foremost European power, and its navy ruled the seas. Peace in Europe allowed the British to focus their interests on more remote parts of the world, and, during this period, the British Empire reached its zenith. British colonial expansion reached its height largely during the reign of [[Queen Victoria]] (1837-1901). [[Victorian era|Queen Victoria's]] reign witnessed the spread of British technology, commerce, language, and government throughout the British Empire, which, at its greatest extent, encompassed roughly one-fifth to one-quarter of the world's area and population. It is controversial whether British colonies accelerated or slowed Britain's economic growth, for its growth rate fell below nations without empires, especially the U.S. and [[Germany]]. Democracy came in fits and starts in a series of reforms that finally, by the 1920s, allowed all adults to vote.

 

====End of Empire====
By the time of Queen Victoria's death in 1901, other nations, including the United States and Germany, had developed their own industries; Britain lost its comparative economic advantage, and the ambitions of its rivals had grown. The UK joined world war I because of the invasion of [[Belgium]], and subsequently began [[World War II]] after the invasion of [[Poland]]. The losses and destruction of [[World War I|The First World War]], the [[Great Depression]] of the 1930s, the independence of the Dominions, and decades of relatively slow growth eroded the Britain's preeminent international position of the previous century.

Nationalism became stronger in other parts of the empire, particularly in India and Egypt.

In 1926, Britain granted Australia, Canada, and New Zealand almost complete autonomy as "dominions"; beginning with the independence of India and Pakistan in 1947, the remainder of the British Empire was almost completely dismantled by the 1960s.

== See also ==

*[[English Painting]]
*[[British politics]]
*[[June 2007 UK terror attacks]]
*[[List of political parties in the United Kingdom]]
*[[Mystery:Why is England More Liberal than the United States?]]
*[[Flags of the United Kingdom]]
* [[Piers Morgan]]
*[[Victorian era]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/15/sir-john-chilcot-wrong-man Sir John Chilcot 'wrong man to head Iraq invasion inquiry'.]
*[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iraqi-oil-supply-was-considered-to-be-vital-to-british-interests-2270072.html Iraqi oil supply was considered to be 'vital' to British interests.]

== Notes ==
<references/>

{{European Union}}

[[Category:United Kingdom|United Kingdom]]
[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:NATO Members]]
[[Category:Christian-Majority Countries]]
[[Category:British Empire]]
[[Category:European History]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Socialism]]
[[Category:Welfare State]]
[[Category:Gun Control]]
[[Category:Anti Second Amendment]]
[[Category:Nuclear Target Structures]]

World War II

2016-09-10T15:30:53Z

HelpJazz: Undo revision 1276057 by Thorin Oakenshield (talk) Fallacy of composition

{{World War 2
| image =WWII collage.JPG
| conflict =
| date =1939-1945
| location =Europe North and eastern Africa Eastern Asia Pacific Ocean Atlantic Ocean 
| combatant1 ='''Allies''' [[Great Britain]] [[France]] [[Soviet Union]] (from 1941) [[China]] [[United States]] (from 1941) [[Poland]] [[Denmark]] [[Norway]] [[Belgium]] [[Luxembourg]] [[Canada]] [[Australia]] [[New Zealand]] [[Netherlands]] [[Yugoslavia]] [[Greece]] [[Italy]](from 1943 to 1945)
| combatant2 ='''Axis''' [[Nazi Germany]] [[Italy]](until 1943) [[Japan]] [[Hungary]](1941–45) [[Romania]](1941–44) [[Bulgaria]](1941–44) [[Italian Social Republic]] (1943-1945)
| commander1 =
| commander2 =
| strength1 =
| strength2 =
| casualties1 =
| casualties2 =
}}
'''World War II''' was a global set of conflicts, beginning in 1931 in Asia, 1935 in Africa, and 1939 in Europe, all lasting until 1945, in which the [[Allies|Allied powers]] (led after the Fall of France by the [[British Commonwealth]], and including the [[United States]], the [[Soviet Union]], the [[Republic of China]], among many other nations), completely defeated the [[Axis Powers]] (led by [[Third Reich|Nazi Germany]], and including [[Italy]], [[Japan]], [[Hungary]], [[Romania]] and [[Bulgaria]]). Although Japan's war against China began in 1937, the main conflict started in September 1939 when Germany and the Soviet Union divided [[Poland]]; [[Britain]] and [[French Third Republic|France]] then declared war on Germany.

The conflict was the deadliest in human history with estimated deaths ranging from 50 million to over 70 million soldiers and civilians.<ref>http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Second</ref> It ended with the Soviet Union dominant in a part of Central Europe and all of Eastern Europe, and the U.S. and its allies dominant in Western Europe, a part of Central Europe and Scandinavia, setting the stage for the [[Cold War]].
==Causes==
:''See: [[Causes of World War II]]''

==War Begins in Europe==
[[File:58692.gif|thumb|300px|right|By terms of a secret protocol to the [[Nazi-Soviet pact]], [[Poland]] was partitioned with Germany and the USSR each occupying 200,000 square kilometers.]]
{{See also|Molotov-Ribbentrop pact}}

In the immediate run up to WWII, there were frequent reports of trespassing Polish troops. On August 31, 1939 German covert operatives staged a fake attack by Polish troops on a German radio station. WWII started on September 1, 1939, when German troops invaded Poland. Hitler justified this as a defensive act, pointing to the frequent border incidents, and said famously that from this moment on Germany would strike back.

The major tactical innovation of the war was the use of combined arms warfare, typified by the German doctrine of [[blitzkrieg]]. In this style of warfare armor, infantry, artillery and air power (see [[Luftwaffe]]) all coordinate to achieve overwhelming superiority at point on the enemy lines. Armor and fast-moving infantry units then exploit the gap and penetrate deep behind enemy lines. The objective is to cause a widespread collapse of the enemy's ability to fight. It was particularly effective during the early stages of the war, before the Allies developed effective countermeasures.
On September 17, 1939, Poland was invaded from the east by Hitler’s ally, [[Josef Stalin|Stalin]].

In 1939-1940, eastern Poland, [[Estonia]], [[Latvia]], [[Lithuania]] and [[Bessarabia]] were invaded and annexed by the Soviet Union.

==War in the West==
[[Image:Caen_sniper.jpg|left|thumb|200px|A Canadian soldier in the ruins of Caen, 9 July 1944]]
Once the invasion of Poland was complete, German forces regrouped while French and British forces remained on the defensive, leading US commentators to dub it the [[Sitskreig|Phoney War]]. May 10, 1940 made clear that the war was real, as Germany invaded France, occupying neutral countries such as the [[Netherlands]], [[Luxembourg]] and [[Belgium]] in the process. Resistance by the British and French armies proved ineffective, and France was soon surrendered. British and French troops were routed and evacuated mainland Europe at [[Dunkirk]]. France was divided into the northern [[Occupied France]] and the collaborationist [[Vichy regime]] in the south of France, including [[Corsica]].

The collapse and occupation of France, together with Germany's non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union,<ref>[http://nobsopus.blogspot.com/2007/01/celebrations-marking-60-years-since-end.html Celebrations Marking 60 Years Since the End of World War II], Pavel Vitek, ''Russkii vopros - Studies'', No. 1 2005. Translation from Russian.</ref> Germany's alliance with fascist Italy and an expansionist Japan, the benevolent neutrality of fascist Spain, and the fact that little of Europe was outside Axis control, led many to assume that Britain had been defeated. Indeed it would appear that the seemingly foolish decision of the relatively weak Britain to continue the war took the Axis powers off guard. This decision ensured the remaining British Empire was still involved in the war, with Japan threatening many British possessions in Asia.

In 1940 [[Denmark]] and [[Norway]] were invaded by German forces, to preempt a British occupation of Norway and occupy its coastline and ports to be used by the [[Kriegsmarine]]. Norway also contained a source of [[Heavy water]], potentially crucial in the construction of an atomic weapon. The operation was successful, but losses were heavy, especially to the Kriegsmarine. This was soon followed by the British troops invited by [[Iceland]] and American occupation of [[Greenland]]. (The goal was to prevent any increase in the range of German air and submarine activity, brought about the occupation of these lands - and of the Azores at the request of the Portuguese Government.)

With Britain the sole opposing European nation, the [[Battle of Britain]] commenced. The [[Luftwaffe]] attempted to achieve aerial dominance over the south of Britain, in order to allow a sea based invasion of the British Isles to proceed. From 10 July to the end of October the [[Royal Air Force]] and the Luftwaffe fought for dominance; the resilience of the RAF, which counted in its ranks also Commonwealth personnel, US volunteers and Polish and Czech exiles, and the use of [[radar]] and its associated early warning systems, had forced a rethink of German tactics. It was the first significant setback for the Germans in the War. They now concentrated on the great population centers, especially London, hoping that huge civilian casualties would weaken morale and lead to a lessening of the war effort by the populace. The period that followed, popularly known as [[the Blitz]], lasted into May 1941. Around 40,000 civilians and civil defense workers died; but the Germans failed to reach their objectives and their resources were soon diverted to the Eastern front as Hitler began concentrating on the impending invasion of the Soviet Union.

With the pressure off their airbases the RAF was now able to increase its nightly raids on industrial sites in Germany and occupied lands. Because of the inability to correctly target these sites, the raids soon turned into “area bombing”, and German civilian casualties rose. These raids were to reach further into Germany as the war progressed and were greatly increased when American bombers began their sorties.

==Finnish Wars==

The Soviet Union invaded [[Finland]], a neutral, on November 30, 1939. This conflict came to be known as the "Winter War". Despite the overwhelming numbers of the Red Army, the Finnish resistance was strong and the battle was hard fought before the Soviet army took control. Outside powers (including the U.S.) considered intervention to help Finland; only a little aid trickled in and Finland was forced to sue for peace. The peace treaty signed in March 1940 favored the Soviets, but they paid heavily for their victory with 200,000 dead. Finland lost 25,000 dead, and had to absorb 400,000 refugees from areas turned over to the Soviets. In 1941 Finland joined Germany in attacking the Soviets, in the "Continuation War" (1941–44), but lost again. An armistice in Sept. 1944 stabilized the border, using March 1940 lines; in addition Finland had to pay heavy reparations and had to remain neutral in the [[Cold War]].<ref>Roger R. Reese, "Lessons of the Winter War: a Study in the Military Effectiveness of the Red Army, 1939-1940," ''Journal of Military History'' 2008 72(3): 825-852</ref>

==Soviet-German War==
1941 marked the major turning point in the war in Europe, when the Germans undertook [[Operation Barbarossa]] - the invasion of the Soviet Union. Stalin was repeatedly informed by his own spies and anti-German countries that Germany was about to attack; he rejected the accurate reports and paid dearly for the blunder.

[[File:Roosevelt Stalin Churchill on portico of Russian Embassy in Teheran.jpg|thumb|280px|[[Roosevelt]], [[Stalin]], and [[Churchill]] on portico of Russian Embassy in Teheran, during conference — Nov. 28 - Dec. 1, 1943.]]
In June—behind schedule because of diversions in the Balkans—the Germans launched their massive war against the Soviet Union (known as the "Great Patriotic War" in Russia). It was by far the largest, bloodiest, and most decisive phase of World War II. Outside observers in the first few months figured that Germany would win easily. But the Nazi armies were split three ways, logistics became worse and worse as distances grew, and none met their objective by the time the extreme Russian winter of 1941-42 set in. Blitzkrieg had failed against the Soviets, and the Germans lacked the resources to fight a long war against a country with such vast areas and so many more people. The Luftwaffe, which promised to overcome the slowness of ground travel, failed to provide adequate support and was soon matched and outnumbered by the Soviet air force.<ref>The best studies of this theater are by [http://books.google.com/books?as_q=&num=30&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES&lr=&as_vt=&as_auth=glantz+david&as_pub=&as_sub=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_isbn=&as_issn= David Glantz]</ref>

In the third year of war Germany began to suffer from a lack of important resources such as oil. Hitler therefore ordered the German army to take the city of Stalingrad and the oil fields of Baku in South Russia. The operation failed after the 6th German army was encircled in Stalingrad and completely annihilated. The [[Battle of Stalingrad]] marked a turning point in the war and the Soviet Union started launching their own offensives. After a time of comparatively slow progress, the brilliant Soviet officer, Konstantin Rokossovsky, engineered "Operation Bagration", named-so after the Napoleonic Russian hero. The operation was extremely successful for the Soviets, leading to around 600,000 Soviet casualties and over 500,000 German casualties, including over 60,000 German vehicles and tanks. Even the Germans' best officer, Erich von Manstein, couldn't turn the situation around. [[V-E Day|Finally, in 1945, Soviet troops stormed Berlin, and forced Nazi Germany into capitulation]].

==Far East==

After Pearl Harbor, the Japanese juggernaut seemed unstoppable. In the south, they conquered the [[Philippines]], the oil-rich Dutch East Indies, Malaysia, and extended their reach as far as the Solomon Islands. In the west, they seized [[Burma]] and the vital port at [[Rangoon]], and even attacked British forces at [[Ceylon]]. The Japanese empire now reached as far as [[Wake Island]] in the east and the Aleutian Islands to the north. Attacks on Japanese targets, including the Doolittle raid, boasted American morale, but did little material damage. In May 1942, Japanese forces were finally halted at the [[Battle of the Coral Sea]], which cost the Americans a precious [[aircraft carrier]], but saved southern [[New Guinea]]. At the [[Battle of Midway]] a month later, the Japanese lost four of their best carriers, suffering a blow to their sea power from which they never recovered.

The Americans took the offensive in August with a landing on the island of [[Guadalcanal]]. The overall American offensive strategy was two-pronged. Forces in the south advanced up the Solomon island chain and New Guinea, while in the central Pacific, Marines took island after island, including [[Battle of Tarawa|Tarawa]], Eniwetok, [[Saipan]], and [[Guam]]. The two lines of attack came together at the Philippines.

Integral to the strategy was the policy of island hopping. Many Japanese strongholds were bypassed, allowing the American forces to concentrate on more strategically significant islands. For example, [[Truk]] and Rabaul were home to major Japanese air and naval bases, but once the bases were neutralized, there was no reason to take on the troops there. This policy not only saved thousands of American (and Japanese) lives, it shortened the war by at least several months.

The American invasion of the Philippines took place in late October 1944 when Marines landed on Leyte Island. A few days later, the US Navy shattered what was left of Japanese naval power in the [[Battle of Leyte Gulf]]. The Japanese fought hard, however, and Leyte took two months to secure. When the Americans landed on the other islands, they found the troops there equally unwilling to retreat, but with American superiority in almost every area, the outcome was never really in doubt. [[Manila]] was captured by March, and the American position had become solid enough that leaders could start preparing for the final stage: [[Operation Downfall|the invasion of Japan]]. The first step was taken when the island of [[Okinawa]] was captured in June after two months of heavy fighting. Operation Olympic, the invasion of [[Kyushu]], was scheduled for November 1945, followed by Operation Coronet, the invasion of [[Honshu]], in March 1946.

The Japanese, soldiers and civilians alike, were expected to put up a fierce defense. Army Chief of Staff [[George C. Marshall]] believed that Japan would fight to the last man, and insisted on preparing for a land invasion of Japan with an army of 2,000,000 men anticipating a tremendous number of casualties. Some analysts estimated the number of projected casualties from Operation Olympic alone at 250,000 dead and wounded.<ref>Historical Atlas of the U.S. Navy, by Craig L. Symonds, the Naval Institute, 1995</ref> For this reason, Washington strongly requested the Soviets declare war on Japan. At the Potsdam conference in mid-July 1945, Stalin told President Truman the Soviets would declare war on Japan but would not give a firm timetable.<ref>Wheeler (1983) p. 58</ref> (This was the last of the four "Allied" conferences, taking place in mid-July 1945; the other three were: the Tehran Conference from November 28 to December 1, 1943; the Cairo Conference from November 22 to November 26, 1943; the Yalta Conference from February 4 to February 11, 1945.)
[[Image:Ww2-asia usma.edu pic.gif|thumb|300px|left|Time Line of Pacific War]]

==Japanese capitulation==
After the successful atom bomb test in the U.S., President Truman was left with the immense task of deciding what to do with the power of the atomic bomb. Truman assembled a committee to advise him. The committee recommended the bomb should be used on the Japanese Empire mainland to save American lives and produce maximum shock to try to convince the Japanese to surrender.<ref>Wheeler (1983) pp. 58-60</ref> Therefore, on August 6, 1945, a B-29 Superfortress, the "Enola Gay" piloted by Paul Tibbet, dropped an atomic bomb (now called a nuclear weapon) on [[Hiroshima]]. Japan's war council still insisted on its four conditions for surrender, refusing unconditional surrender. So on August 9, "Bocks Car", a B-29 piloted by Frederick C. Bock dropped the second atomic bomb on Nagasaki.<ref>Wheeler (1983) pp. 94-101</ref> The necessity of the second bombing at Nagasaki has been debated, as the Soviet Union had declared war upon Japan, and Japan was blockaded; however, the Japanese war council still refused unconditional surrender before the second bomb was dropped.

The Soviet Union declared war on Japan at midnight August 8, 1945, in response to the American requests and in a last-minute grab for the spoils of war. It invaded Manchuria and Korea with 1.6 million troops; the Japanese army disintegrated. The Soviets captured 600,000 military and civilian prisoners of war; most of whom never returned home again.<ref>Wheeler (1983) p. 156</ref> It was no longer possible for the Imperial Army to defend the emperor. On August 15, 1945, Emperor Hirohito by radio broadcast announced Japan would accept the terms of the Allies, unconditional surrender.<ref>Wheeler (1983) pp. 165-167</ref> By follow up message, the Japanese government stated they were surrendering with the understanding the Emperor would remain on the throne and would not be hung as a war criminal. Washington agreed, saying the authority of the emperor would be "subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers." On September 2, 1945, the Japanese Emperor formally surrendered all Japanese forces to the Allies in a famous ceremony aboard the battleship ''USS Missouri'' in Tokyo Bay. This was the ending of World War II, after six years almost to the day.

==Effects of war on empires==

*[[Iron Curtain]]
:The Red army conquered much of eastern Europe and created an "Iron Curtain," destroying independent national governments and making them all subservient to Moscow. The US grudgingly tolerated this imperialism until 1947, when it was Greece's turn. Then the US drew the line and adopted a policy of [[containment]]. Because of the geography of war, [[Yugoslavia]] and [[Albania]] escaped the Red Army. They fell under the control of independent Communists--Yugoslavia received American support, and Albania turned to Red China for help against the Soviets.

*[[British Empire]]
:The war effectively bankrupted Britain, which soon gave up India (which then included Pakistan and Ceylon) and many of its other colonies.

* French Empire
:France saluted its overseas Empire as the savior of France, and wanted control back. That led to nasty large scale wars in Algeria and Vietnam, which France lost.

*the Netherlands and Indonesia
:The Dutch returned to the [[Dutch East Indies]] to face an insurrection they could not handle. Dutch acknowledged in 1949 the sovereignty of [[Indonesia]], a non-Communist state.

*Supremacy of the USA in the Western World
:The war left the U.S. with a vastly stronger economy than anyone else. To save on budget deficits the military was demobilized, but the long-term strategy was in confusion after Roosevelt's death.

{{WWIImain articles}}
==See also==
===Land war===
[[Image:Bradley.jpg|thumb|290px|''Time'' Dec. 4, 1944]]
* [[Battle of the Bulge]], Dec. 1944
* [[Battle of Halbe]], Apr. 1945
* [[Battle of Okinawa]], spring 1945
* [[Battle of Poznan]], 1945
* [[Second Sino-Japanese War]], 1937–45
* [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]], US general
* [[Omar Bradley]], US general
* [[George S. Patton, Jr.]], US general

===Air war===
* [[Luftwaffe]], German air force
* [[World War II in the Air]]
* [[Bombing of Japan]]
* [[Bombing of Germany]]
===Naval===
* [[Attack on Pearl Harbor]], Dec. 1941
* [[Battle of Midway]], June 1942
* [[Chester W. Nimitz]], US Admiral

===Homefronts===
* [[Holocaust]], killing the Jews

===Leaders===
* [[World War II Axis Leaders]]
* [[Charles de Gaulle]], France
* [[Adolf Hitler]], Germany
* [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]], US
* [[Winston Churchill]], Britain
* [[Joseph Stalin]], Russia
* [[Chiang Kai-shek]], China
* [[Benito Mussolini]], Italy
* [[William Lyon Mackenzie King]], Canada
* [[John Curtin]], Australia

==Further reading==
For a more detailed guide, see [[Bibliography of World War II]]

* Dear, I. C. B. and M. R. D. Foot, eds. ''Oxford Companion to World War II'' (in Britain titled ''Oxford Companion to the Second World War'' (2005; 2nd ed. 2009). the best reference book; [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Companion-World-War-II/dp/019280670X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236549909&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* ''Times Atlas of the Second World War'' (1995)
* Weinberg, Gerhard L. ''A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II'', (1994) the best overall view of the war.
* Wheeler, Keith. ''The Fall of Japan'' (1983)

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

== External links ==
* United States Department of the Navy/Navy Historical Center's [http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq36-4.htm Fleet Admiral Chester William Nimitz]
* [http://www.onpower.org/history_wwii.html/ World War II]
* [http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=12&articleID=139 "On the Brink of World War II: Justus Doenecke’s ''Storm on the Horizon''," by Ralph Raico]
*[http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~epf/1997/padilla.html Kursk: The Turning Point on the Eastern Front in World War II], by Roberto R. Padilla II
* [http://encyc.org/pmwiki/WorldWarII World War II - Encyc]
* [http://www.independent.org/publications/working_papers/article.asp?id=1499 "Government and the Economy: The World Wars," by Robert Higgs]
* [http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=113 "How War Amplified Federal Power in the Twentieth Century," by Robert Higgs]
* [http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=65 ''Depression, War and Cold War'', by Robert Higgs]
* [http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=138 "Wartime Prosperity?", by Robert Higgs]
* [http://www.independent.org/issues/article.asp?id=1431 Pearl Harbor]
[[Category:World War II| ]]
[[Category:Wars]]
[[Category:Veterans]]

Bucknell University

2016-09-06T19:48:10Z

HelpJazz: the mascot is not all bison, it's a specific one

{{University
|name=Bucknell University
|image=Bucknellseal.gif
|text=rgb(255,102,0)
|background=rgb(0,0,102)
|type=Private
|city=Lewisburg, Pennsylvania
|sports=baseball, basketball, cross country, field hockey, football, golf, lacrosse, rowing, soccer, swimming & diving, tennis, track & field, volleyball, water polo, wrestling<ref>http://bucknellbison.cstv.com/</ref>
|colors=orange, blue
|degrees=Bachelor's, Master's<ref>{{cite web|work=College Board|language=English|accessdate=May 28, 2010|title=College Search - Bucknell University - At a Glance|url=http://collegesearch.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=3409}}</ref>
|mascot=Bucky the Bison
|website=http://www.bucknell.edu/
}}
'''Bucknell University''' is a highly selective private university in [[Lewisburg]], [[Pennsylvania]]. It was founded in 1846 as the University at Lewisburg, and changed its name to Bucknell University in 1881, after benefactor William Bucknell, who helped save the university from financial ruin.<ref>[http://www.bucknell.edu/x1180.xml ''History of Bucknell'']</ref> The school colors are orange and blue and the mascot is Bucky the Bison.

==About the school==
Bucknell has approximately 3,400 undergraduate students and 150 graduate students. There are more than 50 majors and 60 minors within two colleges: [[engineering]] and [[liberal arts]]. Bucknell has small class sizes, with an 11:1 student-faculty ratio.

==In the News==
*In 2005, the men's Bison basketball team surprised the nation by defeating the [[University of Kansas]] in the first round of the [[NCAA]] Division I Men's Basketball tournament. They lost in the second round to the [[University of Wisconsin]].
*In 2006, the Bison were undefeated in the [[Patriot League]]. They again won in the first round of the NCAA tournament, this time playing the [[University of Arkansas]]. They lost to the [[University of Memphis]] in the second round.

==Famous Bucknellians==
*Diane B. Allen, New Jersey State Senator, Legislative District 7
*Ted Ammon, New York financier
*Karl Amylon, chief administrative officer of Ketchikan, AK, USA
*Kunitake Ando, President and Group Chief Operating Officer of [[Sony Corporation]]
*[[Rob Andrews]], U.S. representative
*Theodore Beale, Author and columnist, also known as Vox Day
*Sam Bidleman, President of the Pennsylvania School Press Association; Finalist, 2002 Pennsylvania Teacher of the Year
*Neal Blaisdell, former mayor of [[Honolulu]]
*Colonel Matthew Bogdanos, Marine, NYC Assistant District Attornery, and Author
*Susan Crawford, former chief judge of [[United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces|U.S. Court of Military Appeals]]
*Jane Elfers, president and CEO of Lord & Taylor
*Bently Elliott, former chief speechwriter for President [[Ronald Reagan]]
*[[Benjamin K. Focht]], US Congressman from [[Pennsylvania]]
*John A. Giannetti, member of Maryland House of Delegates
*Sunil Gulati, President, United States Soccer Federation
*Daniel J. Herrington, NASA Vice-President, Intuitive Aeronautics Design
*[[Edward Herrmann]], actor
*[[David Jayne Hill]], diplomat, ambassador, writer
*Clarke Hinkle, [[National Football League]] fullback and [[Pro Football Hall of Fame|Hall of Fame]] inductee
*Jon Robert Holden, naturalized Russian Basketball player, currently active for [[PBC CSKA Moscow]]
*[[Bob Keegan]], former Major League Baseball player
*[[Kenneth Langone]], Co-founder of Home Depot and former director of the New York Stock Exchange
*Douglas Lebda, founder of LendingTree
*Evan Coyne Maloney, [[webmaster]]/[[documentary film]]maker
*Mark Morganelli, jazz Musician, Producer
*[[Christy Mathewson]], former Major League Baseball player and member of the [[Baseball Hall of Fame]] (did not graduate)
*John McPherson, "Close to Home" cartoonist
*Les Moonves, president and CEO of [[CBS]] Television
*Edward (Ted) C. Peterson, Co-Founder and Co-Owner of Peterson and Collins Inc.
*James Pommersheim, Katherine Piggott Professor of Mathematics at [[Reed College]]
*Michael Riccio, founder Falcon Partners, and Chief Operating Officer and Director of Go2Net
*Mark H. Ronald, President & CEO, BAE Systems Inc.
*[[Philip Roth]], award-winning novelist
*Trevor Rutledge-Leverenz, producer of the Mike and Murray Show on [[Sirius Satellite Radio]]
*Greg Schiano, head coach of the [[Rutgers University]] football team
*Paul Shipman, Founder, President, and CEO, Redhook Ale Brewery
*Ray Sullivan, Chief Operating Officer of the [[New England Patriots]]
*Ralph Waite, actor
*David West, president and CEO of Hershey's
*Jay Wright, head coach of the [[Villanova University]] basketball team
*Weldon Wyckoff, former Major League Baseball player
*George Young, former [[New York Giants]] general manager

==External links==
*Bucknell University website [http://www.bucknell.edu]
*History of Bucknell [http://www.bucknell.edu/x474.xml]
*Fast Facts about Bucknell [http://www.bucknell.edu/x32274.xml]
==References==
<references />

{{Nb_US_universities|Pennsylvania}}

User talk:HelpJazz/OctNov09

2016-09-06T19:22:22Z

HelpJazz: Create Archive

==For the good of the project==
and despite sore provocation I have reverted some pointed words and trust that you can be relied on to respond in an appropriately responsible manner. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:53, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
:For the good of the project, you shouldn't have written them at all.
:Don't get so worked up that I don't create new articles. There's no rule that says you have to create new articles, and it's certainly the idea of a wiki to edit other's articles, no? Plus, as I've already said, I have created numerous articles. I don't enjoy it, and I'm not good at it. I'm not here to please you, and I'm not going to try.
:It's pretty hypocritical of you to say that ''I'' have done no work on this site, when I have been doing work all morning long, and you have been simply reverting me on two pages. Now I have ''real'' work (i.e. the money-making kind) so I won't be bothering you with my non-work for the rest of the day. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:01, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

== Edit war ==

I'm addressing both you and Bugler. Stop your edit warring and try working together for the good of Conservapedia. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:02, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

== Template:lowercase ==

I seem to recall from the equivalent template on Wikipedia that the template would only display the correct case of the title in certain circumstances (such as Javascript enabled). Is this still the case, or does it ''always'' correct the display of the title?

And the reason that you were able to edit a locked page is that it wasn't locked! It had been locked, but was deleted by a sysop who didn't understand its purpose. Deleting a locked page and reinstating it causes (or used to cause?) the locking to be lost.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:31, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

:<s>I don't think you have to have javascript enabled, but I might be wrong. It uses the DISPLAYTITLE... uh thing. It's not a template, and it seems to be built into the wikicode much like <nowiki>{{CURRENTDAY}}</nowiki>. I don't know a lot about how wikis work behind the scenes, but the template is used on Wikipedia, so if it doesn't work all of the time it works most of the time.</s>

:This is from the page of the WP template that I, uh, "borrowed" from: ''This template wraps the magic word DISPLAYTITLE so that it works automatically in any namespace (main, talk, template, etc.) to decapitalise the first letter of the name of a page it is transcluded on. (Previously, this template achieved this using JavaScript, but the DISPLAYTITLE method makes the change for all users, even those with JavaScript disabled in their browser).'' So we should be fine. :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:06, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
:: Ah, very good. Thanks for that. I've now changed the Manual of Style page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:00, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

==Brokeback==

You're breakin' my back on the Brokeback article! :-) I hope you can see that I'm very willing to defend my points, and I appreciate the civility with which you've been treating them (unlike some other posters on that page). I'm going to continue as much as I can today, but I'm leaving for a weeklong trip tonight so I won't be able to respond until I get back. Hopefully the page won't blow up to enormous proportions in the meantime :0 -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 13:49, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
:Ha ha ha! I was actually just about to tell you that I'm not trying to be harsh. I think you're a good editor, so my comments are (to the best of my ability) aimed at the article and not at you. I'll keep an eye on the page and keep it honest while you are gone. Have a good trip. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:17, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
::Thanks! See you on the talk pages in a week. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 20:04, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I'm back and will get to the posts on Brokeback Mountain probably tomorrow. In the meantime, I've noticed that the categories now appear in double boxes. Do you know why that is? It seems redundant. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:21, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Nevermind, I've found the relevant thread on Andy's talk page (it explains the appearance of other things like the new CAPTCHA, which I don't like). -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:37, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::Me neither. Hopefully it will change, or I may very well never <nowiki>{{welcome}}</nowiki> a user again! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:39, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::I didn't even think of that detail! Speaking of which, why is there an external link that occurs when we're doing a <nowiki>{{welcome}}</nowiki> anyway? -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 23:08, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::The link to Interiot's edit counter (which doesn't actually work right now) is an outside link. Don't forget that "internal" diff links (like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:HelpJazz&diff=next&oldid=519768 this], for example), counts as an outside link. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:21, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: Now ''those'' I can help you with. Administrators have the ability to add a web-site to a "white list" so that those addresses will not trigger the CAPTCHA. I've added Interiot's tool and Conservapedia itself. Give them a try and let me know if it works. It's not, of course, an ideal solution for all the other possible links. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:59, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::You mean this whole time there was a simple solution? Oh man. Let's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:HelpJazz&diff=next&oldid=519768 test]. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 09:38, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Hey it worked! You'd think the software would be smart enough to have the domain site on the whitelist by default... Thanks soooooooo much Philip! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 09:39, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

==Vote McCain==
Vote McCain!!! [[Fry2000]]

== Thank you! ==

Thanks for the block! [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 19:23, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:I do what I can :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:24, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

==Ohio==
Well, well. I always thought you were British, for some reason. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:33, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:Nope. Never even visited. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:36, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

== addition article ==

Is there a way to check the user John Peters ? His name is red link in the history. The text added to the article may be correct but makes the article very complex if aimed at a high school level. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 23:56, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:I don't know. "Checkuser" (which I don't have) only tells you what other users have used the same IP address as him, but that doesn't really help in this case. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:19, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

==Blocked==
When I attempted to log in today, I received a notice that my IP address was blocked. I think a schoolmate of mine got himself blocked by you. First and foremost, I apologize for my classmates inappropriate behavior. I will look into who it was and see if I can get them removed from the lab. I would like to ask, however, if something like this happens in the future, is there anyone I can contact about removing the IP block or is it best to just ride it out? Thank you [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 17:05, 23 October 2008 (EDT) PS, I had to edit another user's signature before it would let me post. I think their user name contained something that the spam filter blocked out
:I think the best thing to do is email the person who blocked IP address and include the IP address or block number (it's shown when you try to edit a page). In this case, since you are only blocked at school, you could ask someone with checkuser rights (basically any sysop) to unblock your IP address. I have no way of looking it up, but they can help. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:19, 23 October 2008 (EDT) PS: Out of curiosity, do you know the person I blocked?
::Ok, I will keep that in mind should it happen again. It's hard to do much else except post from school, I don't have a personal computer yet (although I'm working on it) and I don't know for sure who it was, but by cross referencing sign in logs to the time I think I can get a fairly good idea. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 11:54, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

==Pearl Jam - removal of talk edit==
Apologies may be in order. I think I may have removed that talk page contribution...our edits clahed and I must have somehow wiped yours during my amateurish attempts at saving my input. Sorry about that. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 18:15, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
:I figured that's what happened. No biggie. (It was actuallyl Liams that you removed). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:36, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
::Yeah, I didn't mind, so I didn't change it :-) [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 18:38, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks for defending me ==

Thanks for pointing out how others had mistaken comments I made. You are correct with what I said about lying in the Bible, and Peter is a perfect example. However, you and they are wrong to claim that I "cherry pick". My position has always been that you can determine whether something is meant to be taken literally by the context and knowledge of the language, as Professor James Barr (not a creationist) did (see [[creation week]]). And contrary to a claim made by someone of whom I'll have more to say in a moment (this is for their benefit) that [[creation week]] has no evidence, it in fact has (a) a number of supporting arguments about word use (admittedly unreferenced), (b) a referenced quote from an expert (Barr) who also says the other experts agree, and (c) a referenced summary of a formal study into the text. Perhaps ''he'' is simply seeing (or not seeing) what he wants to (not) see. Before I saw your comments, I was thinking of saying something anyway (such as on my user page). That same accuser (Kels) also accused ''me'' and Creation Ministries International of lying, ("he won't hesitate to lie and twist at the slightest opportunity" and "He accepts every lie creationontheweb feeds him") yet offered no evidence of that whatsoever. I accept that many people don't accept my views and think that I'm mistaken, deluded, or even stupid, but I don't go around saying things that I know to be untrue (and nor does CMI). Accusations like that without solid supporting evidence are nothing short of libel (not that I could be bothered suing), and he is despicable for making the accusation, and should be censured by others there, but by their silence they are just as bad. And they have the gall to criticise Conservapedia! Finally, to answer a loaded question, I accept both parts of the creation account, because I see no conflict between them (just like most of the rest of the millions who have studied the Bible for centuries) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:34, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
:Probably these others don't believe in censoring. Maybe you should go and explain your points of view to them at their place. I don't know what this Kels accused you of, but you can't deny that creationontheweb is your number one source of "information". Go and debate them there. Here, as you know, it is impossible. --[[User:JulianAdderley|JulianAdderley]] 09:52, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
:: Since when it is censoring to take someone to task for libel? That CreationOnTheWeb is my main source was not the accusation. How do you not know what he accused me of when I've quoted it above?? I don't go there because I'd end up spending too much time disputing so much of what they say. I spend too much time disputing here without doing it there also. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:18, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I talked about censoring as you yourself said "... and should be '''censured''' by others there". I find it unfair and cowardly that you attack them here instead of debating with them. They'd defend themselves here, but they are not allowed. --[[User:JulianAdderley|JulianAdderley]] 14:29, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
:::: ''censure: to criticise adversely; disapprove; find fault with; condemn.'' That's not the same thing as ''censor''. My reasons for not debating there have been given several times. I agree that the situation is unfortunate, but it's not out of cowardice that I don't debate there. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:38, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, Philip, I didn't mean to imply that you cherry pick (though when I reread the post I was agreeing with, it does seem that that's what I agreed to!). What I meant to say was that you draw a different line than I do on what's literal and what's figurative in the Bible. I've seen you debating this a lot across the site and I know you don't use anything so silly as quote mining or cherry picking :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:57, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
: Thanks for clearing that up. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:38, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

==Ema==
Funny Ema support Jesus as lord and supports Barack Obama because Christian principles are not Obama (gay marriage, abortion, black liberation theology, etc.). It is an oxymoron. How come you don't understand? --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 12:42, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:Because not every Christian in the world believes the exact same thing? Obama is not the anti-Christ. Full disclosure: I'm probably going to vote for McCain, even though I don't really like him, simply to make it harder for Obama to win Ohio. I'm not an Obama fan by a long shot, but saying that no Christian Who Is A True Christian can vote for Obama gives Christianity a bad name. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:46, 3 November 2008 (EST) PS: Is Obama a black liberation theologist or a Muslim? He can't be both.

::My fellow Buckeye, it is evident that many Christians will vote for Obama, just by observing primary statistics. I am just saying Christians are confused about their faith if they vote Obama. So he is not the anti-Christ. His views are anti-Christian. If a true Christian votes cares for values and votes Obama, well then, they are giving Christianity a bad name.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 12:51, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::Jpatt, check worldwide statistics on support for the two candidates. They are pretty clear on which of the two candidates the majority of all the Christians in the world support. If you are too lazy to check by yourself, it's Obama. I find that a pretty convincing argument on who has more Christian values. --[[User:JennyM|JennyM]] 12:54, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::::: What statistics? Not only have I seen no such statistics, I can't imagine that anybody is going to survey Christians worldwide to find out with of the two American presidential candidates they prefer. And Christian values are defined by the Bible, not by the values of the person that Christians would prefer to see as American president. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:31, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Just google around, not difficult to find. Sorry to hear about your lack of imagination, Philip, as imagination is what keeps us young! Surely Christian values are defined by the Bible, not by Jpatt. Quite arrogant of Jpatt to "know" that McCain has more Christian values than Obama. Billions of Christians worldwide disagree. --[[User:Jessica|Jessica]] 07:26, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::::::: If they're not difficult to find, why can't you link to them? And how many is "billions", given that there's about 2.1 billion Christians ''in total'', and they wouldn't all prefer Obama. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:47, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::50 % of 2.1 billion is more than one billion. Since all the polls show more way more than 50 %, it's not difficult to infer the "billions". --[[User:Jessica|Jessica]] 07:52, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::: Although a plural word indicates more than one, my understanding it that it is more than one ''unit'' ("billion" being the unit in this case), which doesn't allow for fractions, so "billions" means at least 2 billion. So where are these worldwide polls? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:00, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::You are wrong on two counts. First of all, when approaching or surpassing 1.5, it is perfectly legitimate to use the plural. Second, "billions", as well as "dozens" or "tens", is a perfectly acceptable way to convey ''order of magnitude''. For the polls you'll have to look by yourself. I have no time now. But do you really doubt it? --[[User:Jessica|Jessica]] 08:11, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: I do doubt that such surveys exist. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:28, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::Philip's a busy guy, but I'm notoriously bored, so I went and looked. I found plenty of surveys that showed Obama winning international popularity contests, but none of them claimed to select only Christians.
::::::::::::To the larger point of it being possible for Christians to select Obama - of course it's possible. I did it, for one. (Sorry, HelpJazz.) [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 10:56, 5 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo I can't be your online friend anymore! ;-) It's ok, in a way I wanted Obama to win. I truely believe that once the hype wore off, either candidate would have been a pretty lame duck president. If McCain won, they would just blame it on Bush, and then a candidate who's even more liberal than Obama would be elected in '12. If Obama won, then when he is (ok this tense is all messed up now, bear with me here) not the Messiah that he's supposed to be I can laugh and feel morally superior and smug and all those cool things I like to do :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:02, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::::Yeah, he doesn't match my politics in a lot of ways, but neither does the 2008 version of McCain, and Bob Barr was a carpet-bagger of a Libertarian and I refuse to endorse that. Boiled down to the fact that I felt a McCain vote is an endorsement of the current administration, for all the lip service he pays to "change."
::::::::::::::You might enjoy checking out [http://thebigstick.wordpress.com/ this blog I found] by a guy who posts on Ames' blog comments. He's a fairly articulate guy who doesn't get all riled up (in other words, don't hold Ames against him) (although Ames is plenty articulate, he just gets caught up in things...). [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 13:02, 5 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::::Grrr lost a post. Ok this is the last thing I say and then I'll be done for a while because this faulty connection thing is annoying. I didn't like any of the candidates this year, and as much as I hated myself for doing it, I had to vote against a candidate instead of for a candidate. I almost considered writing in Ron Paul just for the heck of it. *Off to read that blog link, which probably has a much better connection than this site does right now* [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:14, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Oh if the world wants Obama, then I should shut up, duh. It is convincing who has more Christian values. Hint, it aint Obama.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 13:01, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::And again I say you are trying to impose one set of beliefs on all Christians, and you are questioning the faith of those who believe differently than you. Not everybody is a one or two issue voter, you know. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:44, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::PS: Since you brought up same sex marriage, both Obama and Biden ''oppose'' it [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.samesexmarriage.html]. And you didn't mention stem cell research: McCain supports federal funding of it [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.stemcell.html]. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:54, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::: "McCain supports federal funding of ... Obama"??? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:31, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::Whoops! Fixed. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:36, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::: Oh. I thought you might have meant "and Obama does also". And to clarify, nobody has any objection to funding stem cell research. Or are you saying that McCain supports funding ''embryonic'' stem cell research? In any case, I expect that it's a case not of claiming that McCain is correct in all his views, but that they are, overall, better than Obama's. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:14, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::I did mean embryonic. To be fair, he only wants funding on embryos that are going to be discarded anyway -- I don't know if pro-lifers are ok with that. If I understand Jpatt's argument, he was trying to argue that no Christians can vote for Obama because he doesn't hold Christian values. Not only that, but he presented it as the only correct choice and anyone with a differing opinion doesn't have enough faith. I was trying to point out that Jesus is not running for president. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:39, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: Write-ins FTW!! [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 22:26, 3 November 2008 (EST) ''<-Jesus/Holy Ghost '08!''
:::::::::: Was it okay to experiment on the Jews who were going to the gas chambers in Nazi Germany because they were going to die anyway?
:::::::::: I tend to agree that Americans tie their religion too closely to their politics, but on the other hand, I can understand where he's probably coming from (although I should point out that I don't know what prompted the first post in this section). A Christian believes that God is the ultimate reality, and therefore that God's standards are more important than anything else more worldly. Therefore, in comparing two different candidates, the one that most closely follows God's standards is the one that Christians should vote for. That is, God's standards (such as on moral issues) are not just a minor consideration, but should be a major deciding factor. To that extent, I would agree with Jpatt. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:38, 3 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::What you missed was the conversaion on (the now blocked) [[user:Ema]]'s talk page. She said something about how Obama was going to win, to which Jpatt replied: "Funny how you accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and support Barack Obama." I don't think there's anything wrong to use your faith as a factor in deciding who to vote for, but to presume that ones (clearly at least partially incorrect, as seen by the gay marriage comment on this page) interpretation is infallible is hubris at its best. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:48, 3 November 2008 (EST)

==My vacation==

Hey! It's good to be back. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:07, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:Now get to work *wchapshh!* [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:45, 3 November 2008 (EST)

That has a nice [[beat]] to it . . . --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:53, 3 November 2008 (EST)

==[[User:BHarlan]]==
My apologies for bothering you with this.... But is this user for real? Or is he a parodist? If he is real, he is a very difficult person to work with. He is currently edit warring on the [[Rodney King]] page and is generally making things difficult for other users? Is there anything we can do? I think this [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Rodney_King&diff=550213&oldid=550211 this edit] sums up everything. [[User:SamuelA|SamuelA]] 18:03, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:To engage in an edit war while insisting "don't edit war" is parody at its worst.
:I contribute here by editing articles to add information, sometimes in the form of sentences and paragraphs. I suggest you do the same.
:In the meantime, I will try to be more like the Christ. He was very forgiving. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:08, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::If that doesn't clear things up for you, nothing will. There is nothing you can do about it. [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 18:23, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:::I try not to comment on the nature of parodists, unless I am blocking someone for it. It's too messy otherwise. However, BHarlan, I would ask that you be a little nicer. Legitimate editors can be blocked for not working well with others. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:56, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== Template thanks ==

Thanks for your work on {{tl|homosexualityb}} - it will be much easier to edit now. Just wanted to let you know that these things don't go unnoticed.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:03, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:Thanks. All I really did was add a line break in between each thing, since I have a hard time reading all those links squished together. A single line break won't show up in the end result, but it makes the code a little easier to look at.
:''You'' should be the one being thanked though. None of your work goes unnoticed, but I'm willing to wager that most of it is thankless. Until now!! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:26, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::I wouldn't say thankless - just yesterday Ed Poor was if anything over-generous. Congratulations on the message below, by the way.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:34, 14 November 2008 (EST)

==Sysop rights==

Er, I meant that you've been nominated in our secret enclave to become a sysop. Until then, all you edits show up for me in Recent Changes with a red mark. When you become a sysop, we don't have to patrol your changes any more. I think Jessica and Bert should be sysops. No one ever reverts them. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:08, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:I'm sure I've been nominated more than once... I'll believe it when I see it though ;-)
:About those red exlamation points: I've seen them before (not here, obviously). It makes me wonder what Wikimedia was thinking (or was it Wikipedia? Which came first?) -- do they seriously expect every single edit by a non-sysop to be marked as patrolled? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:32, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Ed, there is a reason why secret enclaves are secret. It is very unclear right now what direction Andy wishes to go and we should avoid any indication to our valued editors of what the future may hold that may not in fact be fulfilled. It can only cause possible embitterment or disenchantment and we certainly don't want that among any of the people who have made great contributions to our project. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:35, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::No worries, LT. I haven't gotten my hopes up, and my feelings won't be hurt. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:42, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Lest I trip over my beard, I must remind myself that Wikipedia was only two years old when the patrol feature was created. The rate of edits was so low that one sysop could do all the patrolling by himself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:44, 14 November 2008 (EST)

==Block==
You were blocked for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=557690 this] edit. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:53, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:Oops, my mistake. I have been away for a while, would you please sum up the events that have occured during my absence? Thanks. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:57, 15 November 2008 (EST)
::May I unblock him so he can answer? Blocked users cannot edit their own user talk pages here - although (thanks to me!) they can do so at Wikipedia. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:59, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::(Sorry Ed, I didn't know if anyone else was watching. PS: is there an easier way to unblock an IP address? I can't seem to figure out how to do it).
:::Henry, much has gone on since you went on vacation. I saw it all, but I'm not sure I can explain it all myself. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:01, 15 November 2008 (EST)

HJ, I am sorry that I blocked you. I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 21:09, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:It's ok, you picked a bad time to make a joke, is all. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:10, 15 November 2008 (EST) <-- NOONE expects the Spanish Inquisition!!! (There's never a bad time for that joke!)
::Did someone mention an Inquisition? Oh goody! (rubbing hands in glee!) --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:12, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::Our chief weapon is surprise! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:14, 15 November 2008 (EST)
::::I say we start a conservapedia inquisition. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 21:21, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Depends on who gets inquisitioned. Inquisized? Inquised? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:33, 15 November 2008 (EST)
::::::It is always THEM, Jazz! We go after <big>THEM!!!</big> --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:47, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::I stopped playing with blocks when I was six.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:02, 15 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::It is so noted. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:22, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Not a single block! That's impressive and unexpected. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:28, 15 November 2008 (EST)
*Well I am fairly certain that won't last. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:48, 16 November 2008 (EST)

==Crackpots==
*"I don't know why I bother, i'm sure some crackpot out there has said this" [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gay_heroism&diff=558704&oldid=558703]
A moment of candor. It's nice to know what you think of the sources we draw upon. I can tell you at least one person who said that: the [[User:Ed_Poor|person who wrote the article]]. Now think about whether you meant what you wrote. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 07:44, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:My point being that even though "gay heroism" is likely ''not'' part of a campaign to legitimize homosexuality, you can find a source that says anything, and there's really no standard for sources on this webite. I didn't mean that you had to be a crackpot to believe it, but I'm willing to wager that you won't find a mainstream source to back up that statement (yeah, yeah liberal bias). I wasn't calling Ed Poor a crackpot, since an editor's opinion can't be used as a source (a policy Ed himself helped to write), but yes, I still mean what I wrote. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:47, 16 November 2008 (EST)

==Sillly edit==
You are being silly but I will let it stand.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 14:47, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:Maybe I would have been in a nicer mood had you asked first, but now there's really no way to know, is there? You probably blocked their IP's anyway, which I'm guessing is why you are taking the "high road" now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:55, 16 November 2008 (EST)

==Your block==
Now try and stay civilised about this and discuss it here. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:05, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:You really make me laugh, you know? ''Bugler has no right to undo my blocks''. What on earth have you been doing in the past months, trying to worry me to an early grave? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:09, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::C'mon, HelpJazz. C'mon, man. Tell me. Have you never reverted an edit of mine? Heh? have you? Have you never reverted an edit of mine? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:13, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::(Edit conflict: Bugler's original comment was: "Now try and stay civilised about this and discuss it here.") I did discuss it. Jpatt has no right to undo my blocks; you have no right to undo my blocks. You then blocked me (and blocked my IP address for no reason other than to be annoying) with no legitimate reason. Blocking doesn't work if any other editor can decide to change another's blocks. Believe me, Bugler, be happy I respect this simple principle. If you think I complain a lot ''now'', how do you think you'd like it if I simply undid every block you did that I didn't think was appropriate? Now, a ''sysop'' has the power (and the right) to correct a block I made erroneously; a sysop's decisions take precidence over mine. Any other non-sysop has no greater authority over me. If they were to ask, I might reconsider. I've made mistakes in the past. But simply ignoring normal modes of respect is unacceptable. If you undo any of my blocks (ever) I will redo them, and I expect you would do the same.
:::Edit conflict (Bugler's *new* comment, I suspect he's intentionally edit conflicting me, is "You really make me laugh, you know? ''Bugler has no right to undo my blocks''. What on earth have you been doing in the past months, trying to worry me to an early grave?"): Which blocks of yours did I undo, except the ones where you blocked me? Name one and I'll quit this site.
:::Edit conflict *again*: First of all, edits are fundamentally different than blocks. It's clear that if you were to insert a spelling error, there is no conflict in me fixing it. Every editor on this site is given the "responsiblity" of editing. However, in getting "block" rights, Andy has decided that he trusts your judgment enough that you are given the "privilede" to excercise your good judement by blocking people. In undoing a ''block'' you are telling both me and Andy that your judgement is better than ours.
:::Even though it is irrelevant (as I have shown) I can still answer your question: Have I ever undone an ''edit'' you have done? Yes I have. Have I ever undone an edit you have done while giving no explanation or reason? No, I don't think I have. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:20, 16 November 2008 (EST)
You have certainly never given an ''adequate'' explanation. however, I am able to let the dead bury the dead. WEhat matters, as I am trying to get across to you, is the welfare of Conservapedia. I think your lenient 'name only' blocks of the two hangmen are entirely wrong for two key reasons. 1. The insults were so gross that the perpetrators do not deserve a second chance. 2. The insults, being so gross, indicate that teh perpetratorsm, if allowed back into CP, as you are in effect doing, have the potential to cause huge damage through vandalism, causing editors here an enormous amount of clean-up work.

I hope you will accept that I have not deliberately tried to edit conflict you; that is not my style. I say what I think, to you and to others. And the block was not intended to block you: I knew you would revert it post-haste. It was to get a breathing space to remove damaging saboteurs from the site. Saboteurs who you have since restored to grace. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:31, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:I cannot remember whether you have reverted any of my blocks. Given what you say, I presume you disapprove of Tim's high handed action yesterday (and before, regarding Daphnea), and PJR's similar actions towards me in the past. For the rceord, Jpatt is one of the best new editors and sysop-lites we have here. He should be encouraged and cherished, not subjected to beastings. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:33, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::(It again took you three edits to say what you think; if you instead use the preview button, you don't run the risk of edit conflicted other users multiple times)
::For starters, how did I not adequately explain why it was wrong for Jpatt to undo my block? You gave no explanation.
::Secondly, if you think my blocks are lenient, there's nothing stopping you from ''asking me about it''. There is way too much overeager blocking on this site; shame on me if I follow the letter of the law. That gives no excuse for someone else to change it without asking me. (You will notice that they never recreated their account).
::Thirdly, I can tell you that I have never undone any other editor's blocks, unless the blocks were obvious vandalism (Like MexMax) or if they were joking (like Bohdan last night).
::Fourthly, if you read what I wrote, I clearly said that I have no problem with a ''sysop'' going over the head of a normal editor. You and I are both editors, and Tim and PJR are both sysops. I don't know about Daphnea, but seeing as how you didn't undo a single one of HotDog's edits, you didn't really have a case there anyway, did you? I'd also be surprised if PJR undid a block without any explanation, but again, as a sysop it's entirely within his rights.
::Lastly, I have no responsibility to encourage or cherish someone for doing something they had no right to do. Had Jpatt asked me, I would have said "Thank you for asking Jpatt, here's my explanation." He showed no respect for me, and I had no obligation to give him any in return. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::: 1. Sysop rights have no merit whatsoever when they are abused, as I believe they were yesterday. 2. So what is your justification for giving the hangmen free rein in Conservapedia? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:48, 16 November 2008 (EST)
Hey people, don't fight. You are both good and valuable contributors. If you have to revert someone (but pleease don't block), revert my contributions: they are not as valuable as yours. Please, both of you, advance our common cause by being unite against our enemies! --[[User:Drunk|Drunk]] 15:51, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:Thank you, Drunk. I would however appreciate an acknowledgement from HelpJazz that I don't deliberately time my edits to disrup him with edit conflicts. t sounds a strange thing, and a very difficult one, to do in any case. I frequently gnash my teeth over ECs, but I don't for a moment imagine that enemies are doing it deliberately to frustrate me. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:56, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::I don't have much wiki experience, but to time edits to disrupt with edit conflicts seems very far-fetched even in my "high" (sorry) state. There are much more effective ways to disrupt. But HelpJazz, why do you think that Bugler is disrupting? Maybe it's just an incomprehension between you? --[[User:Drunk|Drunk]] 16:00, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::(Ironically, an edit conflict) 1. Then there's really no point in having sysops, is there? As much as you whine about the "liberal whinging about every decisions", do you really want to assert that every time someone thinks another user is abusing their power, that person has no obligation to sumbit to the abuser's power? Or are you the only one who gets to decide when someone is abusing power?
::::2. Free reign? Hardly. Had I wanted to give them free reign I would have unblocked them. Instead, I gave them the opportunity to rethink their actions and either go away, or come back in a better frame of mind. What's the worse that could have happened? Had they created another inappropriate username, I would have blocked them with account creation disabled (and yes, I have done this before); had they created an account and started vandalising I would have blocked their account with account creation disabled; had they never returned there's no harm to CP; had they returned and been a good editor then CP is all the better. I refuse to block people for something they might do. )This is not to say that I will contest any user who blocks people this way).
::::Ironic edit conflict: I'll admit that the first time may not have been intentional. It's very strange for someone to make three edits in a row, when they know that all three warrant a response, but the evidence is not conclusive enough to say that you did it on purpose. (I also misread the diffs and thought you were replacing your text, which lead more evidence to my claim). However, doing the exact same thing after I already pointed it out is a bit suspicious, no? That's why, to give you the benefit of the doubt, I instructed you to use the "show preview" button, which is the surefire way to avoid edit conflicts. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:07, 16 November 2008 (EST)
You got blocked again?! Ouch. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 16:12, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:You ''instructed'' me? My, oh my! I thought that editors had no authority over editors, but now I am expected to comply with the instructions of HelpJazz! Have you been appointed Lord High Panjandrum while I have been away? If so, please instruct me on the correct protocol. Is it a bow from the waist, or a full kow-tow? Do I have to walk backwards when I depart the August HelpJazzian Presence? My Lord will please excuse his humble servant's ignorance of etiquette! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 18:06, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::Bugler, please cool it, or I'll have to send an email to Andy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:13, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Well, honestly! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 18:14, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::Instruct (v.): to give knowledge to. Yes, that's what I did. I didn't say "commanded" or "required" or "demanded" or "forced" or "insisted". Alternatively, I could have said "taught" or "advised" or "showed" or "informed". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:23, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Perhaps this is a cultural difference. In the UK, instruct means order, tell. 'Advise' might have been the polite option. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 18:27, 16 November 2008 (EST)

== Category Discussion... ==

I have somehow missed the discussion about changing Categories from Liberals to Liberalism. Can you direct me, and possibly Ed Poor to it? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:49, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:I'm sorry, I didn't realize I had to discuss my use of common sense. Can you direct me to the rule that says this please? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:51, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::Are you quite certain you want to have this show-down? What exactly will you gain or lose? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:54, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::What showdown? Is there such a page? If not, I'm going to continue using my common sense. "Liberals" are people; "liberalism" is an idea. An idea is not a person and a person is not an idea. (And a person and an idea are not an organization). What's to discuss?
:::Just because you are back, it doesn't mean you can boss me around again, TK. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't work that way anymore. You won on {{tl|liberalism}}, what more do you want? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:56, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::::Boss you? Are you in 2nd grade, or what? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:57, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::I take it you don't have an answer to any of my question then? In that case, I'll continue what I'm doing. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:58, 16 November 2008 (EST)

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

:L. Beryl Baez is a person? [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal_bias_in_academia&curid=59501&diff=560052&oldid=525222&rcid=610515] I didn't understand your edit comment. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:16, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::Oh, wait: I misread it. "liberal bias is a concept, not a person" --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:18, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:::Wait, his bot is going to add everything from the "liberals" "liberalism" and "liberal organizations" categories and dump them all together into a "liberal" category? Why? Aren't categories supposed to be nouns? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:21, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::[[Homosexual Agenda]] is under the subcategory [[:Category:Liberal Deceit]]. [[Evolution]] isn't under any of the liberal categories at all. It doesn't usually make sense to put everything on a template into the same category. It makes category renames easier, but everything else harder, and category renames don't happen that often. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 20:26, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::(EC) <s>Ed, "liberal bias in acedemia", which is the title of the article, is not a person. There might be people mentioned in the article, but do you seriously want to put every single article that so much as mentions a liberal into the "liberals" category? That would mean that, for example, [[John McCain]] would be in the liberals category.</s> (EC -- this is happening a lot today. Maybe I should increase my typing speed) I think you understand where I'm coming from now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:21, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:::::You and Interiot are indeed "understood". I merely suggested one way to quickly add articles to a category, was not suggesting that would be the ONLY category applied. To me it was far easier to change the category "Liberal'''s'''" to Liberal, no plural. The "discussion-without-end" over this is everything that is wrong about Conservapedia, and in my opinion, by design and spite. However, if people want to run around like a chicken with its head cut off, in spite, go ahead. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:32, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Easier isn't always best. It might be "easier" to just put everything in the "liberal" category but (a) it goes against the category conventions and (b) it's not very descriptive.
::::::I don't see who's running around with a chicken with it's head cut off, either. All I was doing was putting articles into the most logical, pre-existing category. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:36, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::Yes, after you publicly got angry over it, insisting you were being "bossed". Do whatever you wish, of course. You and a few others insisted you were correct over something that was decided by admins months and months ago, and you don't care. I will no longer participate in this silly arguing on your part, Jazz. It is pointless, and nothing is urgent about this. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::Can you point to me where admins decided how the template should be used? Maybe I just missed it; all this mess will be cleared up rather quickly. The only thing I can find is where a group of people (including a sysop) decided how it was to be used, and then you unilaterally decided not to use it that way. So when I did what you wanted and started adding the template how you wanted to, somehow I can't do it right and I need permission to use common sense. Can you just tell me what to do already and get it over with? All this time I'm spending on my talk page I could be using to impliment the template ''you'' wanted to use. So please, direct me to the admin decision that was made months ago, so that I may submit myself to it and continue editing this encyclopedia. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:51, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Sysop discussions are not done that way, you know that, and you have absolutely no right to insist they should be. I asked Brianco to create it. I got Andy's permission, and that is that. No one, least of all me, said you were adding it incorrectly. What I do know is you got me on AIM highly agitated and upset I was using it. That is what I know. My only dispute was your public snit, and insistence about changing categories, and impatience that you were not answered IMEDIATELY, and posting that you were just going to proceed. I have the IM archive, from months ago, when you were informed about the template. And even that doesn't matter. You alone have decided you don't like the template. So, take it off, if you like. We will just make a new template, and not call it a nav box, thus removing your original complaint that it was being used for a purpose not intended for nav boxes. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:03, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:In other words, I have to take your word for it that any discussion took place?
:"You and you alone?" What about the other people who responded on the talk page? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:07, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::Yes, that's pretty much it, Jazz. We assume good faith. That is the Christian way. If I say it was that way, it was. If it is untrue, Andy can post saying I am mistaken or a liar. This is something, a Red Herring, you decided to dredge up and dispute, from months ago! It was only after I was no longer a sysop, that some people, including you, thought that meant some kind of wholesale reversal of policy could be made. That is indeed fuzzy logic. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:15, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Then let's have Andy post. You are using something I've never seen in order to control my actions.
:::I dredged it up? Really? Funny, nobody discussed the liberalism template until you came back and started doing the exact same thing you were doing when you left.
:::Wholesale reversal of policy? The policy was "TK is right; you must have permission from TK to do anything; TK has discussed everything through email with Andy". When TK is gone, the policy breaks down. Now you are back, you have no idea what has gone on in the last 7 months, and you just assume that everything is as it was. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:10, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::Speaking of what has gone on, could you sum it up tonight? Please? You refused to last night :( [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::When did you go on vacation? How long have you been gone? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:18, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::::About a month or two. When I was last here, you and another user were engaged in bitter dispute over "big science" or something like that. Is this Buglre a sysop? Are you? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:21, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::I don't think there have been any promotions in the last month or two. I'll never be promoted, so that's not something you ever have to ask ;-)
:::::::Hrm... what have you missed in the last few months? Ed and TK came back (which I'm sure you can tell).
:::::::Multiple fights have ensued, people have been called idiots, noone's been blocked -- not much has changed. (Big science got moved to the essay space though). Read over my talk page, Bugler's talk page, PJR's talk page and the Obama talk page, (Maybe Ed's talk page too) and that pretty much sums up everything you need to know over the last couple months. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:27, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::Were you called an idiot? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:29, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Not me, but Tim was (check out Bugler's talk page, I think).
:::::::::I just checked my spam email (all my CP mail goes straight to spam) and found emails from two different editors asking me to intercede with their blocks by the same user. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:33, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::Straight to spam? I have been sending you emails everyday for the past two months. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:35, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::Straight to spam. Curiously, I haven't seen any emails from teh Bohdan. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:40, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::Has anyone called me an idiot? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:42, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::Doubtful. Who could call you an idiot and expect to get away with it? I mean *seriously*! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:46, 16 November 2008 (EST)

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

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

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

By your less than kind, throw-away comments, like the "I'm sure you can tell..." above, you show yourself to be just another mean & hateful person. Just goes to show how wrong I was about you, your character, and your being good material for an admin. BTW, Ed Poor was another who put himself out there, promoting you for sysop to Andy. I have always been honest with you, always told you CP wasn't like Wikipedia, and that the owner didn't aspire to it under any circumstances. Given your actions in the past 24 hours, I know Andy was correct in holding back. I was wrong, he was right. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:55, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:TK, you started all of the arguments. Want to know how many arguments there were about the use of the liberalism template while you were gone? None. Want to know how many arguments there were about categories when you were gone? None. Formatting? None. The liberalness of Fred Phelps? None. But then within 24 hours of your arrival, all of the same arguments show up, and somehow it's everyone else's fault.

:Do you really think I could tell you what I thought of you when you were holding the banhammer over my head? I'm sorry we aren't best buddies, but our entire "relationship" consists of you telling me what to do. That's all you ever do, is tell people what to do. You came back to this site and all ready you have told Philip he's not allowed to talk on your page, you have told Brianco that he's not privy to conversations from those "above his pay grade", you have told Sideways that he's not allowed to change an edit made by Conservative, you have told me that because you start things, only you know the Truth about how they are to be used. You have only been here '''one day'''.

:I'm just another mean and hateful person? Because I thought that Bohdan can read my talk page to see you are back?

:You continually tell me CP is not like Wikipedia, and I continually tell you that '''I'm not trying to make CP like Wikipedia'''. I continually tell you that I don't even edit at Wikipedia, and yet somehow everything I do is in the "Wikipedia mindset". I'm not imposing my liberal worldview, I'm not motivated by neutrality, and I'm not using a coverup of liberalism to make desicions. Every single thing I do is to further the encycopedia '''within the Commandments''' and every reason I give is backed up by '''logic'''. I'm sorry if you don't think these are good qualities for being an admin. I'm sorry if you put yourself out on a limb to back me (which I can only take on your word; I know that Ed has vouched for me because I've actually seen it -- yet another advantage to skipping AIM in leu of the website right here at our fingertips), only to find out that sometimes following the rules means you can't always spew whatever crazy you want. I'm sorry that I'm harming your goal of destroying CP from within by using the rules on CP to rein you in. I'm sorry I gave you a second chance two nights ago, by telling you about what was going on at CP. Had I known that you were really just gathering intel into the power structures so that you could come back and wedge yourself back in, I might have pretended I wasn't home. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:27, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::So the copies of my emails to Andy, that you were copied on, CC, not BCC, months and months ago, are not to you "proof" that I backed you? You really are a despicable person. So, now you admit you are on AIM. Previously you posted you never use it, only did so because I requested it, demanded it. Oh well. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:37, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::I don't seem to have any of your emails to Andy. The closest I could find was one where you told me that you forwarded Andy, but I don't actually have any CCs. I highly doubt I deleted them since I have copies of many other random emails from you.
:::I previously explained that I never use AIM to talk to ''editors on CP''. I still use it for my personal communications. Is that clear now? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:35, 17 November 2008 (EST)

==Blocking [[User:TK]]==

Please provide reference and/or diffs to illustrate "insinuating that motorcycle accident which put a valued contributer in a coma for 10 days didn't actually happen; if someone wants to extend this block be my guest". [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] was wrong to undo your block but you should have asked an admin yourself, or Andy. Users with block rights (but no admin rights) should only block for clear and cut vandalism. I know this is not in the commandments, guidelines or user rights page but we are forming some kind of policy to address this in the near future. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 05:00, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:Actually it is [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:User_rights#Blocking_rights|here]: "''To counter blatant vandalism, some editors have the ability to block vandals. These particular rights may be granted to users who demonstrate an ongoing ability to revert vandalism. Users are also encouraged to report suspected vandals to the administration (preferably supplying evidence with diffs). Editors granted '''blocking rights should only use them for blocking vandals or other cases where immediate blocking is required. Other violations should be referred to an administrator.'''''" It Just hasn't been enforced very well so far. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 09:11, 17 November 2008 (EST)
::Jallen: As you know, BrianCo is a valued contributer to our website who was in a horrible motorcycle accident which put him '''in a coma for 10 days'''. TK, when confronted with the fact that he was '''outright lying''' about the fact that he was the one who asked for the {{tl|liberalism}} template (which was his entire reasoning for being able to use the template in the manner he demanded, and not how the community decided), responded with the following accusation: "Was this on your trip to Mexico, Genghis, or your later motorcycle accident recovery? Inquiring minds want to know!" [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template_talk:Liberalism&diff=prev&oldid=560367]. There is absolutely '''no excuse''' for such an '''unchristian''' comment towards another editor. I may not have been within my rights to block him (though I would certainly argue that this was a case where "immediate blocking is required"), but TK's incredibly low blow was intirely inexcusable, and I couldn't wait for a sysop to decide. If Bugler was the one who undid my block, then I'm going to redo it; I've said before (and you apparently agree) that Bugler had no right to undo it. Until a sysop tells me otherwise that it's ok for an editor to make light of a life-threatening event, I won't unblock TK. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:17, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:::HelpJazz, you have overstepped your authority in blocking TK. You are only allowed to use your blocking rights for vandalism. I don't believe you were justified with the immediate block either. "I couldn't wait for a sysop to decide" is not valid in this situation. I have undone your block. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 12:37, 17 November 2008 (EST)
::::Since you have undone my block, then you have made a decision. Thank you. I'm going to go appologice to BrianCo now, and I'll probably be too mad to edit today. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:39, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:Something both Tim and Dean "conveniently overlooked" in this little bashfest: '''"This restriction of only blocking vandals applies only to editors granted blocking rights after this amendment was posted in December 2007."''' (it's the footnote). And guess when HelpJazz got his rights:
::18:34, 13 September 2007 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) changed group membership for User:HelpJazz from (none) to Block
:So HelpJazz didn't overstep his authority. He is above that restriction. Unlike certain other people who block whenever they feel like it.
:Signed, a guy who will likely get instantly blocked for <s>correcting a sysop</s> <s>supporting HelpJazz</s> Not Minding His Own Business, Opposing The Project and Only Engaging In Liberal Claptrap That Goes Against Our 90/10 Rule. --[[User:SiemerD|SiemerD]] 15:09, 17 November 2008 (EST)
::What you have found is true. HelpJazz did not overstep his authority. Of course a sysop can undo his block if the sysop believes there is a reason to do so, but it should be done with respect, recognizing that we do owe a debt of gratitude to the longterm editors who have been faithful contributors to this project and have a strong track record of helping us both with articles and with administrative tasks. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:29, 17 November 2008 (EST)

HelpJazz, I think it's important to point out that no one is saying that TK's statement was appropriate; you are correct in being concerned. The only thing being questioned is the block itself. During different times when he was on this site, TK has mixed obstinate gruffness with a jovail nature and helping out a number of users -- myself included. I owe much of my knowledge of Conservapedia to TK and so do many others. You wound up stepping in a tender area because there have been blocking wars in the past and it is still a senstive issue. I wouldn't take any personal affront to what has occurred. Your own contributions to this site continue to be valued. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:41, 17 November 2008 (EST)
::: SiemerD seems to be (have been) a kind of prophet:
:::*17:39, 17 November 2008 Bugler (Talk | contribs) blocked SiemerD (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 month (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk: Sole reason for joining: to make trouble)
:::BTW:
:::*10:25, 10 June 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) changed group membership for User:Bugler from (none) to Block, edit and Upload ‎
:::So, while we are discussing these rules: did SiemerD's post require immediate action? Was he a vandal?--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 17:55, 17 November 2008 (EST)

===Response===
There are multiple issues at work here: whether or not I had the right to block TK, and whether or not the block was justified.

It has been clearly shown that, due to a grandfather clause, I was within the rules in blocking an editor for something other than vandalism. (And despite SiemerD's swipe, I don't think Jallen or Tim intentionally neglected to mention the grandfather clause; I didn't know of it myself). However, it is always true that a sysop can undo a block of a regular editor, even if that editor had the rights to make the block

Learn together claims "it's important to point out that no one is saying that TK's statement was appropriate"; this is mostly true ''de juro'' on my talk page. (However I think Ed Poor echoed TK's sentiments on the talk page, thus agreeing that TK's statment was not inappropriate; but nobody on this talk page ''de juro'' stated that TK's actions were ok). However, anyone involved ''de facto'' agreed that TK's actions were ok, by not exercising their own authority to reblock him. Had anyone placed the offence of his statement above their reticence of blocking a well-connected user, they would have had no problem reblocking him, or at least publicly asking if he should have been reblocked. As it is, he was not blocked, and no one (again, except Ed Poor, who seems to have endorsed TK's statement) made a statement either way as to whether it was a blocking offense.

Perhaps I should explain the history of this case (most if not all relevant proof can be found at [[template talk:liberalism]]):
*BrianCo created the template in February
*In April, TK started adding the template in a manner inconsistant with other templates of it's type
*It was discussed in April, and decided that TK's use of the template was wrong
*TK leaves for ~7 months
*When TK returns, he almost immediately continues his previous actions
*When pointed to the April discussion, he claims that he was the one who wanted the template, therefore he could use it however he wanted (this argument was not brought up in April)
*Other users (really, just me) tried to argue that it doesn't matter that TK created the template, but eventually gave in to the futillity of the argument, and started adding the template to pages based on the fact that TK, as creator of the template, dictated its use
*BrianCo, the person who actually built the template, points out that TK could not have asked for the template, since he had not edited for a month before or after the template was created.
*TK, out of left field and out of arguments, accuses BrianCo of being a sock, and questions the validity of a motorcycle accident which could have taken BrianCo's life.

Is such a response approprite or proportionate? Is this how we are to treat our fellow editors? Bugler calls respected editors maggots and long-time sysops idiots, and nobody cares. But there's a mile difference between calling someone an idiot and taking a jovial attitude on such a serious issue. What if TK had said "ha ha ha, yeah right like I believe you were raped" or "say, how's your murdered wife doing these days?" or "hey, sorry to hear about the miscarriage, good thing the kid never existed!" I can't, in good Christian conscience, allow someone to run around saying such hurtful, unwarranted, unproven and unChristian statements. Unlike the many users and sysops who know of and are ignoring this argument, I can't sit on the fence. This is a serious enough issue that I jumped off with both feet. And I hope that one day there is an issue strong enough to move others to take a stand as well, but I'm afraid to see what that issue is, when this issue is not it.

[[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:36, 18 November 2008 (EST)

PS: Since this whole discussion is about properly enforcing the rules, I think it should be mentioned that it's very clear that they are only being enforced "fairly" when it is in the interest of the ruling sysop. As BRichtigen pointed out, Bugler does not have the authority to block SiemerD for 90/10 (and clearly, a 1 edit 90/10 is ludicrous anyway; are we to block editors who use the [[sandbox]] before they make real edits? I should think not) and yet nobody has decided to unblock SiemerD or punish Bugler. In fact, Bugler is the winner in this case: he won the block, and he was able to make racist remarks about ''two'' senior sysops without real penalty; proving again to himself (and everyone watching) that he clearly can do whatever he wants to, without recourse.

==Your role at Conservapedia==

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

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

:Wow. Just, wow. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 14:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Ed, I do not concur with your assessment. Four days ago, after having worked with HelpJazz for a year and a half, you were praising him as a future sysop. I would hate to see short term changes impact the long term viability of the Conservapedia site. You are aware of the positive accolades he has received behind closed doors by a number of sysops. We need editors like HelpJazz just as much now as we did four days ago. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:57, 18 November 2008 (EST)

: I've reinstated the section that Ed Poor deleted on the grounds of "''don't put personal information about others here - not without their express, written permission - give it to Andy if you have it''". First, I don't know that there's any personal information here that isn't already public knowledge. Second, even if there is, I'm sure that it doesn't required deleting the entire section and subsection. Third, what is Andy going to do about it anyway?
: Also, the Guidelines say nothing about using IM, let alone mandating it.
: If you can't understand the "feud" with TK, Ed, then perhaps you should try reading that section that you deleted.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:04, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== Blocking Rights ==

It has been determined that, indeed, you have the same range of blocking reasons available to you as any sysop. Please use this to continue to assist the project. We can use your help. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)

User talk:HelpJazz

2016-09-06T19:21:51Z

HelpJazz: Move to archive

User talk:HelpJazz

2016-09-06T19:20:50Z

HelpJazz: oops

{| style="width: 100%; border: black solid 1px; background-color: lightgrey;"
|-
|{{Useful links|float=right}}<center><big>'''Guidelines for my talk page'''</big></center>
*Please, no "ping-pong" conversations: if I leave a message on your talk page, please respond there; I'm watching it. If you start a conversation here, I'll reply here, so please watch this page
*Sign your posts with four tildes, like this: '''<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>'''
*At the beginning of each month I will archive all conversations which are at least 1 month and 1 day from the most recent reply.
|}

Archives: [[/Sept07|Sep '07]] • [[/Oct07|Oct '07]] • [[/Nov07|Nov '07]] • [[/Dec07|Dec '07]] • [[/Jan08|Jan '08]] • [[/FebApr08|Feb-Apr '08]] • [[/MaySep08|May-Sep '08]] • [[/OctNov09|Oct-Nov '08]]

==For the good of the project==
and despite sore provocation I have reverted some pointed words and trust that you can be relied on to respond in an appropriately responsible manner. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:53, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
:For the good of the project, you shouldn't have written them at all.
:Don't get so worked up that I don't create new articles. There's no rule that says you have to create new articles, and it's certainly the idea of a wiki to edit other's articles, no? Plus, as I've already said, I have created numerous articles. I don't enjoy it, and I'm not good at it. I'm not here to please you, and I'm not going to try.
:It's pretty hypocritical of you to say that ''I'' have done no work on this site, when I have been doing work all morning long, and you have been simply reverting me on two pages. Now I have ''real'' work (i.e. the money-making kind) so I won't be bothering you with my non-work for the rest of the day. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:01, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

== Edit war ==

I'm addressing both you and Bugler. Stop your edit warring and try working together for the good of Conservapedia. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:02, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

== Template:lowercase ==

I seem to recall from the equivalent template on Wikipedia that the template would only display the correct case of the title in certain circumstances (such as Javascript enabled). Is this still the case, or does it ''always'' correct the display of the title?

And the reason that you were able to edit a locked page is that it wasn't locked! It had been locked, but was deleted by a sysop who didn't understand its purpose. Deleting a locked page and reinstating it causes (or used to cause?) the locking to be lost.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:31, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

:<s>I don't think you have to have javascript enabled, but I might be wrong. It uses the DISPLAYTITLE... uh thing. It's not a template, and it seems to be built into the wikicode much like <nowiki>{{CURRENTDAY}}</nowiki>. I don't know a lot about how wikis work behind the scenes, but the template is used on Wikipedia, so if it doesn't work all of the time it works most of the time.</s>

:This is from the page of the WP template that I, uh, "borrowed" from: ''This template wraps the magic word DISPLAYTITLE so that it works automatically in any namespace (main, talk, template, etc.) to decapitalise the first letter of the name of a page it is transcluded on. (Previously, this template achieved this using JavaScript, but the DISPLAYTITLE method makes the change for all users, even those with JavaScript disabled in their browser).'' So we should be fine. :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:06, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
:: Ah, very good. Thanks for that. I've now changed the Manual of Style page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:00, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

==Brokeback==

You're breakin' my back on the Brokeback article! :-) I hope you can see that I'm very willing to defend my points, and I appreciate the civility with which you've been treating them (unlike some other posters on that page). I'm going to continue as much as I can today, but I'm leaving for a weeklong trip tonight so I won't be able to respond until I get back. Hopefully the page won't blow up to enormous proportions in the meantime :0 -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 13:49, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
:Ha ha ha! I was actually just about to tell you that I'm not trying to be harsh. I think you're a good editor, so my comments are (to the best of my ability) aimed at the article and not at you. I'll keep an eye on the page and keep it honest while you are gone. Have a good trip. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:17, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
::Thanks! See you on the talk pages in a week. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 20:04, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I'm back and will get to the posts on Brokeback Mountain probably tomorrow. In the meantime, I've noticed that the categories now appear in double boxes. Do you know why that is? It seems redundant. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:21, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Nevermind, I've found the relevant thread on Andy's talk page (it explains the appearance of other things like the new CAPTCHA, which I don't like). -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:37, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::Me neither. Hopefully it will change, or I may very well never <nowiki>{{welcome}}</nowiki> a user again! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:39, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::I didn't even think of that detail! Speaking of which, why is there an external link that occurs when we're doing a <nowiki>{{welcome}}</nowiki> anyway? -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 23:08, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::The link to Interiot's edit counter (which doesn't actually work right now) is an outside link. Don't forget that "internal" diff links (like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:HelpJazz&diff=next&oldid=519768 this], for example), counts as an outside link. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:21, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: Now ''those'' I can help you with. Administrators have the ability to add a web-site to a "white list" so that those addresses will not trigger the CAPTCHA. I've added Interiot's tool and Conservapedia itself. Give them a try and let me know if it works. It's not, of course, an ideal solution for all the other possible links. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:59, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::You mean this whole time there was a simple solution? Oh man. Let's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:HelpJazz&diff=next&oldid=519768 test]. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 09:38, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Hey it worked! You'd think the software would be smart enough to have the domain site on the whitelist by default... Thanks soooooooo much Philip! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 09:39, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

==Vote McCain==
Vote McCain!!! [[Fry2000]]

== Thank you! ==

Thanks for the block! [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 19:23, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:I do what I can :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:24, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

==Ohio==
Well, well. I always thought you were British, for some reason. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:33, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:Nope. Never even visited. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:36, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

== addition article ==

Is there a way to check the user John Peters ? His name is red link in the history. The text added to the article may be correct but makes the article very complex if aimed at a high school level. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 23:56, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:I don't know. "Checkuser" (which I don't have) only tells you what other users have used the same IP address as him, but that doesn't really help in this case. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:19, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

==Blocked==
When I attempted to log in today, I received a notice that my IP address was blocked. I think a schoolmate of mine got himself blocked by you. First and foremost, I apologize for my classmates inappropriate behavior. I will look into who it was and see if I can get them removed from the lab. I would like to ask, however, if something like this happens in the future, is there anyone I can contact about removing the IP block or is it best to just ride it out? Thank you [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 17:05, 23 October 2008 (EDT) PS, I had to edit another user's signature before it would let me post. I think their user name contained something that the spam filter blocked out
:I think the best thing to do is email the person who blocked IP address and include the IP address or block number (it's shown when you try to edit a page). In this case, since you are only blocked at school, you could ask someone with checkuser rights (basically any sysop) to unblock your IP address. I have no way of looking it up, but they can help. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:19, 23 October 2008 (EDT) PS: Out of curiosity, do you know the person I blocked?
::Ok, I will keep that in mind should it happen again. It's hard to do much else except post from school, I don't have a personal computer yet (although I'm working on it) and I don't know for sure who it was, but by cross referencing sign in logs to the time I think I can get a fairly good idea. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 11:54, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

==Pearl Jam - removal of talk edit==
Apologies may be in order. I think I may have removed that talk page contribution...our edits clahed and I must have somehow wiped yours during my amateurish attempts at saving my input. Sorry about that. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 18:15, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
:I figured that's what happened. No biggie. (It was actuallyl Liams that you removed). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:36, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
::Yeah, I didn't mind, so I didn't change it :-) [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 18:38, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks for defending me ==

Thanks for pointing out how others had mistaken comments I made. You are correct with what I said about lying in the Bible, and Peter is a perfect example. However, you and they are wrong to claim that I "cherry pick". My position has always been that you can determine whether something is meant to be taken literally by the context and knowledge of the language, as Professor James Barr (not a creationist) did (see [[creation week]]). And contrary to a claim made by someone of whom I'll have more to say in a moment (this is for their benefit) that [[creation week]] has no evidence, it in fact has (a) a number of supporting arguments about word use (admittedly unreferenced), (b) a referenced quote from an expert (Barr) who also says the other experts agree, and (c) a referenced summary of a formal study into the text. Perhaps ''he'' is simply seeing (or not seeing) what he wants to (not) see. Before I saw your comments, I was thinking of saying something anyway (such as on my user page). That same accuser (Kels) also accused ''me'' and Creation Ministries International of lying, ("he won't hesitate to lie and twist at the slightest opportunity" and "He accepts every lie creationontheweb feeds him") yet offered no evidence of that whatsoever. I accept that many people don't accept my views and think that I'm mistaken, deluded, or even stupid, but I don't go around saying things that I know to be untrue (and nor does CMI). Accusations like that without solid supporting evidence are nothing short of libel (not that I could be bothered suing), and he is despicable for making the accusation, and should be censured by others there, but by their silence they are just as bad. And they have the gall to criticise Conservapedia! Finally, to answer a loaded question, I accept both parts of the creation account, because I see no conflict between them (just like most of the rest of the millions who have studied the Bible for centuries) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:34, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
:Probably these others don't believe in censoring. Maybe you should go and explain your points of view to them at their place. I don't know what this Kels accused you of, but you can't deny that creationontheweb is your number one source of "information". Go and debate them there. Here, as you know, it is impossible. --[[User:JulianAdderley|JulianAdderley]] 09:52, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
:: Since when it is censoring to take someone to task for libel? That CreationOnTheWeb is my main source was not the accusation. How do you not know what he accused me of when I've quoted it above?? I don't go there because I'd end up spending too much time disputing so much of what they say. I spend too much time disputing here without doing it there also. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:18, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I talked about censoring as you yourself said "... and should be '''censured''' by others there". I find it unfair and cowardly that you attack them here instead of debating with them. They'd defend themselves here, but they are not allowed. --[[User:JulianAdderley|JulianAdderley]] 14:29, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
:::: ''censure: to criticise adversely; disapprove; find fault with; condemn.'' That's not the same thing as ''censor''. My reasons for not debating there have been given several times. I agree that the situation is unfortunate, but it's not out of cowardice that I don't debate there. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:38, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, Philip, I didn't mean to imply that you cherry pick (though when I reread the post I was agreeing with, it does seem that that's what I agreed to!). What I meant to say was that you draw a different line than I do on what's literal and what's figurative in the Bible. I've seen you debating this a lot across the site and I know you don't use anything so silly as quote mining or cherry picking :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:57, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
: Thanks for clearing that up. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:38, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

==Ema==
Funny Ema support Jesus as lord and supports Barack Obama because Christian principles are not Obama (gay marriage, abortion, black liberation theology, etc.). It is an oxymoron. How come you don't understand? --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 12:42, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:Because not every Christian in the world believes the exact same thing? Obama is not the anti-Christ. Full disclosure: I'm probably going to vote for McCain, even though I don't really like him, simply to make it harder for Obama to win Ohio. I'm not an Obama fan by a long shot, but saying that no Christian Who Is A True Christian can vote for Obama gives Christianity a bad name. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:46, 3 November 2008 (EST) PS: Is Obama a black liberation theologist or a Muslim? He can't be both.

::My fellow Buckeye, it is evident that many Christians will vote for Obama, just by observing primary statistics. I am just saying Christians are confused about their faith if they vote Obama. So he is not the anti-Christ. His views are anti-Christian. If a true Christian votes cares for values and votes Obama, well then, they are giving Christianity a bad name.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 12:51, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::Jpatt, check worldwide statistics on support for the two candidates. They are pretty clear on which of the two candidates the majority of all the Christians in the world support. If you are too lazy to check by yourself, it's Obama. I find that a pretty convincing argument on who has more Christian values. --[[User:JennyM|JennyM]] 12:54, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::::: What statistics? Not only have I seen no such statistics, I can't imagine that anybody is going to survey Christians worldwide to find out with of the two American presidential candidates they prefer. And Christian values are defined by the Bible, not by the values of the person that Christians would prefer to see as American president. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:31, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Just google around, not difficult to find. Sorry to hear about your lack of imagination, Philip, as imagination is what keeps us young! Surely Christian values are defined by the Bible, not by Jpatt. Quite arrogant of Jpatt to "know" that McCain has more Christian values than Obama. Billions of Christians worldwide disagree. --[[User:Jessica|Jessica]] 07:26, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::::::: If they're not difficult to find, why can't you link to them? And how many is "billions", given that there's about 2.1 billion Christians ''in total'', and they wouldn't all prefer Obama. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:47, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::50 % of 2.1 billion is more than one billion. Since all the polls show more way more than 50 %, it's not difficult to infer the "billions". --[[User:Jessica|Jessica]] 07:52, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::: Although a plural word indicates more than one, my understanding it that it is more than one ''unit'' ("billion" being the unit in this case), which doesn't allow for fractions, so "billions" means at least 2 billion. So where are these worldwide polls? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:00, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::You are wrong on two counts. First of all, when approaching or surpassing 1.5, it is perfectly legitimate to use the plural. Second, "billions", as well as "dozens" or "tens", is a perfectly acceptable way to convey ''order of magnitude''. For the polls you'll have to look by yourself. I have no time now. But do you really doubt it? --[[User:Jessica|Jessica]] 08:11, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: I do doubt that such surveys exist. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:28, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::Philip's a busy guy, but I'm notoriously bored, so I went and looked. I found plenty of surveys that showed Obama winning international popularity contests, but none of them claimed to select only Christians.
::::::::::::To the larger point of it being possible for Christians to select Obama - of course it's possible. I did it, for one. (Sorry, HelpJazz.) [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 10:56, 5 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo I can't be your online friend anymore! ;-) It's ok, in a way I wanted Obama to win. I truely believe that once the hype wore off, either candidate would have been a pretty lame duck president. If McCain won, they would just blame it on Bush, and then a candidate who's even more liberal than Obama would be elected in '12. If Obama won, then when he is (ok this tense is all messed up now, bear with me here) not the Messiah that he's supposed to be I can laugh and feel morally superior and smug and all those cool things I like to do :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:02, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::::Yeah, he doesn't match my politics in a lot of ways, but neither does the 2008 version of McCain, and Bob Barr was a carpet-bagger of a Libertarian and I refuse to endorse that. Boiled down to the fact that I felt a McCain vote is an endorsement of the current administration, for all the lip service he pays to "change."
::::::::::::::You might enjoy checking out [http://thebigstick.wordpress.com/ this blog I found] by a guy who posts on Ames' blog comments. He's a fairly articulate guy who doesn't get all riled up (in other words, don't hold Ames against him) (although Ames is plenty articulate, he just gets caught up in things...). [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 13:02, 5 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::::Grrr lost a post. Ok this is the last thing I say and then I'll be done for a while because this faulty connection thing is annoying. I didn't like any of the candidates this year, and as much as I hated myself for doing it, I had to vote against a candidate instead of for a candidate. I almost considered writing in Ron Paul just for the heck of it. *Off to read that blog link, which probably has a much better connection than this site does right now* [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:14, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Oh if the world wants Obama, then I should shut up, duh. It is convincing who has more Christian values. Hint, it aint Obama.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 13:01, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::And again I say you are trying to impose one set of beliefs on all Christians, and you are questioning the faith of those who believe differently than you. Not everybody is a one or two issue voter, you know. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:44, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::PS: Since you brought up same sex marriage, both Obama and Biden ''oppose'' it [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.samesexmarriage.html]. And you didn't mention stem cell research: McCain supports federal funding of it [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.stemcell.html]. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:54, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::: "McCain supports federal funding of ... Obama"??? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:31, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::Whoops! Fixed. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:36, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::: Oh. I thought you might have meant "and Obama does also". And to clarify, nobody has any objection to funding stem cell research. Or are you saying that McCain supports funding ''embryonic'' stem cell research? In any case, I expect that it's a case not of claiming that McCain is correct in all his views, but that they are, overall, better than Obama's. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:14, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::I did mean embryonic. To be fair, he only wants funding on embryos that are going to be discarded anyway -- I don't know if pro-lifers are ok with that. If I understand Jpatt's argument, he was trying to argue that no Christians can vote for Obama because he doesn't hold Christian values. Not only that, but he presented it as the only correct choice and anyone with a differing opinion doesn't have enough faith. I was trying to point out that Jesus is not running for president. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:39, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: Write-ins FTW!! [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 22:26, 3 November 2008 (EST) ''<-Jesus/Holy Ghost '08!''
:::::::::: Was it okay to experiment on the Jews who were going to the gas chambers in Nazi Germany because they were going to die anyway?
:::::::::: I tend to agree that Americans tie their religion too closely to their politics, but on the other hand, I can understand where he's probably coming from (although I should point out that I don't know what prompted the first post in this section). A Christian believes that God is the ultimate reality, and therefore that God's standards are more important than anything else more worldly. Therefore, in comparing two different candidates, the one that most closely follows God's standards is the one that Christians should vote for. That is, God's standards (such as on moral issues) are not just a minor consideration, but should be a major deciding factor. To that extent, I would agree with Jpatt. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:38, 3 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::What you missed was the conversaion on (the now blocked) [[user:Ema]]'s talk page. She said something about how Obama was going to win, to which Jpatt replied: "Funny how you accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and support Barack Obama." I don't think there's anything wrong to use your faith as a factor in deciding who to vote for, but to presume that ones (clearly at least partially incorrect, as seen by the gay marriage comment on this page) interpretation is infallible is hubris at its best. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:48, 3 November 2008 (EST)

==My vacation==

Hey! It's good to be back. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:07, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:Now get to work *wchapshh!* [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:45, 3 November 2008 (EST)

That has a nice [[beat]] to it . . . --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:53, 3 November 2008 (EST)

==[[User:BHarlan]]==
My apologies for bothering you with this.... But is this user for real? Or is he a parodist? If he is real, he is a very difficult person to work with. He is currently edit warring on the [[Rodney King]] page and is generally making things difficult for other users? Is there anything we can do? I think this [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Rodney_King&diff=550213&oldid=550211 this edit] sums up everything. [[User:SamuelA|SamuelA]] 18:03, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:To engage in an edit war while insisting "don't edit war" is parody at its worst.
:I contribute here by editing articles to add information, sometimes in the form of sentences and paragraphs. I suggest you do the same.
:In the meantime, I will try to be more like the Christ. He was very forgiving. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:08, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::If that doesn't clear things up for you, nothing will. There is nothing you can do about it. [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 18:23, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:::I try not to comment on the nature of parodists, unless I am blocking someone for it. It's too messy otherwise. However, BHarlan, I would ask that you be a little nicer. Legitimate editors can be blocked for not working well with others. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:56, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== Template thanks ==

Thanks for your work on {{tl|homosexualityb}} - it will be much easier to edit now. Just wanted to let you know that these things don't go unnoticed.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:03, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:Thanks. All I really did was add a line break in between each thing, since I have a hard time reading all those links squished together. A single line break won't show up in the end result, but it makes the code a little easier to look at.
:''You'' should be the one being thanked though. None of your work goes unnoticed, but I'm willing to wager that most of it is thankless. Until now!! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:26, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::I wouldn't say thankless - just yesterday Ed Poor was if anything over-generous. Congratulations on the message below, by the way.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:34, 14 November 2008 (EST)

==Sysop rights==

Er, I meant that you've been nominated in our secret enclave to become a sysop. Until then, all you edits show up for me in Recent Changes with a red mark. When you become a sysop, we don't have to patrol your changes any more. I think Jessica and Bert should be sysops. No one ever reverts them. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:08, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:I'm sure I've been nominated more than once... I'll believe it when I see it though ;-)
:About those red exlamation points: I've seen them before (not here, obviously). It makes me wonder what Wikimedia was thinking (or was it Wikipedia? Which came first?) -- do they seriously expect every single edit by a non-sysop to be marked as patrolled? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:32, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Ed, there is a reason why secret enclaves are secret. It is very unclear right now what direction Andy wishes to go and we should avoid any indication to our valued editors of what the future may hold that may not in fact be fulfilled. It can only cause possible embitterment or disenchantment and we certainly don't want that among any of the people who have made great contributions to our project. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:35, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::No worries, LT. I haven't gotten my hopes up, and my feelings won't be hurt. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:42, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Lest I trip over my beard, I must remind myself that Wikipedia was only two years old when the patrol feature was created. The rate of edits was so low that one sysop could do all the patrolling by himself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:44, 14 November 2008 (EST)

==Block==
You were blocked for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=557690 this] edit. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:53, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:Oops, my mistake. I have been away for a while, would you please sum up the events that have occured during my absence? Thanks. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:57, 15 November 2008 (EST)
::May I unblock him so he can answer? Blocked users cannot edit their own user talk pages here - although (thanks to me!) they can do so at Wikipedia. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:59, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::(Sorry Ed, I didn't know if anyone else was watching. PS: is there an easier way to unblock an IP address? I can't seem to figure out how to do it).
:::Henry, much has gone on since you went on vacation. I saw it all, but I'm not sure I can explain it all myself. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:01, 15 November 2008 (EST)

HJ, I am sorry that I blocked you. I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 21:09, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:It's ok, you picked a bad time to make a joke, is all. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:10, 15 November 2008 (EST) <-- NOONE expects the Spanish Inquisition!!! (There's never a bad time for that joke!)
::Did someone mention an Inquisition? Oh goody! (rubbing hands in glee!) --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:12, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::Our chief weapon is surprise! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:14, 15 November 2008 (EST)
::::I say we start a conservapedia inquisition. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 21:21, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Depends on who gets inquisitioned. Inquisized? Inquised? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:33, 15 November 2008 (EST)
::::::It is always THEM, Jazz! We go after <big>THEM!!!</big> --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:47, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::I stopped playing with blocks when I was six.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:02, 15 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::It is so noted. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:22, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Not a single block! That's impressive and unexpected. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:28, 15 November 2008 (EST)
*Well I am fairly certain that won't last. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:48, 16 November 2008 (EST)

==Crackpots==
*"I don't know why I bother, i'm sure some crackpot out there has said this" [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gay_heroism&diff=558704&oldid=558703]
A moment of candor. It's nice to know what you think of the sources we draw upon. I can tell you at least one person who said that: the [[User:Ed_Poor|person who wrote the article]]. Now think about whether you meant what you wrote. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 07:44, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:My point being that even though "gay heroism" is likely ''not'' part of a campaign to legitimize homosexuality, you can find a source that says anything, and there's really no standard for sources on this webite. I didn't mean that you had to be a crackpot to believe it, but I'm willing to wager that you won't find a mainstream source to back up that statement (yeah, yeah liberal bias). I wasn't calling Ed Poor a crackpot, since an editor's opinion can't be used as a source (a policy Ed himself helped to write), but yes, I still mean what I wrote. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:47, 16 November 2008 (EST)

==Sillly edit==
You are being silly but I will let it stand.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 14:47, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:Maybe I would have been in a nicer mood had you asked first, but now there's really no way to know, is there? You probably blocked their IP's anyway, which I'm guessing is why you are taking the "high road" now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:55, 16 November 2008 (EST)

==Your block==
Now try and stay civilised about this and discuss it here. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:05, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:You really make me laugh, you know? ''Bugler has no right to undo my blocks''. What on earth have you been doing in the past months, trying to worry me to an early grave? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:09, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::C'mon, HelpJazz. C'mon, man. Tell me. Have you never reverted an edit of mine? Heh? have you? Have you never reverted an edit of mine? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:13, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::(Edit conflict: Bugler's original comment was: "Now try and stay civilised about this and discuss it here.") I did discuss it. Jpatt has no right to undo my blocks; you have no right to undo my blocks. You then blocked me (and blocked my IP address for no reason other than to be annoying) with no legitimate reason. Blocking doesn't work if any other editor can decide to change another's blocks. Believe me, Bugler, be happy I respect this simple principle. If you think I complain a lot ''now'', how do you think you'd like it if I simply undid every block you did that I didn't think was appropriate? Now, a ''sysop'' has the power (and the right) to correct a block I made erroneously; a sysop's decisions take precidence over mine. Any other non-sysop has no greater authority over me. If they were to ask, I might reconsider. I've made mistakes in the past. But simply ignoring normal modes of respect is unacceptable. If you undo any of my blocks (ever) I will redo them, and I expect you would do the same.
:::Edit conflict (Bugler's *new* comment, I suspect he's intentionally edit conflicting me, is "You really make me laugh, you know? ''Bugler has no right to undo my blocks''. What on earth have you been doing in the past months, trying to worry me to an early grave?"): Which blocks of yours did I undo, except the ones where you blocked me? Name one and I'll quit this site.
:::Edit conflict *again*: First of all, edits are fundamentally different than blocks. It's clear that if you were to insert a spelling error, there is no conflict in me fixing it. Every editor on this site is given the "responsiblity" of editing. However, in getting "block" rights, Andy has decided that he trusts your judgment enough that you are given the "privilede" to excercise your good judement by blocking people. In undoing a ''block'' you are telling both me and Andy that your judgement is better than ours.
:::Even though it is irrelevant (as I have shown) I can still answer your question: Have I ever undone an ''edit'' you have done? Yes I have. Have I ever undone an edit you have done while giving no explanation or reason? No, I don't think I have. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:20, 16 November 2008 (EST)
You have certainly never given an ''adequate'' explanation. however, I am able to let the dead bury the dead. WEhat matters, as I am trying to get across to you, is the welfare of Conservapedia. I think your lenient 'name only' blocks of the two hangmen are entirely wrong for two key reasons. 1. The insults were so gross that the perpetrators do not deserve a second chance. 2. The insults, being so gross, indicate that teh perpetratorsm, if allowed back into CP, as you are in effect doing, have the potential to cause huge damage through vandalism, causing editors here an enormous amount of clean-up work.

I hope you will accept that I have not deliberately tried to edit conflict you; that is not my style. I say what I think, to you and to others. And the block was not intended to block you: I knew you would revert it post-haste. It was to get a breathing space to remove damaging saboteurs from the site. Saboteurs who you have since restored to grace. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:31, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:I cannot remember whether you have reverted any of my blocks. Given what you say, I presume you disapprove of Tim's high handed action yesterday (and before, regarding Daphnea), and PJR's similar actions towards me in the past. For the rceord, Jpatt is one of the best new editors and sysop-lites we have here. He should be encouraged and cherished, not subjected to beastings. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:33, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::(It again took you three edits to say what you think; if you instead use the preview button, you don't run the risk of edit conflicted other users multiple times)
::For starters, how did I not adequately explain why it was wrong for Jpatt to undo my block? You gave no explanation.
::Secondly, if you think my blocks are lenient, there's nothing stopping you from ''asking me about it''. There is way too much overeager blocking on this site; shame on me if I follow the letter of the law. That gives no excuse for someone else to change it without asking me. (You will notice that they never recreated their account).
::Thirdly, I can tell you that I have never undone any other editor's blocks, unless the blocks were obvious vandalism (Like MexMax) or if they were joking (like Bohdan last night).
::Fourthly, if you read what I wrote, I clearly said that I have no problem with a ''sysop'' going over the head of a normal editor. You and I are both editors, and Tim and PJR are both sysops. I don't know about Daphnea, but seeing as how you didn't undo a single one of HotDog's edits, you didn't really have a case there anyway, did you? I'd also be surprised if PJR undid a block without any explanation, but again, as a sysop it's entirely within his rights.
::Lastly, I have no responsibility to encourage or cherish someone for doing something they had no right to do. Had Jpatt asked me, I would have said "Thank you for asking Jpatt, here's my explanation." He showed no respect for me, and I had no obligation to give him any in return. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::: 1. Sysop rights have no merit whatsoever when they are abused, as I believe they were yesterday. 2. So what is your justification for giving the hangmen free rein in Conservapedia? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:48, 16 November 2008 (EST)
Hey people, don't fight. You are both good and valuable contributors. If you have to revert someone (but pleease don't block), revert my contributions: they are not as valuable as yours. Please, both of you, advance our common cause by being unite against our enemies! --[[User:Drunk|Drunk]] 15:51, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:Thank you, Drunk. I would however appreciate an acknowledgement from HelpJazz that I don't deliberately time my edits to disrup him with edit conflicts. t sounds a strange thing, and a very difficult one, to do in any case. I frequently gnash my teeth over ECs, but I don't for a moment imagine that enemies are doing it deliberately to frustrate me. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:56, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::I don't have much wiki experience, but to time edits to disrupt with edit conflicts seems very far-fetched even in my "high" (sorry) state. There are much more effective ways to disrupt. But HelpJazz, why do you think that Bugler is disrupting? Maybe it's just an incomprehension between you? --[[User:Drunk|Drunk]] 16:00, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::(Ironically, an edit conflict) 1. Then there's really no point in having sysops, is there? As much as you whine about the "liberal whinging about every decisions", do you really want to assert that every time someone thinks another user is abusing their power, that person has no obligation to sumbit to the abuser's power? Or are you the only one who gets to decide when someone is abusing power?
::::2. Free reign? Hardly. Had I wanted to give them free reign I would have unblocked them. Instead, I gave them the opportunity to rethink their actions and either go away, or come back in a better frame of mind. What's the worse that could have happened? Had they created another inappropriate username, I would have blocked them with account creation disabled (and yes, I have done this before); had they created an account and started vandalising I would have blocked their account with account creation disabled; had they never returned there's no harm to CP; had they returned and been a good editor then CP is all the better. I refuse to block people for something they might do. )This is not to say that I will contest any user who blocks people this way).
::::Ironic edit conflict: I'll admit that the first time may not have been intentional. It's very strange for someone to make three edits in a row, when they know that all three warrant a response, but the evidence is not conclusive enough to say that you did it on purpose. (I also misread the diffs and thought you were replacing your text, which lead more evidence to my claim). However, doing the exact same thing after I already pointed it out is a bit suspicious, no? That's why, to give you the benefit of the doubt, I instructed you to use the "show preview" button, which is the surefire way to avoid edit conflicts. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:07, 16 November 2008 (EST)
You got blocked again?! Ouch. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 16:12, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:You ''instructed'' me? My, oh my! I thought that editors had no authority over editors, but now I am expected to comply with the instructions of HelpJazz! Have you been appointed Lord High Panjandrum while I have been away? If so, please instruct me on the correct protocol. Is it a bow from the waist, or a full kow-tow? Do I have to walk backwards when I depart the August HelpJazzian Presence? My Lord will please excuse his humble servant's ignorance of etiquette! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 18:06, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::Bugler, please cool it, or I'll have to send an email to Andy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:13, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Well, honestly! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 18:14, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::Instruct (v.): to give knowledge to. Yes, that's what I did. I didn't say "commanded" or "required" or "demanded" or "forced" or "insisted". Alternatively, I could have said "taught" or "advised" or "showed" or "informed". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:23, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Perhaps this is a cultural difference. In the UK, instruct means order, tell. 'Advise' might have been the polite option. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 18:27, 16 November 2008 (EST)

== Category Discussion... ==

I have somehow missed the discussion about changing Categories from Liberals to Liberalism. Can you direct me, and possibly Ed Poor to it? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:49, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:I'm sorry, I didn't realize I had to discuss my use of common sense. Can you direct me to the rule that says this please? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:51, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::Are you quite certain you want to have this show-down? What exactly will you gain or lose? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:54, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::What showdown? Is there such a page? If not, I'm going to continue using my common sense. "Liberals" are people; "liberalism" is an idea. An idea is not a person and a person is not an idea. (And a person and an idea are not an organization). What's to discuss?
:::Just because you are back, it doesn't mean you can boss me around again, TK. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't work that way anymore. You won on {{tl|liberalism}}, what more do you want? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:56, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::::Boss you? Are you in 2nd grade, or what? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:57, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::I take it you don't have an answer to any of my question then? In that case, I'll continue what I'm doing. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:58, 16 November 2008 (EST)

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

:L. Beryl Baez is a person? [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal_bias_in_academia&curid=59501&diff=560052&oldid=525222&rcid=610515] I didn't understand your edit comment. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:16, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::Oh, wait: I misread it. "liberal bias is a concept, not a person" --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:18, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:::Wait, his bot is going to add everything from the "liberals" "liberalism" and "liberal organizations" categories and dump them all together into a "liberal" category? Why? Aren't categories supposed to be nouns? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:21, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::[[Homosexual Agenda]] is under the subcategory [[:Category:Liberal Deceit]]. [[Evolution]] isn't under any of the liberal categories at all. It doesn't usually make sense to put everything on a template into the same category. It makes category renames easier, but everything else harder, and category renames don't happen that often. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 20:26, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::(EC) <s>Ed, "liberal bias in acedemia", which is the title of the article, is not a person. There might be people mentioned in the article, but do you seriously want to put every single article that so much as mentions a liberal into the "liberals" category? That would mean that, for example, [[John McCain]] would be in the liberals category.</s> (EC -- this is happening a lot today. Maybe I should increase my typing speed) I think you understand where I'm coming from now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:21, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:::::You and Interiot are indeed "understood". I merely suggested one way to quickly add articles to a category, was not suggesting that would be the ONLY category applied. To me it was far easier to change the category "Liberal'''s'''" to Liberal, no plural. The "discussion-without-end" over this is everything that is wrong about Conservapedia, and in my opinion, by design and spite. However, if people want to run around like a chicken with its head cut off, in spite, go ahead. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:32, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Easier isn't always best. It might be "easier" to just put everything in the "liberal" category but (a) it goes against the category conventions and (b) it's not very descriptive.
::::::I don't see who's running around with a chicken with it's head cut off, either. All I was doing was putting articles into the most logical, pre-existing category. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:36, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::Yes, after you publicly got angry over it, insisting you were being "bossed". Do whatever you wish, of course. You and a few others insisted you were correct over something that was decided by admins months and months ago, and you don't care. I will no longer participate in this silly arguing on your part, Jazz. It is pointless, and nothing is urgent about this. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::Can you point to me where admins decided how the template should be used? Maybe I just missed it; all this mess will be cleared up rather quickly. The only thing I can find is where a group of people (including a sysop) decided how it was to be used, and then you unilaterally decided not to use it that way. So when I did what you wanted and started adding the template how you wanted to, somehow I can't do it right and I need permission to use common sense. Can you just tell me what to do already and get it over with? All this time I'm spending on my talk page I could be using to impliment the template ''you'' wanted to use. So please, direct me to the admin decision that was made months ago, so that I may submit myself to it and continue editing this encyclopedia. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:51, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Sysop discussions are not done that way, you know that, and you have absolutely no right to insist they should be. I asked Brianco to create it. I got Andy's permission, and that is that. No one, least of all me, said you were adding it incorrectly. What I do know is you got me on AIM highly agitated and upset I was using it. That is what I know. My only dispute was your public snit, and insistence about changing categories, and impatience that you were not answered IMEDIATELY, and posting that you were just going to proceed. I have the IM archive, from months ago, when you were informed about the template. And even that doesn't matter. You alone have decided you don't like the template. So, take it off, if you like. We will just make a new template, and not call it a nav box, thus removing your original complaint that it was being used for a purpose not intended for nav boxes. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:03, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:In other words, I have to take your word for it that any discussion took place?
:"You and you alone?" What about the other people who responded on the talk page? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:07, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::Yes, that's pretty much it, Jazz. We assume good faith. That is the Christian way. If I say it was that way, it was. If it is untrue, Andy can post saying I am mistaken or a liar. This is something, a Red Herring, you decided to dredge up and dispute, from months ago! It was only after I was no longer a sysop, that some people, including you, thought that meant some kind of wholesale reversal of policy could be made. That is indeed fuzzy logic. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:15, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Then let's have Andy post. You are using something I've never seen in order to control my actions.
:::I dredged it up? Really? Funny, nobody discussed the liberalism template until you came back and started doing the exact same thing you were doing when you left.
:::Wholesale reversal of policy? The policy was "TK is right; you must have permission from TK to do anything; TK has discussed everything through email with Andy". When TK is gone, the policy breaks down. Now you are back, you have no idea what has gone on in the last 7 months, and you just assume that everything is as it was. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:10, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::Speaking of what has gone on, could you sum it up tonight? Please? You refused to last night :( [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::When did you go on vacation? How long have you been gone? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:18, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::::About a month or two. When I was last here, you and another user were engaged in bitter dispute over "big science" or something like that. Is this Buglre a sysop? Are you? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:21, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::I don't think there have been any promotions in the last month or two. I'll never be promoted, so that's not something you ever have to ask ;-)
:::::::Hrm... what have you missed in the last few months? Ed and TK came back (which I'm sure you can tell).
:::::::Multiple fights have ensued, people have been called idiots, noone's been blocked -- not much has changed. (Big science got moved to the essay space though). Read over my talk page, Bugler's talk page, PJR's talk page and the Obama talk page, (Maybe Ed's talk page too) and that pretty much sums up everything you need to know over the last couple months. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:27, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::Were you called an idiot? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:29, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Not me, but Tim was (check out Bugler's talk page, I think).
:::::::::I just checked my spam email (all my CP mail goes straight to spam) and found emails from two different editors asking me to intercede with their blocks by the same user. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:33, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::Straight to spam? I have been sending you emails everyday for the past two months. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:35, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::Straight to spam. Curiously, I haven't seen any emails from teh Bohdan. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:40, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::Has anyone called me an idiot? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:42, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::Doubtful. Who could call you an idiot and expect to get away with it? I mean *seriously*! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:46, 16 November 2008 (EST)

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

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

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

By your less than kind, throw-away comments, like the "I'm sure you can tell..." above, you show yourself to be just another mean & hateful person. Just goes to show how wrong I was about you, your character, and your being good material for an admin. BTW, Ed Poor was another who put himself out there, promoting you for sysop to Andy. I have always been honest with you, always told you CP wasn't like Wikipedia, and that the owner didn't aspire to it under any circumstances. Given your actions in the past 24 hours, I know Andy was correct in holding back. I was wrong, he was right. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:55, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:TK, you started all of the arguments. Want to know how many arguments there were about the use of the liberalism template while you were gone? None. Want to know how many arguments there were about categories when you were gone? None. Formatting? None. The liberalness of Fred Phelps? None. But then within 24 hours of your arrival, all of the same arguments show up, and somehow it's everyone else's fault.

:Do you really think I could tell you what I thought of you when you were holding the banhammer over my head? I'm sorry we aren't best buddies, but our entire "relationship" consists of you telling me what to do. That's all you ever do, is tell people what to do. You came back to this site and all ready you have told Philip he's not allowed to talk on your page, you have told Brianco that he's not privy to conversations from those "above his pay grade", you have told Sideways that he's not allowed to change an edit made by Conservative, you have told me that because you start things, only you know the Truth about how they are to be used. You have only been here '''one day'''.

:I'm just another mean and hateful person? Because I thought that Bohdan can read my talk page to see you are back?

:You continually tell me CP is not like Wikipedia, and I continually tell you that '''I'm not trying to make CP like Wikipedia'''. I continually tell you that I don't even edit at Wikipedia, and yet somehow everything I do is in the "Wikipedia mindset". I'm not imposing my liberal worldview, I'm not motivated by neutrality, and I'm not using a coverup of liberalism to make desicions. Every single thing I do is to further the encycopedia '''within the Commandments''' and every reason I give is backed up by '''logic'''. I'm sorry if you don't think these are good qualities for being an admin. I'm sorry if you put yourself out on a limb to back me (which I can only take on your word; I know that Ed has vouched for me because I've actually seen it -- yet another advantage to skipping AIM in leu of the website right here at our fingertips), only to find out that sometimes following the rules means you can't always spew whatever crazy you want. I'm sorry that I'm harming your goal of destroying CP from within by using the rules on CP to rein you in. I'm sorry I gave you a second chance two nights ago, by telling you about what was going on at CP. Had I known that you were really just gathering intel into the power structures so that you could come back and wedge yourself back in, I might have pretended I wasn't home. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:27, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::So the copies of my emails to Andy, that you were copied on, CC, not BCC, months and months ago, are not to you "proof" that I backed you? You really are a despicable person. So, now you admit you are on AIM. Previously you posted you never use it, only did so because I requested it, demanded it. Oh well. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:37, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::I don't seem to have any of your emails to Andy. The closest I could find was one where you told me that you forwarded Andy, but I don't actually have any CCs. I highly doubt I deleted them since I have copies of many other random emails from you.
:::I previously explained that I never use AIM to talk to ''editors on CP''. I still use it for my personal communications. Is that clear now? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:35, 17 November 2008 (EST)

==Blocking [[User:TK]]==

Please provide reference and/or diffs to illustrate "insinuating that motorcycle accident which put a valued contributer in a coma for 10 days didn't actually happen; if someone wants to extend this block be my guest". [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] was wrong to undo your block but you should have asked an admin yourself, or Andy. Users with block rights (but no admin rights) should only block for clear and cut vandalism. I know this is not in the commandments, guidelines or user rights page but we are forming some kind of policy to address this in the near future. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 05:00, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:Actually it is [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:User_rights#Blocking_rights|here]: "''To counter blatant vandalism, some editors have the ability to block vandals. These particular rights may be granted to users who demonstrate an ongoing ability to revert vandalism. Users are also encouraged to report suspected vandals to the administration (preferably supplying evidence with diffs). Editors granted '''blocking rights should only use them for blocking vandals or other cases where immediate blocking is required. Other violations should be referred to an administrator.'''''" It Just hasn't been enforced very well so far. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 09:11, 17 November 2008 (EST)
::Jallen: As you know, BrianCo is a valued contributer to our website who was in a horrible motorcycle accident which put him '''in a coma for 10 days'''. TK, when confronted with the fact that he was '''outright lying''' about the fact that he was the one who asked for the {{tl|liberalism}} template (which was his entire reasoning for being able to use the template in the manner he demanded, and not how the community decided), responded with the following accusation: "Was this on your trip to Mexico, Genghis, or your later motorcycle accident recovery? Inquiring minds want to know!" [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template_talk:Liberalism&diff=prev&oldid=560367]. There is absolutely '''no excuse''' for such an '''unchristian''' comment towards another editor. I may not have been within my rights to block him (though I would certainly argue that this was a case where "immediate blocking is required"), but TK's incredibly low blow was intirely inexcusable, and I couldn't wait for a sysop to decide. If Bugler was the one who undid my block, then I'm going to redo it; I've said before (and you apparently agree) that Bugler had no right to undo it. Until a sysop tells me otherwise that it's ok for an editor to make light of a life-threatening event, I won't unblock TK. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:17, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:::HelpJazz, you have overstepped your authority in blocking TK. You are only allowed to use your blocking rights for vandalism. I don't believe you were justified with the immediate block either. "I couldn't wait for a sysop to decide" is not valid in this situation. I have undone your block. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 12:37, 17 November 2008 (EST)
::::Since you have undone my block, then you have made a decision. Thank you. I'm going to go appologice to BrianCo now, and I'll probably be too mad to edit today. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:39, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:Something both Tim and Dean "conveniently overlooked" in this little bashfest: '''"This restriction of only blocking vandals applies only to editors granted blocking rights after this amendment was posted in December 2007."''' (it's the footnote). And guess when HelpJazz got his rights:
::18:34, 13 September 2007 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) changed group membership for User:HelpJazz from (none) to Block
:So HelpJazz didn't overstep his authority. He is above that restriction. Unlike certain other people who block whenever they feel like it.
:Signed, a guy who will likely get instantly blocked for <s>correcting a sysop</s> <s>supporting HelpJazz</s> Not Minding His Own Business, Opposing The Project and Only Engaging In Liberal Claptrap That Goes Against Our 90/10 Rule. --[[User:SiemerD|SiemerD]] 15:09, 17 November 2008 (EST)
::What you have found is true. HelpJazz did not overstep his authority. Of course a sysop can undo his block if the sysop believes there is a reason to do so, but it should be done with respect, recognizing that we do owe a debt of gratitude to the longterm editors who have been faithful contributors to this project and have a strong track record of helping us both with articles and with administrative tasks. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:29, 17 November 2008 (EST)

HelpJazz, I think it's important to point out that no one is saying that TK's statement was appropriate; you are correct in being concerned. The only thing being questioned is the block itself. During different times when he was on this site, TK has mixed obstinate gruffness with a jovail nature and helping out a number of users -- myself included. I owe much of my knowledge of Conservapedia to TK and so do many others. You wound up stepping in a tender area because there have been blocking wars in the past and it is still a senstive issue. I wouldn't take any personal affront to what has occurred. Your own contributions to this site continue to be valued. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:41, 17 November 2008 (EST)
::: SiemerD seems to be (have been) a kind of prophet:
:::*17:39, 17 November 2008 Bugler (Talk | contribs) blocked SiemerD (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 month (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk: Sole reason for joining: to make trouble)
:::BTW:
:::*10:25, 10 June 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) changed group membership for User:Bugler from (none) to Block, edit and Upload ‎
:::So, while we are discussing these rules: did SiemerD's post require immediate action? Was he a vandal?--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 17:55, 17 November 2008 (EST)

===Response===
There are multiple issues at work here: whether or not I had the right to block TK, and whether or not the block was justified.

It has been clearly shown that, due to a grandfather clause, I was within the rules in blocking an editor for something other than vandalism. (And despite SiemerD's swipe, I don't think Jallen or Tim intentionally neglected to mention the grandfather clause; I didn't know of it myself). However, it is always true that a sysop can undo a block of a regular editor, even if that editor had the rights to make the block

Learn together claims "it's important to point out that no one is saying that TK's statement was appropriate"; this is mostly true ''de juro'' on my talk page. (However I think Ed Poor echoed TK's sentiments on the talk page, thus agreeing that TK's statment was not inappropriate; but nobody on this talk page ''de juro'' stated that TK's actions were ok). However, anyone involved ''de facto'' agreed that TK's actions were ok, by not exercising their own authority to reblock him. Had anyone placed the offence of his statement above their reticence of blocking a well-connected user, they would have had no problem reblocking him, or at least publicly asking if he should have been reblocked. As it is, he was not blocked, and no one (again, except Ed Poor, who seems to have endorsed TK's statement) made a statement either way as to whether it was a blocking offense.

Perhaps I should explain the history of this case (most if not all relevant proof can be found at [[template talk:liberalism]]):
*BrianCo created the template in February
*In April, TK started adding the template in a manner inconsistant with other templates of it's type
*It was discussed in April, and decided that TK's use of the template was wrong
*TK leaves for ~7 months
*When TK returns, he almost immediately continues his previous actions
*When pointed to the April discussion, he claims that he was the one who wanted the template, therefore he could use it however he wanted (this argument was not brought up in April)
*Other users (really, just me) tried to argue that it doesn't matter that TK created the template, but eventually gave in to the futillity of the argument, and started adding the template to pages based on the fact that TK, as creator of the template, dictated its use
*BrianCo, the person who actually built the template, points out that TK could not have asked for the template, since he had not edited for a month before or after the template was created.
*TK, out of left field and out of arguments, accuses BrianCo of being a sock, and questions the validity of a motorcycle accident which could have taken BrianCo's life.

Is such a response approprite or proportionate? Is this how we are to treat our fellow editors? Bugler calls respected editors maggots and long-time sysops idiots, and nobody cares. But there's a mile difference between calling someone an idiot and taking a jovial attitude on such a serious issue. What if TK had said "ha ha ha, yeah right like I believe you were raped" or "say, how's your murdered wife doing these days?" or "hey, sorry to hear about the miscarriage, good thing the kid never existed!" I can't, in good Christian conscience, allow someone to run around saying such hurtful, unwarranted, unproven and unChristian statements. Unlike the many users and sysops who know of and are ignoring this argument, I can't sit on the fence. This is a serious enough issue that I jumped off with both feet. And I hope that one day there is an issue strong enough to move others to take a stand as well, but I'm afraid to see what that issue is, when this issue is not it.

[[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:36, 18 November 2008 (EST)

PS: Since this whole discussion is about properly enforcing the rules, I think it should be mentioned that it's very clear that they are only being enforced "fairly" when it is in the interest of the ruling sysop. As BRichtigen pointed out, Bugler does not have the authority to block SiemerD for 90/10 (and clearly, a 1 edit 90/10 is ludicrous anyway; are we to block editors who use the [[sandbox]] before they make real edits? I should think not) and yet nobody has decided to unblock SiemerD or punish Bugler. In fact, Bugler is the winner in this case: he won the block, and he was able to make racist remarks about ''two'' senior sysops without real penalty; proving again to himself (and everyone watching) that he clearly can do whatever he wants to, without recourse.

==Your role at Conservapedia==

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

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

:Wow. Just, wow. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 14:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Ed, I do not concur with your assessment. Four days ago, after having worked with HelpJazz for a year and a half, you were praising him as a future sysop. I would hate to see short term changes impact the long term viability of the Conservapedia site. You are aware of the positive accolades he has received behind closed doors by a number of sysops. We need editors like HelpJazz just as much now as we did four days ago. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:57, 18 November 2008 (EST)

: I've reinstated the section that Ed Poor deleted on the grounds of "''don't put personal information about others here - not without their express, written permission - give it to Andy if you have it''". First, I don't know that there's any personal information here that isn't already public knowledge. Second, even if there is, I'm sure that it doesn't required deleting the entire section and subsection. Third, what is Andy going to do about it anyway?
: Also, the Guidelines say nothing about using IM, let alone mandating it.
: If you can't understand the "feud" with TK, Ed, then perhaps you should try reading that section that you deleted.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:04, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== Blocking Rights ==

It has been determined that, indeed, you have the same range of blocking reasons available to you as any sysop. Please use this to continue to assist the project. We can use your help. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)

User talk:HelpJazz

2016-09-06T19:19:31Z

HelpJazz: some of these are not true/relevant anymore

{| style="width: 100%; border: black solid 1px; background-color: lightgrey;"
|-
|{{Useful links|float=right}}<center><big>'''Guidelines for my talk page'''</big></center>
*Please, no "ping-pong" conversations: if I leave a message on your talk page, please respond there; I'm watching it. If you start a conversation here, I'll reply here, so please watch this page
*Sign your posts with four tildes, like this: '''<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>'''
*At the beginning of each month I will archive all conversations which are at least 1 month and 1 day from the most recent reply.|}

Archives: [[/Sept07|Sep '07]] • [[/Oct07|Oct '07]] • [[/Nov07|Nov '07]] • [[/Dec07|Dec '07]] • [[/Jan08|Jan '08]] • [[/FebApr08|Feb-Apr '08]] • [[/MaySep08|May-Sep '08]] • [[/OctNov09|Oct-Nov '08]]

==For the good of the project==
and despite sore provocation I have reverted some pointed words and trust that you can be relied on to respond in an appropriately responsible manner. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:53, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
:For the good of the project, you shouldn't have written them at all.
:Don't get so worked up that I don't create new articles. There's no rule that says you have to create new articles, and it's certainly the idea of a wiki to edit other's articles, no? Plus, as I've already said, I have created numerous articles. I don't enjoy it, and I'm not good at it. I'm not here to please you, and I'm not going to try.
:It's pretty hypocritical of you to say that ''I'' have done no work on this site, when I have been doing work all morning long, and you have been simply reverting me on two pages. Now I have ''real'' work (i.e. the money-making kind) so I won't be bothering you with my non-work for the rest of the day. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:01, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

== Edit war ==

I'm addressing both you and Bugler. Stop your edit warring and try working together for the good of Conservapedia. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:02, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

== Template:lowercase ==

I seem to recall from the equivalent template on Wikipedia that the template would only display the correct case of the title in certain circumstances (such as Javascript enabled). Is this still the case, or does it ''always'' correct the display of the title?

And the reason that you were able to edit a locked page is that it wasn't locked! It had been locked, but was deleted by a sysop who didn't understand its purpose. Deleting a locked page and reinstating it causes (or used to cause?) the locking to be lost.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:31, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

:<s>I don't think you have to have javascript enabled, but I might be wrong. It uses the DISPLAYTITLE... uh thing. It's not a template, and it seems to be built into the wikicode much like <nowiki>{{CURRENTDAY}}</nowiki>. I don't know a lot about how wikis work behind the scenes, but the template is used on Wikipedia, so if it doesn't work all of the time it works most of the time.</s>

:This is from the page of the WP template that I, uh, "borrowed" from: ''This template wraps the magic word DISPLAYTITLE so that it works automatically in any namespace (main, talk, template, etc.) to decapitalise the first letter of the name of a page it is transcluded on. (Previously, this template achieved this using JavaScript, but the DISPLAYTITLE method makes the change for all users, even those with JavaScript disabled in their browser).'' So we should be fine. :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:06, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
:: Ah, very good. Thanks for that. I've now changed the Manual of Style page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:00, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

==Brokeback==

You're breakin' my back on the Brokeback article! :-) I hope you can see that I'm very willing to defend my points, and I appreciate the civility with which you've been treating them (unlike some other posters on that page). I'm going to continue as much as I can today, but I'm leaving for a weeklong trip tonight so I won't be able to respond until I get back. Hopefully the page won't blow up to enormous proportions in the meantime :0 -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 13:49, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
:Ha ha ha! I was actually just about to tell you that I'm not trying to be harsh. I think you're a good editor, so my comments are (to the best of my ability) aimed at the article and not at you. I'll keep an eye on the page and keep it honest while you are gone. Have a good trip. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:17, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
::Thanks! See you on the talk pages in a week. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 20:04, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I'm back and will get to the posts on Brokeback Mountain probably tomorrow. In the meantime, I've noticed that the categories now appear in double boxes. Do you know why that is? It seems redundant. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:21, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Nevermind, I've found the relevant thread on Andy's talk page (it explains the appearance of other things like the new CAPTCHA, which I don't like). -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:37, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::Me neither. Hopefully it will change, or I may very well never <nowiki>{{welcome}}</nowiki> a user again! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:39, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::I didn't even think of that detail! Speaking of which, why is there an external link that occurs when we're doing a <nowiki>{{welcome}}</nowiki> anyway? -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 23:08, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::The link to Interiot's edit counter (which doesn't actually work right now) is an outside link. Don't forget that "internal" diff links (like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:HelpJazz&diff=next&oldid=519768 this], for example), counts as an outside link. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:21, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: Now ''those'' I can help you with. Administrators have the ability to add a web-site to a "white list" so that those addresses will not trigger the CAPTCHA. I've added Interiot's tool and Conservapedia itself. Give them a try and let me know if it works. It's not, of course, an ideal solution for all the other possible links. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:59, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::You mean this whole time there was a simple solution? Oh man. Let's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:HelpJazz&diff=next&oldid=519768 test]. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 09:38, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Hey it worked! You'd think the software would be smart enough to have the domain site on the whitelist by default... Thanks soooooooo much Philip! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 09:39, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

==Vote McCain==
Vote McCain!!! [[Fry2000]]

== Thank you! ==

Thanks for the block! [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 19:23, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:I do what I can :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:24, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

==Ohio==
Well, well. I always thought you were British, for some reason. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:33, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:Nope. Never even visited. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:36, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

== addition article ==

Is there a way to check the user John Peters ? His name is red link in the history. The text added to the article may be correct but makes the article very complex if aimed at a high school level. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 23:56, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:I don't know. "Checkuser" (which I don't have) only tells you what other users have used the same IP address as him, but that doesn't really help in this case. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:19, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

==Blocked==
When I attempted to log in today, I received a notice that my IP address was blocked. I think a schoolmate of mine got himself blocked by you. First and foremost, I apologize for my classmates inappropriate behavior. I will look into who it was and see if I can get them removed from the lab. I would like to ask, however, if something like this happens in the future, is there anyone I can contact about removing the IP block or is it best to just ride it out? Thank you [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 17:05, 23 October 2008 (EDT) PS, I had to edit another user's signature before it would let me post. I think their user name contained something that the spam filter blocked out
:I think the best thing to do is email the person who blocked IP address and include the IP address or block number (it's shown when you try to edit a page). In this case, since you are only blocked at school, you could ask someone with checkuser rights (basically any sysop) to unblock your IP address. I have no way of looking it up, but they can help. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:19, 23 October 2008 (EDT) PS: Out of curiosity, do you know the person I blocked?
::Ok, I will keep that in mind should it happen again. It's hard to do much else except post from school, I don't have a personal computer yet (although I'm working on it) and I don't know for sure who it was, but by cross referencing sign in logs to the time I think I can get a fairly good idea. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 11:54, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

==Pearl Jam - removal of talk edit==
Apologies may be in order. I think I may have removed that talk page contribution...our edits clahed and I must have somehow wiped yours during my amateurish attempts at saving my input. Sorry about that. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 18:15, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
:I figured that's what happened. No biggie. (It was actuallyl Liams that you removed). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:36, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
::Yeah, I didn't mind, so I didn't change it :-) [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 18:38, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks for defending me ==

Thanks for pointing out how others had mistaken comments I made. You are correct with what I said about lying in the Bible, and Peter is a perfect example. However, you and they are wrong to claim that I "cherry pick". My position has always been that you can determine whether something is meant to be taken literally by the context and knowledge of the language, as Professor James Barr (not a creationist) did (see [[creation week]]). And contrary to a claim made by someone of whom I'll have more to say in a moment (this is for their benefit) that [[creation week]] has no evidence, it in fact has (a) a number of supporting arguments about word use (admittedly unreferenced), (b) a referenced quote from an expert (Barr) who also says the other experts agree, and (c) a referenced summary of a formal study into the text. Perhaps ''he'' is simply seeing (or not seeing) what he wants to (not) see. Before I saw your comments, I was thinking of saying something anyway (such as on my user page). That same accuser (Kels) also accused ''me'' and Creation Ministries International of lying, ("he won't hesitate to lie and twist at the slightest opportunity" and "He accepts every lie creationontheweb feeds him") yet offered no evidence of that whatsoever. I accept that many people don't accept my views and think that I'm mistaken, deluded, or even stupid, but I don't go around saying things that I know to be untrue (and nor does CMI). Accusations like that without solid supporting evidence are nothing short of libel (not that I could be bothered suing), and he is despicable for making the accusation, and should be censured by others there, but by their silence they are just as bad. And they have the gall to criticise Conservapedia! Finally, to answer a loaded question, I accept both parts of the creation account, because I see no conflict between them (just like most of the rest of the millions who have studied the Bible for centuries) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:34, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
:Probably these others don't believe in censoring. Maybe you should go and explain your points of view to them at their place. I don't know what this Kels accused you of, but you can't deny that creationontheweb is your number one source of "information". Go and debate them there. Here, as you know, it is impossible. --[[User:JulianAdderley|JulianAdderley]] 09:52, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
:: Since when it is censoring to take someone to task for libel? That CreationOnTheWeb is my main source was not the accusation. How do you not know what he accused me of when I've quoted it above?? I don't go there because I'd end up spending too much time disputing so much of what they say. I spend too much time disputing here without doing it there also. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:18, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I talked about censoring as you yourself said "... and should be '''censured''' by others there". I find it unfair and cowardly that you attack them here instead of debating with them. They'd defend themselves here, but they are not allowed. --[[User:JulianAdderley|JulianAdderley]] 14:29, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
:::: ''censure: to criticise adversely; disapprove; find fault with; condemn.'' That's not the same thing as ''censor''. My reasons for not debating there have been given several times. I agree that the situation is unfortunate, but it's not out of cowardice that I don't debate there. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:38, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, Philip, I didn't mean to imply that you cherry pick (though when I reread the post I was agreeing with, it does seem that that's what I agreed to!). What I meant to say was that you draw a different line than I do on what's literal and what's figurative in the Bible. I've seen you debating this a lot across the site and I know you don't use anything so silly as quote mining or cherry picking :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:57, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
: Thanks for clearing that up. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:38, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

==Ema==
Funny Ema support Jesus as lord and supports Barack Obama because Christian principles are not Obama (gay marriage, abortion, black liberation theology, etc.). It is an oxymoron. How come you don't understand? --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 12:42, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:Because not every Christian in the world believes the exact same thing? Obama is not the anti-Christ. Full disclosure: I'm probably going to vote for McCain, even though I don't really like him, simply to make it harder for Obama to win Ohio. I'm not an Obama fan by a long shot, but saying that no Christian Who Is A True Christian can vote for Obama gives Christianity a bad name. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:46, 3 November 2008 (EST) PS: Is Obama a black liberation theologist or a Muslim? He can't be both.

::My fellow Buckeye, it is evident that many Christians will vote for Obama, just by observing primary statistics. I am just saying Christians are confused about their faith if they vote Obama. So he is not the anti-Christ. His views are anti-Christian. If a true Christian votes cares for values and votes Obama, well then, they are giving Christianity a bad name.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 12:51, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::Jpatt, check worldwide statistics on support for the two candidates. They are pretty clear on which of the two candidates the majority of all the Christians in the world support. If you are too lazy to check by yourself, it's Obama. I find that a pretty convincing argument on who has more Christian values. --[[User:JennyM|JennyM]] 12:54, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::::: What statistics? Not only have I seen no such statistics, I can't imagine that anybody is going to survey Christians worldwide to find out with of the two American presidential candidates they prefer. And Christian values are defined by the Bible, not by the values of the person that Christians would prefer to see as American president. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:31, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Just google around, not difficult to find. Sorry to hear about your lack of imagination, Philip, as imagination is what keeps us young! Surely Christian values are defined by the Bible, not by Jpatt. Quite arrogant of Jpatt to "know" that McCain has more Christian values than Obama. Billions of Christians worldwide disagree. --[[User:Jessica|Jessica]] 07:26, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::::::: If they're not difficult to find, why can't you link to them? And how many is "billions", given that there's about 2.1 billion Christians ''in total'', and they wouldn't all prefer Obama. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:47, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::50 % of 2.1 billion is more than one billion. Since all the polls show more way more than 50 %, it's not difficult to infer the "billions". --[[User:Jessica|Jessica]] 07:52, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::: Although a plural word indicates more than one, my understanding it that it is more than one ''unit'' ("billion" being the unit in this case), which doesn't allow for fractions, so "billions" means at least 2 billion. So where are these worldwide polls? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:00, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::You are wrong on two counts. First of all, when approaching or surpassing 1.5, it is perfectly legitimate to use the plural. Second, "billions", as well as "dozens" or "tens", is a perfectly acceptable way to convey ''order of magnitude''. For the polls you'll have to look by yourself. I have no time now. But do you really doubt it? --[[User:Jessica|Jessica]] 08:11, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: I do doubt that such surveys exist. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:28, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::Philip's a busy guy, but I'm notoriously bored, so I went and looked. I found plenty of surveys that showed Obama winning international popularity contests, but none of them claimed to select only Christians.
::::::::::::To the larger point of it being possible for Christians to select Obama - of course it's possible. I did it, for one. (Sorry, HelpJazz.) [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 10:56, 5 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo I can't be your online friend anymore! ;-) It's ok, in a way I wanted Obama to win. I truely believe that once the hype wore off, either candidate would have been a pretty lame duck president. If McCain won, they would just blame it on Bush, and then a candidate who's even more liberal than Obama would be elected in '12. If Obama won, then when he is (ok this tense is all messed up now, bear with me here) not the Messiah that he's supposed to be I can laugh and feel morally superior and smug and all those cool things I like to do :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:02, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::::Yeah, he doesn't match my politics in a lot of ways, but neither does the 2008 version of McCain, and Bob Barr was a carpet-bagger of a Libertarian and I refuse to endorse that. Boiled down to the fact that I felt a McCain vote is an endorsement of the current administration, for all the lip service he pays to "change."
::::::::::::::You might enjoy checking out [http://thebigstick.wordpress.com/ this blog I found] by a guy who posts on Ames' blog comments. He's a fairly articulate guy who doesn't get all riled up (in other words, don't hold Ames against him) (although Ames is plenty articulate, he just gets caught up in things...). [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 13:02, 5 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::::Grrr lost a post. Ok this is the last thing I say and then I'll be done for a while because this faulty connection thing is annoying. I didn't like any of the candidates this year, and as much as I hated myself for doing it, I had to vote against a candidate instead of for a candidate. I almost considered writing in Ron Paul just for the heck of it. *Off to read that blog link, which probably has a much better connection than this site does right now* [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:14, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Oh if the world wants Obama, then I should shut up, duh. It is convincing who has more Christian values. Hint, it aint Obama.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 13:01, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::And again I say you are trying to impose one set of beliefs on all Christians, and you are questioning the faith of those who believe differently than you. Not everybody is a one or two issue voter, you know. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:44, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::PS: Since you brought up same sex marriage, both Obama and Biden ''oppose'' it [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.samesexmarriage.html]. And you didn't mention stem cell research: McCain supports federal funding of it [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.stemcell.html]. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:54, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::: "McCain supports federal funding of ... Obama"??? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:31, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::Whoops! Fixed. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:36, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::: Oh. I thought you might have meant "and Obama does also". And to clarify, nobody has any objection to funding stem cell research. Or are you saying that McCain supports funding ''embryonic'' stem cell research? In any case, I expect that it's a case not of claiming that McCain is correct in all his views, but that they are, overall, better than Obama's. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:14, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::I did mean embryonic. To be fair, he only wants funding on embryos that are going to be discarded anyway -- I don't know if pro-lifers are ok with that. If I understand Jpatt's argument, he was trying to argue that no Christians can vote for Obama because he doesn't hold Christian values. Not only that, but he presented it as the only correct choice and anyone with a differing opinion doesn't have enough faith. I was trying to point out that Jesus is not running for president. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:39, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: Write-ins FTW!! [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 22:26, 3 November 2008 (EST) ''<-Jesus/Holy Ghost '08!''
:::::::::: Was it okay to experiment on the Jews who were going to the gas chambers in Nazi Germany because they were going to die anyway?
:::::::::: I tend to agree that Americans tie their religion too closely to their politics, but on the other hand, I can understand where he's probably coming from (although I should point out that I don't know what prompted the first post in this section). A Christian believes that God is the ultimate reality, and therefore that God's standards are more important than anything else more worldly. Therefore, in comparing two different candidates, the one that most closely follows God's standards is the one that Christians should vote for. That is, God's standards (such as on moral issues) are not just a minor consideration, but should be a major deciding factor. To that extent, I would agree with Jpatt. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:38, 3 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::What you missed was the conversaion on (the now blocked) [[user:Ema]]'s talk page. She said something about how Obama was going to win, to which Jpatt replied: "Funny how you accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and support Barack Obama." I don't think there's anything wrong to use your faith as a factor in deciding who to vote for, but to presume that ones (clearly at least partially incorrect, as seen by the gay marriage comment on this page) interpretation is infallible is hubris at its best. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:48, 3 November 2008 (EST)

==My vacation==

Hey! It's good to be back. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:07, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:Now get to work *wchapshh!* [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:45, 3 November 2008 (EST)

That has a nice [[beat]] to it . . . --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:53, 3 November 2008 (EST)

==[[User:BHarlan]]==
My apologies for bothering you with this.... But is this user for real? Or is he a parodist? If he is real, he is a very difficult person to work with. He is currently edit warring on the [[Rodney King]] page and is generally making things difficult for other users? Is there anything we can do? I think this [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Rodney_King&diff=550213&oldid=550211 this edit] sums up everything. [[User:SamuelA|SamuelA]] 18:03, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:To engage in an edit war while insisting "don't edit war" is parody at its worst.
:I contribute here by editing articles to add information, sometimes in the form of sentences and paragraphs. I suggest you do the same.
:In the meantime, I will try to be more like the Christ. He was very forgiving. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:08, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::If that doesn't clear things up for you, nothing will. There is nothing you can do about it. [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 18:23, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:::I try not to comment on the nature of parodists, unless I am blocking someone for it. It's too messy otherwise. However, BHarlan, I would ask that you be a little nicer. Legitimate editors can be blocked for not working well with others. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:56, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== Template thanks ==

Thanks for your work on {{tl|homosexualityb}} - it will be much easier to edit now. Just wanted to let you know that these things don't go unnoticed.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:03, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:Thanks. All I really did was add a line break in between each thing, since I have a hard time reading all those links squished together. A single line break won't show up in the end result, but it makes the code a little easier to look at.
:''You'' should be the one being thanked though. None of your work goes unnoticed, but I'm willing to wager that most of it is thankless. Until now!! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:26, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::I wouldn't say thankless - just yesterday Ed Poor was if anything over-generous. Congratulations on the message below, by the way.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:34, 14 November 2008 (EST)

==Sysop rights==

Er, I meant that you've been nominated in our secret enclave to become a sysop. Until then, all you edits show up for me in Recent Changes with a red mark. When you become a sysop, we don't have to patrol your changes any more. I think Jessica and Bert should be sysops. No one ever reverts them. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:08, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:I'm sure I've been nominated more than once... I'll believe it when I see it though ;-)
:About those red exlamation points: I've seen them before (not here, obviously). It makes me wonder what Wikimedia was thinking (or was it Wikipedia? Which came first?) -- do they seriously expect every single edit by a non-sysop to be marked as patrolled? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:32, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Ed, there is a reason why secret enclaves are secret. It is very unclear right now what direction Andy wishes to go and we should avoid any indication to our valued editors of what the future may hold that may not in fact be fulfilled. It can only cause possible embitterment or disenchantment and we certainly don't want that among any of the people who have made great contributions to our project. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:35, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::No worries, LT. I haven't gotten my hopes up, and my feelings won't be hurt. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:42, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Lest I trip over my beard, I must remind myself that Wikipedia was only two years old when the patrol feature was created. The rate of edits was so low that one sysop could do all the patrolling by himself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:44, 14 November 2008 (EST)

==Block==
You were blocked for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=557690 this] edit. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:53, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:Oops, my mistake. I have been away for a while, would you please sum up the events that have occured during my absence? Thanks. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:57, 15 November 2008 (EST)
::May I unblock him so he can answer? Blocked users cannot edit their own user talk pages here - although (thanks to me!) they can do so at Wikipedia. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:59, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::(Sorry Ed, I didn't know if anyone else was watching. PS: is there an easier way to unblock an IP address? I can't seem to figure out how to do it).
:::Henry, much has gone on since you went on vacation. I saw it all, but I'm not sure I can explain it all myself. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:01, 15 November 2008 (EST)

HJ, I am sorry that I blocked you. I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 21:09, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:It's ok, you picked a bad time to make a joke, is all. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:10, 15 November 2008 (EST) <-- NOONE expects the Spanish Inquisition!!! (There's never a bad time for that joke!)
::Did someone mention an Inquisition? Oh goody! (rubbing hands in glee!) --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:12, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::Our chief weapon is surprise! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:14, 15 November 2008 (EST)
::::I say we start a conservapedia inquisition. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 21:21, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Depends on who gets inquisitioned. Inquisized? Inquised? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:33, 15 November 2008 (EST)
::::::It is always THEM, Jazz! We go after <big>THEM!!!</big> --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:47, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::I stopped playing with blocks when I was six.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:02, 15 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::It is so noted. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:22, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Not a single block! That's impressive and unexpected. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:28, 15 November 2008 (EST)
*Well I am fairly certain that won't last. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:48, 16 November 2008 (EST)

==Crackpots==
*"I don't know why I bother, i'm sure some crackpot out there has said this" [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gay_heroism&diff=558704&oldid=558703]
A moment of candor. It's nice to know what you think of the sources we draw upon. I can tell you at least one person who said that: the [[User:Ed_Poor|person who wrote the article]]. Now think about whether you meant what you wrote. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 07:44, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:My point being that even though "gay heroism" is likely ''not'' part of a campaign to legitimize homosexuality, you can find a source that says anything, and there's really no standard for sources on this webite. I didn't mean that you had to be a crackpot to believe it, but I'm willing to wager that you won't find a mainstream source to back up that statement (yeah, yeah liberal bias). I wasn't calling Ed Poor a crackpot, since an editor's opinion can't be used as a source (a policy Ed himself helped to write), but yes, I still mean what I wrote. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:47, 16 November 2008 (EST)

==Sillly edit==
You are being silly but I will let it stand.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 14:47, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:Maybe I would have been in a nicer mood had you asked first, but now there's really no way to know, is there? You probably blocked their IP's anyway, which I'm guessing is why you are taking the "high road" now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:55, 16 November 2008 (EST)

==Your block==
Now try and stay civilised about this and discuss it here. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:05, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:You really make me laugh, you know? ''Bugler has no right to undo my blocks''. What on earth have you been doing in the past months, trying to worry me to an early grave? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:09, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::C'mon, HelpJazz. C'mon, man. Tell me. Have you never reverted an edit of mine? Heh? have you? Have you never reverted an edit of mine? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:13, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::(Edit conflict: Bugler's original comment was: "Now try and stay civilised about this and discuss it here.") I did discuss it. Jpatt has no right to undo my blocks; you have no right to undo my blocks. You then blocked me (and blocked my IP address for no reason other than to be annoying) with no legitimate reason. Blocking doesn't work if any other editor can decide to change another's blocks. Believe me, Bugler, be happy I respect this simple principle. If you think I complain a lot ''now'', how do you think you'd like it if I simply undid every block you did that I didn't think was appropriate? Now, a ''sysop'' has the power (and the right) to correct a block I made erroneously; a sysop's decisions take precidence over mine. Any other non-sysop has no greater authority over me. If they were to ask, I might reconsider. I've made mistakes in the past. But simply ignoring normal modes of respect is unacceptable. If you undo any of my blocks (ever) I will redo them, and I expect you would do the same.
:::Edit conflict (Bugler's *new* comment, I suspect he's intentionally edit conflicting me, is "You really make me laugh, you know? ''Bugler has no right to undo my blocks''. What on earth have you been doing in the past months, trying to worry me to an early grave?"): Which blocks of yours did I undo, except the ones where you blocked me? Name one and I'll quit this site.
:::Edit conflict *again*: First of all, edits are fundamentally different than blocks. It's clear that if you were to insert a spelling error, there is no conflict in me fixing it. Every editor on this site is given the "responsiblity" of editing. However, in getting "block" rights, Andy has decided that he trusts your judgment enough that you are given the "privilede" to excercise your good judement by blocking people. In undoing a ''block'' you are telling both me and Andy that your judgement is better than ours.
:::Even though it is irrelevant (as I have shown) I can still answer your question: Have I ever undone an ''edit'' you have done? Yes I have. Have I ever undone an edit you have done while giving no explanation or reason? No, I don't think I have. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:20, 16 November 2008 (EST)
You have certainly never given an ''adequate'' explanation. however, I am able to let the dead bury the dead. WEhat matters, as I am trying to get across to you, is the welfare of Conservapedia. I think your lenient 'name only' blocks of the two hangmen are entirely wrong for two key reasons. 1. The insults were so gross that the perpetrators do not deserve a second chance. 2. The insults, being so gross, indicate that teh perpetratorsm, if allowed back into CP, as you are in effect doing, have the potential to cause huge damage through vandalism, causing editors here an enormous amount of clean-up work.

I hope you will accept that I have not deliberately tried to edit conflict you; that is not my style. I say what I think, to you and to others. And the block was not intended to block you: I knew you would revert it post-haste. It was to get a breathing space to remove damaging saboteurs from the site. Saboteurs who you have since restored to grace. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:31, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:I cannot remember whether you have reverted any of my blocks. Given what you say, I presume you disapprove of Tim's high handed action yesterday (and before, regarding Daphnea), and PJR's similar actions towards me in the past. For the rceord, Jpatt is one of the best new editors and sysop-lites we have here. He should be encouraged and cherished, not subjected to beastings. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:33, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::(It again took you three edits to say what you think; if you instead use the preview button, you don't run the risk of edit conflicted other users multiple times)
::For starters, how did I not adequately explain why it was wrong for Jpatt to undo my block? You gave no explanation.
::Secondly, if you think my blocks are lenient, there's nothing stopping you from ''asking me about it''. There is way too much overeager blocking on this site; shame on me if I follow the letter of the law. That gives no excuse for someone else to change it without asking me. (You will notice that they never recreated their account).
::Thirdly, I can tell you that I have never undone any other editor's blocks, unless the blocks were obvious vandalism (Like MexMax) or if they were joking (like Bohdan last night).
::Fourthly, if you read what I wrote, I clearly said that I have no problem with a ''sysop'' going over the head of a normal editor. You and I are both editors, and Tim and PJR are both sysops. I don't know about Daphnea, but seeing as how you didn't undo a single one of HotDog's edits, you didn't really have a case there anyway, did you? I'd also be surprised if PJR undid a block without any explanation, but again, as a sysop it's entirely within his rights.
::Lastly, I have no responsibility to encourage or cherish someone for doing something they had no right to do. Had Jpatt asked me, I would have said "Thank you for asking Jpatt, here's my explanation." He showed no respect for me, and I had no obligation to give him any in return. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::: 1. Sysop rights have no merit whatsoever when they are abused, as I believe they were yesterday. 2. So what is your justification for giving the hangmen free rein in Conservapedia? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:48, 16 November 2008 (EST)
Hey people, don't fight. You are both good and valuable contributors. If you have to revert someone (but pleease don't block), revert my contributions: they are not as valuable as yours. Please, both of you, advance our common cause by being unite against our enemies! --[[User:Drunk|Drunk]] 15:51, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:Thank you, Drunk. I would however appreciate an acknowledgement from HelpJazz that I don't deliberately time my edits to disrup him with edit conflicts. t sounds a strange thing, and a very difficult one, to do in any case. I frequently gnash my teeth over ECs, but I don't for a moment imagine that enemies are doing it deliberately to frustrate me. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:56, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::I don't have much wiki experience, but to time edits to disrupt with edit conflicts seems very far-fetched even in my "high" (sorry) state. There are much more effective ways to disrupt. But HelpJazz, why do you think that Bugler is disrupting? Maybe it's just an incomprehension between you? --[[User:Drunk|Drunk]] 16:00, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::(Ironically, an edit conflict) 1. Then there's really no point in having sysops, is there? As much as you whine about the "liberal whinging about every decisions", do you really want to assert that every time someone thinks another user is abusing their power, that person has no obligation to sumbit to the abuser's power? Or are you the only one who gets to decide when someone is abusing power?
::::2. Free reign? Hardly. Had I wanted to give them free reign I would have unblocked them. Instead, I gave them the opportunity to rethink their actions and either go away, or come back in a better frame of mind. What's the worse that could have happened? Had they created another inappropriate username, I would have blocked them with account creation disabled (and yes, I have done this before); had they created an account and started vandalising I would have blocked their account with account creation disabled; had they never returned there's no harm to CP; had they returned and been a good editor then CP is all the better. I refuse to block people for something they might do. )This is not to say that I will contest any user who blocks people this way).
::::Ironic edit conflict: I'll admit that the first time may not have been intentional. It's very strange for someone to make three edits in a row, when they know that all three warrant a response, but the evidence is not conclusive enough to say that you did it on purpose. (I also misread the diffs and thought you were replacing your text, which lead more evidence to my claim). However, doing the exact same thing after I already pointed it out is a bit suspicious, no? That's why, to give you the benefit of the doubt, I instructed you to use the "show preview" button, which is the surefire way to avoid edit conflicts. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:07, 16 November 2008 (EST)
You got blocked again?! Ouch. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 16:12, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:You ''instructed'' me? My, oh my! I thought that editors had no authority over editors, but now I am expected to comply with the instructions of HelpJazz! Have you been appointed Lord High Panjandrum while I have been away? If so, please instruct me on the correct protocol. Is it a bow from the waist, or a full kow-tow? Do I have to walk backwards when I depart the August HelpJazzian Presence? My Lord will please excuse his humble servant's ignorance of etiquette! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 18:06, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::Bugler, please cool it, or I'll have to send an email to Andy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:13, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Well, honestly! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 18:14, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::Instruct (v.): to give knowledge to. Yes, that's what I did. I didn't say "commanded" or "required" or "demanded" or "forced" or "insisted". Alternatively, I could have said "taught" or "advised" or "showed" or "informed". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:23, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Perhaps this is a cultural difference. In the UK, instruct means order, tell. 'Advise' might have been the polite option. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 18:27, 16 November 2008 (EST)

== Category Discussion... ==

I have somehow missed the discussion about changing Categories from Liberals to Liberalism. Can you direct me, and possibly Ed Poor to it? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:49, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:I'm sorry, I didn't realize I had to discuss my use of common sense. Can you direct me to the rule that says this please? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:51, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::Are you quite certain you want to have this show-down? What exactly will you gain or lose? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:54, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::What showdown? Is there such a page? If not, I'm going to continue using my common sense. "Liberals" are people; "liberalism" is an idea. An idea is not a person and a person is not an idea. (And a person and an idea are not an organization). What's to discuss?
:::Just because you are back, it doesn't mean you can boss me around again, TK. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't work that way anymore. You won on {{tl|liberalism}}, what more do you want? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:56, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::::Boss you? Are you in 2nd grade, or what? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:57, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::I take it you don't have an answer to any of my question then? In that case, I'll continue what I'm doing. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:58, 16 November 2008 (EST)

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

:L. Beryl Baez is a person? [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal_bias_in_academia&curid=59501&diff=560052&oldid=525222&rcid=610515] I didn't understand your edit comment. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:16, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::Oh, wait: I misread it. "liberal bias is a concept, not a person" --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:18, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:::Wait, his bot is going to add everything from the "liberals" "liberalism" and "liberal organizations" categories and dump them all together into a "liberal" category? Why? Aren't categories supposed to be nouns? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:21, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::[[Homosexual Agenda]] is under the subcategory [[:Category:Liberal Deceit]]. [[Evolution]] isn't under any of the liberal categories at all. It doesn't usually make sense to put everything on a template into the same category. It makes category renames easier, but everything else harder, and category renames don't happen that often. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 20:26, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::(EC) <s>Ed, "liberal bias in acedemia", which is the title of the article, is not a person. There might be people mentioned in the article, but do you seriously want to put every single article that so much as mentions a liberal into the "liberals" category? That would mean that, for example, [[John McCain]] would be in the liberals category.</s> (EC -- this is happening a lot today. Maybe I should increase my typing speed) I think you understand where I'm coming from now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:21, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:::::You and Interiot are indeed "understood". I merely suggested one way to quickly add articles to a category, was not suggesting that would be the ONLY category applied. To me it was far easier to change the category "Liberal'''s'''" to Liberal, no plural. The "discussion-without-end" over this is everything that is wrong about Conservapedia, and in my opinion, by design and spite. However, if people want to run around like a chicken with its head cut off, in spite, go ahead. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:32, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Easier isn't always best. It might be "easier" to just put everything in the "liberal" category but (a) it goes against the category conventions and (b) it's not very descriptive.
::::::I don't see who's running around with a chicken with it's head cut off, either. All I was doing was putting articles into the most logical, pre-existing category. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:36, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::Yes, after you publicly got angry over it, insisting you were being "bossed". Do whatever you wish, of course. You and a few others insisted you were correct over something that was decided by admins months and months ago, and you don't care. I will no longer participate in this silly arguing on your part, Jazz. It is pointless, and nothing is urgent about this. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::Can you point to me where admins decided how the template should be used? Maybe I just missed it; all this mess will be cleared up rather quickly. The only thing I can find is where a group of people (including a sysop) decided how it was to be used, and then you unilaterally decided not to use it that way. So when I did what you wanted and started adding the template how you wanted to, somehow I can't do it right and I need permission to use common sense. Can you just tell me what to do already and get it over with? All this time I'm spending on my talk page I could be using to impliment the template ''you'' wanted to use. So please, direct me to the admin decision that was made months ago, so that I may submit myself to it and continue editing this encyclopedia. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:51, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Sysop discussions are not done that way, you know that, and you have absolutely no right to insist they should be. I asked Brianco to create it. I got Andy's permission, and that is that. No one, least of all me, said you were adding it incorrectly. What I do know is you got me on AIM highly agitated and upset I was using it. That is what I know. My only dispute was your public snit, and insistence about changing categories, and impatience that you were not answered IMEDIATELY, and posting that you were just going to proceed. I have the IM archive, from months ago, when you were informed about the template. And even that doesn't matter. You alone have decided you don't like the template. So, take it off, if you like. We will just make a new template, and not call it a nav box, thus removing your original complaint that it was being used for a purpose not intended for nav boxes. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:03, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:In other words, I have to take your word for it that any discussion took place?
:"You and you alone?" What about the other people who responded on the talk page? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:07, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::Yes, that's pretty much it, Jazz. We assume good faith. That is the Christian way. If I say it was that way, it was. If it is untrue, Andy can post saying I am mistaken or a liar. This is something, a Red Herring, you decided to dredge up and dispute, from months ago! It was only after I was no longer a sysop, that some people, including you, thought that meant some kind of wholesale reversal of policy could be made. That is indeed fuzzy logic. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:15, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Then let's have Andy post. You are using something I've never seen in order to control my actions.
:::I dredged it up? Really? Funny, nobody discussed the liberalism template until you came back and started doing the exact same thing you were doing when you left.
:::Wholesale reversal of policy? The policy was "TK is right; you must have permission from TK to do anything; TK has discussed everything through email with Andy". When TK is gone, the policy breaks down. Now you are back, you have no idea what has gone on in the last 7 months, and you just assume that everything is as it was. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:10, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::Speaking of what has gone on, could you sum it up tonight? Please? You refused to last night :( [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::When did you go on vacation? How long have you been gone? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:18, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::::About a month or two. When I was last here, you and another user were engaged in bitter dispute over "big science" or something like that. Is this Buglre a sysop? Are you? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:21, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::I don't think there have been any promotions in the last month or two. I'll never be promoted, so that's not something you ever have to ask ;-)
:::::::Hrm... what have you missed in the last few months? Ed and TK came back (which I'm sure you can tell).
:::::::Multiple fights have ensued, people have been called idiots, noone's been blocked -- not much has changed. (Big science got moved to the essay space though). Read over my talk page, Bugler's talk page, PJR's talk page and the Obama talk page, (Maybe Ed's talk page too) and that pretty much sums up everything you need to know over the last couple months. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:27, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::Were you called an idiot? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:29, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Not me, but Tim was (check out Bugler's talk page, I think).
:::::::::I just checked my spam email (all my CP mail goes straight to spam) and found emails from two different editors asking me to intercede with their blocks by the same user. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:33, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::Straight to spam? I have been sending you emails everyday for the past two months. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:35, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::Straight to spam. Curiously, I haven't seen any emails from teh Bohdan. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:40, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::Has anyone called me an idiot? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:42, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::Doubtful. Who could call you an idiot and expect to get away with it? I mean *seriously*! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:46, 16 November 2008 (EST)

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

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

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

By your less than kind, throw-away comments, like the "I'm sure you can tell..." above, you show yourself to be just another mean & hateful person. Just goes to show how wrong I was about you, your character, and your being good material for an admin. BTW, Ed Poor was another who put himself out there, promoting you for sysop to Andy. I have always been honest with you, always told you CP wasn't like Wikipedia, and that the owner didn't aspire to it under any circumstances. Given your actions in the past 24 hours, I know Andy was correct in holding back. I was wrong, he was right. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:55, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:TK, you started all of the arguments. Want to know how many arguments there were about the use of the liberalism template while you were gone? None. Want to know how many arguments there were about categories when you were gone? None. Formatting? None. The liberalness of Fred Phelps? None. But then within 24 hours of your arrival, all of the same arguments show up, and somehow it's everyone else's fault.

:Do you really think I could tell you what I thought of you when you were holding the banhammer over my head? I'm sorry we aren't best buddies, but our entire "relationship" consists of you telling me what to do. That's all you ever do, is tell people what to do. You came back to this site and all ready you have told Philip he's not allowed to talk on your page, you have told Brianco that he's not privy to conversations from those "above his pay grade", you have told Sideways that he's not allowed to change an edit made by Conservative, you have told me that because you start things, only you know the Truth about how they are to be used. You have only been here '''one day'''.

:I'm just another mean and hateful person? Because I thought that Bohdan can read my talk page to see you are back?

:You continually tell me CP is not like Wikipedia, and I continually tell you that '''I'm not trying to make CP like Wikipedia'''. I continually tell you that I don't even edit at Wikipedia, and yet somehow everything I do is in the "Wikipedia mindset". I'm not imposing my liberal worldview, I'm not motivated by neutrality, and I'm not using a coverup of liberalism to make desicions. Every single thing I do is to further the encycopedia '''within the Commandments''' and every reason I give is backed up by '''logic'''. I'm sorry if you don't think these are good qualities for being an admin. I'm sorry if you put yourself out on a limb to back me (which I can only take on your word; I know that Ed has vouched for me because I've actually seen it -- yet another advantage to skipping AIM in leu of the website right here at our fingertips), only to find out that sometimes following the rules means you can't always spew whatever crazy you want. I'm sorry that I'm harming your goal of destroying CP from within by using the rules on CP to rein you in. I'm sorry I gave you a second chance two nights ago, by telling you about what was going on at CP. Had I known that you were really just gathering intel into the power structures so that you could come back and wedge yourself back in, I might have pretended I wasn't home. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:27, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::So the copies of my emails to Andy, that you were copied on, CC, not BCC, months and months ago, are not to you "proof" that I backed you? You really are a despicable person. So, now you admit you are on AIM. Previously you posted you never use it, only did so because I requested it, demanded it. Oh well. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:37, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::I don't seem to have any of your emails to Andy. The closest I could find was one where you told me that you forwarded Andy, but I don't actually have any CCs. I highly doubt I deleted them since I have copies of many other random emails from you.
:::I previously explained that I never use AIM to talk to ''editors on CP''. I still use it for my personal communications. Is that clear now? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:35, 17 November 2008 (EST)

==Blocking [[User:TK]]==

Please provide reference and/or diffs to illustrate "insinuating that motorcycle accident which put a valued contributer in a coma for 10 days didn't actually happen; if someone wants to extend this block be my guest". [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] was wrong to undo your block but you should have asked an admin yourself, or Andy. Users with block rights (but no admin rights) should only block for clear and cut vandalism. I know this is not in the commandments, guidelines or user rights page but we are forming some kind of policy to address this in the near future. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 05:00, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:Actually it is [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:User_rights#Blocking_rights|here]: "''To counter blatant vandalism, some editors have the ability to block vandals. These particular rights may be granted to users who demonstrate an ongoing ability to revert vandalism. Users are also encouraged to report suspected vandals to the administration (preferably supplying evidence with diffs). Editors granted '''blocking rights should only use them for blocking vandals or other cases where immediate blocking is required. Other violations should be referred to an administrator.'''''" It Just hasn't been enforced very well so far. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 09:11, 17 November 2008 (EST)
::Jallen: As you know, BrianCo is a valued contributer to our website who was in a horrible motorcycle accident which put him '''in a coma for 10 days'''. TK, when confronted with the fact that he was '''outright lying''' about the fact that he was the one who asked for the {{tl|liberalism}} template (which was his entire reasoning for being able to use the template in the manner he demanded, and not how the community decided), responded with the following accusation: "Was this on your trip to Mexico, Genghis, or your later motorcycle accident recovery? Inquiring minds want to know!" [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template_talk:Liberalism&diff=prev&oldid=560367]. There is absolutely '''no excuse''' for such an '''unchristian''' comment towards another editor. I may not have been within my rights to block him (though I would certainly argue that this was a case where "immediate blocking is required"), but TK's incredibly low blow was intirely inexcusable, and I couldn't wait for a sysop to decide. If Bugler was the one who undid my block, then I'm going to redo it; I've said before (and you apparently agree) that Bugler had no right to undo it. Until a sysop tells me otherwise that it's ok for an editor to make light of a life-threatening event, I won't unblock TK. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:17, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:::HelpJazz, you have overstepped your authority in blocking TK. You are only allowed to use your blocking rights for vandalism. I don't believe you were justified with the immediate block either. "I couldn't wait for a sysop to decide" is not valid in this situation. I have undone your block. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 12:37, 17 November 2008 (EST)
::::Since you have undone my block, then you have made a decision. Thank you. I'm going to go appologice to BrianCo now, and I'll probably be too mad to edit today. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:39, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:Something both Tim and Dean "conveniently overlooked" in this little bashfest: '''"This restriction of only blocking vandals applies only to editors granted blocking rights after this amendment was posted in December 2007."''' (it's the footnote). And guess when HelpJazz got his rights:
::18:34, 13 September 2007 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) changed group membership for User:HelpJazz from (none) to Block
:So HelpJazz didn't overstep his authority. He is above that restriction. Unlike certain other people who block whenever they feel like it.
:Signed, a guy who will likely get instantly blocked for <s>correcting a sysop</s> <s>supporting HelpJazz</s> Not Minding His Own Business, Opposing The Project and Only Engaging In Liberal Claptrap That Goes Against Our 90/10 Rule. --[[User:SiemerD|SiemerD]] 15:09, 17 November 2008 (EST)
::What you have found is true. HelpJazz did not overstep his authority. Of course a sysop can undo his block if the sysop believes there is a reason to do so, but it should be done with respect, recognizing that we do owe a debt of gratitude to the longterm editors who have been faithful contributors to this project and have a strong track record of helping us both with articles and with administrative tasks. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:29, 17 November 2008 (EST)

HelpJazz, I think it's important to point out that no one is saying that TK's statement was appropriate; you are correct in being concerned. The only thing being questioned is the block itself. During different times when he was on this site, TK has mixed obstinate gruffness with a jovail nature and helping out a number of users -- myself included. I owe much of my knowledge of Conservapedia to TK and so do many others. You wound up stepping in a tender area because there have been blocking wars in the past and it is still a senstive issue. I wouldn't take any personal affront to what has occurred. Your own contributions to this site continue to be valued. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:41, 17 November 2008 (EST)
::: SiemerD seems to be (have been) a kind of prophet:
:::*17:39, 17 November 2008 Bugler (Talk | contribs) blocked SiemerD (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 month (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk: Sole reason for joining: to make trouble)
:::BTW:
:::*10:25, 10 June 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) changed group membership for User:Bugler from (none) to Block, edit and Upload ‎
:::So, while we are discussing these rules: did SiemerD's post require immediate action? Was he a vandal?--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 17:55, 17 November 2008 (EST)

===Response===
There are multiple issues at work here: whether or not I had the right to block TK, and whether or not the block was justified.

It has been clearly shown that, due to a grandfather clause, I was within the rules in blocking an editor for something other than vandalism. (And despite SiemerD's swipe, I don't think Jallen or Tim intentionally neglected to mention the grandfather clause; I didn't know of it myself). However, it is always true that a sysop can undo a block of a regular editor, even if that editor had the rights to make the block

Learn together claims "it's important to point out that no one is saying that TK's statement was appropriate"; this is mostly true ''de juro'' on my talk page. (However I think Ed Poor echoed TK's sentiments on the talk page, thus agreeing that TK's statment was not inappropriate; but nobody on this talk page ''de juro'' stated that TK's actions were ok). However, anyone involved ''de facto'' agreed that TK's actions were ok, by not exercising their own authority to reblock him. Had anyone placed the offence of his statement above their reticence of blocking a well-connected user, they would have had no problem reblocking him, or at least publicly asking if he should have been reblocked. As it is, he was not blocked, and no one (again, except Ed Poor, who seems to have endorsed TK's statement) made a statement either way as to whether it was a blocking offense.

Perhaps I should explain the history of this case (most if not all relevant proof can be found at [[template talk:liberalism]]):
*BrianCo created the template in February
*In April, TK started adding the template in a manner inconsistant with other templates of it's type
*It was discussed in April, and decided that TK's use of the template was wrong
*TK leaves for ~7 months
*When TK returns, he almost immediately continues his previous actions
*When pointed to the April discussion, he claims that he was the one who wanted the template, therefore he could use it however he wanted (this argument was not brought up in April)
*Other users (really, just me) tried to argue that it doesn't matter that TK created the template, but eventually gave in to the futillity of the argument, and started adding the template to pages based on the fact that TK, as creator of the template, dictated its use
*BrianCo, the person who actually built the template, points out that TK could not have asked for the template, since he had not edited for a month before or after the template was created.
*TK, out of left field and out of arguments, accuses BrianCo of being a sock, and questions the validity of a motorcycle accident which could have taken BrianCo's life.

Is such a response approprite or proportionate? Is this how we are to treat our fellow editors? Bugler calls respected editors maggots and long-time sysops idiots, and nobody cares. But there's a mile difference between calling someone an idiot and taking a jovial attitude on such a serious issue. What if TK had said "ha ha ha, yeah right like I believe you were raped" or "say, how's your murdered wife doing these days?" or "hey, sorry to hear about the miscarriage, good thing the kid never existed!" I can't, in good Christian conscience, allow someone to run around saying such hurtful, unwarranted, unproven and unChristian statements. Unlike the many users and sysops who know of and are ignoring this argument, I can't sit on the fence. This is a serious enough issue that I jumped off with both feet. And I hope that one day there is an issue strong enough to move others to take a stand as well, but I'm afraid to see what that issue is, when this issue is not it.

[[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:36, 18 November 2008 (EST)

PS: Since this whole discussion is about properly enforcing the rules, I think it should be mentioned that it's very clear that they are only being enforced "fairly" when it is in the interest of the ruling sysop. As BRichtigen pointed out, Bugler does not have the authority to block SiemerD for 90/10 (and clearly, a 1 edit 90/10 is ludicrous anyway; are we to block editors who use the [[sandbox]] before they make real edits? I should think not) and yet nobody has decided to unblock SiemerD or punish Bugler. In fact, Bugler is the winner in this case: he won the block, and he was able to make racist remarks about ''two'' senior sysops without real penalty; proving again to himself (and everyone watching) that he clearly can do whatever he wants to, without recourse.

==Your role at Conservapedia==

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

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

:Wow. Just, wow. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 14:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Ed, I do not concur with your assessment. Four days ago, after having worked with HelpJazz for a year and a half, you were praising him as a future sysop. I would hate to see short term changes impact the long term viability of the Conservapedia site. You are aware of the positive accolades he has received behind closed doors by a number of sysops. We need editors like HelpJazz just as much now as we did four days ago. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:57, 18 November 2008 (EST)

: I've reinstated the section that Ed Poor deleted on the grounds of "''don't put personal information about others here - not without their express, written permission - give it to Andy if you have it''". First, I don't know that there's any personal information here that isn't already public knowledge. Second, even if there is, I'm sure that it doesn't required deleting the entire section and subsection. Third, what is Andy going to do about it anyway?
: Also, the Guidelines say nothing about using IM, let alone mandating it.
: If you can't understand the "feud" with TK, Ed, then perhaps you should try reading that section that you deleted.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:04, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== Blocking Rights ==

It has been determined that, indeed, you have the same range of blocking reasons available to you as any sysop. Please use this to continue to assist the project. We can use your help. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)

User talk:HelpJazz

2016-09-06T19:16:29Z

HelpJazz: prepare to archive

{| style="width: 100%; border: black solid 1px; background-color: lightgrey;"
|-
|{{Useful links|float=right}}<center><big>'''Guidelines for my talk page'''</big></center>
*Please, no "ping-pong" conversations: if I leave a message on your talk page, please respond there; I'm watching it. If you start a conversation here, I'll reply here, so please watch this page
*Sign your posts with four tildes, like this: '''<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>'''
*At the beginning of each month I will archive all conversations which are at least 1 month and 1 day from the most recent reply.
*Please, only one picture of Putin at a time. He scares me in large doses.
*'''If you have been blocked by me''': please do not create a sock and complain on this page! Instead, [[Special:Emailuser/HelpJazz|email me]] and we can work it out. (You will need a valid, verified e-mail address for this to work).

The system is supposed to send me an email when my talk page is changed... but I don't think it's working. The regular email is working, though, so if for some reason I don't respond to a notice on my talk page, click [[Special:Emailuser/HelpJazz|here]]
|}

Archives: [[/Sept07|Sep '07]] • [[/Oct07|Oct '07]] • [[/Nov07|Nov '07]] • [[/Dec07|Dec '07]] • [[/Jan08|Jan '08]] • [[/FebApr08|Feb-Apr '08]] • [[/MaySep08|May-Sep '08]] • [[/OctNov09]]

==For the good of the project==
and despite sore provocation I have reverted some pointed words and trust that you can be relied on to respond in an appropriately responsible manner. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:53, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
:For the good of the project, you shouldn't have written them at all.
:Don't get so worked up that I don't create new articles. There's no rule that says you have to create new articles, and it's certainly the idea of a wiki to edit other's articles, no? Plus, as I've already said, I have created numerous articles. I don't enjoy it, and I'm not good at it. I'm not here to please you, and I'm not going to try.
:It's pretty hypocritical of you to say that ''I'' have done no work on this site, when I have been doing work all morning long, and you have been simply reverting me on two pages. Now I have ''real'' work (i.e. the money-making kind) so I won't be bothering you with my non-work for the rest of the day. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:01, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

== Edit war ==

I'm addressing both you and Bugler. Stop your edit warring and try working together for the good of Conservapedia. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:02, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

== Template:lowercase ==

I seem to recall from the equivalent template on Wikipedia that the template would only display the correct case of the title in certain circumstances (such as Javascript enabled). Is this still the case, or does it ''always'' correct the display of the title?

And the reason that you were able to edit a locked page is that it wasn't locked! It had been locked, but was deleted by a sysop who didn't understand its purpose. Deleting a locked page and reinstating it causes (or used to cause?) the locking to be lost.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:31, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

:<s>I don't think you have to have javascript enabled, but I might be wrong. It uses the DISPLAYTITLE... uh thing. It's not a template, and it seems to be built into the wikicode much like <nowiki>{{CURRENTDAY}}</nowiki>. I don't know a lot about how wikis work behind the scenes, but the template is used on Wikipedia, so if it doesn't work all of the time it works most of the time.</s>

:This is from the page of the WP template that I, uh, "borrowed" from: ''This template wraps the magic word DISPLAYTITLE so that it works automatically in any namespace (main, talk, template, etc.) to decapitalise the first letter of the name of a page it is transcluded on. (Previously, this template achieved this using JavaScript, but the DISPLAYTITLE method makes the change for all users, even those with JavaScript disabled in their browser).'' So we should be fine. :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:06, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
:: Ah, very good. Thanks for that. I've now changed the Manual of Style page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:00, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

==Brokeback==

You're breakin' my back on the Brokeback article! :-) I hope you can see that I'm very willing to defend my points, and I appreciate the civility with which you've been treating them (unlike some other posters on that page). I'm going to continue as much as I can today, but I'm leaving for a weeklong trip tonight so I won't be able to respond until I get back. Hopefully the page won't blow up to enormous proportions in the meantime :0 -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 13:49, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
:Ha ha ha! I was actually just about to tell you that I'm not trying to be harsh. I think you're a good editor, so my comments are (to the best of my ability) aimed at the article and not at you. I'll keep an eye on the page and keep it honest while you are gone. Have a good trip. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:17, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
::Thanks! See you on the talk pages in a week. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 20:04, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I'm back and will get to the posts on Brokeback Mountain probably tomorrow. In the meantime, I've noticed that the categories now appear in double boxes. Do you know why that is? It seems redundant. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:21, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Nevermind, I've found the relevant thread on Andy's talk page (it explains the appearance of other things like the new CAPTCHA, which I don't like). -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:37, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::Me neither. Hopefully it will change, or I may very well never <nowiki>{{welcome}}</nowiki> a user again! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:39, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::I didn't even think of that detail! Speaking of which, why is there an external link that occurs when we're doing a <nowiki>{{welcome}}</nowiki> anyway? -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 23:08, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::The link to Interiot's edit counter (which doesn't actually work right now) is an outside link. Don't forget that "internal" diff links (like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:HelpJazz&diff=next&oldid=519768 this], for example), counts as an outside link. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:21, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: Now ''those'' I can help you with. Administrators have the ability to add a web-site to a "white list" so that those addresses will not trigger the CAPTCHA. I've added Interiot's tool and Conservapedia itself. Give them a try and let me know if it works. It's not, of course, an ideal solution for all the other possible links. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:59, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::You mean this whole time there was a simple solution? Oh man. Let's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:HelpJazz&diff=next&oldid=519768 test]. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 09:38, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Hey it worked! You'd think the software would be smart enough to have the domain site on the whitelist by default... Thanks soooooooo much Philip! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 09:39, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

==Vote McCain==
Vote McCain!!! [[Fry2000]]

== Thank you! ==

Thanks for the block! [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 19:23, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:I do what I can :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:24, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

==Ohio==
Well, well. I always thought you were British, for some reason. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:33, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:Nope. Never even visited. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:36, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

== addition article ==

Is there a way to check the user John Peters ? His name is red link in the history. The text added to the article may be correct but makes the article very complex if aimed at a high school level. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 23:56, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:I don't know. "Checkuser" (which I don't have) only tells you what other users have used the same IP address as him, but that doesn't really help in this case. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:19, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

==Blocked==
When I attempted to log in today, I received a notice that my IP address was blocked. I think a schoolmate of mine got himself blocked by you. First and foremost, I apologize for my classmates inappropriate behavior. I will look into who it was and see if I can get them removed from the lab. I would like to ask, however, if something like this happens in the future, is there anyone I can contact about removing the IP block or is it best to just ride it out? Thank you [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 17:05, 23 October 2008 (EDT) PS, I had to edit another user's signature before it would let me post. I think their user name contained something that the spam filter blocked out
:I think the best thing to do is email the person who blocked IP address and include the IP address or block number (it's shown when you try to edit a page). In this case, since you are only blocked at school, you could ask someone with checkuser rights (basically any sysop) to unblock your IP address. I have no way of looking it up, but they can help. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:19, 23 October 2008 (EDT) PS: Out of curiosity, do you know the person I blocked?
::Ok, I will keep that in mind should it happen again. It's hard to do much else except post from school, I don't have a personal computer yet (although I'm working on it) and I don't know for sure who it was, but by cross referencing sign in logs to the time I think I can get a fairly good idea. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 11:54, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

==Pearl Jam - removal of talk edit==
Apologies may be in order. I think I may have removed that talk page contribution...our edits clahed and I must have somehow wiped yours during my amateurish attempts at saving my input. Sorry about that. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 18:15, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
:I figured that's what happened. No biggie. (It was actuallyl Liams that you removed). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:36, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
::Yeah, I didn't mind, so I didn't change it :-) [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 18:38, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks for defending me ==

Thanks for pointing out how others had mistaken comments I made. You are correct with what I said about lying in the Bible, and Peter is a perfect example. However, you and they are wrong to claim that I "cherry pick". My position has always been that you can determine whether something is meant to be taken literally by the context and knowledge of the language, as Professor James Barr (not a creationist) did (see [[creation week]]). And contrary to a claim made by someone of whom I'll have more to say in a moment (this is for their benefit) that [[creation week]] has no evidence, it in fact has (a) a number of supporting arguments about word use (admittedly unreferenced), (b) a referenced quote from an expert (Barr) who also says the other experts agree, and (c) a referenced summary of a formal study into the text. Perhaps ''he'' is simply seeing (or not seeing) what he wants to (not) see. Before I saw your comments, I was thinking of saying something anyway (such as on my user page). That same accuser (Kels) also accused ''me'' and Creation Ministries International of lying, ("he won't hesitate to lie and twist at the slightest opportunity" and "He accepts every lie creationontheweb feeds him") yet offered no evidence of that whatsoever. I accept that many people don't accept my views and think that I'm mistaken, deluded, or even stupid, but I don't go around saying things that I know to be untrue (and nor does CMI). Accusations like that without solid supporting evidence are nothing short of libel (not that I could be bothered suing), and he is despicable for making the accusation, and should be censured by others there, but by their silence they are just as bad. And they have the gall to criticise Conservapedia! Finally, to answer a loaded question, I accept both parts of the creation account, because I see no conflict between them (just like most of the rest of the millions who have studied the Bible for centuries) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:34, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
:Probably these others don't believe in censoring. Maybe you should go and explain your points of view to them at their place. I don't know what this Kels accused you of, but you can't deny that creationontheweb is your number one source of "information". Go and debate them there. Here, as you know, it is impossible. --[[User:JulianAdderley|JulianAdderley]] 09:52, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
:: Since when it is censoring to take someone to task for libel? That CreationOnTheWeb is my main source was not the accusation. How do you not know what he accused me of when I've quoted it above?? I don't go there because I'd end up spending too much time disputing so much of what they say. I spend too much time disputing here without doing it there also. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:18, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I talked about censoring as you yourself said "... and should be '''censured''' by others there". I find it unfair and cowardly that you attack them here instead of debating with them. They'd defend themselves here, but they are not allowed. --[[User:JulianAdderley|JulianAdderley]] 14:29, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
:::: ''censure: to criticise adversely; disapprove; find fault with; condemn.'' That's not the same thing as ''censor''. My reasons for not debating there have been given several times. I agree that the situation is unfortunate, but it's not out of cowardice that I don't debate there. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:38, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, Philip, I didn't mean to imply that you cherry pick (though when I reread the post I was agreeing with, it does seem that that's what I agreed to!). What I meant to say was that you draw a different line than I do on what's literal and what's figurative in the Bible. I've seen you debating this a lot across the site and I know you don't use anything so silly as quote mining or cherry picking :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:57, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
: Thanks for clearing that up. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:38, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

==Ema==
Funny Ema support Jesus as lord and supports Barack Obama because Christian principles are not Obama (gay marriage, abortion, black liberation theology, etc.). It is an oxymoron. How come you don't understand? --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 12:42, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:Because not every Christian in the world believes the exact same thing? Obama is not the anti-Christ. Full disclosure: I'm probably going to vote for McCain, even though I don't really like him, simply to make it harder for Obama to win Ohio. I'm not an Obama fan by a long shot, but saying that no Christian Who Is A True Christian can vote for Obama gives Christianity a bad name. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:46, 3 November 2008 (EST) PS: Is Obama a black liberation theologist or a Muslim? He can't be both.

::My fellow Buckeye, it is evident that many Christians will vote for Obama, just by observing primary statistics. I am just saying Christians are confused about their faith if they vote Obama. So he is not the anti-Christ. His views are anti-Christian. If a true Christian votes cares for values and votes Obama, well then, they are giving Christianity a bad name.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 12:51, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::Jpatt, check worldwide statistics on support for the two candidates. They are pretty clear on which of the two candidates the majority of all the Christians in the world support. If you are too lazy to check by yourself, it's Obama. I find that a pretty convincing argument on who has more Christian values. --[[User:JennyM|JennyM]] 12:54, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::::: What statistics? Not only have I seen no such statistics, I can't imagine that anybody is going to survey Christians worldwide to find out with of the two American presidential candidates they prefer. And Christian values are defined by the Bible, not by the values of the person that Christians would prefer to see as American president. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:31, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Just google around, not difficult to find. Sorry to hear about your lack of imagination, Philip, as imagination is what keeps us young! Surely Christian values are defined by the Bible, not by Jpatt. Quite arrogant of Jpatt to "know" that McCain has more Christian values than Obama. Billions of Christians worldwide disagree. --[[User:Jessica|Jessica]] 07:26, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::::::: If they're not difficult to find, why can't you link to them? And how many is "billions", given that there's about 2.1 billion Christians ''in total'', and they wouldn't all prefer Obama. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:47, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::50 % of 2.1 billion is more than one billion. Since all the polls show more way more than 50 %, it's not difficult to infer the "billions". --[[User:Jessica|Jessica]] 07:52, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::: Although a plural word indicates more than one, my understanding it that it is more than one ''unit'' ("billion" being the unit in this case), which doesn't allow for fractions, so "billions" means at least 2 billion. So where are these worldwide polls? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:00, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::You are wrong on two counts. First of all, when approaching or surpassing 1.5, it is perfectly legitimate to use the plural. Second, "billions", as well as "dozens" or "tens", is a perfectly acceptable way to convey ''order of magnitude''. For the polls you'll have to look by yourself. I have no time now. But do you really doubt it? --[[User:Jessica|Jessica]] 08:11, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: I do doubt that such surveys exist. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:28, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::Philip's a busy guy, but I'm notoriously bored, so I went and looked. I found plenty of surveys that showed Obama winning international popularity contests, but none of them claimed to select only Christians.
::::::::::::To the larger point of it being possible for Christians to select Obama - of course it's possible. I did it, for one. (Sorry, HelpJazz.) [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 10:56, 5 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo I can't be your online friend anymore! ;-) It's ok, in a way I wanted Obama to win. I truely believe that once the hype wore off, either candidate would have been a pretty lame duck president. If McCain won, they would just blame it on Bush, and then a candidate who's even more liberal than Obama would be elected in '12. If Obama won, then when he is (ok this tense is all messed up now, bear with me here) not the Messiah that he's supposed to be I can laugh and feel morally superior and smug and all those cool things I like to do :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:02, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::::Yeah, he doesn't match my politics in a lot of ways, but neither does the 2008 version of McCain, and Bob Barr was a carpet-bagger of a Libertarian and I refuse to endorse that. Boiled down to the fact that I felt a McCain vote is an endorsement of the current administration, for all the lip service he pays to "change."
::::::::::::::You might enjoy checking out [http://thebigstick.wordpress.com/ this blog I found] by a guy who posts on Ames' blog comments. He's a fairly articulate guy who doesn't get all riled up (in other words, don't hold Ames against him) (although Ames is plenty articulate, he just gets caught up in things...). [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 13:02, 5 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::::Grrr lost a post. Ok this is the last thing I say and then I'll be done for a while because this faulty connection thing is annoying. I didn't like any of the candidates this year, and as much as I hated myself for doing it, I had to vote against a candidate instead of for a candidate. I almost considered writing in Ron Paul just for the heck of it. *Off to read that blog link, which probably has a much better connection than this site does right now* [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:14, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Oh if the world wants Obama, then I should shut up, duh. It is convincing who has more Christian values. Hint, it aint Obama.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 13:01, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::And again I say you are trying to impose one set of beliefs on all Christians, and you are questioning the faith of those who believe differently than you. Not everybody is a one or two issue voter, you know. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:44, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::PS: Since you brought up same sex marriage, both Obama and Biden ''oppose'' it [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.samesexmarriage.html]. And you didn't mention stem cell research: McCain supports federal funding of it [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.stemcell.html]. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:54, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::: "McCain supports federal funding of ... Obama"??? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:31, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::Whoops! Fixed. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:36, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::: Oh. I thought you might have meant "and Obama does also". And to clarify, nobody has any objection to funding stem cell research. Or are you saying that McCain supports funding ''embryonic'' stem cell research? In any case, I expect that it's a case not of claiming that McCain is correct in all his views, but that they are, overall, better than Obama's. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:14, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::I did mean embryonic. To be fair, he only wants funding on embryos that are going to be discarded anyway -- I don't know if pro-lifers are ok with that. If I understand Jpatt's argument, he was trying to argue that no Christians can vote for Obama because he doesn't hold Christian values. Not only that, but he presented it as the only correct choice and anyone with a differing opinion doesn't have enough faith. I was trying to point out that Jesus is not running for president. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:39, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: Write-ins FTW!! [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 22:26, 3 November 2008 (EST) ''<-Jesus/Holy Ghost '08!''
:::::::::: Was it okay to experiment on the Jews who were going to the gas chambers in Nazi Germany because they were going to die anyway?
:::::::::: I tend to agree that Americans tie their religion too closely to their politics, but on the other hand, I can understand where he's probably coming from (although I should point out that I don't know what prompted the first post in this section). A Christian believes that God is the ultimate reality, and therefore that God's standards are more important than anything else more worldly. Therefore, in comparing two different candidates, the one that most closely follows God's standards is the one that Christians should vote for. That is, God's standards (such as on moral issues) are not just a minor consideration, but should be a major deciding factor. To that extent, I would agree with Jpatt. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:38, 3 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::What you missed was the conversaion on (the now blocked) [[user:Ema]]'s talk page. She said something about how Obama was going to win, to which Jpatt replied: "Funny how you accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and support Barack Obama." I don't think there's anything wrong to use your faith as a factor in deciding who to vote for, but to presume that ones (clearly at least partially incorrect, as seen by the gay marriage comment on this page) interpretation is infallible is hubris at its best. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:48, 3 November 2008 (EST)

==My vacation==

Hey! It's good to be back. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:07, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:Now get to work *wchapshh!* [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:45, 3 November 2008 (EST)

That has a nice [[beat]] to it . . . --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:53, 3 November 2008 (EST)

==[[User:BHarlan]]==
My apologies for bothering you with this.... But is this user for real? Or is he a parodist? If he is real, he is a very difficult person to work with. He is currently edit warring on the [[Rodney King]] page and is generally making things difficult for other users? Is there anything we can do? I think this [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Rodney_King&diff=550213&oldid=550211 this edit] sums up everything. [[User:SamuelA|SamuelA]] 18:03, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:To engage in an edit war while insisting "don't edit war" is parody at its worst.
:I contribute here by editing articles to add information, sometimes in the form of sentences and paragraphs. I suggest you do the same.
:In the meantime, I will try to be more like the Christ. He was very forgiving. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:08, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::If that doesn't clear things up for you, nothing will. There is nothing you can do about it. [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 18:23, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:::I try not to comment on the nature of parodists, unless I am blocking someone for it. It's too messy otherwise. However, BHarlan, I would ask that you be a little nicer. Legitimate editors can be blocked for not working well with others. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:56, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== Template thanks ==

Thanks for your work on {{tl|homosexualityb}} - it will be much easier to edit now. Just wanted to let you know that these things don't go unnoticed.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:03, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:Thanks. All I really did was add a line break in between each thing, since I have a hard time reading all those links squished together. A single line break won't show up in the end result, but it makes the code a little easier to look at.
:''You'' should be the one being thanked though. None of your work goes unnoticed, but I'm willing to wager that most of it is thankless. Until now!! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:26, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::I wouldn't say thankless - just yesterday Ed Poor was if anything over-generous. Congratulations on the message below, by the way.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:34, 14 November 2008 (EST)

==Sysop rights==

Er, I meant that you've been nominated in our secret enclave to become a sysop. Until then, all you edits show up for me in Recent Changes with a red mark. When you become a sysop, we don't have to patrol your changes any more. I think Jessica and Bert should be sysops. No one ever reverts them. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:08, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:I'm sure I've been nominated more than once... I'll believe it when I see it though ;-)
:About those red exlamation points: I've seen them before (not here, obviously). It makes me wonder what Wikimedia was thinking (or was it Wikipedia? Which came first?) -- do they seriously expect every single edit by a non-sysop to be marked as patrolled? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:32, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Ed, there is a reason why secret enclaves are secret. It is very unclear right now what direction Andy wishes to go and we should avoid any indication to our valued editors of what the future may hold that may not in fact be fulfilled. It can only cause possible embitterment or disenchantment and we certainly don't want that among any of the people who have made great contributions to our project. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:35, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::No worries, LT. I haven't gotten my hopes up, and my feelings won't be hurt. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:42, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Lest I trip over my beard, I must remind myself that Wikipedia was only two years old when the patrol feature was created. The rate of edits was so low that one sysop could do all the patrolling by himself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:44, 14 November 2008 (EST)

==Block==
You were blocked for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=557690 this] edit. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:53, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:Oops, my mistake. I have been away for a while, would you please sum up the events that have occured during my absence? Thanks. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:57, 15 November 2008 (EST)
::May I unblock him so he can answer? Blocked users cannot edit their own user talk pages here - although (thanks to me!) they can do so at Wikipedia. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:59, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::(Sorry Ed, I didn't know if anyone else was watching. PS: is there an easier way to unblock an IP address? I can't seem to figure out how to do it).
:::Henry, much has gone on since you went on vacation. I saw it all, but I'm not sure I can explain it all myself. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:01, 15 November 2008 (EST)

HJ, I am sorry that I blocked you. I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 21:09, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:It's ok, you picked a bad time to make a joke, is all. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:10, 15 November 2008 (EST) <-- NOONE expects the Spanish Inquisition!!! (There's never a bad time for that joke!)
::Did someone mention an Inquisition? Oh goody! (rubbing hands in glee!) --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:12, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::Our chief weapon is surprise! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:14, 15 November 2008 (EST)
::::I say we start a conservapedia inquisition. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 21:21, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Depends on who gets inquisitioned. Inquisized? Inquised? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:33, 15 November 2008 (EST)
::::::It is always THEM, Jazz! We go after <big>THEM!!!</big> --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:47, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::I stopped playing with blocks when I was six.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:02, 15 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::It is so noted. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:22, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Not a single block! That's impressive and unexpected. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:28, 15 November 2008 (EST)
*Well I am fairly certain that won't last. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:48, 16 November 2008 (EST)

==Crackpots==
*"I don't know why I bother, i'm sure some crackpot out there has said this" [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gay_heroism&diff=558704&oldid=558703]
A moment of candor. It's nice to know what you think of the sources we draw upon. I can tell you at least one person who said that: the [[User:Ed_Poor|person who wrote the article]]. Now think about whether you meant what you wrote. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 07:44, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:My point being that even though "gay heroism" is likely ''not'' part of a campaign to legitimize homosexuality, you can find a source that says anything, and there's really no standard for sources on this webite. I didn't mean that you had to be a crackpot to believe it, but I'm willing to wager that you won't find a mainstream source to back up that statement (yeah, yeah liberal bias). I wasn't calling Ed Poor a crackpot, since an editor's opinion can't be used as a source (a policy Ed himself helped to write), but yes, I still mean what I wrote. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:47, 16 November 2008 (EST)

==Sillly edit==
You are being silly but I will let it stand.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 14:47, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:Maybe I would have been in a nicer mood had you asked first, but now there's really no way to know, is there? You probably blocked their IP's anyway, which I'm guessing is why you are taking the "high road" now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:55, 16 November 2008 (EST)

==Your block==
Now try and stay civilised about this and discuss it here. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:05, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:You really make me laugh, you know? ''Bugler has no right to undo my blocks''. What on earth have you been doing in the past months, trying to worry me to an early grave? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:09, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::C'mon, HelpJazz. C'mon, man. Tell me. Have you never reverted an edit of mine? Heh? have you? Have you never reverted an edit of mine? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:13, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::(Edit conflict: Bugler's original comment was: "Now try and stay civilised about this and discuss it here.") I did discuss it. Jpatt has no right to undo my blocks; you have no right to undo my blocks. You then blocked me (and blocked my IP address for no reason other than to be annoying) with no legitimate reason. Blocking doesn't work if any other editor can decide to change another's blocks. Believe me, Bugler, be happy I respect this simple principle. If you think I complain a lot ''now'', how do you think you'd like it if I simply undid every block you did that I didn't think was appropriate? Now, a ''sysop'' has the power (and the right) to correct a block I made erroneously; a sysop's decisions take precidence over mine. Any other non-sysop has no greater authority over me. If they were to ask, I might reconsider. I've made mistakes in the past. But simply ignoring normal modes of respect is unacceptable. If you undo any of my blocks (ever) I will redo them, and I expect you would do the same.
:::Edit conflict (Bugler's *new* comment, I suspect he's intentionally edit conflicting me, is "You really make me laugh, you know? ''Bugler has no right to undo my blocks''. What on earth have you been doing in the past months, trying to worry me to an early grave?"): Which blocks of yours did I undo, except the ones where you blocked me? Name one and I'll quit this site.
:::Edit conflict *again*: First of all, edits are fundamentally different than blocks. It's clear that if you were to insert a spelling error, there is no conflict in me fixing it. Every editor on this site is given the "responsiblity" of editing. However, in getting "block" rights, Andy has decided that he trusts your judgment enough that you are given the "privilede" to excercise your good judement by blocking people. In undoing a ''block'' you are telling both me and Andy that your judgement is better than ours.
:::Even though it is irrelevant (as I have shown) I can still answer your question: Have I ever undone an ''edit'' you have done? Yes I have. Have I ever undone an edit you have done while giving no explanation or reason? No, I don't think I have. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:20, 16 November 2008 (EST)
You have certainly never given an ''adequate'' explanation. however, I am able to let the dead bury the dead. WEhat matters, as I am trying to get across to you, is the welfare of Conservapedia. I think your lenient 'name only' blocks of the two hangmen are entirely wrong for two key reasons. 1. The insults were so gross that the perpetrators do not deserve a second chance. 2. The insults, being so gross, indicate that teh perpetratorsm, if allowed back into CP, as you are in effect doing, have the potential to cause huge damage through vandalism, causing editors here an enormous amount of clean-up work.

I hope you will accept that I have not deliberately tried to edit conflict you; that is not my style. I say what I think, to you and to others. And the block was not intended to block you: I knew you would revert it post-haste. It was to get a breathing space to remove damaging saboteurs from the site. Saboteurs who you have since restored to grace. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:31, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:I cannot remember whether you have reverted any of my blocks. Given what you say, I presume you disapprove of Tim's high handed action yesterday (and before, regarding Daphnea), and PJR's similar actions towards me in the past. For the rceord, Jpatt is one of the best new editors and sysop-lites we have here. He should be encouraged and cherished, not subjected to beastings. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:33, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::(It again took you three edits to say what you think; if you instead use the preview button, you don't run the risk of edit conflicted other users multiple times)
::For starters, how did I not adequately explain why it was wrong for Jpatt to undo my block? You gave no explanation.
::Secondly, if you think my blocks are lenient, there's nothing stopping you from ''asking me about it''. There is way too much overeager blocking on this site; shame on me if I follow the letter of the law. That gives no excuse for someone else to change it without asking me. (You will notice that they never recreated their account).
::Thirdly, I can tell you that I have never undone any other editor's blocks, unless the blocks were obvious vandalism (Like MexMax) or if they were joking (like Bohdan last night).
::Fourthly, if you read what I wrote, I clearly said that I have no problem with a ''sysop'' going over the head of a normal editor. You and I are both editors, and Tim and PJR are both sysops. I don't know about Daphnea, but seeing as how you didn't undo a single one of HotDog's edits, you didn't really have a case there anyway, did you? I'd also be surprised if PJR undid a block without any explanation, but again, as a sysop it's entirely within his rights.
::Lastly, I have no responsibility to encourage or cherish someone for doing something they had no right to do. Had Jpatt asked me, I would have said "Thank you for asking Jpatt, here's my explanation." He showed no respect for me, and I had no obligation to give him any in return. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::: 1. Sysop rights have no merit whatsoever when they are abused, as I believe they were yesterday. 2. So what is your justification for giving the hangmen free rein in Conservapedia? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:48, 16 November 2008 (EST)
Hey people, don't fight. You are both good and valuable contributors. If you have to revert someone (but pleease don't block), revert my contributions: they are not as valuable as yours. Please, both of you, advance our common cause by being unite against our enemies! --[[User:Drunk|Drunk]] 15:51, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:Thank you, Drunk. I would however appreciate an acknowledgement from HelpJazz that I don't deliberately time my edits to disrup him with edit conflicts. t sounds a strange thing, and a very difficult one, to do in any case. I frequently gnash my teeth over ECs, but I don't for a moment imagine that enemies are doing it deliberately to frustrate me. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:56, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::I don't have much wiki experience, but to time edits to disrupt with edit conflicts seems very far-fetched even in my "high" (sorry) state. There are much more effective ways to disrupt. But HelpJazz, why do you think that Bugler is disrupting? Maybe it's just an incomprehension between you? --[[User:Drunk|Drunk]] 16:00, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::(Ironically, an edit conflict) 1. Then there's really no point in having sysops, is there? As much as you whine about the "liberal whinging about every decisions", do you really want to assert that every time someone thinks another user is abusing their power, that person has no obligation to sumbit to the abuser's power? Or are you the only one who gets to decide when someone is abusing power?
::::2. Free reign? Hardly. Had I wanted to give them free reign I would have unblocked them. Instead, I gave them the opportunity to rethink their actions and either go away, or come back in a better frame of mind. What's the worse that could have happened? Had they created another inappropriate username, I would have blocked them with account creation disabled (and yes, I have done this before); had they created an account and started vandalising I would have blocked their account with account creation disabled; had they never returned there's no harm to CP; had they returned and been a good editor then CP is all the better. I refuse to block people for something they might do. )This is not to say that I will contest any user who blocks people this way).
::::Ironic edit conflict: I'll admit that the first time may not have been intentional. It's very strange for someone to make three edits in a row, when they know that all three warrant a response, but the evidence is not conclusive enough to say that you did it on purpose. (I also misread the diffs and thought you were replacing your text, which lead more evidence to my claim). However, doing the exact same thing after I already pointed it out is a bit suspicious, no? That's why, to give you the benefit of the doubt, I instructed you to use the "show preview" button, which is the surefire way to avoid edit conflicts. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:07, 16 November 2008 (EST)
You got blocked again?! Ouch. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 16:12, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:You ''instructed'' me? My, oh my! I thought that editors had no authority over editors, but now I am expected to comply with the instructions of HelpJazz! Have you been appointed Lord High Panjandrum while I have been away? If so, please instruct me on the correct protocol. Is it a bow from the waist, or a full kow-tow? Do I have to walk backwards when I depart the August HelpJazzian Presence? My Lord will please excuse his humble servant's ignorance of etiquette! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 18:06, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::Bugler, please cool it, or I'll have to send an email to Andy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:13, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Well, honestly! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 18:14, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::Instruct (v.): to give knowledge to. Yes, that's what I did. I didn't say "commanded" or "required" or "demanded" or "forced" or "insisted". Alternatively, I could have said "taught" or "advised" or "showed" or "informed". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:23, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Perhaps this is a cultural difference. In the UK, instruct means order, tell. 'Advise' might have been the polite option. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 18:27, 16 November 2008 (EST)

== Category Discussion... ==

I have somehow missed the discussion about changing Categories from Liberals to Liberalism. Can you direct me, and possibly Ed Poor to it? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:49, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:I'm sorry, I didn't realize I had to discuss my use of common sense. Can you direct me to the rule that says this please? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:51, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::Are you quite certain you want to have this show-down? What exactly will you gain or lose? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:54, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::What showdown? Is there such a page? If not, I'm going to continue using my common sense. "Liberals" are people; "liberalism" is an idea. An idea is not a person and a person is not an idea. (And a person and an idea are not an organization). What's to discuss?
:::Just because you are back, it doesn't mean you can boss me around again, TK. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't work that way anymore. You won on {{tl|liberalism}}, what more do you want? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:56, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::::Boss you? Are you in 2nd grade, or what? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:57, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::I take it you don't have an answer to any of my question then? In that case, I'll continue what I'm doing. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:58, 16 November 2008 (EST)

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

:L. Beryl Baez is a person? [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal_bias_in_academia&curid=59501&diff=560052&oldid=525222&rcid=610515] I didn't understand your edit comment. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:16, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::Oh, wait: I misread it. "liberal bias is a concept, not a person" --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:18, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:::Wait, his bot is going to add everything from the "liberals" "liberalism" and "liberal organizations" categories and dump them all together into a "liberal" category? Why? Aren't categories supposed to be nouns? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:21, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::[[Homosexual Agenda]] is under the subcategory [[:Category:Liberal Deceit]]. [[Evolution]] isn't under any of the liberal categories at all. It doesn't usually make sense to put everything on a template into the same category. It makes category renames easier, but everything else harder, and category renames don't happen that often. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 20:26, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::(EC) <s>Ed, "liberal bias in acedemia", which is the title of the article, is not a person. There might be people mentioned in the article, but do you seriously want to put every single article that so much as mentions a liberal into the "liberals" category? That would mean that, for example, [[John McCain]] would be in the liberals category.</s> (EC -- this is happening a lot today. Maybe I should increase my typing speed) I think you understand where I'm coming from now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:21, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:::::You and Interiot are indeed "understood". I merely suggested one way to quickly add articles to a category, was not suggesting that would be the ONLY category applied. To me it was far easier to change the category "Liberal'''s'''" to Liberal, no plural. The "discussion-without-end" over this is everything that is wrong about Conservapedia, and in my opinion, by design and spite. However, if people want to run around like a chicken with its head cut off, in spite, go ahead. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:32, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Easier isn't always best. It might be "easier" to just put everything in the "liberal" category but (a) it goes against the category conventions and (b) it's not very descriptive.
::::::I don't see who's running around with a chicken with it's head cut off, either. All I was doing was putting articles into the most logical, pre-existing category. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:36, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::Yes, after you publicly got angry over it, insisting you were being "bossed". Do whatever you wish, of course. You and a few others insisted you were correct over something that was decided by admins months and months ago, and you don't care. I will no longer participate in this silly arguing on your part, Jazz. It is pointless, and nothing is urgent about this. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::Can you point to me where admins decided how the template should be used? Maybe I just missed it; all this mess will be cleared up rather quickly. The only thing I can find is where a group of people (including a sysop) decided how it was to be used, and then you unilaterally decided not to use it that way. So when I did what you wanted and started adding the template how you wanted to, somehow I can't do it right and I need permission to use common sense. Can you just tell me what to do already and get it over with? All this time I'm spending on my talk page I could be using to impliment the template ''you'' wanted to use. So please, direct me to the admin decision that was made months ago, so that I may submit myself to it and continue editing this encyclopedia. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:51, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Sysop discussions are not done that way, you know that, and you have absolutely no right to insist they should be. I asked Brianco to create it. I got Andy's permission, and that is that. No one, least of all me, said you were adding it incorrectly. What I do know is you got me on AIM highly agitated and upset I was using it. That is what I know. My only dispute was your public snit, and insistence about changing categories, and impatience that you were not answered IMEDIATELY, and posting that you were just going to proceed. I have the IM archive, from months ago, when you were informed about the template. And even that doesn't matter. You alone have decided you don't like the template. So, take it off, if you like. We will just make a new template, and not call it a nav box, thus removing your original complaint that it was being used for a purpose not intended for nav boxes. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:03, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:In other words, I have to take your word for it that any discussion took place?
:"You and you alone?" What about the other people who responded on the talk page? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:07, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::Yes, that's pretty much it, Jazz. We assume good faith. That is the Christian way. If I say it was that way, it was. If it is untrue, Andy can post saying I am mistaken or a liar. This is something, a Red Herring, you decided to dredge up and dispute, from months ago! It was only after I was no longer a sysop, that some people, including you, thought that meant some kind of wholesale reversal of policy could be made. That is indeed fuzzy logic. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:15, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Then let's have Andy post. You are using something I've never seen in order to control my actions.
:::I dredged it up? Really? Funny, nobody discussed the liberalism template until you came back and started doing the exact same thing you were doing when you left.
:::Wholesale reversal of policy? The policy was "TK is right; you must have permission from TK to do anything; TK has discussed everything through email with Andy". When TK is gone, the policy breaks down. Now you are back, you have no idea what has gone on in the last 7 months, and you just assume that everything is as it was. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:10, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::Speaking of what has gone on, could you sum it up tonight? Please? You refused to last night :( [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::When did you go on vacation? How long have you been gone? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:18, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::::About a month or two. When I was last here, you and another user were engaged in bitter dispute over "big science" or something like that. Is this Buglre a sysop? Are you? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:21, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::I don't think there have been any promotions in the last month or two. I'll never be promoted, so that's not something you ever have to ask ;-)
:::::::Hrm... what have you missed in the last few months? Ed and TK came back (which I'm sure you can tell).
:::::::Multiple fights have ensued, people have been called idiots, noone's been blocked -- not much has changed. (Big science got moved to the essay space though). Read over my talk page, Bugler's talk page, PJR's talk page and the Obama talk page, (Maybe Ed's talk page too) and that pretty much sums up everything you need to know over the last couple months. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:27, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::Were you called an idiot? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:29, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Not me, but Tim was (check out Bugler's talk page, I think).
:::::::::I just checked my spam email (all my CP mail goes straight to spam) and found emails from two different editors asking me to intercede with their blocks by the same user. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:33, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::Straight to spam? I have been sending you emails everyday for the past two months. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:35, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::Straight to spam. Curiously, I haven't seen any emails from teh Bohdan. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:40, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::Has anyone called me an idiot? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:42, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::Doubtful. Who could call you an idiot and expect to get away with it? I mean *seriously*! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:46, 16 November 2008 (EST)

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

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

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

By your less than kind, throw-away comments, like the "I'm sure you can tell..." above, you show yourself to be just another mean & hateful person. Just goes to show how wrong I was about you, your character, and your being good material for an admin. BTW, Ed Poor was another who put himself out there, promoting you for sysop to Andy. I have always been honest with you, always told you CP wasn't like Wikipedia, and that the owner didn't aspire to it under any circumstances. Given your actions in the past 24 hours, I know Andy was correct in holding back. I was wrong, he was right. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:55, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:TK, you started all of the arguments. Want to know how many arguments there were about the use of the liberalism template while you were gone? None. Want to know how many arguments there were about categories when you were gone? None. Formatting? None. The liberalness of Fred Phelps? None. But then within 24 hours of your arrival, all of the same arguments show up, and somehow it's everyone else's fault.

:Do you really think I could tell you what I thought of you when you were holding the banhammer over my head? I'm sorry we aren't best buddies, but our entire "relationship" consists of you telling me what to do. That's all you ever do, is tell people what to do. You came back to this site and all ready you have told Philip he's not allowed to talk on your page, you have told Brianco that he's not privy to conversations from those "above his pay grade", you have told Sideways that he's not allowed to change an edit made by Conservative, you have told me that because you start things, only you know the Truth about how they are to be used. You have only been here '''one day'''.

:I'm just another mean and hateful person? Because I thought that Bohdan can read my talk page to see you are back?

:You continually tell me CP is not like Wikipedia, and I continually tell you that '''I'm not trying to make CP like Wikipedia'''. I continually tell you that I don't even edit at Wikipedia, and yet somehow everything I do is in the "Wikipedia mindset". I'm not imposing my liberal worldview, I'm not motivated by neutrality, and I'm not using a coverup of liberalism to make desicions. Every single thing I do is to further the encycopedia '''within the Commandments''' and every reason I give is backed up by '''logic'''. I'm sorry if you don't think these are good qualities for being an admin. I'm sorry if you put yourself out on a limb to back me (which I can only take on your word; I know that Ed has vouched for me because I've actually seen it -- yet another advantage to skipping AIM in leu of the website right here at our fingertips), only to find out that sometimes following the rules means you can't always spew whatever crazy you want. I'm sorry that I'm harming your goal of destroying CP from within by using the rules on CP to rein you in. I'm sorry I gave you a second chance two nights ago, by telling you about what was going on at CP. Had I known that you were really just gathering intel into the power structures so that you could come back and wedge yourself back in, I might have pretended I wasn't home. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:27, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::So the copies of my emails to Andy, that you were copied on, CC, not BCC, months and months ago, are not to you "proof" that I backed you? You really are a despicable person. So, now you admit you are on AIM. Previously you posted you never use it, only did so because I requested it, demanded it. Oh well. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:37, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::I don't seem to have any of your emails to Andy. The closest I could find was one where you told me that you forwarded Andy, but I don't actually have any CCs. I highly doubt I deleted them since I have copies of many other random emails from you.
:::I previously explained that I never use AIM to talk to ''editors on CP''. I still use it for my personal communications. Is that clear now? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:35, 17 November 2008 (EST)

==Blocking [[User:TK]]==

Please provide reference and/or diffs to illustrate "insinuating that motorcycle accident which put a valued contributer in a coma for 10 days didn't actually happen; if someone wants to extend this block be my guest". [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] was wrong to undo your block but you should have asked an admin yourself, or Andy. Users with block rights (but no admin rights) should only block for clear and cut vandalism. I know this is not in the commandments, guidelines or user rights page but we are forming some kind of policy to address this in the near future. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 05:00, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:Actually it is [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:User_rights#Blocking_rights|here]: "''To counter blatant vandalism, some editors have the ability to block vandals. These particular rights may be granted to users who demonstrate an ongoing ability to revert vandalism. Users are also encouraged to report suspected vandals to the administration (preferably supplying evidence with diffs). Editors granted '''blocking rights should only use them for blocking vandals or other cases where immediate blocking is required. Other violations should be referred to an administrator.'''''" It Just hasn't been enforced very well so far. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 09:11, 17 November 2008 (EST)
::Jallen: As you know, BrianCo is a valued contributer to our website who was in a horrible motorcycle accident which put him '''in a coma for 10 days'''. TK, when confronted with the fact that he was '''outright lying''' about the fact that he was the one who asked for the {{tl|liberalism}} template (which was his entire reasoning for being able to use the template in the manner he demanded, and not how the community decided), responded with the following accusation: "Was this on your trip to Mexico, Genghis, or your later motorcycle accident recovery? Inquiring minds want to know!" [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template_talk:Liberalism&diff=prev&oldid=560367]. There is absolutely '''no excuse''' for such an '''unchristian''' comment towards another editor. I may not have been within my rights to block him (though I would certainly argue that this was a case where "immediate blocking is required"), but TK's incredibly low blow was intirely inexcusable, and I couldn't wait for a sysop to decide. If Bugler was the one who undid my block, then I'm going to redo it; I've said before (and you apparently agree) that Bugler had no right to undo it. Until a sysop tells me otherwise that it's ok for an editor to make light of a life-threatening event, I won't unblock TK. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:17, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:::HelpJazz, you have overstepped your authority in blocking TK. You are only allowed to use your blocking rights for vandalism. I don't believe you were justified with the immediate block either. "I couldn't wait for a sysop to decide" is not valid in this situation. I have undone your block. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 12:37, 17 November 2008 (EST)
::::Since you have undone my block, then you have made a decision. Thank you. I'm going to go appologice to BrianCo now, and I'll probably be too mad to edit today. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:39, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:Something both Tim and Dean "conveniently overlooked" in this little bashfest: '''"This restriction of only blocking vandals applies only to editors granted blocking rights after this amendment was posted in December 2007."''' (it's the footnote). And guess when HelpJazz got his rights:
::18:34, 13 September 2007 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) changed group membership for User:HelpJazz from (none) to Block
:So HelpJazz didn't overstep his authority. He is above that restriction. Unlike certain other people who block whenever they feel like it.
:Signed, a guy who will likely get instantly blocked for <s>correcting a sysop</s> <s>supporting HelpJazz</s> Not Minding His Own Business, Opposing The Project and Only Engaging In Liberal Claptrap That Goes Against Our 90/10 Rule. --[[User:SiemerD|SiemerD]] 15:09, 17 November 2008 (EST)
::What you have found is true. HelpJazz did not overstep his authority. Of course a sysop can undo his block if the sysop believes there is a reason to do so, but it should be done with respect, recognizing that we do owe a debt of gratitude to the longterm editors who have been faithful contributors to this project and have a strong track record of helping us both with articles and with administrative tasks. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:29, 17 November 2008 (EST)

HelpJazz, I think it's important to point out that no one is saying that TK's statement was appropriate; you are correct in being concerned. The only thing being questioned is the block itself. During different times when he was on this site, TK has mixed obstinate gruffness with a jovail nature and helping out a number of users -- myself included. I owe much of my knowledge of Conservapedia to TK and so do many others. You wound up stepping in a tender area because there have been blocking wars in the past and it is still a senstive issue. I wouldn't take any personal affront to what has occurred. Your own contributions to this site continue to be valued. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:41, 17 November 2008 (EST)
::: SiemerD seems to be (have been) a kind of prophet:
:::*17:39, 17 November 2008 Bugler (Talk | contribs) blocked SiemerD (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 month (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk: Sole reason for joining: to make trouble)
:::BTW:
:::*10:25, 10 June 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) changed group membership for User:Bugler from (none) to Block, edit and Upload ‎
:::So, while we are discussing these rules: did SiemerD's post require immediate action? Was he a vandal?--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 17:55, 17 November 2008 (EST)

===Response===
There are multiple issues at work here: whether or not I had the right to block TK, and whether or not the block was justified.

It has been clearly shown that, due to a grandfather clause, I was within the rules in blocking an editor for something other than vandalism. (And despite SiemerD's swipe, I don't think Jallen or Tim intentionally neglected to mention the grandfather clause; I didn't know of it myself). However, it is always true that a sysop can undo a block of a regular editor, even if that editor had the rights to make the block

Learn together claims "it's important to point out that no one is saying that TK's statement was appropriate"; this is mostly true ''de juro'' on my talk page. (However I think Ed Poor echoed TK's sentiments on the talk page, thus agreeing that TK's statment was not inappropriate; but nobody on this talk page ''de juro'' stated that TK's actions were ok). However, anyone involved ''de facto'' agreed that TK's actions were ok, by not exercising their own authority to reblock him. Had anyone placed the offence of his statement above their reticence of blocking a well-connected user, they would have had no problem reblocking him, or at least publicly asking if he should have been reblocked. As it is, he was not blocked, and no one (again, except Ed Poor, who seems to have endorsed TK's statement) made a statement either way as to whether it was a blocking offense.

Perhaps I should explain the history of this case (most if not all relevant proof can be found at [[template talk:liberalism]]):
*BrianCo created the template in February
*In April, TK started adding the template in a manner inconsistant with other templates of it's type
*It was discussed in April, and decided that TK's use of the template was wrong
*TK leaves for ~7 months
*When TK returns, he almost immediately continues his previous actions
*When pointed to the April discussion, he claims that he was the one who wanted the template, therefore he could use it however he wanted (this argument was not brought up in April)
*Other users (really, just me) tried to argue that it doesn't matter that TK created the template, but eventually gave in to the futillity of the argument, and started adding the template to pages based on the fact that TK, as creator of the template, dictated its use
*BrianCo, the person who actually built the template, points out that TK could not have asked for the template, since he had not edited for a month before or after the template was created.
*TK, out of left field and out of arguments, accuses BrianCo of being a sock, and questions the validity of a motorcycle accident which could have taken BrianCo's life.

Is such a response approprite or proportionate? Is this how we are to treat our fellow editors? Bugler calls respected editors maggots and long-time sysops idiots, and nobody cares. But there's a mile difference between calling someone an idiot and taking a jovial attitude on such a serious issue. What if TK had said "ha ha ha, yeah right like I believe you were raped" or "say, how's your murdered wife doing these days?" or "hey, sorry to hear about the miscarriage, good thing the kid never existed!" I can't, in good Christian conscience, allow someone to run around saying such hurtful, unwarranted, unproven and unChristian statements. Unlike the many users and sysops who know of and are ignoring this argument, I can't sit on the fence. This is a serious enough issue that I jumped off with both feet. And I hope that one day there is an issue strong enough to move others to take a stand as well, but I'm afraid to see what that issue is, when this issue is not it.

[[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:36, 18 November 2008 (EST)

PS: Since this whole discussion is about properly enforcing the rules, I think it should be mentioned that it's very clear that they are only being enforced "fairly" when it is in the interest of the ruling sysop. As BRichtigen pointed out, Bugler does not have the authority to block SiemerD for 90/10 (and clearly, a 1 edit 90/10 is ludicrous anyway; are we to block editors who use the [[sandbox]] before they make real edits? I should think not) and yet nobody has decided to unblock SiemerD or punish Bugler. In fact, Bugler is the winner in this case: he won the block, and he was able to make racist remarks about ''two'' senior sysops without real penalty; proving again to himself (and everyone watching) that he clearly can do whatever he wants to, without recourse.

==Your role at Conservapedia==

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

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

:Wow. Just, wow. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 14:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Ed, I do not concur with your assessment. Four days ago, after having worked with HelpJazz for a year and a half, you were praising him as a future sysop. I would hate to see short term changes impact the long term viability of the Conservapedia site. You are aware of the positive accolades he has received behind closed doors by a number of sysops. We need editors like HelpJazz just as much now as we did four days ago. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:57, 18 November 2008 (EST)

: I've reinstated the section that Ed Poor deleted on the grounds of "''don't put personal information about others here - not without their express, written permission - give it to Andy if you have it''". First, I don't know that there's any personal information here that isn't already public knowledge. Second, even if there is, I'm sure that it doesn't required deleting the entire section and subsection. Third, what is Andy going to do about it anyway?
: Also, the Guidelines say nothing about using IM, let alone mandating it.
: If you can't understand the "feud" with TK, Ed, then perhaps you should try reading that section that you deleted.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:04, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== Blocking Rights ==

It has been determined that, indeed, you have the same range of blocking reasons available to you as any sysop. Please use this to continue to assist the project. We can use your help. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)

User:HelpJazz

2016-09-06T19:14:19Z

HelpJazz: been a while

{{userboxtop|HelpJazz}}
{{User Vandalized|10}}
{{Userbox|#6ef7a7|#c5fcdc|5,500|This user has made over 5,500 edits to Conservapedia}}
{{Template:User Libertarian}}
{{User political compass|5.00|-2.92}}
{{User CPLeader|an autonomous collective}}
{{userboxbottom}}
[[Image:Banhammer2.jpg|thumb|600px|right|'''HelpJazz''' is hereby awarded the prestigious & coveted '''Banhammer''' barnstar for tireless vigilance against "rational" and irrational vandals & trolls!]]

<big>'''About Me'''</big>
*I am a [[libertarian]], and very much so!
**Actually, I'm a social and economic [[conservative]]. The difference between me and most conservatives is not what I believe, but where I think the government should step in for my beliefs.
**Feel free to ask me about my positions. I love talking politics with open-minded, rational people
*In 2008 I graduated from [[Bucknell University]] with a [[bachelor of science]] degree in [[chemical engineering]]. Now I'm a financial analyst at a commercial door company.
**I was at one point pursuing a minor in [[political science]]
***I have a good working base of political science, political theory and [[international politics]]
**I also have taken courses in [[economics]], [[logic]], and [[probability]]
**Now my work life revolves around [[Microsoft Excel]].

<Big>'''My Editing Philosophy'''</big>
#Noncontroversial edits are ''usually'' ok
#I will always follow the [[Conservapedia:Guidelines|Guidelines]] and [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandments]] (G&C)
#I will attempt to make all articles follow the G&C, and encourage other editors to do likewise
#Essay pages are opinion
#Mainspace pages are fact
#''No [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Aziraphale/Tilting_at_Windmills&oldid=296120 tilting at windmills]!
#I will not treat someone's work differently because of their "status"; this is a community project
#I will not revert anything added to a talk page, unless a user swears or edits another user's words
#The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a new result

<big>'''Pet Peeves'''</big>
(In no particular order)
#Plagiarism is the use of another's words as one's own without giving proper credit. This is true even if you "paid for it" and have permission to use it
#Selected examples do ''not'' prove a trend. If you want to show that "most people do X" by example, you can never prove your point with examples
#Don't use "literally" if you mean "figuratively". Don't use "literally" if there's no figurative way to take what you say.
#Improper use of political lables. "Conservative" may, in most cases, be the opposite of "liberal", but there are numerous other ideologies which don't line up on a 1-dimentional scale!
#Improper use of numbers! (P(BC|Ab)>P(BC|P) does not imply that P(BC|Ab)>P(BC)!!)
#"Ironic" means that something happened opposite to what you expect to happen. A woman getting hit and killed by a sugar truck is sad. A diabetic woman getting hit and killed by a sugar truck is coincidence. A diabetic woman getting hit and killed by an ''insulin'' truck is ironic.
#Finding "please add more" on a wiki page. For one, lists rarely make a good article (and often contribute to pet peeve #2); additionally, all wikis are works in progress, so there's always an implied assumption to add more to an article.
#More to come 

<big>'''Useful Links'''</big>
*[[User:Philip J. Rayment/Article renaming project]]
*[[Conservapedia:Desk]]

Subs: [[/chemredlinks]], [[/Contest]], [[/refs]], [[/workspace]], [[/chemeng]], [[/templates]], [[/irg]]

User:HelpJazz

2014-01-10T15:52:36Z

HelpJazz:

{{userboxtop|HelpJazz}}
{{User Vandalized|10}}
{{Userbox|#6ef7a7|#c5fcdc|5,000|This user has made over 5,000 edits to Conservapedia}}
{{Template:User Libertarian}}
{{User political compass|5.00|-2.92}}
{{User CPLeader|an autonomous collective}}
{{userboxbottom}}
[[Image:Banhammer2.jpg|thumb|600px|right|'''HelpJazz''' is hereby awarded the prestigious & coveted '''Banhammer''' barnstar for tireless vigilance against "rational" and irrational vandals & trolls!]]

<big>'''About Me'''</big>
*I am a [[libertarian]], and very much so!
**Actually, I'm a social and economic [[conservative]]. The difference between me and most conservatives is not what I believe, but where I think the government should step in for my beliefs.
**Feel free to ask me about my positions. I love talking politics with open-minded, rational people
*In 2008 I graduated from [[Bucknell University]] with a [[bachelor of science]] degree in [[chemical engineering]]. Now I'm a data analyst in an industry almost related to my degree.
**I have a pretty strong background in fluid dynamics, heat and mass transfer, [[thermodynamics]], etc. etc.
**I was at one point pursuing a minor in [[political science]]
***I have a good working base of political science, political theory and [[international politics]]
**I also have taken courses in [[economics]], [[logic]], and [[probability]]
**Now my work life revolves around [[Microsoft Excel]], [[Structured Query Language]], and [[Visual Basic for Applications]].

<Big>'''My Editing Philosophy'''</big>
#Noncontroversial edits are ''usually'' ok
#I will always follow the [[Conservapedia:Guidelines|Guidelines]] and [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandments]] (G&C)
#I will attempt to make all articles follow the G&C, and encourage other editors to do likewise
#Essay pages are opinion
#Mainspace pages are fact
#''No [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Aziraphale/Tilting_at_Windmills&oldid=296120 tilting at windmills]!
#I will not treat someone's work differently because of their "status"; this is a community project
#I will not revert anything added to a talk page, unless a user swears or edits another user's words
#The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a new result

<big>'''Pet Peeves'''</big>
(In no particular order)
#Plagiarism is the use of another's words as one's own without giving proper credit. This is true even if you "paid for it" and have permission to use it
#Selected examples do ''not'' prove a trend. If you want to show that "most people do X" by example, you can never prove your point with examples
#Don't use "literally" if you mean "figuratively". Don't use "literally" if there's no figurative way to take what you say.
#Improper use of political lables. "Conservative" may, in most cases, be the opposite of "liberal", but there are numerous other ideologies which don't line up on a 1-dimentional scale!
#Improper use of numbers! (P(BC|Ab)>P(BC|P) does not imply that P(BC|Ab)>P(BC)!!)
#"Ironic" means that something happened opposite to what you expect to happen. A woman getting hit and killed by a sugar truck is sad. A diabetic woman getting hit and killed by a sugar truck is coincidence. A diabetic woman getting hit and killed by an ''insulin'' truck is ironic.
#Finding "please add more" on a wiki page. For one, lists rarely make a good article (and often contribute to pet peeve #2); additionally, all wikis are works in progress, so there's always an implied assumption to add more to an article.
#More to come 

<big>'''Useful Links'''</big>
*[[User:Philip J. Rayment/Article renaming project]]
*[[Conservapedia:Desk]]

Subs: [[/chemredlinks]], [[/Contest]], [[/refs]], [[/workspace]], [[/chemeng]], [[/templates]], [[/irg]]

Merriam-Webster

2014-01-09T22:05:05Z

HelpJazz: this reads cleaner to me

'''Merriam-Webster''' is the leading [[dictionary]] in [[America]], and the descendant of [[Noah Webster]]'s dictionaries.

However, it has many errors and biases. Here are a few examples:

*The date for [[eminent domain]] is incorrect: 1738.<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eminent%20domain</ref> The term ''dominium eminens'' was used as early as 1625.<ref>[http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-4744152149731401/unrestricted/CONCLS.PDF American Jurispudence, 26, Second Edition, (Rochester, NY: Lawyers Corporation)]</ref>
*[[Capital]] is poorly defined as accumulated goods, or the value of those goods, or net worth. It is more commonly used to mean [[liquid assets]] such as [[cash]], [[stocks]], [[bonds]] that can be easily used to acquire [[goods]] and [[services]].
*Merriam-Webster resists including new [[conservative]] terms, such as [[judicial activism]], which dates back to 1947 and has been repeatedly used by the U.S. Supreme Court since 1967, yet is still not included by Merriam-Webster.<ref>See [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]].</ref>
*It gives the following liberal example of use of the derogatory term "hell-bent": "hell-bent to cut taxes again."<ref>1994 edition of Merriam-Webster, p. 539 (quoting the ''New Republic'', a liberal publication).</ref>
*Merriam-Webster also omitted the term the "[[invisible hand]]" until the late 1990s, although the term has been in popular use since shortly after its introduction by [[Adam Smith]]. In contrast, new liberal terms are quickly added; for example "green-collar" was added in 2009 only three years after it came into common use.
*It gives the following liberal example of use of the term "force-feed": "force-feed students with the classics."<ref>1994 edition of Merriam-Webster, p. 455.</ref>
*The definition of [[liberalism]] as pertaining to politics that is overtly biased towards [[liberal]] perceptions of their "good deeds" states: ": a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties,"<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberalism</ref> actually hijacking [[conservative]] values and concealing how liberals demand taxpayer-funded [[abortion]], same-sex marriage, and [[censorship]] of [[classroom prayer]].

Merriam-Webster uses a disproportionate number of examples from [[liberal]] publications, such as the ''[[New York Times]]'', for illustrating how terms are used.

For a criticism of the dictionary treatment of the "Common Era," see [[CE]].

==External Links==
*[http://www.m-w.com Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Linguistics]]

Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse

2008-12-04T18:17:37Z

HelpJazz: /* Range Blocks */

<noinclude><center>[[Conservapedia:Desk|Back to the Desk]]</center> </noinclude>
=Abuse Complaints=
Archives: [[Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse/Archive1|1]] [[Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse/Archive2|2]]

==Range Blocks==
TK, your range block of 81.210.0.0/16 blocked IPs of several central European (esp. German and Polish) internet provider. Your blockreason is:
* ''Abusing multiple accounts: Blacklisted at multiple sites -- anon proxy''

My own provider at home uses a chunk of these numbers. This provider serves ~450,000 households and gives them fast internet access. Of course, a couple of the clients will allow nets like TOR to use their connection - that could count for the ''anon proxy'' part. But that will happen at most private providers. As the numbers are dynamic, multiple accounts are a possibility, though concurrent accounts should be very improbable.
Is there any event which triggered this /16 block? Currently, I'm assigned one of these numbers at home, so I'd rather like this block to be lifted.

IMO, range blocks of this magnitude are more disruptive than productive.

--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 15:43, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:Chiming in, these quite recent blocks:
:# 04:26, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 193.200.150.0/24 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: www.anonymouse.org - Germany )
:# 03:17, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 163.118.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: This IP is also black listed several places)
:# 02:00, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 81.210.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: Blacklisted at multiple sites -- anon proxy)
:# 00:59, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 207.58.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: http://www.xroxy.com/webproxy611.html IP is even blacklisted by WP, and listed as a black hole by several sites)
:# 21:04, 1 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 219.93.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 1 year (anonymous users only, account creation disabled, autoblock disabled) ‎ (IP of vandal: Per consult with Geo -- also RobertPressley,RandallE & IrvingMichaels, this is anon proxy )
:# 20:50, 1 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 212.116.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 1 year (account creation disabled) ‎ (Blacklisted IP @ multiple sites it is from Saudi Arabia.)
:lock out 327,936 IPs if I didn't miscalculate. I think it would pay off to invest more time into calculating better block ranges. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 15:49, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::I'll unblock the IP range that you're in, BRichtigen, but I'll wait and check the others and see if any "decent" contributors are in those ranges. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 15:55, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::Thanks! --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 15:59, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::*Thanks for your concern for those Poles and others who might be range blocked, those using a proxy, and wishing to not give there whereabouts, gentlemen. We do not discuss, nor do we answer about site security, per Mr. Schlafly. If you are blocked from your own home ISP, simply provide me with verification, and I will unblock you. I am sure two obviously intelligent and Internet savvy people, such as you, can understand why we don't discuss site security, nor allow questioning or "debate" about it. Jallen, I wouldn't get into this without discussion with Geo and Andy. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:06, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::Dear TK, I emailed your earlier my current IP and a link to my provider. What else do you want? --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 16:12, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::*Well, that's the problem with assumptions. Your email was in with the spam. In the future, you might consider actually making a post to a person's talk page, if you don't hear back, as anyone should, getting a question. I will respond to your email in a few minutes, or perhaps Justine would prefer me to forward it to her? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:30, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::I didn't assume anything. I use e-mail only as a last resort, i.e., when I'm blocked, as it was the case - I've this idea that one should try to produce at least the modicum that any discussion takes place in the open on a medium like this :-)
:::I'm now used to be an editor at CP, so I take some effort to be able to edit - which you can't expect from a casual visitor. These /16 blocks are - at least - bad PR.
:::Of course, I care for ''the Poles and others'', as I'm one of them. I know that CP is American-centered, but I resent this high-handed approach to us few foreigners.
:::--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 17:11, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::::I too am non-American and have nothing but praise for the way that we are accommodated within the welcoming bounds of this fundamentally American project. I would add, BRichtigen, that this page is for issues to be noted, whereupon sysops will decide on the action to be atken. It is not a forum for malcontents to foregather and indulge in a good old whinge, whinge, whinge. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:17, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::As I understand the range blocking system here, if you block a /16 range (81.210.0.0 to 81.210.255.255), you cannot go and unblock single IP's within that range. As I see the situation, you'd have to unblock the range and then finely tune a few block ranges that will not interfere with contributors. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 16:16, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::::*Justine, I know you know my email, and I also think you can tell what was done was in consult with others, including Geo. As I stated above, taking my queue directly from Andy and other Senior Administrators, we should not be discussing particulars here, but rather privately. Conservapedia does not now, nor has it ever, discussed security issues on the wiki, nor blocks. That is what the wiki email system is. I think it violates peoples privacy to be discussing such things here. you go right ahead and unilaterially take whatever action you feel is justified in regard to blocks. You are, after all, one of our most senior and trusted administrators! I just thought given all the unilaterial arguments going on, this was something better dealt with directly among those of us who can block,is all. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:30, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:I'll consult Andy with these range blocks asap. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 16:38, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::::Isn't that what ''should'' have been done, anyway? Blocking 65k IPs to get a proxy that uses maybe... ten of them is massive overkill, no matter how often you scream "<s>Terrorists!</s> Vandals!". Also see below for some actual numbers. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 16:26, 2 December 2008 (EST)

We're talking about a form of security trade-offs here. In other terms: This site would be (quasi-)perfectly safe if we blocked every IP in existence. It would be very safe if every user had to go to Andy's house and personally apply (while hooked up to a lie detector) for the right to edit anything on CP. But if we did that, then practically nobody would join. The cost to join would be too high. If we leave the gates open or at least make our blocks a lot more precise to avoid splash damage, we scare off fewer people who could become valuable assets to us.
Likewise, if somebody signs up and finds out his IP was blocked and that he can't edit, he will likely move on instead of, oh, I don't know... ''share his knowledge''.
But I could almost swallow the "Protect CP against Internet Terrorists" argument if it was applied with more precision. For example, the 207.58.0.0/16 block covers 65,536 IPs. The [http://www.xroxy.com/webproxy611.htm URL] you gave shows that the ''network'' this proxy is operating in (which doesn't even mean that the proxy uses the entire network!) only uses 16,384 IPs (if I didn't miscalculate). That's ''a fourth''. This means that ''at least'' 75% of the range you blocked never had anything to do with the proxy. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 16:26, 2 December 2008 (EST)

I authorized every single block that TK made. We discovered some sockholes and decided to close them up as we found several campaigns of vandalism. I believe that we used 6 month and 1 year blocks due to the fluctuation of proxies, therefore we aren't locking up IPs forever. I believe that the holes should be plugged up, and we should see if the IPBlock Exempt flag is available. If anyone has a cleaner range block, please share it. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 21:55, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::In the future, I think that the range blocks should be performed by you, Geo (an actual administrator). The thought that I actually had to run checkuser over the IP's blocked and finding a seemingly legitimate contributor worries me. Block ranges need to be sharply defined. The larger the range, the shorter the block. I'd prefer to see a /24 range (256 IP's) for infinite duration rather than a /16 range for 1 year. I don't think we will worry Andy with the ipblock-exempt right as the problem can be prevented by using better range blocking methods. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 22:46, 3 December 2008 (EST)

It's better not to discuss range blocks. If '''you''' can't access CP because of a range block, contact a sysop via email. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:23, 4 December 2008 (EST)
:It seems to me that it's better not to ''perform'' range blocks. What if the "you" in question is a new user? When I first started at CP I didn't know what a sysop was, let alone how to contact one. How many complaints a month do we get from people who don't understand that "night editing" being turned off doesn't mean that they are blocked? The fact remains that it doesn't make sense to block 4 times more people than you intend to, unless your intent is to shut down editing on this site. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:17, 4 December 2008 (EST)

==Interference and Collusiveness==
AlanS received the following [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AAlanS&year=&month=-1 block]:
*20:00, 2 December 2008 Bugler (Talk | contribs) blocked AlanS (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 3 days (account creation disabled) ‎ (Interference)

The ''interference'' seems to be the following [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:RodWeathers&diff=prev&oldid=575891 edit] on a talk-page:
:Well, the information is freely available, so there is no need to invade anybody's privacy: The user was blocked for "Evolutionist Vandalism", and only one of his/her edits has been reverted: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Race&diff=575825&oldid=572439 This] one for being made by a [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Race&diff=575827&oldid=575825 "liberal evolutionist"] --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 19:44, 2 December 2008 (EST)

So, he answered a question of another editor in a civil manner. How is this interference? And what is bad about interference, anyway?

When the ''administrator'' HenryS lifted the block, the ''editor with blocking rights'' Bugler blocked AlanS again, stating the same reason.

To use the terminology Bugler had introduced: we common grunts are interested in what's happening here at CP and want to be dealt with fairly. And why don't the sergeants follow the orders of the officers, but expect us to be obedient to them, not allowing us to raise even simple questions - because that's what AlanS's block is about?

Another troubling tendency in the last days was that frequently the instruction to use email or other non-public venues of information popped up, more often than in the months before.

As this is a board where high-school pupils and elder women and men communicate, A. Schlafly has rightly tried to provide an environment where any idea (how misguided ever) of ''creepiness'' is ruled out. As any teacher knows, one should try to stick to the ''open door'' policy and refrain from contacting pupils via email, IM or such.

--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 07:40, 4 December 2008 (EST)

:Simple questions are always okay. Rhetorical questions might not be. Using "simple questions" as a disguise for opening a debate about the rules is strictly out. Next time I see someone doing this - other than in the [[Debate Topics]] - he's gone. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:22, 4 December 2008 (EST)
::Personally I find the actual block the least important issue here. The most important issues are the flagrant breaches of the chain of command, the total lack of recourse on the off chance that abuse occurrs, and the likelyhood of an encouragement of off-site communication (which, to me, seems counter to the idea of having a wiki anyway; why else would the software include talk pages?) leading to an increased likelyhood of placing minors in an inapropriate position. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:13, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse

2008-12-04T18:13:45Z

HelpJazz: /* Interference and Collusiveness */

<noinclude><center>[[Conservapedia:Desk|Back to the Desk]]</center> </noinclude>
=Abuse Complaints=
Archives: [[Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse/Archive1|1]] [[Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse/Archive2|2]]

==Range Blocks==
TK, your range block of 81.210.0.0/16 blocked IPs of several central European (esp. German and Polish) internet provider. Your blockreason is:
* ''Abusing multiple accounts: Blacklisted at multiple sites -- anon proxy''

My own provider at home uses a chunk of these numbers. This provider serves ~450,000 households and gives them fast internet access. Of course, a couple of the clients will allow nets like TOR to use their connection - that could count for the ''anon proxy'' part. But that will happen at most private providers. As the numbers are dynamic, multiple accounts are a possibility, though concurrent accounts should be very improbable.
Is there any event which triggered this /16 block? Currently, I'm assigned one of these numbers at home, so I'd rather like this block to be lifted.

IMO, range blocks of this magnitude are more disruptive than productive.

--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 15:43, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:Chiming in, these quite recent blocks:
:# 04:26, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 193.200.150.0/24 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: www.anonymouse.org - Germany )
:# 03:17, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 163.118.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: This IP is also black listed several places)
:# 02:00, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 81.210.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: Blacklisted at multiple sites -- anon proxy)
:# 00:59, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 207.58.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: http://www.xroxy.com/webproxy611.html IP is even blacklisted by WP, and listed as a black hole by several sites)
:# 21:04, 1 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 219.93.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 1 year (anonymous users only, account creation disabled, autoblock disabled) ‎ (IP of vandal: Per consult with Geo -- also RobertPressley,RandallE & IrvingMichaels, this is anon proxy )
:# 20:50, 1 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 212.116.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 1 year (account creation disabled) ‎ (Blacklisted IP @ multiple sites it is from Saudi Arabia.)
:lock out 327,936 IPs if I didn't miscalculate. I think it would pay off to invest more time into calculating better block ranges. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 15:49, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::I'll unblock the IP range that you're in, BRichtigen, but I'll wait and check the others and see if any "decent" contributors are in those ranges. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 15:55, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::Thanks! --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 15:59, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::*Thanks for your concern for those Poles and others who might be range blocked, those using a proxy, and wishing to not give there whereabouts, gentlemen. We do not discuss, nor do we answer about site security, per Mr. Schlafly. If you are blocked from your own home ISP, simply provide me with verification, and I will unblock you. I am sure two obviously intelligent and Internet savvy people, such as you, can understand why we don't discuss site security, nor allow questioning or "debate" about it. Jallen, I wouldn't get into this without discussion with Geo and Andy. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:06, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::Dear TK, I emailed your earlier my current IP and a link to my provider. What else do you want? --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 16:12, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::*Well, that's the problem with assumptions. Your email was in with the spam. In the future, you might consider actually making a post to a person's talk page, if you don't hear back, as anyone should, getting a question. I will respond to your email in a few minutes, or perhaps Justine would prefer me to forward it to her? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:30, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::I didn't assume anything. I use e-mail only as a last resort, i.e., when I'm blocked, as it was the case - I've this idea that one should try to produce at least the modicum that any discussion takes place in the open on a medium like this :-)
:::I'm now used to be an editor at CP, so I take some effort to be able to edit - which you can't expect from a casual visitor. These /16 blocks are - at least - bad PR.
:::Of course, I care for ''the Poles and others'', as I'm one of them. I know that CP is American-centered, but I resent this high-handed approach to us few foreigners.
:::--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 17:11, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::::I too am non-American and have nothing but praise for the way that we are accommodated within the welcoming bounds of this fundamentally American project. I would add, BRichtigen, that this page is for issues to be noted, whereupon sysops will decide on the action to be atken. It is not a forum for malcontents to foregather and indulge in a good old whinge, whinge, whinge. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:17, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::As I understand the range blocking system here, if you block a /16 range (81.210.0.0 to 81.210.255.255), you cannot go and unblock single IP's within that range. As I see the situation, you'd have to unblock the range and then finely tune a few block ranges that will not interfere with contributors. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 16:16, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::::*Justine, I know you know my email, and I also think you can tell what was done was in consult with others, including Geo. As I stated above, taking my queue directly from Andy and other Senior Administrators, we should not be discussing particulars here, but rather privately. Conservapedia does not now, nor has it ever, discussed security issues on the wiki, nor blocks. That is what the wiki email system is. I think it violates peoples privacy to be discussing such things here. you go right ahead and unilaterially take whatever action you feel is justified in regard to blocks. You are, after all, one of our most senior and trusted administrators! I just thought given all the unilaterial arguments going on, this was something better dealt with directly among those of us who can block,is all. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:30, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:I'll consult Andy with these range blocks asap. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 16:38, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::::Isn't that what ''should'' have been done, anyway? Blocking 65k IPs to get a proxy that uses maybe... ten of them is massive overkill, no matter how often you scream "<s>Terrorists!</s> Vandals!". Also see below for some actual numbers. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 16:26, 2 December 2008 (EST)

We're talking about a form of security trade-offs here. In other terms: This site would be (quasi-)perfectly safe if we blocked every IP in existence. It would be very safe if every user had to go to Andy's house and personally apply (while hooked up to a lie detector) for the right to edit anything on CP. But if we did that, then practically nobody would join. The cost to join would be too high. If we leave the gates open or at least make our blocks a lot more precise to avoid splash damage, we scare off fewer people who could become valuable assets to us.
Likewise, if somebody signs up and finds out his IP was blocked and that he can't edit, he will likely move on instead of, oh, I don't know... ''share his knowledge''.
But I could almost swallow the "Protect CP against Internet Terrorists" argument if it was applied with more precision. For example, the 207.58.0.0/16 block covers 65,536 IPs. The [http://www.xroxy.com/webproxy611.htm URL] you gave shows that the ''network'' this proxy is operating in (which doesn't even mean that the proxy uses the entire network!) only uses 16,384 IPs (if I didn't miscalculate). That's ''a fourth''. This means that ''at least'' 75% of the range you blocked never had anything to do with the proxy. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 16:26, 2 December 2008 (EST)

I authorized every single block that TK made. We discovered some sockholes and decided to close them up as we found several campaigns of vandalism. I believe that we used 6 month and 1 year blocks due to the fluctuation of proxies, therefore we aren't locking up IPs forever. I believe that the holes should be plugged up, and we should see if the IPBlock Exempt flag is available. If anyone has a cleaner range block, please share it. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 21:55, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::In the future, I think that the range blocks should be performed by you, Geo (an actual administrator). The thought that I actually had to run checkuser over the IP's blocked and finding a seemingly legitimate contributor worries me. Block ranges need to be sharply defined. The larger the range, the shorter the block. I'd prefer to see a /24 range (256 IP's) for infinite duration rather than a /16 range for 1 year. I don't think we will worry Andy with the ipblock-exempt right as the problem can be prevented by using better range blocking methods. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 22:46, 3 December 2008 (EST)

It's better not to discuss range blocks. If '''you''' can't access CP because of a range block, contact a sysop via email. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:23, 4 December 2008 (EST)

==Interference and Collusiveness==
AlanS received the following [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AAlanS&year=&month=-1 block]:
*20:00, 2 December 2008 Bugler (Talk | contribs) blocked AlanS (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 3 days (account creation disabled) ‎ (Interference)

The ''interference'' seems to be the following [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:RodWeathers&diff=prev&oldid=575891 edit] on a talk-page:
:Well, the information is freely available, so there is no need to invade anybody's privacy: The user was blocked for "Evolutionist Vandalism", and only one of his/her edits has been reverted: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Race&diff=575825&oldid=572439 This] one for being made by a [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Race&diff=575827&oldid=575825 "liberal evolutionist"] --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 19:44, 2 December 2008 (EST)

So, he answered a question of another editor in a civil manner. How is this interference? And what is bad about interference, anyway?

When the ''administrator'' HenryS lifted the block, the ''editor with blocking rights'' Bugler blocked AlanS again, stating the same reason.

To use the terminology Bugler had introduced: we common grunts are interested in what's happening here at CP and want to be dealt with fairly. And why don't the sergeants follow the orders of the officers, but expect us to be obedient to them, not allowing us to raise even simple questions - because that's what AlanS's block is about?

Another troubling tendency in the last days was that frequently the instruction to use email or other non-public venues of information popped up, more often than in the months before.

As this is a board where high-school pupils and elder women and men communicate, A. Schlafly has rightly tried to provide an environment where any idea (how misguided ever) of ''creepiness'' is ruled out. As any teacher knows, one should try to stick to the ''open door'' policy and refrain from contacting pupils via email, IM or such.

--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 07:40, 4 December 2008 (EST)

:Simple questions are always okay. Rhetorical questions might not be. Using "simple questions" as a disguise for opening a debate about the rules is strictly out. Next time I see someone doing this - other than in the [[Debate Topics]] - he's gone. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:22, 4 December 2008 (EST)
::Personally I find the actual block the least important issue here. The most important issues are the flagrant breaches of the chain of command, the total lack of recourse on the off chance that abuse occurrs, and the likelyhood of an encouragement of off-site communication (which, to me, seems counter to the idea of having a wiki anyway; why else would the software include talk pages?) leading to an increased likelyhood of placing minors in an inapropriate position. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:13, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Talk:Axiom of Choice

2008-12-04T17:47:22Z

HelpJazz: /* Deleted */

== Not really controversial anymore ==

Any proof which uses the axiom of choice can be transformed into a proof that doesn't. Granted, it will be a somewhat more complicated proof, but it always works, and that's a fact. That is the reason that AC is much less controversial these days than it was, in the early 1900s.

There is a complete explanation of the process and the proof that it's reliable [http://web.unicam.it/matinf/aila/Scuola%20AILA/sulla%20varieta%20dei%20metodiAC_sem02.pdf here].

Also, the profoundly intuitive [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichotomy_%28mathematics%29 trichotomy] is equivalent to AC, so be careful what you call controversial. [[User:BenjB|BenjB]] 20:29, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Actually, the Axiom of Choice has been proven '''independent''' of ZF, so there is no such transformation of a proof. Otherwise, "prove" AC as follows:
-----------------------------------------------
1. Axiom of Choice | Reason: Axiom of Choice

Then transform it to not need AC.
Result: AC proven in ZF,so ZFC=ZF.
But AC proved independent of ZF.
Therefore, no such transformation exists.
QED
[[User:SamSamson|SamSamson]] 21:50, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

This axiom actually can prove things which are (provably) unprovable without it; an example is Zorn's lemma. (Funnily enough, although Zorn is a guy's name, it's also a German word meaning "rage" ;-) --[[User:AMackenzie|AMackenzie]] 14:29, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

: The Axiom of Choice can also be used to "prove" absurdities, as explained by the entry here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:52, 2 August 2008 (EDT)
It is a wonderful thing in mathematics when an absurdity is proven - it expands the consciousness. Either the "absurdity" isn't as absurd as once thought (the Earth is a ball, not a plain; there are just as many whole numbers as there are fractions), or some axiom needs to be rethought, or you've made a mistake. Whatever, you can learn from it.--[[User:AMackenzie|AMackenzie]] 17:45, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

::Banach-Tarski isn't absurd; it's just counterintuitive. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 22:21, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

::: It is absurd. Indeed, the point of the "proof" was to show how absurd it is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:14, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

:::: It's absurd - no, it's not - yes, it is... As "being absurd" in this context is just a personal opinion, the phrase ''counter-intuitive'' seems to fit better. [[User:DiEb|DiEb]] 10:28, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

==Willard quote==

I "prettied up" the quote from General Topology, but in context, Willard might not be the best person to quote after saying "many mathematicians reject the Axiom of Choice". Immediately before describing the axiom, he writes:

<blockquote>The following axiom is assumed by most mathematicians when they need it, to the unremitting disgust of a few.</blockquote>

And after the text quoted in the article:

<blockquote>The status of the axiom of choice bears some resemblance to that of the continuum hypothesis, with some differences. It, too, is known to be independant of the other axioms of set theory (that is, it or its negation can be consistently assumed), but it enjoys the status of an accepted part of the theory of sets in the minds of most modern mathematicians; that is, the intuition of almost all mathematicians now is that the axiom of choice should be assumed when needed without hestitation. Moreover, it is usually clearer that, where it is used, it is needed, so that its presence does not usually provoke the same frenzy of attempt to eliminate it.</blockquote>
[[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:57, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

== My edits ==

*I was unable to find references saying that the existence of a basis for every vector space and the existence of subsets of the real line without well-defined Lebesgue measure are equivalent to the Axiom of Choice. I did find references saying that the Axiom of Choice implies these, but that's not the same thing. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 21:35, 26 November 2008 (EST)

The Axiom of Choice is not equivalent to the existence of non-Lebesgue measurable subsets of the real line and so I have removed this claim from the article. Intuitively one would not expect these to be equivalent. The existence of a non-Lebesgue measurable subset of the real line only says something about cardinals up to and including the continuum. However the Axiom of Choice makes a statement about all cardinals (in fact it is typically invoked when describing cardinals). [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 14:27, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:I got curious and actually looked into this. The Axiom of Choice does imply the existence of non-Lebesgue measurable subsets of the real line. However, the existence of non-Lebesgue measurable subsets of the real line doesn't imply the Axiom of Choice. I found a paper called [http://matwbn.icm.edu.pl/ksiazki/fm/fm138/fm13812.pdf "The Hahn-Banach theorem implies the existence of a non-Lebesgue measurable set"] and will quote the abstract for those who don't want to download a 500+kb document:
{{cquote|'''Abstract.''' In this paper we show that the Axioms of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory together with the Hahn-Banach theorem imply the existence of a non-Lebesgue measurable set. Our construction does not make any use of the Axiom of Choice.}}
:So the other direction of the claim is apparently wrong, and AndyJM was right to remove it. He was blocked for "removing information from articles" by the same user who also re-inserted the apparently wrong claim. This is exactly why I oppose this "Block first" approach: How can we improve this encyclopedia when we can get blocked and banned by whoever ''thinks'' we're wrong? I suggest an unblock. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 18:38, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::Alan, the Axiom of Choice yields many strange behaviors in mathematics. That's why it is still questioned and debated. If the statement is not equivalent to AC (which I will have to look deeper into to believe), then the correct behavior is not to remove the statement altogether but to change it to an implication. Edits that whitewash the Axiom of Choice's questionable role in mathematics are the sort of behavior you see at Wikipedia, not here (see [[Conservapedia:Critical Thinking in Math]] for a guide to our positions). I am reinstating the fact, but will tentatively change it to just a consequence of AC instead of an equivalence. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 18:50, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::I have no problems with stating that it's a consequence of AC, but that doesn't change (1) that you first re-inserted the apparently wrong information, (2) that you claimed on your talk page that "[i]t is well known that you need AC to create a non-Lebesgue measurable set of real numbers" and (3) that you blocked two users over this ''content dispute'', one of them for ''five years''. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 18:57, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::::I reinserted valuable information that was lost by an editor intent to misrepresent the Axiom. If you persist in misrepresnting my actions in this matter, you may find yourself as the third Musketeer. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 19:01, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::::I have taken this to the Abuse Helpdesk. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 19:24, 27 November 2008 (EST)

::::I'll look into this further but upon first glance agree with Foxtrot. Wikipedia, not here, is the place to pretend falsely that the Axiom of Choice cannot be questioned. It is questioned, it is disfavored, and it does sometimes yield absurd results. Further comments welcome here, and if anyone thinks someone was improperly blocked then let's look at ''all'' his edits here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Nobody claimed anything like that in this case. However, AndyJM removed a claim that was apparently wrong, and he was blocked for it. And BRichtigen was blocked for not simply ignoring this issue once Foxtrot lost interest. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 19:24, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: AndyJM repeatedly deleted insights from entries, without explaining his deletions. That can be highly destructive if allowed to continue. We can debate the validity of his deletions, but at first glance AndyJM appears to me to have been wrong. Certainly his style was inappropriate in failing to explain or discuss his deletions. His block can be undone if you disagree, but more discussion would be needed about his specific edits.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:09, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::Thank you, Andy, for considering my reasoning. The reason for the block of AndyJM wasn't simply his edits to this entry, but his removal of multiple portions of several mathematics entries. I had looked at a few and saw that he was removing good material without explanation and so he was being destructive. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 20:24, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::Could you at least unblock BRichtigen? He already kicked off an analysis, but then you blocked him. I will paste the relevant exchange from your talk page:
::Yes, of course, he was removing '''wrong''' information from articles
::#AC is implies the existence of non-Lebesgue-mb sets on an intervall, but isn't equivalent to it.
::#This, he outlined on the corresponding talk page
::#Next removal: ''An irrational number is formally defined to be the limit of a [[Cauchy sequence]] of rational numbers.'' A '''real''' number can be formally defined to be the limit of a [[Cauchy sequence]] of rational numbers. For example, a constant sequence is Cauchy and will lead to a rational number...
::#''involvoling'' -> ''involving'' - no offense there, I presume
::#''The cardinality of such a set would be denoted by the Hebrew letter''<math>\aleph</math>: He was right to remove this, too: <math>\aleph</math> without an index doesn't make much sense...
::#''The continuum is called so because it was the first (and most prominent) [[Continuous|continuous]] set studied by mathematicians.'' What does this mean? Remove it, I'd say...
::All his entries were thoughtful and improve CP. --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 16:41, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::I disagree with his removals and your recent edits to the Obama article as well as your past history do not instill confidence in what you are saying. Typos can be fixed, but it's wrong to remove information along with the typos. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 16:44, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::It's too late for me to do my own analysis right now, but I will see if I can add something tomorrow. In the meantime, you could do your part to show how AndyJM's edits were bad enough to warrant a five-year ban. We showed that at least one of his removals was entirely justified because it removed ''wrong'' information. I wouldn't be surprised if his other edits were okay, too. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 22:04, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::You have not shown how one of his removals was entirely justified. In fact, the removal was ''not'' justified. He removed valuable information from the article, rather than reworking it into a more acceptable form as it is now. He chose to remove entirely rather than to seek advice, and he did this repeatedly. His other edits removed valuable information as well, and if you and BRichtigen can't see that then I'm not sure either of you should be editing mathematics articles here. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 05:26, 28 November 2008 (EST)

::::::And one for Andy...
::::::*''AndyJM repeatedly deleted insights from entries, without explaining his deletions.''
::::::It has been pointed out that (for example) his edit to this article was correct - the claim had been wrong. So it hadn't been an insight, but an error.
::::::*''That can be highly destructive if allowed to continue.''
::::::In my eyes, it's way more destructive to insert wrong information and to use block powers to intimidate and silence the opposition.
::::::*''We can debate the validity of his deletions, but at first glance AndyJM appears to me to have been wrong.''
::::::At least in this case, he had been right. And BRichtigen ''tried'' to discuss the other edits, but Foxtrot wasn't in the mood and instead won the discussion by means of blocking.
::::::*''Certainly his style was inappropriate in failing to explain or discuss his deletions.''
::::::He explained at least this deletion here, but Foxtrot removed the explanation for some reason instead of, you know, ''discussing'' about its validity. He also summed up his reasoning in the edit summaries at least.
::::::*''His block can be undone if you disagree, but more discussion would be needed about his specific edits.''
::::::It would be immensely helpful if you could unblock BRichtigen. He already started such a discussion (I pasted a part of it here), and his knowledge might prove to be useful. I can (and will) take a closer look myself tomorrow, but having another experienced editor handy would lighten my load. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 22:13, 27 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: OK, done per your request. Thanks and let's see what happens next.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:31, 27 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::It has been pointed out several times to you that his edit to the article was not correct, that he was not justified in removing the content. The content has remained in the entry and is valuable to it -- Andy agrees with this being another bizarre result from the Axiom of Choice and it benefits the article to LEAVE IT IN.
::::::::Let me add that there's no need for your sarcasm and false personification of my "mood" and how I deal with editors. When an editor is removing valuable content from multiple entries, then they are blocked. When another editor refuses to follow a more senior editor's better judgment and persists on the point despite warning, they are blocked. You, my friend, are following the same path of haranguing behavior and that is why I have warned you that it may cause you to be blocked (and probably should have). But instead you're mischaracterizing this as "threats". I don't block often, but when I do it is with sound judgment. Enough time has already been wasted on this whole matter -- in the time I spent today dealing with your whining I could have made several worthwhile contributions and probably you could have too. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 05:26, 28 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::::It has been '''proven''' that his edits were correct. An ''implication'' is not equivalent to ''being equivalent''. AlanS has taken quite an effort to improve the article and to explain his changes here on the talk page. His 90/10 block comes as a surprise to me. --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]]

== Latest edit ==

What's the point of this edit: to illustrate that another axiom also results in an absurdity? It strikes me as wrong to try to justify the AOC by pointing out that an absurdity can be reached without using it also:

:"Another seemingly absurd consequence of the Axiom of Choice is that there are subsets of the real line which do not have a well-defined Lebesgue measure. However, it is also possible to construct such a subset without using the Axiom of Choice.<ref>[http://matwbn.icm.edu.pl/ksiazki/fm/fm138/fm13812.pdf "The Hahn-Banach theorem implies the existence of a non-Lebesgue measurable set"]</ref>"

--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:All other examples in that section seem to REQUIRE the AC. The subset thing doesn't. My edit doesn't justify the AC, but it points out that the nature of that absurdity isn't a direct consequence of the AC - the AC can just be used to construct it easily. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 19:28, 27 November 2008 (EST)

::But your distinction seems misplaced. The meaningful point is that AC proves an absurdity. It is irrelevant that another axiom may also produce the absurdity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:46, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:::Even if the AC was completely blown out of the water ''somehow'', the subset issue would still exist. In a section where practically every other example ''depends'' on the AC, that is a distinction worth pointing out. But I rephrased it again. Does this please you more? I'm not here to defend or fight, but the omission of the proven possibility of constructing the subsets without AC had been notable, so I fixed it. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 21:56, 27 November 2008 (EST)
==Deleted==
Take it to Citizendium or Wikipedia. We don't need arcane stuff like this. First, write an article on how to prove a [[theorem]] in [[geometry]] or [[symbolic logic]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:18, 4 December 2008 (EST)
:Arcane stuff like what? The article's gone. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:47, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia talk:Obama straw poll

2008-11-29T00:44:36Z

HelpJazz: /* My comment */

We should probably divide it up into several issues. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:31, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:Two that come to mind are religion and birthplace. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:38, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::The number of his gaffes. --[[User:MugiK|MugiK]] 11:39, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::First Black President maybe. It seems that Andy is trying to deny him that title as well. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:43, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:Shouldn't the Obama article simply follow the example set by the other articles about politicians both in style and tone? When you compare for example [[John McCain]], [[Bill Clinton]], and [[Barack Obama]], the choice should be clear.
:"Some conservatives" (Who?) say that he's a Muslim, and "some conservatives" (Who?) insist he wasn't born in Hawaii. I'm pretty sure that "some liberals" also insisted on quite a few things when [[George W. Bush]] became President, but you don't see every accusation in the article (judging from a quick look at least). Sarah Palin did drugs, Obama did drugs, but only the Obama article says it (to be fair, at least in Palin's case, it had been legal at the time, but that doesn't make it any better in my eyes). Maybe one standard for all articles would help us more than deciding just how far to move the Obama article away from the standard set by the other articles? --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 11:53, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::Yes...Shouldn't all articles (political or not) stick to the evidence for and against, and leave the speculation and editorializing for talk pages and essays?--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 12:37, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::: Wikipedia has an ignored-when-it-suits policy of not taking sides but presenting the evidence for and against (for example, it takes sides in the creation/evolution debate). Conservapedia, in contrast, is prepared to take a stand on issues; it is concerned with ''truth'' not, (per Wikipedia), ''verifiability''.
::: The issue here as far as I'm concerned is not that Conservapedia is taking a particular view, but that the particular view is without substantiation and even contrary to some of the evidence, and therefore almost certainly untrue.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:24, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Philip, what you've repeatedly deleted (censored) from the [[Obama]] entry is factual information that is undeniably true, such as how he pronounces "Pakistan". Conservapedia never stated that Obama is a Muslim, but presents compelling evidence about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 27 November 2008 (EST)

== Admin only? ==

Can I ask why this is the case? It doesn't seem particularly democratic if enfranchisement is restricted. Be wary if you start [[American Revolution|taxing me]]! [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 11:40, 27 November 2008 (EST)
*Because inclusive discussion has so far failed to net any agreement, see [[talk:Barack Obama]] --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:42, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:Big difference between inclusive "discussion" (yes that page is a mess) and inclusive ''voting''. But I see your point. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 11:43, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::Straw poll, not inclusive discussion. You all get to see who thinks what. Happy Thanksgiving. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:45, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::How about going with what Andy decides? He is the Leader of Conservapedia and has already ruled on the situation after reading and considering views from both sides. Although the poll was begun with good intentions, there is a danger that it will be misused by Liberals who have already emphatically lost the argument on the Obama talk page to try and wrest the situation back and gain some spurious authority for their plaints. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:07, 27 November 2008 (EST)[[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:47, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::::Who are these Liberal administrators? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 13:29, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Oh Henry, look and read. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:54, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::::: Bugler, are you calling Andy and yourself liberals? Because it's him and you (and co.) who have "emphatically lost the argument". I also find it most ironic that you posted "How about going with what Andy decides? He is the Leader of Conservapedia and has already ruled on the situation..." with the edit comment "''Anti-democratic cliquism''"! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:43, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::It's funny you should say that. I was under the impression that it is those who deny the truth - both about Obama and the nature of discourse on Conservapedia - and who have to rely on censorship, who have lost the argument. Read what Andy says below. We present the facts, pro and con, and let readers make up their own minds. That is the conservative way, and the Conservapedia way, but it clearly is not the way of the Rayment faction. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:41, 28 November 2008 (EST)

This is an experiment to see what effect a straw poll will have on, er, 'the situation'. Can't hurt, anyway. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:47, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Rod Weathers, this arose out of a discussion on my talk page. The problem with making it unrestricted is that doing so attracts all sorts of people, including trolls, socks, parodists, and sycophants. Limiting it to those with x number of edits discriminates against those that edit carefully and in depth in favour of those who can't understand the Preview button or who are making lots of trivial changes. Limiting it to administrators is a very blunt-instrument way of limiting it to those who are theoretically more entitled to have a say. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:36, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:I see. That seems rather reasonable. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 16:17, 28 November 2008 (EST)
::''Limiting it to Philip and his four imaginary Liberal friends is a very blunt-instrument way of limiting it to those who are theoretically more entitled to have a say.'' [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:52, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:::Are his four imaginary liberal friends supposed to include Conservative, Ed Poor, and Tim? '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 17:17, 28 November 2008 (EST)
Only one of those, Klumpers. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:39, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:Funny, I thought all of those people existed. Learn something new every day. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:31, 28 November 2008 (EST)

==Great American Tradition==
In the great American democratic tradition, people who were not elected will discuss policy that will be binding on all, while not counting the views of others. {{unsigned|KimSell}}

:Am I really the only non-sysop who thinks this is a good idea? Too often the arguments on talk pages are dragged out to the point of oblivion of reason. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 16:15, 28 November 2008 (EST)

== My comment ==

I've added a comment about his religion. I probably won't be adding anything else, because I haven't looked into the other issues as much.

Contrary to the offensive labelling of me as an "Obama defender", I'm not here to defend Obama, but simply to correct a blatant untruth in calling him a Muslim.

This straw poll is going to be pointless if we don't get a large percentage of the administrators putting comments here, but at the same time, perhaps many don't have too much of an opinion, at least on every issue.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 27 November 2008 (EST)

: The "blatant untruth" is any claim that Conservapedia asserts definitively that Obama is a Muslim. Conservapedia presents the facts and the reader can decide, as with all entries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::''Conservapedia presents the facts and the reader can decide, as with all entries.'' Smething that I have been constantly stating to Philip, only to be met with blank incomprehension and denial. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:38, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:::The issue is whether or not the statements about Obama are factual and relevant. Simply saying "Conservapedia presents the facts" begs the question - Philip is disputing that on the Obama page Conservapedia is presenting facts. If some evidence and justification is given for why the statements on the Obama page are factual and relevant, then that should be the end of the argument. So far Philip feels that such evidence and justification has not been given. To repeat, this has nothing to do with whether or not Conservapedia ''should'' present facts and let the reader decide, and everything to do with whether or not Conservapedia ''is'' presenting the facts and letting the reader decide. [[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 17:48, 28 November 2008 (EST)
::::"The facts" would include factual evidence to the contrary, as I suggested [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&oldid=571768#Suggestion_for_compromise a week ago], to no avail. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:44, 28 November 2008 (EST)

== Nuetral light? ==

Can we not just portray him as we would a white christian republican president? It seems almost like we are just spreading rumors about our future commander and chief. --[[User:Rcollins|Rcollins03]] 19:34, 28 November 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia talk:Obama straw poll

2008-11-29T00:32:07Z

HelpJazz: /* Admin only? */ doh! fingers faster than the brain

Conservapedia talk:Obama straw poll

2008-11-29T00:31:39Z

HelpJazz: /* Admin only? */

We should probably divide it up into several issues. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:31, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:Two that come to mind are religion and birthplace. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:38, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::The number of his gaffes. --[[User:MugiK|MugiK]] 11:39, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::First Black President maybe. It seems that Andy is trying to deny him that title as well. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:43, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:Shouldn't the Obama article simply follow the example set by the other articles about politicians both in style and tone? When you compare for example [[John McCain]], [[Bill Clinton]], and [[Barack Obama]], the choice should be clear.
:"Some conservatives" (Who?) say that he's a Muslim, and "some conservatives" (Who?) insist he wasn't born in Hawaii. I'm pretty sure that "some liberals" also insisted on quite a few things when [[George W. Bush]] became President, but you don't see every accusation in the article (judging from a quick look at least). Sarah Palin did drugs, Obama did drugs, but only the Obama article says it (to be fair, at least in Palin's case, it had been legal at the time, but that doesn't make it any better in my eyes). Maybe one standard for all articles would help us more than deciding just how far to move the Obama article away from the standard set by the other articles? --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 11:53, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::Yes...Shouldn't all articles (political or not) stick to the evidence for and against, and leave the speculation and editorializing for talk pages and essays?--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 12:37, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::: Wikipedia has an ignored-when-it-suits policy of not taking sides but presenting the evidence for and against (for example, it takes sides in the creation/evolution debate). Conservapedia, in contrast, is prepared to take a stand on issues; it is concerned with ''truth'' not, (per Wikipedia), ''verifiability''.
::: The issue here as far as I'm concerned is not that Conservapedia is taking a particular view, but that the particular view is without substantiation and even contrary to some of the evidence, and therefore almost certainly untrue.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:24, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Philip, what you've repeatedly deleted (censored) from the [[Obama]] entry is factual information that is undeniably true, such as how he pronounces "Pakistan". Conservapedia never stated that Obama is a Muslim, but presents compelling evidence about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 27 November 2008 (EST)

== Admin only? ==

Can I ask why this is the case? It doesn't seem particularly democratic if enfranchisement is restricted. Be wary if you start [[American Revolution|taxing me]]! [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 11:40, 27 November 2008 (EST)
*Because inclusive discussion has so far failed to net any agreement, see [[talk:Barack Obama]] --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:42, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:Big difference between inclusive "discussion" (yes that page is a mess) and inclusive ''voting''. But I see your point. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 11:43, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::Straw poll, not inclusive discussion. You all get to see who thinks what. Happy Thanksgiving. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:45, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::How about going with what Andy decides? He is the Leader of Conservapedia and has already ruled on the situation after reading and considering views from both sides. Although the poll was begun with good intentions, there is a danger that it will be misused by Liberals who have already emphatically lost the argument on the Obama talk page to try and wrest the situation back and gain some spurious authority for their plaints. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:07, 27 November 2008 (EST)[[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:47, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::::Who are these Liberal administrators? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 13:29, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Oh Henry, look and read. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:54, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::::: Bugler, are you calling Andy and yourself liberals? Because it's him and you (and co.) who have "emphatically lost the argument". I also find it most ironic that you posted "How about going with what Andy decides? He is the Leader of Conservapedia and has already ruled on the situation..." with the edit comment "''Anti-democratic cliquism''"! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:43, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::It's funny you should say that. I was under the impression that it is those who deny the truth - both about Obama and the nature of discourse on Conservapedia - and who have to rely on censorship, who have lost the argument. Read what Andy says below. We present the facts, pro and con, and let readers make up their own minds. That is the conservative way, and the Conservapedia way, but it clearly is not the way of the Rayment faction. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:41, 28 November 2008 (EST)

This is an experiment to see what effect a straw poll will have on, er, 'the situation'. Can't hurt, anyway. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:47, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Rod Weathers, this arose out of a discussion on my talk page. The problem with making it unrestricted is that doing so attracts all sorts of people, including trolls, socks, parodists, and sycophants. Limiting it to those with x number of edits discriminates against those that edit carefully and in depth in favour of those who can't understand the Preview button or who are making lots of trivial changes. Limiting it to administrators is a very blunt-instrument way of limiting it to those who are theoretically more entitled to have a say. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:36, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:I see. That seems rather reasonable. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 16:17, 28 November 2008 (EST)
::''Limiting it to Philip and his four imaginary Liberal friends is a very blunt-instrument way of limiting it to those who are theoretically more entitled to have a say.'' [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:52, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:::Are his four imaginary liberal friends supposed to include Conservative, Ed Poor, and Tim? '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 17:17, 28 November 2008 (EST)
Only one of those, Klumpers. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:39, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:Funny, I thought all of those people existed. Learn something knew every day. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:31, 28 November 2008 (EST)

==Great American Tradition==
In the great American democratic tradition, people who were not elected will discuss policy that will be binding on all, while not counting the views of others. {{unsigned|KimSell}}

:Am I really the only non-sysop who thinks this is a good idea? Too often the arguments on talk pages are dragged out to the point of oblivion of reason. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 16:15, 28 November 2008 (EST)

== My comment ==

I've added a comment about his religion. I probably won't be adding anything else, because I haven't looked into the other issues as much.

Contrary to the offensive labelling of me as an "Obama defender", I'm not here to defend Obama, but simply to correct a blatant untruth in calling him a Muslim.

This straw poll is going to be pointless if we don't get a large percentage of the administrators putting comments here, but at the same time, perhaps many don't have too much of an opinion, at least on every issue.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 27 November 2008 (EST)

: The "blatant untruth" is any claim that Conservapedia asserts definitively that Obama is a Muslim. Conservapedia presents the facts and the reader can decide, as with all entries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::''Conservapedia presents the facts and the reader can decide, as with all entries.'' Smething that I have been constantly stating to Philip, only to be met with blank incomprehension and denial. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:38, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:::The issue is whether or not the statements about Obama are factual and relevant. Simply saying "Conservapedia presents the facts" begs the question - Philip is disputing that on the Obama page Conservapedia is presenting facts. If some evidence and justification is given for why the statements on the Obama page are factual and relevant, then that should be the end of the argument. So far Philip feels that such evidence and justification has not been given. To repeat, this has nothing to do with whether or not Conservapedia ''should'' present facts and let the reader decide, and everything to do with whether or not Conservapedia ''is'' presenting the facts and letting the reader decide. [[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 17:48, 28 November 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse

2008-11-28T20:14:19Z

HelpJazz: /* Foxtrot and the Axiom of Choice */

<noinclude><center>[[Conservapedia:Desk|Back to the Desk]]</center> </noinclude>
=Abuse Complaints=
Archives: [[Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse/Archive1|1]]

== Wrongly block from Conservapedia ==

I tried to transfer five Wikipedia political articles to Conservapedia Sunday evening but was blocked at my home computer. I have been able to log in at the office computer. Once one is blocked, he cannot make any contact from that particular computer. Apparently, the one who blocked me, I cannot remember the moniker, but it started with a "J", thought that I had just scooped up some articles from Wikipedia. I have written 100 percent of those articles. Four are about conservatives.

The articles were:

*Billy J. Guin
*Allison R. Kolb
*Hall M. Lyons
*Ben C. Toledano, all Louisiana Republicans

*and Roy R. Theriot, a Democrat.

Wikipedia does not want the articles after 12 to 18 months on the site.

Conservapedia allows a transfer if the author wrote the article on Wikipedia.

I should be unblocked and have these five articles reverted to the screen, particularly the four on conservatives.

Please unblock me,

Billy Hathorn

bhathorn

I can also get you several dozen Wikipedia articles still on the screen about conservatives if you would like them.

:You were unblocked six hours after being blocked[http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Blockip/Bhathorn]. Are you sure that you are still getting a block, or is it just that you've encountered the [[Conservapedia:Editor's guide#Restrictions|night-editing restrictions]]?
: If you ''are'' still getting a block, perhaps you should write to a sysop (see the "Email this user" link in the left column of a sysop's user page; but you must have your own e-mail set to do this), particularly if it's your IP address that is the problem.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:59, 19 December 2007 (EST)
::bhathorn, I deleted your pages because they were copied straight from Wikipedia. This site does not allow that unless it is your own work. You've been unblocked because the articles you copied have been verified by another administrator. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 07:02, 19 December 2007 (EST)

== Unblocking User:LardoBolger? ==

I've been trying to get my account unblocked ([[User:LardoBolger|Lardo Bolger]]) For nearly two months now and have mailed several sysops, including Ed Poor and Aschlafly.

I have received no response from either but dead silence, but I was fortunate enough to get at least ONE reply from Iduan, so my thanks to him. Another thanks to Learn Together for possibly inquring my block, as TK emailed me with boastful words amounting to having more power than everyone else except Schlafly himself.

Due to the nature that the block message reads "Atheistic Deceit" by TK, when I had made inquiry of his blocking to AtheistKathryn as deceitful, and the fact that sysops neither reply or act to my emails, I feel a bit discriminated against. Not only that, but the insults TK said to me just shows the lack of accountability here. Seeing as he also banned another user with the statement that atheists aren't welcome on CP, it would seem but obvious to consider discrimination of religion, even though ''I'm not Atheist.''

Among all this, not one reason I was blocked, just wild accusations and insults. I'm hoping this doesn't truly define how Conservapedia works. I never saw in the rules that being accused of Atheist, reporting/inquiring sysop abuse, or having a promiscuous mother (as was said by TK, among many other things) justifies a block here. Perhaps the rules should be changed so future editors can keep their mothers, religion, and thoughts of equality in check. Also, when signing up, it says "Real name (Optional)", so my username obviously didn't reflect my real name. However, that was also used to define why I was blocked by TK, and I feel I should say everything in one go.

I ''apologize'' for not ''understanding'' what I did wrong, and I apologize for using a different account to get a response (if any) since email seems to be only an option to read here. [[User:PhilB|PhilB]] 14:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:I can't see exactly why you were blocked, so I am just offering the benefit of the doubt and unblocking you. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:58, 28 December 2007 (EST)
::Thank you VERY much, mister Fox! By all means, watch my edits if you have any suspicions! :) [[User:LardoBolger|LardoBolger]] 15:01, 28 December 2007 (EST)

== [[User:GoObama]] ==

POV pusher. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 22:41, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:Began vandalizing after I warned him. [[User:ThomasB|ThomasB]] 22:43, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::Andy's dealt with him. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:52, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Aschlafly's Removal of Legitimate Information ==

After repeated edits of the Barack Obama article to include the following fully cited, unbiased, and completely factual information:

Both [[Democrats]] and [[Republicans]] have accused him of avoiding controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. The prime example being, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" 129 times.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html</ref> However, this is not unusual given the nature of the Illinois Senate as each senator votes through the use of three buttons, green for yes, red for no, and yellow for present. As Illinois political writer and blogger Rich Miller has said, "not all 'present' votes are cowardly, including those cast by then-state Sen. Obama."<ref>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18348437</ref> Chris Mooney, a professor of [[political science]] at the University of Illinois, Springfield, sheds further light on the situation: "Mooney and other state capitol watchers and players say Illinois lawmakers often vote 'present' as part of a larger party or issue bloc strategy."<ref>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18348437</ref> During that same period, he was planning to run for the [[House of Representatives]], which was unsuccessful, and then successfully for [[U.S. Senate]], in which he defeated Republican candidate [[Alan Keyes]], also an [[African American]].<ref>http://www.ilsenate.com/default.asp</ref>

Aschlafly, has threatened to ban me if I am to edit it again. However my edits were completely neutral in nature and only served to remove opinionated and accusative language and to elaborate upon the voting "present" controversy so that people will have a better understanding of both the Illinois Senate and why Sen. Obama voted in such a way.

On the talk page I have repeatedly defended the position as well as asked Aschlafly to refrain from removing the edits and at the very least, give some sort of justification for removal, something which he has yet to do. His only responses have been that what he said is right, giving no justification or information to support his claims, and to threaten me with banning if I am to edit the article again.

It is my personal belief on the matter, that he is using his administrative powers to enforce his opinion as fact and to limit attempts by others like myself, from trying to improve Conservapedia to be more neutral and factual.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 16:23, 17 February 2008 (EST)

== Karajou's block of Jimmy is unwarranted ==

I believe Karajou has abused his position as a sysop and blocked [[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] simply for disagreeing with him. Now, I could understand if Jimmy had been vulgar or insulting, but it's plain from reading the discussion at [[Talk: Obama on rifles]] that this was not the case. Jimmy was blocked for suggesting that a significant number of active and retired military members are Democrats and/or liberals. Karajou claimed in his [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Jimmy block notice] that Jimmy was insulting and denigrating service members. This clearly isn't the case. I believe Jimmy should be unblocked at the very least. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 19:37, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:How do you know that "Jimmy was blocked for suggesting that a significant number of active and retired military members are Democrats and/or liberals" rather than for something else? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:09, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::That's the only thing I saw in the discussion that could remotely be considered insulting and what's more is that it was the last statement Jimmy made immediately prior to being blocked. Do me a favor and read the page and tell me where you think Jimmy insults or denigrates service members? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 19:59, 27 February 2008 (EST)
:::Is there no response? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 16:47, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:::: Regarding the lack of response, I think I saw your response when checking my watchlist whilst at work on Thursday, but didn't have time then to respond. Once home, I overlooked it because it was no longer highlighted on my watchlist. Sorry about that.
:::: It's often the case that a block is imposed not for a specific comment or edit, but for a pattern of edits or a bad attitude. Based on comments that Karajou has made to me, I gather that this is the case with Jimmy. Regardless, Jimmy has written to me and I will be passing his concerns on to Karajou for review (Karajou's "e-mail this user" link doesn't work).
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:59, 1 March 2008 (EST)

== Block of SSchultz ==

It seems to me that Karajou has blocked SSchultz for very little cause. As far as I can tell, SSchultz wasn't lying about anything; he just made the mistaken factual assumption that sections of the ''O'Bannon'' article were copied from Wikipedia. Naming the primary source when the accusation was made would have alleviated any confusion and the matter would have been closed. --Jimmy 20:32, 5 March 2008 (EST)
: I guess you should be careful about making an accusation based on an assumption. But in any case, SSchultz has indicated elsewhere that he is not wanting to return. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:39, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Index item - Bible is for C**ts ==

I think you should remove this item from the index. It redirects to the "Bible" page. The word used carries a sexual meaning that is not appropriate for this site.

== Censored words ==
When I first heard about conservapedia I thought, "Excellent, a place to talk to like minded individuals", however I am shocked at the fact that this 'family friendly' encyclopedia allows obscenity. No matter what the subject, the term Ed Poor used (and the complaint that was deleted) is NEVER ok. As you say many times yourself, there are children reading this. Also if your sysops can use this term without any warning or blocking then you have opened the floodgates and now everyone can feel as though the can use such terms. Again I stress that such terms are obscene no matter what the context. If nothing is done about this I can only assume that conservapedia is not willing to adhere to its own rules, that the sysops are above the law and I will not consider contributing to what I once thought was clean educational resource.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
: In at least partial defence of Ed Poor, I would point out or remind you (and others) that although there are some words that almost everyone considers unacceptable, there are others that are more borderline, that some consider unacceptable and others consider acceptable. Furthermore (and I don't know if this applies in your case), there are words that some societies (e.g. America) considers acceptable or unacceptable but which other consider the opposite. Personally, this Aussie agrees with you regarding the word that Ed Poor used in an uncensored way. He, however, clearly considers that word to be acceptable. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:10, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the rational reply Phillip. I will drop this matter now, having got a well thought out answer such as yours but before I do my I just say that I dont believe there is an english speaking country (I have been all over the world) where the word f*** is acceptable. There is nothing borderline about it and as Andy harps on about this being a clean, high quality resource I thought more would be done about it. You sysops need to set the example. I will settle the matter now but I do not wish to see anymore swearing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 14:06, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

:Don't be a d***. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:33, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

== Severe abuse of power by Karajou ==

I was looking at the Recent Changes, when I saw an exchange was occurring on Karajou's talk page. I went over to look at it. You can [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Karajou#It_Was_FLAVOR-AID.2C_Not_Kool-Aid find it here], if it is still there. You will note there is a dispute about whether it was Kool-Aid or Flavor-Aid used in the Jonestown massacres. I had recently listened to the PBS radio special on the matter, so I decided to provide that evidence to support the fact that it was Flavor-Aid being used by providing that evidence. I therefore [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKarajou&diff=462746&oldid=462705 put this message there], supplying that. I didn't bother to leave a message, since I thought I was just providing a few links for the discussion, and linked each with the word "Flavor-Aid" to indicate the content and which I thought was correct.

Immediately thereafter, Karajou posted a message on my user talk, headed "you're stuck":
<blockquote>
Since you decided to leave a sarcastic entry on my talk page regarding Flavoraid, you're now stuck looking for real references which are going to be used to create and improve the Jonestown article I am writing. You are going to get newspaper, newsmagazine, or video references which state explicitly references to Flavoraide at Jonestown; these references will be dated within two months of November 18, 1978 and not later; and you've got until 10:30 pm central time tonight to dig them up. If what you've implied is true, they will be posted in the article, you will get the credit, and I will eat my words to that effect. If not, then I will block you for a week for the sarcasm as well as assisting in a lie. Get to work. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:42, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
</blockquote>

As you can see, he is demanding that within a span of eight hours I have to find newspaper, newsmgazine, or video references with explicit documentation of a single fact from a two-month span dating almost an even thirty years ago. Since most online archives don't go back that far for free, he is essentially demanding I drive to the library '''today''' and spend some time in the stacks with microfilm, trying to meet his demand for proof, or else he says he will block me for a week.

I'm not sure this requires much more explanation, but it should be obvious I was not being "sarcastic" with my three links - it beggars the imagination to think of how much sarcasm I could fit into the repetition of a single, entirely topical word three times. It should also be obvious that even if he was allowed to make such demands of me, his demand is so unreasonable as to be difficult-to-impossible to meet. There is nothing in the rules (that state explicitly "these are the only rules") that says I have to go do research for sysops if they demand it or I will be blocked.

This is an absolutely clear and obvious abuse of Karajou's power.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 16:04, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

:Just want to draw attention to this again, since there has been no action taken or response to this abuse complaint here.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 13:34, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

:Karajou has stated that he went to the library himself yesterday, and he didn't block me, saying it was a "lesson learned." Since he is big enough to admit that, I withdraw my complaint of abuse, out of hope we can all get back to work.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 13:41, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

== Separate Section ==

Jareddr has delted my work on John McCains section titled abortion. It did not violate any CP commandments.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:46, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:I think this is the wrong section for your "complaint", and second, I can show evidence in the form of the document you took the section from and the ''minor'' changes you made, which didn't bring it into compliance. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 22:53, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

== TerryH threats and blocking. ==

The actions of sysop TerryH over the past couple of days have been completely unprofessional, damaging to the reputation of this project, and so far unchecked by the administration. The core issue is that a statement made by TerryH on the main Talk page was shown by others, beginning with Aggrieved, to be incorrect. Instead of simply accepting the correction when supporting evidence was presented, he threatened Aggrieved and eventually blocked him. He then went on to block others who stepped in to support Aggrieved, invoking arbitrary rules like MYOB to silence them. His arrogance and abusive use of his sysop privileges to threaten and punish others who were abiding by CP principles reflects poorly on the project, and sets a bad example for the students who use it. The threads can be found on the main Talk page under the headings " Supreme Court decision re: Habeas Corpus" and " Outlandish Gitmo assertions and the unfortunate consequences", as well as the user talk page for Aggrieved and other users he's blocked. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:09, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Bugler ==

Bugler, IMO, inappropriately blocked Dannyredful for "complicity" in the fake signatures added to the Lenski letter. When asked to explain, Bugler stated the "complicity" was for not deleting the names off the list. Of course, not only had Danny added his name BEFORE most of these names were listed, but there were a number of other users who either added their name or posted AFTER fake names were added without any punishment. This is not the first time Bugler has been reported for abuse in his short time as a user and sysop. He has been singled out for his heavy-handed approach and seeming "power trip". Are we now all responsible to the point of being blocked if we don't correct information that we may not know isn't true? Is NOT editing something now a blockable offense?--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:38, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:If one examines the history of the Lenski talk page it will be clear that DannyRedful was watching and adding sarcastic remarks every time I blocked a parodist account. DannyRedful's claims that he did not know the names were of footballers and football managers in not credible. Had the email been sent with these names appended, it would have caused embnarrassment to Andy and legitimate signatories, and caused great damage to the reputation of Conservapedia. DannyRedful's further claim that he was in a Catch 22 situation because edits on talk pages are inviolate - the changes required were on an article talk page, not a personal 'castle' - s also inadequate and Jesuitical. The serious consequences of sending an email with spoof messages outweighs any considerations of rules about editing, which hardly applied in this case anyway. Therefore not removing the names was akin to sabotage, and a three day block is merciful in the extreme. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:Perhaps you'll post a message here and on his talk page apologizing to Danny for blocking him when you were the one mistaken? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:54, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

I have apologised to Danny and have blocked Jareddr as the true culprit. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:55, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
: What is it that Jareddr has done wrong? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:00, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::He did what I wrongly accused the now-banned sock DannyRedful of doing. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:27, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Oh?
:::* Added sarcastic remarks? Nope, they don't look sarcastic to me. Humorous, actually.
:::* Claimed that he didn't know the names were footballers? Nope, that ''was'' [[user:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]].
:::* He was in a catch 22? Nope, that was DannyRedful again.
:::* Not removing names of banned users? How is it an offence to ''not'' do something that is not his job to do?
::: So I ask again, what is it that Jareddr did wrong?
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:45, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

It really isn't all that difficult, Philip. If one examines the history of the Lenski talk page it will be clear that Jareddr was watching and adding sarcastic - or 'humorous' as you will have it - remarks every time I blocked a parodist account. Had the email been sent with these names appended, it would have caused grave embarrassment to Andy and legitimate signatories, and caused great damage to the reputation of Conservapedia.

You ask: ''How is it an offence to ''not'' do something that is not his job to do?''

It is not credible that Jareddr did ''not'' know that the names were spoofs intenfed to damage Conservapedia. In virtually every legal sysstem on the planet, standing by and letting an offence take place when one had foreknowledge of that planned offence, is in itself a crime. On that analogy, and by any rational standards of conduct, not removing the names was akin to sabotage, and a three day block is merciful in the extreme.

If you cannot see that, then I doubt that you are cut out for the role of Ombudsman that you appear to have assumed. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:24, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:PS: this is the text of an email to me from Jareddr: ''Oh, and the reason I didn't remove the names was because I didn't sign on to the letter. It can be sent with whatever names Aschlafly wants on it. He was the one who kept changing the number. I wanted nothing to do with the letter, and if he looks foolish for having those names on there, it will only add to the foolishness of sending the letter in the first place. Ciao!''

He knew the spoofs would damage CP, and he deliberately did nothing.

::Um, it seems you're under the impression Jareddr '''didn't''' remove the names from the list in an attempt to make Andy look bad by sending a spoofed email (''"It is not credible that Jareddr did not know that the names were spoofs intenfed to damage Conservapedia... not removing the names was akin to sabotage"''). The problem is, he did remove the signatures of the blocked users, many times over: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476461][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476463][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476464][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476466][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476467][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476468].

::I think you better check that you copied the text from the right email, because at the moment it contradicts what Jareddr did (I hardly think he would say he didn't remove the names of parodists when in reality he did). While you're at it you may want to unblock and apologise, whether Jareddr's comments were appropriate or not is a matter between him and you, but the rest of his actions were the complete opposite of what you accuse him of. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:35, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Thanks, StatsMsn. Bugler, I had my suspicions about the names because so many were new accounts, but I didn't pick the names themselves as spoofs, and I don't see why Jareddr should have (although one edit comment does indicate that he did know or eventually realise this). But more to the point, as StatsMsn said, Jareddr ''was removing'' the names that you blocked. I assumed that your reasoning for blocking was that perhaps he missed a few, so you somehow saw that as deliberate, given that he'd got the rest, but now I'm wondering if you didn't realise that he was removing them at all. To put it another way, Jareddr was ''helping'' you by removing from the list of co-signers the names that you blocked. Simply blocking them was not likely to result in Andy not including them on the letter (as he would likely not have realised that they were blocked). They also had to be removed, and Jareddr was doing that.
:: And in case you haven't gathered by now, the issue is not whether the spoof names would damage CP; I agree that they would, and I was glad that you found cause to block them (as I said, I was suspicious, but didn't have a good reason to remove them). I realised what was going on when I saw Jareddr removing them, and his edit comments explained ''why'' he was removing them (because you were blocking them). Without that, I might just have reverted his removal of those names.
:: I'd rather not play the role of ombudsman (although an ombudsman usually acts on complaints; in this case I acted on my own initiative), but the best way to put an ombudsman out of business is to give him no cause to exist. And I was actually doing what you said I should be doing: not "standing by and letting an offence take place".
:: I think I saw a comment somewhere that Jareddr was a sock of someone else, and if so, he should be blocked permanently, but not for this alleged offence.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:55, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Thanks for your response, Philip. I don't want this to become an endless ping-pong match but would just add that Jareddr deleted the spoofsignatures one by one as I barred the spoofers. You might argue that my barring was the only way he knew they were spoofers. I argue that he ''knew'' they all were, and would have let any that I didn't bar go through, to the detriment of CP. I feel that StatsMan may be implying bad faith on my part in my reproduction of Jareddr's email to me. I would be happy to forward the email to you so that you can asses this for yourself. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:34, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: On the basis of what I've seen so far, I see no reason for coming to the conclusion that Jareddr ''knew'' that many of the signatories were spoofs. I've no reason to doubt your honesty in reproducing Jareddr's letter above, but I'm sensing that you only reproduced part of it, and perhaps there's more that reinforces your belief about him. If that is the case, then yes, please forward the e-mail to me. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:46, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Bugler recently blocked yours truelly for a period of three days, forunatlly I'm busy with my new job so it didn't really disrupt me that much... But I digress. IMO the block was vindictive and without merit, it was over a disagreement in the [[Hollywood Values]] article where I had added some true and valid information, he removed it, I placed it back with an explanation, where I had the misfortune of writing liblelous. I immediatly recieved a three day(!) block for this.

I wasn't trying to insult him, nor was saying that anyone would have a case against him. For a site that credits itself for not subscribing to the "laws" of political correctness, anyone who isn't a sysop sure has to treas lightly lest he/she be blocked. And even if you're trying to make a point, long blocks discourage many people from returning. Perhaps the whole block policy should be reviewed? Thanking the administrators in advance. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 03:27, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

== Joaquin Martinez ==

Are any of the admins going to confront Joaquin over his refusal to discuss editing with Tom Moore? It's becoming increasingly petty n the part of the former, and a real good reason not to edit at Conservapedia. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:38, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:Specifics please (links, diffs, etc.). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:01, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:Just noticed this. I happened to have written up a summary of the problem earlier for Andy, so here it is again -

The whole deal with [[Greek influence on Western Culture]] with Joaquin is getting absurd. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture&oldid=466769 This] was the article before I came along and rewrote the whole thing. Clearly, a mess. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture&oldid=466874 My version] is more concise and much better written, I believe. Shortly thereafter, Joaquin began editing the article again. I wasn't too surprised, since he was the person who put together and edited most of the previous version. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture&oldid=466966 He proceeded] to add a bit of good material and some other things. I [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture&oldid=467339 incorporated his material] and cleaned up the formatting of the page again, as well as removed a picture of Pericles that had no relevance on an article that didn't even mention his name. I suggested to Joaquin that he could write a bit about Pericles, and then the picture would be perfectly appropriate. Joaquin undid my edits without explaining himself. So I redid them, and he blocked me for a month. [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Joaqu%C3%ADn_Mart%C3%ADnez#Tom_Moore After several people questioned him], Joaquin's block was undone by another sysop. He stated that I shouldn't have "removed important material." But as you can see, I didn't. I made the important material concise, and removed an irrelevant image until it became relevant. He refused to discuss it further or explain himself.

Following this, I posted a message on his talk page, saying I wanted to work it out and describing my reasons. He ignored it, and I after a few days I redid my edits. He reverted them. I posted another message on his talk page, begging him not to ignore me. He ignored it, and when I redid the edits, he reverted them again. And then the whole cycle repeated itself.

I'm not sure what I have to do here to make him stop so the article can be improved. He clearly has seen my messages, since he has edited somewhat and replied to other people on the talk page. If he wasn't a sysop, he would have been blocked long ago for refusing to discuss his reverts of good edits and redoing them several times over.

:He finally, after two other sysops posted on the page asking about this, deigned to reply to me, and our conversation thereafter can be found [[Talk:Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture|here]]. He accused me of removing several items of information, which I pointed out were actually almost entirely still in the article (his ignorance of this makes me suspect he never read my edits). He also accused me of removing two images, which I ''did'' remove for very good reasons (they are irrelevant). I replied point-by-point and remarkably patiently, considering he had already blocked me previously for disagreeing with him (a block undone by another sysop, and never apologized for). Now he has begun to ignore me again.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 13:35, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::Correct me if I am wrong, but this seems to be mostly caused by that irrelevant picture right? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 14:22, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
:::You'd have to ask him. He claims I also removed other information, but I believe him to be in error, as I demonstrated. We both agree I removed an image of Pericles (not mentioned in the article, only in the See Also links) and an image of the Delphic Oracle (not mentioned in the article or anywhere else on the page). He thinks they belong there, but won't say why other than that he "spent time looking for them" or they are "important." I really can't answer further as to his views, though, since he refuses to discuss it.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 14:58, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

== Someone tried to hack my account ==

This morning I received an email that someone from IP address "83.146.14.24" tried to steal my password. I think that standard procedure would be to "block" that IP from the site, so what can be done about it? Thanks. --[[User:Alpnineone|Alpnineone]] 14:03, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
: And again with IP 139.102.254.38 from Indiana State University. http://samspade.org/whois/139.102.254.38 --[[User:Alpnineone|Alpnineone]] 13:59, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
::First of all, phishing is not hacking. Second of all, how are we supposed to know that this IP address tried to phish for your password? We can't just block anyone who claims abuse from an IP, or someone with ill intentions could have the entire world blocked from the site. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:34, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I had the same thing which was linked to a blocked user who attempted to mailbomb my e-mail account in revenge. That IP has now been blocked. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 19:39, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

== DeanS abusing power ==
===DLerner complaint===
DeanS has abused his Sysop power in blocking [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Jirby Jirby]. Here is the history:

* [[User:DeanS]] bocked [[User:Impm|Impm]] because of an "[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Impm edit war]".
* [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] thought that the block was unfair, and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DeanS&diff=prev&oldid=504854 told DeanS] what he thought.
* DeanS tells Jirby to MYOB, or [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DeanS&diff=next&oldid=504854 '''he''' will be blocked].
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Philip_J._Rayment&diff=prev&oldid=504857 Jirby complains] to [[User:Philip J. Rayment|PJR]] about the way he was treated to DeanS.
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Jirby DeanS blocks Jirby].

First of all, DeanS was abusive in the way he spoke to Jirby; second, he has no right to block him for complaining to a sysop. MYOB is <big>'''not'''</big> an answer! It paves the way for abuse and must be stopped!

[[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 21:20, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

===Philip's response===

: I agree. I've disagreed with my fellow administrators before on this. From their point of view, they don't want to waste time having to justify blocks to any Tom, Dick, or Harry who decides to cause trouble by second-guessing the adminstrator's actions. That's understandable, but, as you mention, can lead to problems the other way, where they are not answerable. Unfortunately, this Abuse page appears to have no mechanism in place to resolve issues raised here, but its existence does at least imply that there is some freedom to question actions.
: In this particular case, DeanS has gone beyond that. That is, he told Jirby to mind his own business (regarding Impm's block), and Jirby ''did not raise that again''. Instead, he approached another administrator (me) to ask if what DeanS said was acceptable. So he did ''something different'', yet DeanS blocked him anyway for not folling the "advice" to mind his own business on the blocking of Impm. How Jirby is spoken to by an administrator, or what he is told by an administrator ''is'' his business. So Jirby's block was not justified, and I will therefore unblock him.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

::Philip, while I respect your right to disagree with my decision to block Jirby, I don't repect your right to undo my block. I have therefore reblocked him. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 23:56, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
::: I pointed out that your block was unjustified. Your rebuttal? There was none. You have not disputed any point I made, or justified your block in any way. I don't accept that you ''have'' a right to block for an invalid reason. {{Bible ref|Matthew|7|3}} [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:08, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

===Bugler's response===
::::My reading of the situation is that Dean has not ''abused'' power at all, but is ''using'' his power wisely in ridding CP of people whose ''sole'' motivation in coming here is to cause trouble. It it a sad day when certain administrators think it fit to weigh in on the side of these troublemakers, exercising poor judgement and an overly-liberal attitude. I believe that PJR's interference in this matter is completely unjustified, as it was in the Daphnea business. He should accept the judgement and good faith of other sysops and those with blocking powers, and not set himself up as a whited sepulchre. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]]
::::: Bugler, will you please supply evidence that Jirby's "sole motivation" is to cause trouble? Until you do, your argument fails. And if you want to provide evidence of unjustified intereference on my part, please use an example where you got it right. [[user:Daphnea|Daphnea]] was not such a case. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:58, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
::::::Philip, you are entirely wrong - about Daphnea, about Jirby, and, incidentally, in the unfounded and unwarranted accusations and attacks on my character that you have made on this site. I suggest with respect that you do not have a 'nose' for troublemakers and saboteurs. I can think of no other reason - bar misplaced liberalistic sentimentalising - why you stand up for them. And I also suggest with respect that this may be a reason why Conservapedia is locked overnight (EST) despite CP having an active Antipodean admin - because you would let vandals, parodists and socks have the run of the place. Frankly, you'd be better off sticking to your dinosaurs and letting sysops who do have a 'nose' get on with the job without interference. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:53, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Bugler, please be careful with how you address those who Andy has placed in a position of authority. While Philip's choice to unblock Dean's block was unfortunate, even Dean is careful in his wording not to denigrate Philip. Philip has done much for this site and he should earn respect based upon his contributions even if there are issues where you personally don't agree with his decisions. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:06, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
::::::::OK, LT, point taken. I will reply in a positive spirit by saying that I think DeanS is a very fine sysop, who has done a huge amount to make Conservapedia what it is, and I believe that the very least he deserves is for his peers to support rather than denigrate him. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:43, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
Bugler, I thank you for stating so frankly that you believe that it's okay to block based on, ummm, your "nose". It's normal, however, for people enforcing rules to base their decisions on ''evidence''. I'm also disappointed at your lack of imagination—that you are unable to think of another reason for me defending some editors, such as me wanting to be fair and just. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:48, 27 August 2008 (EDT)
:Philip, the nose is a useful organ for sniffing out trouble and troublemakers. To suggest that I would block solely on this basis without evidence of troublemaking is at best disingenuous and at worst dishonest. And any sysop or admin who waits for troublemakers to present a neatly packaged file of vandalism, disruption and damage on his or her desk, for him or her to peruse and muse over for a while while considering a fair and just response, is about as much use as a chocolate fireguard. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:26, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
:: Yes, I agree that a nose, a gut feeling, or etc. is a useful way of detecting trouble and troublemakers. Contrary to your opinion, I have detected troublemakers the same way myself.
:: However, you are now indicating that one only uses the nose to ''detect'' troublemaking, but finds other ''evidence'' before blocking. The problem with that claim, apart from the fact that you didn't previously make it (more on that in a moment), is that it doesn't seem to be true. I was responding to ''your'' comment that a "nose" is needed, and that I didn't have one. I was entitled to think that a "nose" is the ''only'' thing required, because I was never claiming that some editor was innocent simply because he didn't ''seem'' to be guilty to me; rather, because the ''evidence'' was lacking. (The ''evidence'' is what I've challenged you on before.) Therefore your comment about needing a nose, in context (even if unintentionally) was as a ''substitute'' for evidence. Given also that, as I said, the evidence has at times been lacking, I was quite entitle to read your comment as saying that the "nose" is ''all that is required''.
:: Conversely, I never claimed that it had to be a "neatly packaged file". I have on many occasions dug through edit histories and diffs in order to find the evidence. I suspect that Dean beat me to block [[user:JasonH|JasonH]] recently simply because I spent the time I did looking through the evidence (which is not to say that he didn't) (I spent perhaps 15 minutes looking through the evidence, and DeanS beat me to the block by less than a minute. So your characterisation of me as one who doesn't block without a "neatly packaged file" could hardly be further from the truth.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:11, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

===Dean's response===
In response to DLerner's complaint above.

Point 1. User:DeanS bocked Impm because of an "edit war".

1. We all know the Barack Obama article is a contentious article. Editors are constantly changing Andy's edits and he reverts them back. This is exactly the situation when Impm removes Andy's edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=504849 here].
2. Then Andy reverts Impm's edits [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=504849here].
3. Then Impm takes out two whole paragraphs [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=504850 here]. Here is his edit comment "(1) Obama did not go to an Islamic school, 2) he does town hall meetings every day, including one today, where he didn't read from a teleprompter."
4. Then I revert Impm's edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=504852 here]. My edit comment is "Stopping edit war. Impm, you will discuss further desired changes on the talk page."

I believe Impm knew that he would start an edit war by removing Andy's edit's. (See #1) This is confirmed when Andy reverts Impm's edits. (See #2) Then Impm takes out two whole paragraphs. (See #3) If I'm not around, I can see where this is headed. Andy will see Impm's edits and revert them. This is why I make the comment in #4.

5. I block Impm for starting a edit war. 11:43, August 25, 2008 DeanS (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Impm (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 day (account creation disabled) ‎ (Edit war)

I could have just given Impm a warning, but he has a history of complaining about this [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Impm article], and has now gone from using the talk page to directly causing contentious edits he should know will be reverted. A one day block from me is linient and serves notice that I believe his edits are starting an edit war and I'm stopping it.

Point 2. Jirby thought that the block was unfair, and told DeanS what he thought.

1. Jirby is not an innocent bystander. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Jirby His contributions] show a repeated pattern of complaining about several of our contentious articles: Richard Lenski, Obama, Deceit, Mystery:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness‎, and Quote mining‎ articles.
2. Jirby [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DeanS&diff=prev&oldid=504854 comments on my talk page], protesting Impm's block.

Jirby should be making positive contributions to Conservapedia, not complaining about another editor's block. He is not "Minding his own business". As I explained above, I considered Impm's edits as starting an edit war.

Admins on Conservapedia have to make blocking decisions every day, and I don't appreciate other editors going around questioning our decisions instead of editing. To me, Jirby is being a troublemaker and needs to get back to editing.

Point 3. DeanS tells Jirby to MYOB, or he will be blocked.

This is true. as I explained above, Jirby is not minding his own business and he needs to get back to editing or he will be blocked.

Point 4. Jirby complains to PJR about the way he was treated to DeanS.

If Jirby was minding his own business, he would have returned to editing and let Impm complain when he returned from his block. That's not what Jirby does. He goes to Philip, to complain. To me, Jirby has just disregarded by comment and done the opposite. I don't believe my comments are abusive, they make the point quite clearly.

Point 5. DeanS blocks Jirby.

This is true. I disagree with DLerner about complaining to other sysops. I don't feel editors should run to other admins and complain about things they never should have been involved in the first place. I warned Jirby and he disregarded my warning. A one day block from me is linient and serves notice that I mean what I say and he needs to stop this behavior. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:17, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

In response to Philip's comments:

Point 1. "DeanS has gone beyond that. That is, he told Jirby to mind his own business (regarding Impm's block), and Jirby did not raise that again. Instead, he approached another administrator (me) to ask if what DeanS said was acceptable. So he did something different, yet DeanS blocked him anyway for not folling the "advice" to mind his own business on the blocking of Impm."

As I mentioned in Point 4 in my response to DLerner, "If Jirby was minding his own business, he would have returned to editing and let Impm complain when he returned from his block. That's not what Jirby does. He goes to Philip, to complain. To me, Jirby has just disregarded by comment and done the opposite." To me, this contradicts Philip's statement "Jirby did not raise that again. Instead, he approached another administrator (me) to ask if what DeanS said was acceptable." While Philip believes this is acceptable behavior, I don't. To me it's a tattletale childlike behavior, "Mommy, Joey did this" and "Mommy, Joey did that." This is troublemaker behavior, not conducive to make positive contributions to Conservapedia.

Point 2. "How Jirby is spoken to by an administrator, or what he is told by an administrator is his business. So Jirby's block was not justified, and I will therefore unblock him."

Even if Philip disagreed with my block, I don't think he should have undid my block. As noted above, I believe my blocks were justified. I believe Philip is abusing his power by unblocking another admin's block. Since my block should not have been reversed in the first place, I am reinstituting the block. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:38, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:It's not whether if you feel your block is justified, it is if you followed blocking policy. Last I saw, MYOB [http://www.conservapedia.com/MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown IS NOT] a common block reason, though I remember you blocking quite a few editors with the block reason as "MYOB" with regards to questionable blocks on other users. The entire event could have been avoided if you weren't so rude to Jirby as to cause him to run to another administrator for help and explained in a respectful tone. Now you have to make this huge response and argue with another admin simply because you failed to show respect. [[User:JamesLRay|JamesLRay]] 12:53, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

: "''Jirby is not an innocent bystander''": Yet you fail to show that. Okay, so he complained about some articles. But perhaps those complaints were legitimate? Since when does complaining about articles in and of itself make one guilty?
: "''Jirby should be making positive contributions to Conservapedia''": Again, you have failed to show that he was not.
: "''...not complaining about another editor's block''": Why not? If we see injustice, it is our ''responsibility'' to do something about that.
: "''He is not "Minding his own business".''": So? There's no rule that says that he must.
: "''...I don't appreciate other editors going around questioning our decisions instead of editing''": It's clear that you don't appreciate it, but that doesn't meant that there's anything wrong with it.
: "''To me, Jirby is being a troublemaker and needs to get back to editing.''": To me, he's (a) questioning an alleged injustice and (b) objecting to the way he was spoken to. Neither of which there is anything wrong with. You've provided no evidence of him making trouble, unless "troublemaker" means doing things that you don't like.
: "''I don't feel editors should run to other admins and complain about things they never should have been involved in the first place.''": Yet there is no rule that says that they should never have been involved in it in the first place, and he wasn't actually raising the original complaint with me anyway.
: "''To me, this contradicts Philip's statement''": Yet you have not shown any contradiction.
: "''To me it's a tattletale childlike behavior, "Mommy, Joey did this" and "Mommy, Joey did that."''": Then I guess that we should abolish all ombudsmen, all anti-corruption bodies, and all police ethical standards bodies, because complaining about unacceptable behavior by those in charge amounts to "childish tattletale".
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:15, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

===Other editors responses===
:::I am new, so I understand my opinion means next to nothing. I am trying to learn the "codes" and behaviors here, important in any online community. My only suggestion, if you will take this in the way it is intended, is that I find "MYOB" to be rude and very unwelcome. While I see DeanS's point (he edited something I wrote, with a very valid point, but in a very rude way, I felt. NOt offering advice or help to a new user, just being arbitrary) I think a lot can be avoided by saying "Please understand this is between the poster and myself" or something rather than MYOB. Does that seem fair? Just because we are given power in life, that isn't a call to forget common decency -- *yet still do the best job as administrator and sysop*. Again, I am trying not to step on toes, just say as a woman I think there is room for gentleness here.--[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 10:49, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

At least DeanS's block was only for a day. That's a slap on the wrist here. Has anyone bothered looking at [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Ed+Poor&page= Ed Poor's block log]? 1 week for "disruption" (code for "edits I don't like"), 2 weeks for "misunderstanding the purpose of talk pages vs. debate pages" (something that is never made clear, as many debates rage on talk pages, and no attempt was made to explain the difference prior to blocking), infinite for 90/10, all sorts of blocks (up to 2 weeks) for "personal remarks" (''not'' "personal attacks", this covers basically anything mentioning him at all), 1 month for 90/10 (bogus, much more than 10% were to articles) and "useless and misleading comments" on a talk page (actually a series of questions), 1 week for editing his talk page comments (minor changes to links), and let's not forget my impending infinite block for pointing this out. [[User:Fyezall|Fyezall]] 11:27, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

==="Jirby is not minding his own business and he needs to get back to editing or he will be blocked"===
I won't touch this case directly, but am I the only one here who remembers that compassion is a virtue? Caring for fellow editors is a Good Thing. Is this "Mind your own business when you think that power has been abused" (which to me sounds like the exact opposite of compassion: "Look away") an actual rule here? --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 16:56, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:Compassion is a virtue, but it should be reserved for those who deserve it. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:37, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
::Who are you to judge who deserves compassion and who does not? Jirby obviously came to the conclusion that Impm deserved it, and he was warned and blocked for this display of compassion. This goes against the spirit of a community project, and I do hope that "Mind your own business" is not actually a Conservapedia rule. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 17:50, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::All societies require policing to prevent them from descending into anarchy. Conservapedia is no different, and it is surrounded by enemies who try to subvert its Conservative and God-fearing message by vandalism, subversion and attempts at damage, both overt and covert. People like DeanS are doing their best to protect this project. MYOB is not used indiscriminately, but aimed at those who seek to damage CP by endless, mindless quibbling, circular arguments, and continual interference in an attempt to bog down CP sysops and editors alike in a morass of petty arguments. Do you think covert vandals deserve compassion? They are just being barred from a webite, not boiled in oil. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:57, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
::::This site has rules that should be enforced, and those who break these rules should be warned, blocked or banned. "Mind your own business" does not appear to be such a rule, and for a very good reason so. I am glad that we have sysops like Dean who enforce the rules, but the moment they arbitrarily enforce fake rules and create a "Look away and work - or face my wrath" atmosphere, I stop cheering them on. I support the police, but I won't cheer them on when they beat up and arrest the wrong guy under baseless charges just because "he struck me as a troublemaker in the past". If the users broke other rules, then they should be punished for breaking ''those rules'', not for violating some non-existent and unchristian rule. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 18:11, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I would ask again that you consider the difference between doing your job, and being rude. Of course you need to be able to protect this site, of course there are vandles, but there is no reason for someone like DeanS to be rude to users. I felt his sting, and I think it is inappropriate for a sysop to act so rudely. There are plenty of ways to police CP without yourself becoming tainted by those who seek to discredit you. --[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 19:16, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

"''MYOB is not used indiscriminately, but aimed at those who seek to damage CP by endless, mindless quibbling, circular arguments, and continual interference in an attempt to bog down CP sysops and editors alike in a morass of petty arguments''": Apart from ascribing motive, which is difficult at the best of times, please note that none of that applied in this case. So you are effectively saying that DeanS was ''not'' justified in telling Jirby to mind his own business, because Jirby didn't meet those conditions. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:20, 27 August 2008 (EDT)
::''Au contraire, mon vieux.'' [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:43, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

== Karajou's Abuse ==

I would like to inquire [[User:Karajou]]'s blocks, regarding three editors: Users Wisdom98, KevinM, and LardoBolger. Discussions (or lack thereof...) are [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/archive61#Account_blocks here, main page talk], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Karajou here, Karajou's WP talk page], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Karajou&oldid=500170#Your_blocking_behavior_-_again Karajou's CP talk page], and a small note [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wisdom89/Archive_8#I_saw_- here, Wisdom98's WP talk page].

*Wisdom98's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Wisdom89 block log] shows he was blocked for infinite with the block reason: ''"Intimidating behaviour/harassment: occured off-site; supportive of the vandals and trolls who bully Conservapedia. You can edit in Wikipedia for all I care."'' which is against blocking policy rules. The only thing that can relate to the reason is that Wisdom98 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ed_Poor_2#Oppose opposed] Ed Poor's nomination of administrator at Wikipedia. So, if that's the case, Karajou clearly abused his powers to block someone who simply ''voted against someone else on another wiki.''
*KevinM saw the blocking (presumably) and confronts Karajou to explain his reasoning on his talk page (link is above, but [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Karajou&oldid=500170#Your_blocking_behavior_-_again here] for convenience). Karajou doesn't respond; instead, he [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User:KevinM blocks] KevinM for infinite.
*A bit of time passes and LardoBolger confronts ASchlafly about his statement regarding liberals and avoiding responsibility, so the issue with Karajou is brought up (http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/archive61#Account_blocks here) and ASchlafly fails to respond to back up his words, as usual. Karajou tries to explain the IP blocks and completely dodges the issue with Wisdom98, ultimately [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:LardoBolger blocking] the user for infinite as well, and deleting all traces of the user.
*This issue with Karajou and the three users who simply vied for sysops following rules, as well as any other case regarding abuse in the history of Conservapedia, shows no responsibility by anyone for their actions, especially ASchlafly (blatant and staggering hypocrisy) who ignores anything of the sort. In fact, he's making edits as this discussion above takes place. A select few, as seen above (Mr. Rayment), have the site's best interest at heart, and I applaud his efforts for striving to make it better. [[User:JamesLRay|JamesLRay]] 12:53, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:In order to censor this complaint, Bugler blocked the user with the false accusation of LIBEL! ROFL! I guess this will be yet another lost complaint of abuse! Blocked by a parodist, RIP James! [[User:TomKilt|TomKilt]] 16:51, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

== Another Complaint about DeanS's abuse of power ==
I would like to lodge a complaint about the behavior of DeanS. Yesterday I made ONE edit on the Barack Obama article. ONE. Immediately after, I was blocked for not having my username be that of my first name and last initial. While this is recommended on the user creation page, it is not required. After discovering I could not edit his talk page to try and dicuss the block, I created another account to post on his talk page (http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DeanS&oldid=504908#Block). I know this is technically against the rules (as are the rest of the accounts I created in an attempt to contact him, including this one), but otherwise I have no way to contact an admin to get this sorted. His reponse? He reverted the talk page and ignored my comlaint. I personally believe that the real reason I was blocked was because I was editing the Barack Obama article, not that my name was incorrect. [[User:Mobpdevijql5|Mobpdevijql5]] 13:25, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

:I forgot, when this account is blocked, please do not block the IP. I am currently at a library and you will be blocking everyone here. [[User:Mobpdevijql5|Mobpdevijql5]] 13:25, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

::Perhaps you should've thought of that before using the library computers to subvert your block(s). Now innocent people are being affected by your actions. Next time, think before you act. Actions have consequences. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:40, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::No, ''now innocent people are being affected by'' YOUR ''actions'', Jinx. ''Next time, think before you act. Actions have consequences.''
::::At least it's better than subjecting them to the drivel on this site. I would have only 2 accounts (I guess one blocked) if you and your staff had been reasonable, explaining when I asked for clarification. It seems your response is to block anyone who you deem to have possible different views. That definitely is a way to run a site that is designed to be "community driven" and "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia". It's your site, run it how you want, but I can assure you you are just alienating people. [[User:Mobpdevijql6|Mobpdevijql6]] 15:10, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I would still be interested in positively contributing to this site, however with the hostility against me from just asking for clarification I am not sure I would like to. [[User:Mobpdevijql6|Mobpdevijql6]] 15:14, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

:In the event that you are blocked and wish to discuss the matter, the appropriate course of action is to email the Sysop directly and explain your situation. If the Sysop does not have his email enabled, you can then email any Sysop and the information would be passed along to Dean for his review. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:28, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

::That sounds nice - theoretically. --[[User:DirkE|DirkE]] 16:46, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I agree. In "theory" it could work. In reality, it just results in more problems. And why aren't sysops enabling their email? Heck, I do that whenever I sign up on a wiki, just as a matter of course. Emailing other sysops does not help, as I think "discussions" above show. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:44, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

== My recent block ==

DeanS blocked me on the 31st of August for ''"too much talk defending anarchists and calling police facists - take a break"''. As far as I know, blocking someone for ideology is unacceptable on this site. This was on [[Talk:Main Page]] not an edit war. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 05:51, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

:DLerner, If you think it is acceptable to defend anarchists and call police fascists, you are wrong. I'm not going to tolerate that talk here on Conservapedia. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 06:35, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
::It is not up to ''you'' whether free speech and the right for individual opinion is allowed. Your block did not follow the [[Conservapedia:Commandments|rules]] or even the vague and unilateral [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy|blocking policy]]; The block was ''entirely'' on ideological grounds. I believe that police (no doubt under orders from their superiors) can sometimes act in a fascist manner, you don't. I don't suggest that you should be blocked, or stripped of your sysop powers, and I would be a hypocrite if I did! Furthermore, my remarks (which by the way, never defended anarchists) were in the context of a ''debate'' (albeit on the Main page talk, where as you most certainly are aware, the news of the day is discussed with opinions running through the gamut of opinions).
::If you cannot tolerate free expression and differing opinions, then I humbly suggest that this project is not right for you. It it not your job to be the ideology police, nor anyone else. The symbol of our project is the flag of the United States of America, whose ''first'' amendment ''ensures'' free speech and opinion. Unless the policy wonks here come up with [[Conservapedia:Alien and Sedition act]], I think I can say what I want about the government, military, police, fire brigade, CDC or anything or anyone else. {{unsigned|DLerner}}
:::DLerner, ''I'm writing this so the OTHER admins should be aware -and act- against this abuse)'' sounds suspiciously like a threat. My strong advice to you is to drop this, and devote your considerable energies and intelligence to constructive additions to this project. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:35, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
::::<in order> Bugler, I assure you it wasn't a threat, it was mainly written because my blocker has so far been the only to respond, as is his right, to my complaint; and even if it ''were'' a threat, what could I possibly do if it was ignored? Come on! I've been here almost as long as you have and I'm still not allowed to night edit (despite me living in Australia...). Thank you for the compliment, but since this is not the first time that I have been blocked for disagreement, I find it difficult to simply let go. And this isn't strictly out of a personal quest for justice, (though I would be lying to say that it's entirely impersonal), if protest isn't made early against abuse, it will eventually be so rampant that -like at the ending of [[Animal Farm]] you won't be able to tell the pigs from the humans. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 09:19, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::I agree that the comment that Bugler picked up on does not constitute a threat. However, I consider calling the police "fascists" to be name-calling rather than ideology. You do not have the freedom to say whatever you like on this site; the "free speech" guarantee does not apply in places such as private web-sites. I support DeanS in the case of this block. And you are on your way to getting one from me, for not resolving the matter of your signature template that I told you about on your talk page more than a week ago and Ed Poor has reminded you of since. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:30, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::I did not did I call ''all'' police fascists, and even if i had, so what? Yes, name calling is against our policy, but I did ''not'' call ''DeanS'' a fascist, nor did I attack him for his beliefs, why then do '''I''' get blocked?. Of course I don't expect to be able to say ''whatever'' I want, in fact, since children use this website, it is ''against the law'' for me to write ''whatever'' I want, I can't write obscenity. (Not that I have any desire to...). I had forgotten about the signature template, but rest assured I will get onto it right away, thank you for a reminder where others would have given a block. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 09:41, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Two side notes---what exactly constitutes a "signature template"? Can someone insert, say, an American flag next to their name on each of their sigs? Also, if calling the police "fascists" is name-calling, would calling liberals "fascists" be considered name-calling as well? Thanks! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 09:50, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::: DLerner, no, you did not call ''all'' police fascists (i.e. Australian, American, Canadian, British, French, Chinese, Russian, Fijian, etc.), but it was a generalisation. I'm not sure what your point is about not calling DeanS a fascist: did someone claim that you did? Or are you just trying to say that there was nothing personal? If so, the point is that on Conservapedia we try and respect our legal institutions. My point about not saying whatever you want was to point out that there are limits.
::::::: Jareddr, a template, if you don't realise, is a page (usually, but not necessarily, in the ''Template:'' namespace) that is included in another page by means of a link (the Main Page, for example, comprises two templates, i.e. separate pages, that make up the left and right columns of the Main Page respectively). DLerner uses a sub-page of his user page as a template that he has used for his signature. You can insert a flag by means of making a customised signature on your preferences page (I'm not sure how, but I have seen it done). Calling fascists (such as Hitler) "fascists" is factually correct and therefore okay. Otherwise, calling someone "fascist" is merely namecalling, particularly when referring to an institution of a democratic state.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:45, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
I support the block, I would have blocked him myself at the time. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 13:24, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
:''Reply'': '''''"no, you did not call ''all'' police fascists (i.e. Australian, American, Canadian, British, French, Chinese, Russian, Fijian, etc.), but it was a generalisation.'''''. And therefore making a generalization during discussion is a ''blockable offense''?!
:'''''"I'm not sure what your point is about not calling DeanS a fascist: did someone claim that you did?"''''' No. I wrote that in response to what you wrote above, indeed calling some police action fascist ''is'' name calling, but to my understanding, we only need to be civil and avoid name calling towards ''each other'', '''not''' to government organizations . This is to the best of my understanding the name calling policy as written in the guidelines. And frankly I would be shocked if a consensus was reached amongst the movers and shakers of this project that attacking local or federal government agencies was a punishable act. And if such policy is eventually made, I propose it be aptly named [[Conservapedia:Sedition Act]]. (For those not in the know, Google "Alien and sedition act".)
:'''''"did someone claim that you did?"''''' No.
:'''''"Or are you just trying to say that there was nothing personal?"''''' Yes.
:'''''"If so, the point is that on Conservapedia we try and respect our legal institutions."''''' Even when they are not deserving?
:I do not believe that an organization is exempt from criticism merely because it is an arm of the democratic state, nothing is ever exempt from criticism, period. (IMHO, of course).
:If the administrators disagree with me on this, as is most certainly their right, I suggest they draw up clear, concise and easy to understand site policy defining what we may criticize, and what is forbidden. (see above for a name suggestion).
:Cheers and Shabbat Shalom
:[[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 21:27, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

::DLerner, I told you it's not acceptable to call police fascists. Apparently you didn't get the message the first time. Stop lecturing me and other admins. You have crossed the line of acceptable free speech and your insistence in defending your incorrect actions has resulted in a longer block. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 22:57, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

:: The offence was not in generalisation ''per se'', but in a name-calling generalisation.
:: I don't know where you get the idea that we should only be civil to each other. It sounds rather like you're saying that it's okay to be civil to someone to their face but you can say what you like behind their back. Being civil applies regardless of whether you are talking directly to the person.
:: I mentioned democracy because, depending perhaps on your precise definition of "fascism", it is ''by definition'' undemocratic. Therefore calling an arm of a democratic society "fascist" is not technically correct, which means that it is an insult.
:: And I'm not saying that we can never criticise a government institution. Rather, I'm saying that it is the proper thing to do to respect the authority of our governments. Yes, we can ''respectfully'' disagree with some of their actions, and offer constructive criticism of them, but we should still respect the institution, just like we should respect the office of the President or Prime Minister (as the case may be) even if we disagree with the policies, etc. of the incumbents. Your comment was ''disrespectful of the institution'', not merely a legitimate criticism (if it was even legitimate at all).
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:53, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

== Requesting Arbitration ==

I was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ASamuelHTD blocked for not complying] with a warning User:ASchlafly gave me on [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASamuelHTD&diff=512667&oldid=505386 my talk page], but here's the problem:

I didn't make any edits between the warning and blocking, aside from the reply on my talk page. Though I was a bit brash, my userpage shows how ''friendly'' he's spoken to me before, so I treated him with the same respect. Down to the nitty gritty, though:

About 1/3 of my edits relate to [[crime]], but he tells me I'm obsessed with it and it's not educational. Compare that to [[User:Conservative]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Conservative domination over atheism and homosexuality articles], and ASchlafly's ax to grind on the political agenda with [[Barack Obama]]. In other words, he's trying to bully me into telling me what I can or can't edit, when he and his own sysops are ten times as obsessed with certain articles. Note that [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/SamuelHTD my contributions] don't focus solely on crime, so I don't get why I was being picked on in the first place.

I doubt I'd get an apology, since courtesy is in short supply here, and I'm probably going to get blocked for even reporting this. I just don't like being pushed around and bullied based on what seems to be invisible rules of hypocrisy. All of my edits are truthful, so I just don't get it. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 11:36, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

== Problems with PNAS reply talk page==

Recall that DinsdaleP started the ball rolling by writing the early draft of the letter to PNAS that Andy sent under his name. Now, in the *talk* pages for the PNAS reply article, DinsdaleP (and others) make reasonable comments and get their responses [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&diff=516788&oldid=516718 reverted].--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:38, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:As Andy is the driving force behind the article, and the person who actually sent the letter and its followup and took the responsibility for its contents, it is his call to determine what he believes to be appropriate and edifying in the talk section versus what he believes to be inappropriate. This is not a reflection on Dinsdale's earlier work, but does show what Andy believes is appropriate at this time. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:47, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
::Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Is it Conservapedia policy that anyone who creates an article can decide what is allowed in the talk section? And why was DinsaleP subsequently blocked given the tremendous amount of good work ans comments he has made? Shouldn't that also be Andy's call if he thought the comments were inappropriate for the talk page? Sorry for the number of questions but I'm confused about the structure for delegation of authority in this wiki.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 12:44, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
:::It does seem that a policy wherein an author becomes the final arbiter on any content in an article or discussion page is not conducive to building a "trustworthy encyclopedia", as essentially this would relegate articles to essay status, no? Not only DinsdaleP's comments, but [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&curid=73292&diff=516788&oldid=516718 Argon's] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&diff=prev&oldid=515838 Toffeeman's] were entirely reasonable discussions, on what is after all, a discussions page. I too think clarification is needed on this matter. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 12:57, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Sysops monitor articles and talk sections for compliance with Conservapedia standards. As someone intimately familiar with the article, Andy made the call that certain discussions on the talk page did not advance an understanding of the article. While it is less common decision than alterations to the article itself, it is certainly within the scope of responsibilities. Non-sysops are not allowed to alter talk page content except in the case of reverting vandalism. Dinsdale's difficulties were not related to the PNAS article, but rather were tied to another area of the site. Hope this helps. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:47, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::''"...Andy made the call that certain discussions on the talk page did not advance an understanding of the article..."''In other words, he's doing what he wants, censoring anyone who disagrees with him specifically. Although you can't just admit it, it's too obvious. I wonder what deemed you to respond to this when my request for arbitration section right above was ignored, and removed, by you. The problem with that talk page is that he will only allow one side of the story (his own) to show, and that won't improve any further action he does or does not take due to the fact that there is no criticism questioning him. The kind of leaders who only had yes men agreeing with them without dissent were defeated in WWII. [[User:SamuelHTD|Sam]] 20:31, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::The problem with this is that while I can understand that CP wants to closely monitor and censor its article pages, if that rule is now extended to the Talk pages, then the Talk pages themsleves need Talk pages, which is why we're here. The famously 'locked for over a year' Evolution article has of course been attacked from many sides, and while the article remains locked under the conservatorship of one sysop, the Talk page is long - very long - and features very heated disagreements over the entire topic and article contents. But at least the dialog was had. The fact that this is not allowed of the PNAS letter page seems to mean the rules are 'pick and choose' by whoever wants to do so. And that's not a system, and without a system, you really have nothing but anarchy. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 20:52, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

==Bugler, and Everyone Else Who Ignores==

Okay, there's enough of this. Bugler's [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Big_Science calling everyone] who disagrees with him as "liberals" from a cesspit who are cancerous cells, Then he literally [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:HelpJazz#Big_Science threatens and bullies] HelpJazz (which actually is the norm these days on this site). Comparing his behavior that equates to a one day block to calm down, to his 5 year block on me for "insulting" ASchlafly, I find it deeply troubling. The double standards here are so obvious that I just don't know where to start.

For one, ASchlafly has not owned up to his responsibility as the owner of this site and THE governing authority over all users with blocking rights, that's the number one factor. He has completely ignored any abuse reported on this page, lets sysops quibble and argue and block each other so that other sites can point and laugh, and yet he does nothing. The sparks between Bugler and HelpJazz have been going on for quite some time, and ASchlafly has done ''absolutely nothing'' to any of it. As BrianCo said it best, "no one seems to be doing anything." I'm challenging Mr. Schlafly to stand and deliver for once.

Also, quoting BrianCo again, ''"What happens off-site should not be carried over here. That is a long-established principle at Conservapedia.''" Then can someone '''please''' unblock User Wisdom89, since as reported (and '''ignored''' by all) above, he was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=User%3AWisdom89 blocked] for something "off-site", as the abuse report claims. Karajou has also threatened users who have block rights, Philip J. Rayment and NathanG, showing that he can't be trusted with his rights. DeanS blocks users with the reason as "MYOB", becoming increasingly rude if anyone questions him. Conservative dominates any article on homosexuality and atheism, using the site like its a toy to him, uploading images without any information of its origin. It just keeps going, and going, and going... and the only solution is to get at the root of the problem: mass negligence of responsibility. Regular editors without rights cannot do this.

Do any of the sysops care what happens here? Is there some unwritten rule that no matter how abusive a user with block rights can be, nobody of equal stature can confront them? ASchlafly [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Can_you_help_me.3F claims] that there are strict rules on this site, but he can't even answer a question by one of his own trusted users. So, in addition to reporting the troubles and words Bugler expressed openly without so much as a slap on the wrist, I'm reporting all other sysops who don't care about this project enough to right the wrongs, and to stop ignoring what other sysops do. I'm sorry if this earns me another lifetime block, but my conscious tells me that someone needs to say it and I myself cannot sit here and edit as if nothing was wrong. [[User:SamuelHTD|Sam]] 20:31, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
::::Sam, up until very recently I was unaware that there seems to be a policy to source images. By the way, how do you like the new Stalin picture at the top of the atheism article. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 12:35, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::Sam's not here anymore. [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 12:47, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::A short survey of the editors who posted on this site to report abuse shows that most of them are banned, e.g.,
:::::<blockquote># 12:17, 6 October 2008 Karajou (Talk | contribs) blocked SamuelHTD (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) ‎ (Inserting false information: "intellectual dishonesty" is not allowed on this site, especially by those who post an intention to do so. Bye.) </blockquote>
:::::I fail to see the "intellectual dishonesty" in the posts of SamuelHTD's history, maybe the offencive ones have been erased...--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 13:02, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

First, user Wisdon89 was in a position of power (i.e. admin) at Wikipedia, complaining that Ed Poor was in a position of power here, banning people he didn't like; and Wisdom89 was using his own position of power in Wikipedia to influence the masses there to prevent Ed Poor from gaining admin priviledges there when the discussion within Wikipedia should have been restricted to what goes on in Wikipedia; joining him in Wikipedia were the trolls and vandals who did their worst here in Conservapedia. At the same time as that was going on ''off-site'', Wisdom89 ''expected'' to be allowed to edit in ''this site''. Someone who complains about my cooking next door, whines about my cooking next door, has others join him in complaining about my cooking next door, yet expects to sit down in my house and eat what I cook, I'm just going to take him by the scruff and toss him out of my house. Period.

Then there's what Sam stated on his user page as to what he was going to do. His "intelectual dishonesty" was to consist of a deliberate attempt to insert such dishonesty within the articles; that was why he was blocked, and not for his previous edits. Deliberately placing misleading or false information in any article is not going to be tolerated. If he disavowed just that statement in an email to myself or any other admin, I will immediately unblock him, and support anyone else who unblocks him.

And then there's the blocks of "people we don't like". It serves no purpose to just have a complainent leave it at "people we don't like", as if that was the only excuse. Some of these complainents need to grasp the possibility that we don't like vandalism and those who practice it; we don't like trolling; we don't like those who cause fights or engage in edit wars. This is supposed to be a family-oriented, Judeo/Christian, conservative website, yet there are those who demand to insert material detrimental to that; we don't like those either.

As to Sam's complaint of abuse of power by the admins as stated above, including myself, I am going to take that for action. Changes do need to be made, and made quickly. Editors need to realize that edits can only go so far, and conflicts need to be resolved respectfully and in a civil manner; sysops need to be more even-handed, and learn to take a time out; they also need to have valid reasons in blocking. Simply "not liking someone" isn't it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:49, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

The arbitrary enforcement of the 90/10 rule is a nuisance on its own. But this act of creative calculation is even more embarrassing:
<blockquote>14:29, 14 October 2008 Bugler (Talk | contribs) blocked KarlJaeger (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 day (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk)</blockquote>
(See [[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Bugler#Calculation_of_the_90.2F10_ratio here]]) --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 15:20, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
::In his most recent score or more contributions, KarlJaeger had flouted the 90/10 rule. User Brichtigen is just trying to cause trouble and should mind his or her own business. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:24, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
:::Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. --[[User:IanG|IanG]] 17:23, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

So, I got a one-day-block for my questions and statements:
<blockquote>16:34, 14 October 2008 Bugler (Talk | contribs) blocked BRichtigen (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 day (account creation disabled) ? (Disruptive behaviour)</blockquote>
And BUgler elaborates here on my sins even more:
<blockquote>User Brichtigen is just trying to cause trouble and should mind his or her own business.</blockquote>
I'm afraid that I'm sounding a little bit toplofty, but: the whole affair is about rules and their application. Therefore, it's about justice. And justice concerns everyone. Martin Niemoeller made an interesting statement about [[Martin_Niemoeller|minding your own business]].
Thus, I think BUgler's petty block of mine was inaproppriate.--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 16:41, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
:I honestly don't think anyone with a mind of reforming bad policies and procedures reads or acknowledges this section anymore, but that's just me.--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 16:45, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

::I suppose I should feel honoured that the [[Liberal]]s, [[Fellow traveller]]s and troublemakers who worm their way into this project single me out for their puerile abuse. But I, together with many other hard-working editors, am only doing my job. If the vandals and saboteurs don't like it here, they can go to Wikipedia and indulge in leftist nonsense-mongering to their hearts' content. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:10, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

:As I'm neither a Liberal, nor one of their fellow travelers or a troublemaker ''worming in'', I just want to know of BUgler why I was blocked. ''Mind your own business'' doesn't seem to be a reasonable answer... --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 16:49, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

:Instead of answering, Bugler blocked me for three days - I needed ''to calm down''. Now, I'm back here with a few observations:
:<ul>
:<li>One would think that a question at this Desk/Abuse section doesn't lead to an instantaneous block, as one should think that '''this''' is the very place where such questions can be asked.
:<li>One would think that the editor who is questioned is able to muster enough fairness (i.e., Gentleman-like behaviour) not to block the questioner by himself.
:<li>Indeed, one should think that on such a section the blocks are dealt out by parties which are not involved.
</ul>
:But I'm afraid that [[User:IanG|IanG]] was right with his statement: ''I honestly don't think anyone with a mind of reforming bad policies and procedures reads or acknowledges this section anymore, but that's just me.''
:--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 08:14, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
:: No, ''Mind your own business'' is not a reasonable answer, the second block appears unjustified, and the quote from Martin Niemoeller is very apt. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:49, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

:::Truer words have rarely been said. [[User:BrianA|BrianA]] 08:52, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
::::BRichtigen, the fact that Philip for once didn't stick his nose in in this matter shows that it is not only I who see you as a troublemaker. You would be well advised to tread carefully, and not to spread dissent amongst a rabble of leftist malcontents, saboteurs, infiltrators and parodists. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:56, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::: If I didn't "stick [my] nose in", then what's that from me two posts above yours? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:37, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Can we try to keep this page a place to report and discuss abuse allegations and not a place to practice it? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:57, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::Implying? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:20, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Blocking those who specifically accuse you of abusing your authority is an unprofessional conflict of interests. Obviously you're not going to side with the people who are accusing you of abuse, therefore a non biased third party should be involved in mediating these conflicts, not "I've got the banhammer, so I win" kind of exchanges.--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 12:35, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
This entire section is a most unedifying display of intimidatory, gang mentality. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:47, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
:: No, it's a complaint about alleged abuse. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:37, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

<ol><li>On a lighter note: I'd think that everyone would applaud spreading ''dissent amongst a rabble of leftist malcontents, saboteurs, infiltrators and parodists.''
<li>Conservapedia often reminds me of a city on the hill, under siege by vandals. But it doesn't help that Bugler shoots at the relief force, i.e., the new editors signing in.
<li>Of course, editors with ''obviously'' obnoxious names should be banned - indefinitely. But if there is any doubt, why block them preemptively? I'd think it's more harmful to disappoint a innocent newcomer by blocking him with some flippant remarks á là "we know your kind" then to allow some parodist to make one or two revealing edits.
<li>One person doesn't make a gang - though I'm feeling intimidated by you, Bugler.
</ol>--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 13:13, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

::My point, Bugler, is that it does nothing good for you or anybody to come on this page and call people "leftist malcontents, saboteurs, infiltrators and parodists." If somebody comes here and accuses you of bullying and abuse, '''whether or not it is true,''' it severely weakens your case to some here and call names. For example, let's work with the assumption that BRichtigen is a troll. I'm not saying he is or isn't, but let's use the assumption. He posts some complaints about you. Were he a troll, they would likely not be genuine, or maybe he baited you, or whatever. If you come here and continue to verbally flog him, it builds sympathy for him and destroys any case you might have. So even if BRichtigen gets permabanned, your credibility is weakened. You're bigger than this, Bugler. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 13:16, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

I'm feeling relieved that Philip J. Rayment as an administrator stated "No, ''Mind your own business'' is not a reasonable answer, the second block appears unjustified, and the quote from Martin Niemoeller is very apt."
But the procedure of appealing a block is somewhat lacking: writing a complaint on an abuse site and waiting that some sysops may (or may not) answer does work for a small blog with a couple of writers, but this is a wiki with some 20,000 registered editors. IMO it's to huge to rely on such informal a method... Especially the less prolific editors - like me - may fear to be ignored. --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 14:18, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

==Block of [[user:Jonsen]]==
I seem to be the single contributor to this page, but nevertheless:

Ed Poor blocked Jonsen because of "(misuse of <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags)". But Jonsen never ''used'' any fact-tags.

Fact is: ''I'' inserted fact-tags in an [[Belief_in_evolution | article]] of Ed Poor, and as far as I can see, I was the only one to do so in one of the last articles of Ed Poor. As these tags were not reverted, I suppose that they aren't misused.

So, the block of Jonsen is factually wrong, a block of me would be just plain wrong :-) --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 14:27, 4 November 2008 (EST)
:For the future record (and anyone who wonders where the heck BRichtigen went), Bugler blocked the issuer of this complaint for three weeks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:38, 4 November 2008 (EST)

::Can you explain that one to me? He added citation tags to unsourced statistics... what's the problem with that? Ed Poor's response in BRichtigen's fact page was "Please don't fact-tag my contribs unless you doubt their truth. Otherwise, I'd rather you did the googling yourself and supplied the references. Thanks in advance!" Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of posting an encyclopedia entry, if you put in data and expect somebody else to retrace your steps and find out where you got it? [[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 14:44, 4 November 2008 (EST)

:::Gosh, no! It's the very epitome of collaboration, Mike. I suspect BRich was merely expressing his personal doubts (or, worse, his commitment to an ideology). The sources are easy to find: I even left hints.

:::The fact that we're spending more time on this, than it would take any one of us to do the googling, convinces me that my block was justified. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:48, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::::That is a key Liberal trick here, as I am constantly pointing out: creating endless sterile circular debates to inhibit the work of CP. Those who do so, including Mikek, should be barred. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:56, 4 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Ed, if you know exactly where to find the references, then why not just insert them yourself? Having two editors do the work of one is less efficient. You say that spending more time on this shows that your block was justified, but had you put in the references yourself, we would have put ''zero'' time into this, right? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:00, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::Can we also add that Jonsen was unblocked by Bugler as an innocent party in this, and that Bugler blocked BRichtigen as an admin clearly intended to give a one month block for that offence, and that if Bugler is in the wrong at all, it is for unilaterally remitting BRichtigen's punishment by one week as a reward for owning up. But HelpJazz's version reads better, for the Bugler-bashing club. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:41, 4 November 2008 (EST)
:::Of course, had you done the responsible thing and asked the relevant party about it, there would be nothing to bring up in our daily meeding of the BBC, would there? I'm not fabricating anything here. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:00, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::::I didn't need to ask anyone anything. Ed's intentions were perfectly clear, and that's good enough for me. And I'm sure the BBC wouldn't fall down on finding ''something''. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:14, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::::: Although I wouldn't have done what Bugler did, in simply ''transferring'' a block given to the wrong person, he does have a reasonable case here, HelpJazz. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:21, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::::::I'd agree with you, except that the original (intended) block was unfair and counterproductive. Bugler was not involved, so acting on assumption only made the mess more complicated, and gave one more hoop for BRichtigen to jump through. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:12, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::::I was going to do it later. Then I asked for help and was pointedly refused. That is anti-collobaration.

::::I review my contribs periodically, looking for anything I may have left out or gotten wrong in my haste. I hope that other users will correct my errors and fill in my omissions, same as I do for them. My hero is [[User:Interiot]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:06, 4 November 2008 (EST)
:::::I perhaps agree with you in ''most'' cases, but in this case you added very specific numbers, indicating that you either had the reference in hand, or made them up. Since I don't think you would make up numbers, why not just use the source that was already there? What happens if no other user notices, or if you overlook it when you go back through? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:23, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Blocking is not punishment. We merely kick out people who waste our time.

If I've expelled someone by mistake, restore them (or show me how it will save us time if I restore them.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:43, 4 November 2008 (EST)
:It has been done. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:54, 4 November 2008 (EST)
:: You did Jonsen, I've done BRichtigen. Maliciously peppering articles with {{tl|fact}} tags is blockable. Otherwise, there's nothing wrong with it, and it's going to be easier for the original poster to find the figures than for another person. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:21, 5 November 2008 (EST)

I nowikied the above use of the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag so that this page doesn't show up in the "sources needed" (something like that, I can't remember) category. I'm always worried about getting in trouble here, to be honest, so just to be clear, should we not use the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags? [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 15:41, 4 November 2008 (EST)
:On the fact tags, the only thing I object to in their use is when a user seems to insert those tags when and where (s)he likes to the point that is the only thing (s)he does, and at no time does that user go after and post relevant info that could remove the tag and help the article. My suggestion is this: if anyone inserts a fact tag within the article, then an entry must be posted as to why in the talk page; further, the user can and should do a search for any needed info, and not just an internet search only. If none is found, that fact should be added to the talk page as well. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:28, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::A statement like <blockquote>If "evolution" means the appearance of major new forms of life during pre-Biblical times, then around 60% of Americans believe in this; a substantial minority of 40% of Americans reject this aspect of evolution since it contradicts their religious belief that God created all forms of life less than 10,000 years ago.</blockquote>
::is hard to check if you don't know which original source was cited. Therefore, I inserted the <nowiki>{{fact}}-tags</nowiki>. Really, if in any article some numbers pop out from nowhere, I think that adding these tags is the appropriate thing to do.
::And this seems to be right, as the tags are ''still'' not removed after all these discussions. --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 14:43, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Thanks to all who get this mix-up untangled. At last, this page seems to work - I just hope that I don't have to report here to many mistakes in the future. --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 14:09, 5 November 2008 (EST)

==Dubious 90/10 blocks==
A. Schlafly [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#What.3F.21 stated] yesterday: <blockquote>[...] Also, it's very simple to avoid violating the 90/10 rule. It only takes a few minutes to make substantive contributions. Unless, of course, someone has a bad attitude. It can seem impossible for him.--Aschlafly 17:49, 12 November 2008 (EST) </blockquote>

The last week, this easy task became much more difficult: [[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] blocked various users for violating the rule. In at least two cases, [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] and mine ([[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]]), the ratios of substantial edits to comments on talk site (or the own user site, etc.) are far away from the ratio of the 90/10 guideline.

I have never violated the ''formal'' aspect of the rule - as I've never posted more than [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=BRichtigen&month=&year= seven comments] to talk/User sites in a row. But I think that I have not violated the ''idea'' of the rule: I'm a member of this site since Oct 6th, 2008 and contributed over 200 comments to it. Roughly a third of my edits have been the removal of vandalism, and I think that I have contributed valuable comments in my area of interests, too.

I know, that the sysops are advised to use their discretion, so Ed Poor is right when he states - concerning the blocks of LiamG and me:

<blockquote> There is no set quota. I simply judged their proportion of unproductive activity as excessive. --[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=next&oldid=555125 Ed Poor Talk 08:00, 12 November 2008 (EST) ]</blockquote>

But to judge my ''unproductive activity'' as ''excessive'' is just false, as any investigation of my comment history would show. And it is a slippery slope if we leave the measurable area of the 90/10 guideline and start to estimate the proportions.

Ever since my first block - and my blocking history got depressingly long, too - I took an interest in blocks. It is so hard for an editor to appeal a block. I wrote countless of emails - and I do thank all the administrators and editors who took their time and answered me.

It would have been nice if Ed Poor had answered to any of my questioning mails, too. I suspect that he is pestered by emails of vandals of all kinds beyond the legitimate mails. I just thought that my posting history would have vouched for me.

So, I ask all administrators:
*please, use the 90/10 rule less capriciously in the future
*please, keep contact with the folk you have banned. It's a shame to put off legitimate users by a high-handed handling of the bannings

Not everyone is as persistent as I am. Many will give up, and turn their back to Conservapedia. That's a thing I want to avoid, and therefore - I'm afraid - I'll keep contributing to the Desk/Abuse section of CP.

Thanks for listening, [[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 17:17, 13 November 2008 (EST)

== Foxtrot and the Axiom of Choice ==

Foxtrot blocked two users (AndyJM for five years, BRichtigen for three days) and threatened to block me over a content dispute in [[Axiom of Choice]] (which I'll just call AC).

Brief summary:
*AndyJM removed a claim about the AC being equivalent of another claim involving certain subsets of the real line and made a post on the talk page explaining his reasoning.
*Foxtrot reverted both posts and banned AndyJM.
*BRichtigen then went to Foxtrot's talk page to point out that AndyJM was apparently correct.
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Foxtrot&oldid=571141#AndyJM Full conversation] - permalink because Foxtrot deleted the entire conversation with his next edit, calling it "senseless talk".
*BRichtigen was blocked for not dropping the issue.
*I looked up the issue myself and found a source that shows that the claim (AC equivalent to the subset issue) is wrong. I then reverted Foxtrots reverts.
*Foxtrot handwaves the issue away, saying that he "reinserted valuable information that was lost by an editor intent to misrepresent the Axiom". Apparently, removing wrong information about the AC misrepresents it. Somehow.
*When I confronted Foxtrot about the blocks and how he inserted wrong information (and wrongly asserted on his talk page that the claim is true), I got an implied block warning ("If you persist in misrepresnting my actions in this matter, you may find yourself as the third Musketeer.").
The last point is what drove me here. I need a few more eyes on this issue because I think it classifies as abuse. Foxtrot blocked users over a content dispute and then threatens anybody who questions his behavior. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 19:24, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:Foxtrot is a valued editor whose work here has contributed greatly to the success of Conservapedia. I should be wary of getting into a 'my word against his' situation, as my experience is that he is a trustworthy and doughty member of this project. Can you find it in your heart that you might be mistaken? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 19:27, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::I'm not questioning Foxtrot's history. I did, however, find a source that apparently proves him wrong in this issue. If Foxtrot can show that I made a mistake, that's cool. It's what content discussions are all about. I'm man enough to admit that I made a mistake once proof is produced. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 19:32, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::Well, it seems I can't even enjoy my Thanksgiving evening in peace. Alan, you're once again misrepresenting my actions. The material removed by AndyJM was important to the Axiom of Choice article and a wholesale removal was thoroughly unjustified. Another editor, who has had a history of troublemaking, saw an opportunity to stir up trouble, using an article that a limited number of editors (esp. sysops) would have expertise with. He denied my knowledgeable directive that the non-Lebesgue measurable real subsets belonged in the article, and the ban reflected his denial. And now you are following his initiative in removing a valid criticism of AC and then downplaying it after I reinstated it. Your wish to bring it here to have "more eyes on this issue" is another step of defiance - considering Andy had been replying on the Axiom of Choice page, I think there was a very important set of eyes on the issue. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 20:32, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::::Apologies for the late reply, but Bugler forgot to unblock my IP, so I had to endure yet another unfair block even if he meant to undo it. Which means that it's now too late for me to effectively continue this discussion tonight, but let's see what happens.
::::*''The material removed by AndyJM was important to the Axiom of Choice article and a wholesale removal was thoroughly unjustified.''
::::His edit to [[Axiom of Choice]] corrected a factual mistake, and you reverted it. He even gave an explanation, which you ''also'' reverted. It's possible that the information could have been inserted in a rephrased way, but punishing somebody for only improving an article halfway through is madness.
::::*''Another editor, who has had a history of troublemaking, saw an opportunity to stir up trouble''
::::Bold accusation. I saw and still see somebody who tried to improve an article after you inserted a (then likely, now confirmed) wrong claim.
::::*''And now you are following his initiative in removing a valid criticism of AC and then downplaying it after I reinstated it.''
::::"Valid criticism"? The claim was ''wrong''. That's the definition of "invalid". And even then, it wouldn't have been criticism. Showing that X can be proven with Y doesn't criticize Y. Especially not when X can also be proven by other means. So where is the "downplaying"? I just provided sourced information - I can't help it if that information doesn't fit into the view the article apparently tries to push.
::::*''Your wish to bring it here to have "more eyes on this issue" is another step of defiance''
::::I only came here because you already blocked two people for disagreeing with whatever you think is right and because you issued a block threat at me, too. It's not my fault that you apparently can't have a content discussion without using your block rights! --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 21:49, 27 November 2008 (EST)

A five year block of a new user ''without any warning'' for removing information he thought (and which seems to be) incorrect? Are we ''trying'' to shut down Conservapedia? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:14, 28 November 2008 (EST)

List of dictators

2008-11-26T17:36:54Z

HelpJazz: rvv (a dictator has is a leader of a country anyway)

: ''For a list of [[Ancient Rome|Roman]] dictators, see [[Roman dictator#Roman dictators|Roman dictator]].''
: ''See also the [[#See also|related lists]] at the end of this article.''

The following is a list of national leaders ([[Head of state|heads of state]] and/or [[Head of government|heads of government]]) commonly regarded as modern [[dictator]]s. This usage usually carries a pejorative sense and refers to a ruler who:

* is an [[absolute ruler]] of a [[state|sovereign state]];
* governs outside the otherwise accepted [[rule of law]];
* commonly (but not necessarily) gained power through [[fraud]] or a [[coup d'état]], or resorts to them to stay in power;
* may develop a [[cult of personality]];
* may be autocratic, oppressive, despotic or tyrannical.

Some so-called "[[Dictator#"The benevolent dictator"|benevolent dictators]]" may be viewed as beneficial and their leadership seen as a "necessary evil".
The modern usage of the term 'dictator' developed largely in response to instances of autocratic rule in [[republic]]s, so traditional [[monarch]]s are not usually described as dictators in historical commentary. Also excluded from this list are those who held [[absolute power]] during national [[State of emergency|emergencies]], but restored the rule of law soon thereafter. Otherwise those included have been widely cited by historians or described by the [[Mass media|media]] as dictators. Any controversy surrounding such characterisation is mentioned in the notes.

The list is sorted according to when each dictator began their years in power. This refers to any years in office as a head of state, government or the like before their dictatorship was established. Any years of elected and judicial rule may be indicated parenthetically.

==Africa==
{|class="wikitable"
|-
! Name !! Country !! Years in power !! Notes
|-
|align=center|[[Gamal Abdel Nasser]] ||align=center| [[Egypt]] ||align=center| 1954–1970 || Prime Minister of Egypt 1954-1962; President of Egypt 1956-1970. Part of a group of officers in control of Egypt after the coup against British supported [[Farouk of Egypt|King Farouk]] in 1952; In February 1954, Nasser forced {{fact}} President [[Muhammad Naguib]] to appoint him prime minister and give up most practical power to him; later in that year Naguib resigned and Nasser became president by self-appointment; elected by popular vote (as only candidate) in 1956, and subsequently. Many personalistic elements to Nasser's rule, but nominal parliamentary system under Nasser's 1956-1970 presidency {{fact}}, until his death in 1970.
|-
|align=center|[[Ahmed Sékou Touré]] ||align=center| [[Guinea]] ||align=center| 1958–1984 || President of Guinea. Widely described as a dictator (see [http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/DIAINS.html], [http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/world/awards2003/profile_jazz.shtml]) with estimates of up to 50,000 extra-judicial killings during his rule (see [http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat6.htm]) and 250,000 Guineans fleeing his rule ([http://www.africanet.com/africanet/country/guinea/history.htm]).
|-
|align=center|[[David Dacko]] ||align=center| [[Central African Republic]] ||align=center| 1960–1966 1979–1981 || President of the Central African Republic. Banned opposition (see [http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ad36]); Gained power by coup in 1979, though subsequently stood for election (see [http://www.african-geopolitics.org/show.aspx?ArticleId=3638]).
|-
|align=center|[[Modibo Keita]] ||align=center| [[Mali]] ||align=center| 1960–1968 || Schoolteacher and first president of Mali. Forced socialization and extensive protectionism severely harmed the economy and continued the country's dependence on aid donors. Discontent with these policies led Keita to implement his own "Cultural Revolution" and establish a network of people's militias to inform on and punish dissent. In the last few years of his presidency, full powers were vested in an extralegal "National Committee for Defense of the Revolution". He was deposed in a military coup.
|-
|align=center|[[François (Ngarta) Tombalbaye|François Tombalbaye]] ||align=center| [[Chad]] ||align=center| 1960–1975 || Head of State 1960-1962; President of Chad 1962-1975. Never fought a contested election; imprisoned opposition leaders. Launched a "Cultural Revolution" in the early 1970s encouraging ''[[authenticité]]''.
|-
|align=center|[[Félix Houphouët-Boigny]] ||align=center| [[Côte d'Ivoire]] ||align=center| 1960–1993 || President of Côte d'Ivoire. Ruled until 1990 with all opposition banned, but not considered particularly repressive. Relocated the official capital to his home village of [[Yamoussoukro]] and constructed the [[Basilica of Our Lady of Peace of Yamoussoukro]], the largest religious structure in Africa.
|-
|align=center|[[Milton Obote]] ||align=center| [[Uganda]] ||align=center| 1962–1972 1980–1985 || Prime Minister of Uganda 1962-1966; President of Uganda 1966-1971 and 1980-1985. Suspended the constitution and declared himself President and Prime Minister in 1966.
|-
|align=center|[[Hastings Kamuzu Banda]] ||align=center| [[Malawi]] ||align=center| 1963–1994 || Prime Minister of Malawi 1963-1966; President of Malawi 1966-1994. Banned all opposition in 1966; declared himself [[President for Life]] in 1971; exiled and killed opposition leaders. Ordered that a letter bomb be sent to exiled opposition leader [[Attati Mpakati]]; suspected of being involved in the car crash deaths of senior Congress Party leaders; violently crushed an attempted rebellion. Aged 98, he allowed and lost a free election in 1994.
|-
|align=center|[[Kenneth Kaunda]] ||align=center| [[Zambia]] ||align=center| 1964–1991 || President of the Republic of Zambia 1964-1991.Elected 1964, banned all political parties in Zambia, viewed himself as "WAMUYAYA" (eternal President).Accused of torturing political opponents.Defeated by Frederick Chiluba in 1991.
|-
|align=center|[[Houari Boumediene]] ||align=center| [[Algeria]] ||align=center| 1965–1978 || 
President of Algeria from June 19, 1965 to his death, (December 27, 1978); Chairman of the Revolutionary Council until December 12, 1976). In June 1965, Boumédienne seized power in a bloodless coup. Initially lacking a personal power base, he was seen as a weak ruler. But after a botched coup attempt against him by military officers in 1967 he tightened his rule, and then remained Algeria's undisputed ruler until his death in 1978.
|-
|align=center|[[Modibo Keita]] ||align=center| [[Mali]] ||align=center| 1960–1968 || Schoolteacher and first president of Mali. Forced socialization and extensive protectionism severely harmed the economy and continued the country's dependence on aid donors. Discontent with these policies led Keita to implement his own "Cultural Revolution" and establish a network of people's militias to inform on and punish dissent. In the last few years of his presidency, full powers were vested in an extralegal "National Committee for Defense of the Revolution". He was deposed in a military coup.
|-
|align=center|[[Jean-Bédel Bokassa]] ||align=center| [[Central African Republic]] ||align=center| 1966–1979 || President of the Central African Republic 1966-1976; Emperor Bokassa I of the Central African Empire 1976-1979. Bokassa overthrew the autocratic Dacko in a swift coup d'état and assumed power as president of the Republic and head of the sole political party, the Mouvement pour l'évolution sociale de l'Afrique Noire (MESAN). Bokassa abolished the constitution of 1959 on January 4 and began to rule by decree. He proclaimed himself emperor in 1976 (see [http://www.african-geopolitics.org/show.aspx?ArticleId=3638]).
|-
|align=center|[[Gnassingbé Eyadéma]] ||align=center| [[Togo]] ||align=center| 1967–2005 || President of Togo. Gained power in a coup; never fought a contested election until 1998; banned, tortured and killed opposition. Fostered a cult of personality that was reinforced after he was the sole survivor of an airplane crash in 1974. In late 1991, troops loyal to Eyadéma closed a constitutional conference that had shifted most executive power to a new transitional government and banned Eyadéma's RPT party. January 1993 saw a mass exodus of residents to neighboring states after security forces fired on pro-democracy demonstrators. Further repression followed a purported 1994 coup attempt (see[http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/inscr/mar/data/togoewechro.htm]).
|-
|align=center|[[Omar Bongo]] ||align=center| [[Gabon]] ||align=center| '''1967–present''' || As vice president, he acceded to the presidency following the death of President [[Léon M'ba]]. In 1968, Bongo decreed a one-party state under his [[Gabonese Democratic Party]] and was thrice elected unopposed in the 1970s and 1980s. He became very wealthy during the country's oil boom. Open elections were held in 1990 and Bongo was re-elected in 1993, 1998 and 2005. Observers have criticized the elections as unfair and corruption watchdogs have accused the president of [[nepotism]]. Riots resulting from the mysterious death in 1990 of prominent dissident [[Joseph Rendjambe]] in a government hotel room were put down by French troops.
|-
|align=center|[[Moussa Traoré]] ||align=center| [[Mali]] ||align=center| 1968–1991 || Chairman of the Military National Liberation Committee 1968-1969; Head of State 1969-1979; President of Mali 1979-1991. Seized power in a coup; banned all opposition; installed a police state; established one-party state in 1979.
|-
|align=center|[[Francisco Macías Nguema]] ||align=center| [[Equatorial Guinea]] ||align=center| 1968–1979 || President of Equatorial Guinea 1968-1979. Elected in 1968 but declared himself [[President for Life]] in 1972; "extreme personality cult"; over a third of population fled his regime. Banned fishing and sanctioned the deaths of most of his pre-independence political rivals, including ex-prime minister [[Bonifacio Ondó Edu]] and foreign minister [[Atanasio Ndongo Miyone]]. Declared an atheist state by Spanish dictator [[Francisco Franco]]. As many as 50,000 civilians were killed, in particular those of the [[Bubi]] ethnic [[minority]] on [[Bioko]] associated with relative wealth and [[intellectual]]ism.
|-
|align=center|[[Gaafar Nimeiry]] ||align=center| [[Sudan]] ||align=center| 1969–1985 || Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council 1969-1971; President of Sudan 1971-1985. Gained power in a military coup, banned opposition, dissolved southern Sudanese government, imposed sharia law. Executed several leading communists (the most prominent being [[Abdel Khaliq Mahjub]] and [[Joseph Garang]]) after a botched 1971 coup attempt.
|-
|align=center|[[Mohamed Siad Barre]] ||align=center| [[Somalia]] ||align=center| 1969–1991 || Chairman of the Supreme Revolutionary Council 1969-1976; President of Somalia 1976-1991. In 1969, during the power vacuum following the assassination of President Abdirashid Ali Shermarke, the military staged a coup and took over. Barre was to rule for the next twenty-two years. He attempted to develop a personality cult; large posters of him were common in the capital Mogadishu during his reign, many of which can still be seen today. He dreamed of a "[[Greater Somalia]]" and tried unsuccessfully to annex the [[Ogaden]]—legally Ethiopian territory—in 1977 to realize this end (see [[Ogaden War]]).
|-
|align=center|[[Anwar Sadat]] || align=center|[[Egypt]] || align=center|1970-1981 || President of Egypt 1970-1981. Unelected, suppressed opposition in what was termed "The Corrective Revolution". Assassinated.
|-
|align=center|[[Idi Amin]] ||align=center| [[Uganda]] ||align=center| 1971–1979 || [[President of Uganda]], later (1976) declared as [[President for Life|for Life]]. Deposed in 1979 after declaring war on [[Tanzania]].
|-
|align=center|[[Mengistu Haile Mariam]] ||align=center| [[Ethiopia]] ||align=center| 1974–1991 || Chairman of the Provisional Military Administrative Council ([[Derg]]) in 1974 and 1977-1987; President of Ethiopia 1987-1991. One-party state; repression of opposition; tens of thousands of extra-judicial killings.
|-
|align=center|[[Olusegun Obasanjo]] ||align=center| [[Nigeria]] ||align=center| 1976-1979 || Head of the Federal Military Government of Nigeria between 1976 and 1979. Elected President of Nigeria in 1999. Chairman of the [[African Union]] 2004-2006.
|-
|align=center|[[Jean-Baptiste Bagaza]] ||align=center| [[Burundi]] ||align=center| 1976–1987 || President of Burundi. Widely described as a military dictator (see [http://www.africanews.com/article265.html], [http://www.electionworld.org/history/burundi.htm]).
|-
|align=center|[[Albert René]] ||align=center| [[Seychelles]] ||align=center| 1977–2004 || President of Seychelles. Deposed the elected president Sir [[James Mancham]] and promulgated a one-party constitution after a period of rule by decree. Created the [[National Youth Service]] (NYS), a compulsory educational institution that included traditional curricula interlaced with political indoctrination and paramilitary training.
|-
|align=center|[[Daniel arap Moi]] ||align=center| [[Kenya]] ||align=center| 1978–2002 || President of Kenya. Changed constitution to establish a ''de jure'' one-party state; resorted to repressive rule, including torture and imprisonment without trial.
|-
|align=center|[[Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo]] ||align=center| [[Equatorial Guinea]] ||align=center| '''1979–present''' || Chairman of the Supreme Military Council 1979-1982; President of Equatorial Guinea 1982-present. Deposed his uncle in a violent coup; opposition is banned in all but name.
|-
|align=center|[[José Eduardo dos Santos]] ||align=center| [[Angola]] ||align=center| '''1979–present''' || President of Angola. One-party state; did not stand for election until 1992 (see [http://www.cpj.org/Briefings/2000/Angola_Marques_00/Angola_Marques_00.html]).
|-
|align=center|[[João Bernardo Vieira]] ||align=center| [[Guinea-Bissau]] ||align=center| 1980-1984 and '''2005-present''' || become president by a coup. killing and exiled opposition. faoumes for the [[Guinea-Bissau Civil War]].
|-
|align=center|[[Samuel K. Doe]] ||align=center| [[Liberia]] ||align=center| 1980–1990 || Chairman of the People's Redemption Council 1980-1984; President of Liberia 1984-1990. Gained power in a military coup that killed President [[William R. Tolbert, Jr.]], a [[Reform movement|reformer]]. Promoted [[Krahn]] chauvinism and "died a multi-millionaire and proud owner of mansions and estates" (see[http://www.theperspective.org/2004/oct/bookpeople.html]).
|-
|align=center|[[Robert Mugabe]] ||align=center| [[Zimbabwe]] ||align=center| '''1980–present''' ||
Gained power through election, and repeatedly re-elected, but criticized for steps used to maintain power. From 1999 on, used police and militant groups like the War Veterans Association and [[Border Gezi Youth]] to enforce [[ZANU-PF]] policies and to prevent opponents from voting; called "king" by his aides.[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1709488.stm] Arrested and tortured opponents and human rights activists; gave amnesty to murderers of his political opponents in 2000; ignores court rulings.[http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,410850,00.html] Criticized as dictator by [[Desmond Tutu]][http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1754307.stm] and [[Vladimir Putin]][http://www.namibian.com.na/2005/July/world/05C16ABC4A.html].
|-
|align=center|[[Jerry Rawlings]] ||align=center| [[Ghana]] ||align=center| 1981-1992 || Gained power in a military coup during 1979 but handed it over. Re-took power in another coup of 1981. Elected President in 1992 and again in 1996 before standing aside as per the constitution.
|-
|align=center|[[André Kolingba]] ||align=center| [[Central African Republic]] ||align=center| 1981–1993 || Chairman of the Military Committee of National Recovery 1981-1985; President of the Central African Republic 1985-1993. Gained power in a coup; persecuted opposition; allowed (and lost) free elections in 1993. Attempted second coup in 2001.
|-
|align=center|[[Hosni Mubarak]] || align=center|[[Egypt]] || align=center|'''1981-present''' || President of Egypt. Did not stand in a contested election until 2005, when a highly-restricted democratic process was allowed.
|-
|align=center|[[Paul Biya]] ||align=center| [[Cameroon]] ||align=center| '''1982–present''' || He served under President Ahmadou Ahidjo and became Prime Minister in 1975. Ahidjo resigned on November 6, 1982 and Biya became president. After years of totalitarian rule, he allowed the creation of opposition parties in 1990 but his re-elections have been marked by widespread fraud and intimidation.
|-
|align=center|[[Hissène Habré]] ||align=center| [[Chad]] ||align=center| 1982–1990 || Chairman of the Council of State 1982; President of Chad 1982-1990. Gained power in a coup; abolished post of Prime Minister; executed opposition leaders.
|-
|align=center|[[Thomas Sankara]] ||align=center| [[Burkina Faso]] ||align=center| 1983-1987 || President of Upper Volta 1983-1984; President of Burkina Faso 1984-1987. Gained power in coup. Lead millitary regime. Overthrown and killed in coup.
|-
|align=center|[[Maaouya Ould Sid'Ahmed Taya]] ||align=center| [[Mauritania]] ||align=center| 1984–2005 || Deposed the military head of state, [[Mohamed Khouna Ould Haidalla]], on December 1984 and declared himself Chairman of the Military Committee for National Salvation. Deposed by [[Ely Ould Mohamed Vall]] in a bloodless coup d'état. 
|-
|align=center|[[Ibrahim Babangida]] ||align=center| [[Nigeria]] ||align=center| 1985-1993 || Annulled the most free and fair presidential election in the history of Nigeria, leading to the death of the presidenstial candidate [[Moshood Kashimawo Olawale Abiola]].
|-
|align=center|[[Zine El Abidine Ben Ali]] ||align=center| [[Tunisia]] ||align=center| '''1987–present''' || President of Tunisia. Although he announced [[Pluralism#Plualism in politics|political pluralism]] in 1992, his Democratic Constitutional Rally (formerly Neo-Destour party) continues to dominate the national politics and there is no genuine open political debate. In 1999, although two unknown alternative candidates were permitted for the first time to stand in the presidential elections, Ben Ali was re-elected with 99.66% of the vote. A controversial constitutional referendum in 2002 allowed him to seek re-election and contemplate the possibility of remaining in office until 2014. On October 24, 2004, he was again re-elected, officially taking 94.48% of the vote. Certain books, periodicals and internet sites are banned or blocked. The [http://www.tunisiatv.com National Television] frequently show his actions during a week, but often the President only appears in passing on television.
|-
|align=center|[[Omar Hasan Ahmad al-Bashir]] ||align=center| [[Sudan]] ||align=center| '''1989–present''' || President of the Revolutionary Command Council for National Salvation 1989-1993; President of Sudan 1993-present. Took power in a military coup and increasingly centralized power into himself. Widely believed to be implicated in the [[Darfur]] [[Janjaweed]] [[pogrom]]s.
|-
|align=center|[[Idriss Déby]] ||align=center| [[Chad]] ||align=center| '''1990–present''' || Head of State 1990-1991; President of Chad 1991 to date. Gained power in a coup; continues to suppress opposition and press (see [http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/tcd-summary-eng]).
|-
|align=center|[[Sani Abacha]] ||align=center| [[Nigeria]] ||align=center| 1993–1998 || Chairman of the Provisional Ruling Council 1993-1998. Seized power in a coup; persecuted opposition; never stood for election. Jailed Chief [[Moshood Kashimawo Olawale Abiola]], the presumed winner of the annulled 1993 presidential election; presided over execution of activist [[Ken Saro-Wiwa]].
|-
|align=center|[[Paul Kagame]] || align=center|[[Rwanda]] || align=center|'''1994-present''' || Vice-President of Rwanda 1994-2000; President 2000-Present. Brouhgt to power by a guerilla movement which plunged the country into bloodshed and led to the Rwandan Genocide in 1994. Responsible of the the killings of innocent civilians, women and children in Kibeho refugee camp. Responsible of the killings of 4 millions congolese. Responsible of the killings of Priests and Archbishops in Kabgayi.
|-
|align=center|[[Yahya Jammeh]] ||align=center| [[The Gambia]] ||align=center| '''1994-Present''' || President of The Gambia. Gained power in coup d'état. Right to the press and free speech supressed. Stood for three elections (1996, 2001, and 2006); last election deemed unfair by opposition.
|-
|align=center|[[Laurent-Désiré Kabila]] ||align=center| [[Congo-Kinshasa]] ||align=center| 1997–2001 || President of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Overthrew [[Mobutu Sese Seko]] in coup. No elections held during ongoing, interstate [[First Congo War|First]] and [[Second Congo War]]s.
|-
|align=center|[[Charles G. Taylor]] ||align=center| [[Liberia]] ||align=center| 1997–2003 || President of Liberia 1997-2003. Elected, but widely described as a dictator (see[http://www.guardian.co.uk/sierra/article/0,2763,221878,00.html], [http://www.cij.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewNews&newsID=9], [http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/127/48.0.html]). Linked to "[[blood diamonds]]" and illegal arms trading. Believed to have interfered frequently in the internal affairs of neighboring states while a [[warlord]], before his election to the presidency.
|-
|align=center|[[François Bozizé]] ||align=center| [[Central African Republic]] ||align=center| '''2003–present''' || President of the Central African Republic 2003 to date. Gained power in a coup and suspended the constitution, though he has restored some democracy (see [http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/28/1456242]).
|-
|align=center|[[Ely Ould Mohamed Vall]] ||align=center| [[Mauritania]] ||align=center| 2005-2007 || Chairman of the Military Council for Justice and Democracy. Gained power via a military coup. Though he has said to relinquish power to an elected government in 2007.
|}

==The Americas==
===North America===

{|class="wikitable"
|-
! Name !! Country !! Years in power !! Notes
|-
| align=center|[[Agustín de Iturbide]] || align=center|[[Mexico]] || align=center|1822 - 1823 || Shortly after the Mexican War of Independence, he was declared Emperor of Mexico in 1822. Repressive, cracked down on free speech and any opposition. Desposed when popular opposition forced him to abdicate.
|-
| align=center|[[Antonio López de Santa Anna|Antonio López de Santa Anna]] || align=center|[[Mexico]] || align=center|1833 - 1855 (intermittent) || President or Provisional President of Mexico 1833-1837, then 1841 to February 1844, June to December 1844, March to September 1847 and finally 1853-1855. When [[Anastasio Bustamante]] led a coup overthrowing and killing President [[Vicente Guerrero]], Santa Anna seized power and then was elected President in 1833. At first he gave a free hand to his vice-president [[Valentín Gómez Farías]], a liberal reformer. Later he dismissed Gómez Farías, declared the Constitution suspended, disbanded the Congress and worked to concentrate power in the central government. He was overthrown and restored to power several times before his final overthrow in 1855.
|-
| align=center|[[Porfirio Díaz]] || align=center|[[Mexico]] || align=center|1879 - 1910 || Interim president 1876-1877; President of Mexico 1877-1880, 1884-1911. ''De facto'' ruler 1880-1884. Gained power in a coup, after his Revolution of Tuxtepac overthrew his predecessor, Lerdo. He did not run for reelection after his first term in order to keep his one-term promises that he made during his revolution. However, he retook the presidency a few years later and did not leave from power until the [[Mexican Revolution|Revolution of 1910]] kicked him from the Presidency. His rule saw the rapid modernization of Mexico, progress mainly caused by Diaz's encouragement of foreign investment in the country's infrastructure. However, the poor became quite miserable during this time. Political opposition was squelched and rebellions were put down by the ''rurals'', Diaz's personal guard. He was eventually overthrown by the [[Mexican Revolution|Revolution]] which lasted 10 years.
|-
| align=center|[[Victoriano Huerta]] || align=center|[[Mexico]] || align=center|1913 - 1914 || Appointed president, established a military dictatorship for about a year, and then was forced to resign.
|}

===Central America===
{|class="wikitable"
|-
! Name !! Country !! Years in power !! Notes
|-
| align=center|[[Rafael Carrera]] || align=center|[[Guatemala]] || align=center|1844–1848 1851–1865 || President of Guatemala. Gained power in a coup; styled himself [[President for Life]].
|-
|align=center|[[William Walker]] ||align=center| [[Nicaragua]] ||align=center| 1856-1857 || An american fillibuster takes over and proclaims himself President of Nicaragua. Tried to conquer several central american countries. Eventually executed.
|-
| align=center|[[Justo Rufino Barrios]] || align=center|[[Guatemala]] || align=center|1873–1885 || President of Guatemala. Gained power in a bloody coup, but introduced reforms.
|-
| align=center|[[Manuel Estrada Cabrera]] || align=center|[[Guatemala]] || align=center|1898–1920 || President of Guatemala. Never elected; subverted constitution; widely described as a dictator (see[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9033093], [http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761558775/Estrada_Cabrera_Manuel.html]). Constructed numerous large [[Ancient Greece|Hellenic]]-style temples as monuments to his rule.
|-
| align=center|[[Maximiliano Hernández Martínez]] || align=center|[[El Salvador]] || align=center|1931–1934 1935–1944 || Acting President 1931-1934; President of El Salvador 1935-1944. Gained power in a coup; suppressed opposition; oversaw massacre of between ten and forty thousand suspected opponents. Presided over ''[[1932 Salvadoran peasant uprising|La Matanza]]'' in 1932, a massacre (genocide) of communists, suspected communists, [[campesinos]] and [[Pipil]] Indians (see [http://countrystudies.us/el-salvador/7.htm]).
|-
| align=center|[[Jorge Ubico]] || align=center|[[Guatemala]] || align=center|1931–1944 || President of Guatemala. Elected, but suppressed opposition and "assumed dictatorial powers".
|-
| align=center|[[Tiburcio Carías Andino]] || align=center|[[Honduras]] || align=center|1933–1949 || President of Honduras. Banned opposition and set up a [[Rubberstamp (politics)|rubber-stamp]] congress; suppressed unions (see[http://countrystudies.us/honduras/19.htm]).
|-
| align=center|[[Anastasio Somoza García]] || align=center|[[Nicaragua]] || align=center|1937–1956 || Somoza used his position as head of the [[National Guard (Nicaragua)|National Guard]] to overthrow President [[Juan Bautista Sacasa]]; centralized constitutional authority under his control; alternately rigged elections for himself or installed relatives in his place; kleptocrat.[http://www.immigrantinfo.org/kin/nicaragua.htm][http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-9212.html].
|-
| align=center|[[Carlos Castillo Armas]] || align=center|[[Guatemala]] || align=center|1954–1957 || Junta Chairman, 1954; President of Guatemala 1954-1957. Gained power in a coup; banned the popular [[Guatemalan Party of Labour|Communist party]]; purged trade unions of leftist influence; declared himself president in 1956. Assassinated.
|-
| align=center|[[Oswaldo López Arellano]] || align=center|[[Honduras]] || align=center|1963–1971 1972–1975 || Head of Military Government 1963-1965; President of Honduras 1965-1971; Head of State 1972-1975. Military officer who allowed elections in 1971 before re-seizing power the next year. According to Clara Nieto in ''Masters of War: Latin America and United States Aggression from the Cuban Revolution through the Clinton years'', p. 114 (ISBN 1-58322-545-5): "During this second term (1972-1975) López governed without a congress and by decree."
|-
| align=center|[[Anastasio Somoza Debayle]] || align=center|[[Nicaragua]] || align=center|1967-1979 || Succeeded his somewhat more liberal brother [[Luis Somoza Debayle|Luis]]; stepped down briefly in 1972, then resumed the presidency after an earthquake; outlawed several opposition parties; declared [[martial law]] in response to guerilla opposition; oversaw brutal repression by the National Guard.
|-
| align=center|[[Omar Torrijos]] || align=center|[[Panama]] || align=center|1968–1981 || Commander of the National Guard. Gained power in a coup; banned opposition, unions and free press.
|-
| align=center|[[Efraín Ríos Montt]] || align=center|[[Guatemala]] || align=center|1982–1983 || Chairman of military junta 1982; President of Guatemala 1982-1983. Dictator during a military coup. Known for [[scorched earth]] counter-insurgency strategies. Since then was Head of Congress for many years and made several failed attempts to be elected democratically. Used his declared conservative evangelical Christian beliefs to portray dissent as an attack against God.
|-
| align=center|[[Manuel Noriega]] || align=center|[[Panama]]|| align=center|1983–1989 || Commander of the National Guard and ''de facto'' military leader, widely described as a dictator (see [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9056130], [http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761561240/Noriega_Moreno_Manuel_Antonio.html], [http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/8155061.htm]).
|}

===South America===

{|class="wikitable"
|-
! Name !! Country !! Years in power !! Notes
|-
| align=center|[[José Gaspar Rodríguez de Francia]] || align=center|[[Paraguay]] || align=center|1813-1814 and 1814-1840 ||gained power in election. Outlawed all opposition. Installed a police state. Cult of personality; citizens forced to raise their hats or a brim when he passed by; styled himself with the position name "El Supremo". 
|-
| align=center| [[Simón Bolívar]] || align=center| [[Gran Columbia]] || align=center| 1821-1830 || Though an admirer of classical liberal democracy, the founder and president of Gran Colombia proclaimed himself dictator in 1828 after an unsuccessful constitutional convention. Resigned eighteen months later.
|-
| align=center|[[Juan Manuel de Rosas]] || align=center|[[Argentina]] || align=center|1835–1852 || Governor of Buenos Aires 1829-1832, 1835-1852; Supreme Chief of the Argentine Confederation 1851-1852. Assumed dictatorial powers; exiled opponents.
|-
| align=center|[[Carlos Antonio López]] || align=center|[[Paraguay]] || align=center|1841–1862 || First Consul 1841-1844; President of Paraguay 1844-1862. 
|-
| align=center|[[Manuel Belzu]] || align=center|[[Bolivia]] || align=center|1848–1855 || Provisional President of Bolivia 1848-1850; President of Bolivia 1850-1855. Unelected military ruler; ''[[caudillo]]''. A populist and nationalist who voluntarily relinquished power after 1855 elections, described in (ISBN 0-13-524356-4), p.131, as the "cleanest ever held" in (early) Bolivian history.
|-
| align=center|[[Francisco Solano López]] || align=center|[[Paraguay]] || align=center|1862–1869 || President of Paraguay. Inherited power from his father; had himself awarded immense powers by a congress he had packed with supporters. Killed in the [[War of the Triple Alliance]] (which Lopez had caused by invading Brazil), along with 90 per cent of the Paraguayan adult (age 14+) male population.
|-
| align=center|[[Mariano Melgarejo]] || align=center|[[Bolivia]] || align=center|1864–1871 || Provisional President 1864-1870; President of Bolivia 1870-1871. Gained power in a coup and ruthlessly suppressed opposition. In 1869 he sent the army to suppress an uprising by [[Huaichu]] Indians attempting to regain land privileges they enjoyed under President Belzu (see ISBN 1-55753-324-5).
|-
| align=center|[[Antonio Guzmán Blanco]] || align=center|[[Venezuela]] || align=center|1870–1888 || Acting President of Venezuela 1863, 1865; General-in-chief April-July 1870; Provisional President of Venezuela 1870-1873; President of Venezuela 1873 - 1877; Supreme Director 1879; Provisional President of Venezuela 1879 - 1880; President of Venezuela 1880 -1884, 1886 -1888. Described, perhaps inaccurately, as a "benevolent despot"; other sources mention his "long dictatorship" (see[http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=active&q=cache:ghIhQZ7WhgUJ:www.normangall.com/artigos/Church_Militant.pdf+Antonio+Guzm%C3%A1n+Blanco+%22dictator%22]).
|-
| align=center|[[Cipriano Castro]] || align=center|[[Venezuela]] || align=center|1899–1909 || Supreme Chief 1899-1901; Provisional President 1901 - 1902, 1904 - 1905; President of Venezuela 1902 - 1904, 1905 - 1909. Took over in a military coup (see [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=active&q=cache:kdvql1ZK2-4J:www.sg.inter.edu/revista-ciscla/volume29/singh.pdf+Antonio+Guzm%C3%A1n+Blanco+%22dictator%22]).
|-
| align=center|[[Rafael Reyes]] || align=center|[[Colombia]] || align=center|1904–1909 || President 1904 - 1909, as a military ruler representing the Conservatives. "In the course of his regime, Reyes improved the country’s finances, expanded roads and railroads, and encouraged increased coffee production. Large U.S. investments and purchases of coffee and minerals contributed to Colombia’s economic growth. However, Reyes ruled as a dictator. He dissolved the congress and replaced it with a handpicked legislature, jailed and exiled political opponents, and declared martial law." (''Colombia'', [[Encarta|Microsoft Encarta]] 2003)
|-
| align=center|[[Juan Vicente Gómez]] || align=center|[[Venezuela]] || align=center|1909–1914 1922–1929 1931–1935 || Provisional President 1909-1910; President of Venezuela 1910-1914, 1922-1929, 1931-1935. Gained power in a coup; never elected; kleptocrat; widely described as a dictator (see [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9037322], [http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/movie.html?v_id=156078], [http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761563557/Juan_Vicente_Gomez.html]).
|-
| align=center|[[Óscar Benavides]] || align=center|[[Peru]] || align=center|1914–1915 1933–1939 || Junta Chairman 1914; President of Peru 1914-1915, 1933-1939. Twice gained power by coup.
|-
| align=center|[[Augusto B. Leguía y Salcedo|Augusto Leguía]] || align=center|[[Peru]] || 1919–1930 || President of Peru. Gained power in a coup; ignored constitution; suppressed and exiled opposition.
|-
| align=center|[[Carlos Ibáñez del Campo]] || align=center|[[Chile]] || align=center|1927–1931 || Acting President 1927, President 1927 - 1931. Democratically elected to a six-year term in 1952.
|-
| align=center|[[Getúlio Vargas]] || align=center|[[Brazil]] || align=center|1930–1934 1937–1945 || Head of provisional government 1930-1934 after revolution; indirectly elected as Constitutional President 1934-1937; launched a coup in 1937 and became dictator 1937-1945; democratically-elected President of Brazil 1950-1954.
|-
| align=center|[[Gabriel Terra]] || align=center|[[Uruguay]] || align=center|1931–1938 || President of Uruguay. Suspended congress and dissolved constitution in 1933. 
|-
| align=center|[[Higinio Morínigo]] || align=center|[[Paraguay]] || align=center|1940–1948 || Provisional president 1940-1943; President of Paraguay 1943-1948. Seized absolute power; ruled by [[diktat]] until 1946.
|-
| align=center|[[Manuel Odría]] || align=center|[[Peru]] || align=center|1948–1956 || Chairman of military junta 1948 - 1950; President of Peru 1950 - 1956. Gained power in a coup; restricted civil rights; allowed election in 1956.
|-
| align=center|[[Marcos Pérez Jiménez]] || align=center|[[Venezuela]] || align=center|1948–1958 || Member of military junta 1948 - 1952; Provisional president 1952 -1953; President of Venezuela 1953 - 1958. Never elected; pursued opposition violently; credited with improvements to the country's infrastructure.
|-
| align=center|[[Gustavo Rojas Pinilla]] || align=center|[[Colombia]] || align=center|1953–1957 || President of Colombia. Gained power in a coup.
|-
| align=center|[[Alfredo Stroessner]] || align=center|[[Paraguay]] || align=center|1954–1989 || President of Paraguay. He took over in a military coup (see[http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19890301faessay5951/riordan-roett/paraguay-after-stroessner.html], [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=active&q=cache:vqkaVDmcvaIJ:www.columbia.edu/cu/polisci/pdf-files/apsa_krutz.pdf+Stroessner+dictator],[http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=active&q=cache:qfMgvA6bakgJ:users.ox.ac.uk/~newc1465/Proudman%2520-%2520SoftPowerMeetsHard.pdf+Stroessner+dictator]). 
|-
| align=center|[[Humberto de Alencar Castelo Branco|Humberto Castelo Branco]] || align=center|[[Brazil]] || align=center|1964–1967 || President of Brazil. Gained power in a coup; abolished most opposition; subsequently appointed by congress.
|-
| align=center|[[René Barrientos]] || align=center|[[Bolivia]] || align=center|1964–1969 || Chairman of the military junta, 1964-January 1966 (jointly with [[Alfredo Ovando]] 1965-1966); President of Bolivia, August 1966 - 1969. Gained power in military coup; kleptocrat; responsible for [[Catavi massacre]] and execution of [[Che Guevara]] (ISBN 0-85345-991-6), p.136.
|-
| align=center|[[Forbes Burnham]] || align=center|[[Guyana]] || align=center|1966–1985 || Prime Minister 1966 - 1980; President 1980 - 1985. Elected, but became increasingly dictatorial; held dubious elections and encouraged leftist religious cults (such as the [[Peoples Temple]]) to settle in the Guyanese interior (see [http://www.jagan.org/janet_jagan29.htm], [http://www.hardbeatnews.com/editor/RTE/my_documents/my_files/details.asp?newsid=4498&title=Politics]).
|-
| align=center|[[Artur da Costa e Silva]] || align=center|[[Brazil]] || align=center|1967–1969 || President of Brazil 1967-1969. Elected in 1966, but centralised power; closed the Congress; banned opposition; suspended free press. Decreed [[Institutional Act No. 5]], described as "the most unconstitutional, anti-democratic, arbitrary, and repressive decree in Brazil's history." (ISBN 1-58322-545-5), p.167.
|-
| align=center|[[Emílio Garrastazu Médici]] || align=center|[[Brazil]] || align=center|1969–1974 || President of Brazil. Appointed by congress, but instituted a military government; suppressed press and opposition (see[http://www.wrm.org.uy/bulletin/62/index.rtf]).
|-
| align=center|[[Hugo Banzer]] || align=center|[[Bolivia]] || align=center|1971–1978 || President of Bolivia. Gained power in a coup; suppressed opposition; closed universities; 3,000 opponents arrested, 200 killed.
|-
| align=center|[[Juan María Bordaberry]] || align=center|[[Uruguay]] || align=center|1972–1976 || President of Uruguay 1972 - 1976. Elected, but installed a military government, dissolved Congress, suspended civil liberties and banned unions.
|-
| align=center|[[Augusto Pinochet]] || align=center|[[Chile]] || align=center|1973–1990 || Chairman of military junta 1973-1974; Supreme Head of the Nation 1974; President of Chile 1974 - 1990. Gained power in a coup; suppressed and exiled opposition; over 3000 "[[Forced disappearance|disappearances]]" and 28,000 tortured.
|-
| align=center|[[Ernesto Geisel]] || align=center|[[Brazil]] || align=center|1974-1979 || Congress-appointed President of Brazil. The fourth of the military dictators; party and union freedom were still inexistent during his term; had oppositionists like journalist [[Wladimir Herzog]] and factory worker [[Manoel Fiel Filho]] tortured and murdered.
|-
| align=center|[[Jorge Rafael Videla]] || align=center|[[Argentina]] || align=center|1976–1981 || President of Argentina. Gained power in a coup; never elected; between ten and thirty thousand opponents killed.
|-
| align=center|[[João Baptista de Oliveira Figueiredo]] || align=center|[[Brazil]] || align=center|1979-1985 || Congress-appointed President of Brazil. Society won some democratic measures these years, but there was still a major fraud during 1982 State government elections. His government was responsible for the 1983 bomb in the Riocentro.
|-
| align=center|[[Dési Bouterse]] || align=center|[[Suriname]] || align=center|1980–1988 || Chairman of the National Military Council 1980-1988. Gained power in a coup; never elected; widespread misrule. Most infamous atrocity is the ''[[Decembermoorden]]''.
|-
| align=center|[[Luis García Meza Tejada]] || align=center|[[Bolivia]] || align=center|1980–1981 || President of Bolivia. Gained power in the "Cocaine Coup" aided by [[Klaus Barbie]]; highly repressive; over 1,000 killed.
|-
| align=center|[[Gregorio Conrado Álvarez]] || align=center|[[Uruguay]] || align=center|1981–1985 || President of Uruguay. Ignored constitution; extensive human rights abuses (see [http://www.rulers.org/indexa2.html]).
|-
| align=center|[[Leopoldo Galtieri]] || align=center|[[Argentina]] || align=center|1981–1982 || President of Argentina 1981-1982. Gained power in a coup (see[http://www.guardian.co.uk/argentina/story/0,,873601,00.html], [http://english.pravda.ru/world/2003/01/14/41968.html]). Deposed after failed [[Falklands War|invasion of the Falkland Islands]] in 1982.
|-
|align=center| [[Alberto Fujimori]] || align=center|[[Peru]] || align=center|1992-1993 || President of Peru 1990-2000, widely critizised for his political authoritarism. [http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol5/v5n34peru_body.html][http://www.aprodeh.org.pe/fujimori/delitos-eng.htm] [http://www.cverdad.org.pe/ingles/pagina01.php]. After enjoying a certain degree of popular support, Fujimori was forced from office following controvertial third term re-election[http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/americas/05/29/peru.elections.04/]. In 2000 political opponent Mario Vargas Llosa called Fujimori a "dictator" [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/741841.stm]. His government was also marked by the influence of the director of the SIN, [[Vladimiro Montesinos]] [http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2005.00165.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=goop][http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB37/]. Currently in Peru, Fujimori is in trial for presumed charges ranging from corruption to participation in crimes against humanity. [http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/americas/peru-qna-1030.htm].
|-
|align=center|[[Hugo Chávez]] ||align=center| [[Venezuela]] ||align=center| '''1999-present || Appointed special powers, nationalized the media and oil companies,Shut down opposition media and banned "The Simpsons."
|-
|}

===Caribbean===

{|class="wikitable"
|-
! Name !! Country !! Years in power !! Notes
|-
| align=center|[[Jean-Jacques Dessalines]] || align=center|[[Haiti]] || align=center|1804-1806 || Governor-General of Haiti 1804; Emperor of Haiti (as Jacques I) 1804 - 1806. Ruled autocratically.
|-
| align=center|[[Henry Christophe]] || align=center|[[Haiti]] (northern)|| align=center|1806-1820 || Provisional Chief of the Haitian Government 1806-1807; President of Haiti 1807-1811; King of Haiti (as Henry I) 1811-1820. Ruled autocratically.
|-
| align=center|[[Pedro Santana]] || align=center|[[Dominican Republic]] || align=center|1844-1848, 1853 -1856, 1858 - 1861 || Never elected; suppressed opposition; widely considered a dictator.
|-
| align=center|[[Buenaventura Báez]] || align=center|[[Dominican Republic]] || align=center|1849-1878 (intermittent) || President of the Dominican Republic five times. Gained power following coups; never elected.
|-
| align=center|[[Ulises Heureaux]] || align=center|[[Dominican Republic]] || align=center|1882-1899 (intermittent) || President of the Dominican Republic three times. Never elected; widely described as a dictator (see[http://www.marcusgarvey.com/wmview.php?ArtID=507], [http://countrystudies.us/dominican-republic/8.htm], [http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-7709.2004.00452.x]).
|-
| align=center|[[Gerardo Machado]] || align=center|[[Cuba]] || align=center|1925-1933 || President of Cuba. A follower of [[Benito Mussolini]], he is widely described as a dictator (see [http://www.historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=672], [http://www.highbeam.com/ref/doc0.asp?docid=1E1:MachadoG]).
|-
| align=center|[[Rafael Trujillo]] || align=center|[[Dominican Republic]] || align=center|1930-1961 || President of the Dominican Republic 1930 - 1938, 1942 - 1952; ''de facto'' ruler 1930-1961. Gained power in a coup; cult of personality (renamed the capital [[Ciudad Trujillo]]); promoted racism against Haitians and ordered the massacre of 20,000 blacks.
|-
| align=center|[[Paul Magloire]] || align=center|[[Haiti]] || align=center|1950-1956 || President of Haiti. Gained power in a coup; never elected.
|-
| align=center| [[Fulgencio Batista]] || align=center| [[Cuba]] || align=center| 1952-1959 || President of Cuba 1940-1944; 1952-1959. Gained power the second time in a coup; suppressed opposition violently. Use of torture and collective punishment. Mafia ties.
|-
| align=center|[[François Duvalier]] || align=center|[[Haiti]] || align=center|1957-1971 || President of Haiti. Elected in 1957, but banned opposition; declared himself [[President for Life]] in 1964; highly repressive.
|-
| align=center|[[Fidel Castro]] || align=center|[[Cuba]] || align=center| 1959-2006 || Prime Minister of Cuba 1959-1976; President of the Council of State and the Council of Ministers from 1976. Gained power after [[Cuban Revolution|revolution]]. Castro was elected President [[Elections in Cuba|after 1976]], but within a one-party [[Communist state]].
|-
| align=center|[[Jean-Claude Duvalier]] || align=center|[[Haiti]] || align=center|1971-1986 || President of Haiti. Inherited presidency aged 19 from his father; never elected.
|-
| align=center|[[Eric Gairy]] || align=center|[[Grenada]] || align=center|1974-1979 || Prime Minister of Grenada 1967-1979. Widely described as a dictator (see[http://www.factbites.com/topics/Eric-Gairy], [http://www.paradise-inn-carriacou.com/grenada_revolution.php], [http://counterpunch.org/gibson06052004.html]). 
|-
| align=center|[[Raoul Cédras]] || align=center|[[Haiti]] || align=center|1991-1994 || ''De facto'' ruler for a relatively short period of time. Gained power in a coup (see [http://www.haitisupport.gn.apc.org/infamous.htm]).
|-
|align=center|[[Raul Castro]] ||align=center| [[Cuba]] ||align=center| '''2006-present''' || Appointed successor by his brother of the Communist Party of Cuba.
|-
|}

==Asia==

===Western Asia ("Middle East")===

{|class="wikitable"
|-
! Name !! Country !! Years in power !! Notes
|-
| align=center|[[Mohammad Reza Pahlavi]] || align=center|[[Iran]] || align=center|1941/1953–1979 || Installed over his father [[Reza Shah|Rezah Shah Pahlavi]] by [[Allies (World War II)|Allied]] occupation forces. Fled Iran in 1953 amid a power struggle with Prime Minister [[Mohammad Mossadegh]] and was restored with help from the United States and Great Britain. Abolished all rival political parties and used a secret police, [[Savak]], to torture and imprison thousands of political dissidents; yet, modernized Iran.
|-
| align=center|[[Abdul Karim Qassem]] || align=center|[[Iraq]] || align=center|1958–1963 || Gained power by coup; viewed by some as benevolent (see [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/03/18/wisad18.xml]).
|-
| align=center|[[Abdul Salam Arif]] || align=center|[[Iraq]] || align=center|1963–1966 || Gained power in a coup; military ruler.
|-
| align=center|[[Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr]] || align=center|[[Iraq]] || align=center|1968–1979 || Gained power in a coup; never elected.
|-
| align=center|[[Hafez al-Assad]] || align=center|[[Syria]] || align=center|1970–2000 ||Gained power in a coup; totalitarian;{{fact}} cult of personality; oversaw [[Hama massacre]] yielding twenty to forty thousand dead (see [http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0012197]).
|-
| align=center|[[Ruhollah Khomeini]] || align=center|[[Iran]] || align=center|1979–1989 || As [[Supreme Leader of Iran|Supreme Leader]], held ultimate and uncontested authority over all government matters under the principle of [[Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists|Guardianship]]. Created the extra-constitutional [[Special Clerical Court]] system in 1987, accountable only to the Supreme Leader and used principally for suppression of political dissent. Instituted routine torture, beheadings for children.
|-
| align=center|[[Saddam Hussein]] || align=center|[[Iraq]] || align=center|1979–2003 || Pressured Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr to resign in 1979 and formally became president. Repressive; developed extensive personality cult; deposed by [[United States]] and coalition forces in an invasion.
|-
| align=center|[[Ali Khamenei|Ayatollah Ali Khamenei]]||align=center| [[Iran]] ||align=center| '''1989-present''' || Continues Khomeini's [[Islamist]] path & uses religion as a tool, cracks down on all authentic dissent, tortures, and has given orders that permit killings like that of [[Akbar Mohammadi]] and [[Zahra Kazemi]]. Only permitts [[government-organized demonstrations]]. Allows a multi-party government but disallows the candidacy of true moderates.[http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=9940][http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1527919/][http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200505310823.asp][http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1154652871.shtml][http://isd.georgetown.edu/demo_0102.pdf][http://www.boycottliberalism.com/liberalcelebrity.htm]ISBN 0-16-074590-X
|-
| align=center|[[Bashar al-Assad]] || align=center|[[Syria]] || align=center|'''2000–present''' || No opposition permitted in election following death of his father; widely described as a dictator (see[http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110007449], [http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP92405], [http://www.freeman.org/m_online/feb04/pasko.htm]).
|}

===Central Asia===

{|class="wikitable"
|-
! Name !! Country !! Years in power !! Notes
|-
| align=center|[[Askar Akayev]] || align=center|[[Kyrgyzstan]] || align=center|1990–2005 || Appointed but became increasingly authoritarian; widely described as a dictator (see [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4542783.stm], [http://www.villagevoice.com/blogs/bushbeat/archive/000935.php], [http://www.eurasianet.org/resource/kazakhstan/hypermail/200507/0023.shtml]).
|-
| align=center|[[Islom Karimov]] || align=center|[[Uzbekistan]] || align=center|'''1991–present''' || Described as authoritarian who is increasingly centralizing power (see [http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search/expand?pub=infobike://bell/soviet/2003/00000019/00000004/art00002&unc=], [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=active&q=cache:uuOVzdj_xBoJ:www1.dogus.edu.tr/dogustru/journal/sayi_6/M00073.PDF+%22Islam+Karimov%22+%22dictator%22]). Elections essentially uncontested and unmonitored. Opposition repressed. 
|-
| align=center|[[Saparmurat Niyazov]] || align=center|[[Turkmenistan]] || align=center|'''1991–present''' || Declared [[President for Life]] in 1999; [[cult of personality]]; his book ''[[Ruhnama]]'' is to be treated with reverence (see [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=active&q=cache:blnbM3mP0eAJ:www.eurasianet.org/turkmenistan.project/files2/050603Turkmenreport.pdf+%22Niyazov%22+%22dictatorship%22], [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=active&q=cache:Ie2QfLuR_ysJ:www.ndu.edu/ctnsp/tamerlane/Tamerlane-Chapter2.pdf+%22Niyazov%22+%22dictatorship%22]).
|-
| align=center|[[Muhammed Omar]] || align=center|[[Afghanistan]] || align=center|1996–2001 || Considered a Theocratic Dictator who excercized strict sharia laws; allowed the persecution of Hazaras; gave Al Qaeda refuge in Afghanistan. (see[http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0881088.html][http://www.afghan-web.com/bios/today/momar.html]).
|-
| align=center|[[Ilham Aliyev]] || align=center|[[Azerbaijan]] || align=center|'''2003–present''' || Dubious election; opposition suppressed (see[http://www.underreported.com/print.php?sid=1241]).
|-
| align=center| [[Gurbanguly Berdimuhammedow]] || align=center|[[Turkmenistan]] || align=center|'''2006-present''' ||Unelected, appointed as successor upon Niyazov's death. Turkemnistan still continues to be oppresive and a single-party state.
|}

===South Asia===
{|class="wikitable"
|-
! Name !! Country !! Years in power !! Notes
|-
| align=center|[[Ayub Khan]] || align=center|[[Pakistan]] || align=center|1958–1969 || Gained power in a coup. Subsequent elections considered dubious (see[http://www.storyofpakistan.com/articletext.asp?artid=A069], [http://www.indianexpress.com/messages.php?content_id=71414]).
|-
| align=center|[[Yahya Khan]] || align=center|[[Pakistan]] || align=center|1969–1971 || Military ruler, gaining power from coup (see [http://presidentyahya.com],[http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/pakistantimeline.html], [http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/kpsgill/terrorism/04Jan10Pio.htm]).
|-
| align=center|[[Maumoon Abdul Gayoom]] || align=center|[[Maldives]] || align=center|'''1978–present''' || [[Autocracy|Autocrat]]; widely considered to be a dictator; no opposition or free press allowed.
|-
| align=center|[[Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq]] || align=center|[[Pakistan]] || align=center|1978–1988 || Took over following coup. Claimed government to be legitimate because it was Islamic (see [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=active&q=cache:dcmhb0vRS4wJ:smartech.gatech.edu:8282/dspace/bitstream/1853/6901/1/kulkarni_nikhil_v_200505_ms.pdf+%22Muhammad+Zia%22+%22dictator%22]).
|-
| align=center|[[Rahimuddin Khan]] || align=center|[[Balochistan (Pakistan)]] || align=center|1978–1984 || Appointed supreme Martial Law Governor of Balochistan by central Pakistani military government following coup. (see [http://www.answers.com/rahimuddin%20khan]).
|-
|align=center|[[Hossain Mohammad Ershad]] || align=center|[[Bangladesh]] || align=center|1982–1990 ||Gained power in a coup; declared martial law; never elected.
|-
|align=center| [[Pervez Musharraf]] || align=center| [[Pakistan]] || align=center| 1999-2008 || Deposed Nawaz Sharif in a military coup, calling it a necessity during a state of emergency. Governed directly as commander in chief until Parliament reconvened in November 2002. Assumed the title of President upon Rafiq Tarar's resignation and stood in a referendum in 2002. Opposition parties state that the rule of law in his custody has deteriorated further.
|}

===Eastern Asia ("Far East")===
{|class="wikitable"
|-
! Name !! Country !! Years in   power !! Notes
|-
|align=center|[[Tokugawa Ieyasu]] || align=center|[[Japan]] || align=center|1600-1616|| Shogun of [[Japan]] and founder of the long reigning [[Tokugawa shogunate]]. Gained power by unifying the warring clans during [[Japan]]'s long period of civil unrest. He also created an "alternate attendance" system to pacify the [[daimyo]] warlords, as well as closing and isolating trade and the economy, in order to retain his power. His rule was also marked by persecution of european missionaries and japanese christians.
|-
|align=center|[[Yuan Shikai]] || align=center|[[Republic of China]] || align=center|1912–1916 || [[President of the Republic of China]] 1912 - 1915, self-proclaimed [[Emperor of China]], 1916. Ignored legislative consent as defined by the [[Constitution of the Republic of China|Constitution]]; dissolved the [[National Assembly of the Republic of China|National Assembly]]; assassinated [[Song Jiaoren]]; disbanded the [[Kuomintang]].
|-
| align=center|[[Roman von Ungern-Sternberg]] || align=center|[[Mongolia]] || align=center|1921 || 
Born, Baron Roman Nicolaus von Ungern-Sternberg (Роман Фёдорович Унгерн фон Штернберг), in Graf, Austria of Prussian nobility, von Ungern-Sternberg fought, against his own Prussians, in the Imperial Russian Army during World War I and fought the [[Bolsheviks]], in [[Siberia]], after 1917. A rabid [[monarchist]], von Ungern-Sternberg soon thereafter became an independent [[warlord]] with the intention of establishing an independent Russo-Sino-Mongolian monarchy in [[Urga]] under the nominal rule of [[Bogd Khaan]] (the [[Living Buddha]]). Although considered the paragon of bravery, von Ungern-Sternberg was reckless, brutal and mentally unstable.

After a savage battle against occupying [[Chinese republic]]an forces, on March 13, 1921, [[Mongolia]] was proclaimed an independent [[monarchy]], and Ungern von Sternberg became Mongolian [[dictator]]. His brief rule of Mongolia was characterised by looting, raping and a reign of terror by his army. Eventually, the [[Bolsheviks]] invaded Mongolia and after a series of battles, von Ungern-Sternberg was defeated in a August 1921, captured by his own soldiers, and handed over to the [[Red Army]] on August 21, 1921.

|-
|align=center|[[Chiang Kai-Shek]] ||align=center| [[Republic of China]] ||align=center| 1927-1975 || Known as the "Generalissimo". Gained power by military force. Leader of anti-communist one-party state under the Kuomintang. Rule on mainland China repeatedly undermined by powerful regional factions, civil wars, and the war against Japan. Ruled with an iron-fist following his retreat to Taiwan in 1949.
|-
| align=center|[[Horloogiyn Choybalsan]] || align=center|[[Mongolia]] || align=center|1936–1952 || Unelected; opponents purged; cult of personality.
|-
| align=center|[[Kim Il-sung]] || align=center|[[North Korea]] || align=center|1948–1994 || Appointed prime minister in 1948; purged rivals in the [[Workers' Party of Korea]] to consolidate power in 1956 (see [http://muse.jhu.edu/cgi-bin/access.cgi?uri=/journals/korean_studies/v026/26.1lankov.pdf]); introduced "[[Juche]]" ideology demanding absolute loyalty to him and the party; created most pervavise cult of personality in recent history. Declared "Eternal President" on his death.
|-
|align=center|[[Ho Chi Minh]] ||align=center| [[North Vietnam]] ||align=center| 1945-1969 || Unelected; killed thousands of political rivals in the 1940s; killed tens of thousands more during the land reforms of the 1950s; presided over a one-party state.
|-
|align=center| [[Sukarno]] || align=center|[[Indonesia]] || align=center| 1949-1968 ||First President of Indonesia. Consolidated his powers, and got proclaimed President for LIfe. Was overthrown by the then Dictator of Indonesia, Suharto.
|-
|align=center|[[Mao Zedong]] || align=center|[[People's Republic of China]] || align=center|1949–1976 || Chairman of the PRC (1949 – 1959), Chairman of the [[Communist Party of China]] (1945 – 1976), Chairman of the [[Central Military Commission]] (1936 – 1976). Immense cult of personality; purged members of government; silenced opposition. Circumvented Communist Party hierarchy after the 1966 [[Cultural Revolution]]; imprisoned head of state [[Liu Shaoqi]]. Millions of Chinese citizens killed or murdered as a result of his policies and repression.
|-
| align=center|[[Ngo Dinh Diem|Ngô Ðình Diệm]] || align=center|[[South Vietnam]] || align=center|1955–1963 || Unelected; autocratic; oppressed Buddhists (see[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9055646?tocId=9055646&ref=news0905arc]).
|-
| align=center|[[Park Chung Hee]] || align=center|[[South Korea]] || align=center|1961–1979 || Took power in 1961 coup. Although initially welcomed by much of the population, he suspended the constitution in 1971 and introduced a new constitution that greatly increased his power.
|-
| align=center|[[Ne Win]] || align=center|[[Burma]] || align=center|1962–1988 || Seized power in a coup; instituted extreme repression (see [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=active&q=cache:rSAOt9c_lU0J:www.iseas.edu.sg/62003.pdf+%22Ne+Win%22+%22dictator%22], [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=active&q=cache:yqkmuBoqlnYJ:www.asiapacificms.com/papers/pdf/burma_india_china.pdf+%22Ne+Win%22+%22dictator%22]).
|-
| align=center|[[Thanom Kittikachorn]] || align=center|[[Thailand]] || align=center|1963–1973 || Military dictator, known as one of Thailand's so-called "Three Tyrants". Oppressed student-led uprisings in October 1973 and 1976.
|-
| align=center|[[Suharto]] || align=center|[[Indonesia]] || align=center|1967–1998 || His ''[[New Order (Indonesia)|New Order]]'' imprisoned Communists and alleged Communists; repressed Chinese inhabitants; made existing parties subordinate. Also a cleptocrat (with personal and family's assets at least worth US$ 15 billion, based on [[Time]] Magazine investigation in 1998). Described as a dictator in many sources (see[http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=active&q=cache:Bbh_caM50o4J:www.aut.ac.nz/depts/commstud/journ/docs/reviewscronau.pdf+%22Suharto+dictatorship%22], [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=active&q=cache:128rEIvvRD4J:www.civiced.org/research/pdfs/RisingTide.pdf+%22Suharto+dictatorship%22], [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=active&q=cache:_233mw5azNkJ:cmbc.ucsd.edu/content/1/docs/laurance2004.pdf+%22Suharto+dictatorship%22]).
|-
| align=center|[[Lon Nol]] || align=center|[[Cambodia]] || align=center|1972–1975 || Gained power by coup; not elected.
|-
| align=center|[[Pol Pot]] || align=center|[[Democratic Kampuchea]] || align=center|1975–1979 || Unelected; led a [[Khmer Rouge]] dictatorship; responsible for deaths of at least 1 million Cambodian citizens during his rule.
|-
| align=center|[[Chun Doo Hwan]] || align=center|[[South Korea]] || align=center|1980–1988 || Gained power in a coup; declared martial law; oversaw [[Gwangju Massacre]].
|-
|align=center|[[Mahathir bin Mohamad]] ||align=center| [[Malaysia]] ||align=center| 1981-2003 || Authoritarian; suppresed opposition, media.
|-
| align=center|[[Khamtai Siphandon]] || align=center|[[Laos]] || align=center|1992–2006 || Unelected; one-party state (see[http://www.arthuredelstein.org/worlddictators]).
|-
| align=center|[[Than Shwe]] || align=center|[[Myanmar]] || align=center|'''1992–present''' || Unelected; persecution of minorities (especially [[Karenni]] and [[Rohingya]] groups [http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2005/51506.htm]) leading 250,000 to flee, either becoming [[IDP]]s or moving across the border to Thailand; consolidated power into himself from the [[SPDC]] - he moved to a new capital in Kyat Pyay in 2006 , &renamed it as Nay Pyi Daw ,i.e the Royal Palace City"; gained power via a military [[coup]] and announced that he would not hand over the power to [[Aung San Suu Kyi]]'s Elected Party (the [[NLD]]); no free press (see [http://www.bbc.co.uk/burmese/forum/story/2004/10/041020_khin_nyunt_ousted.shtml]).
|-
| align=center|[[Kim Jong-il]] || align=center|[[North Korea]] || align=center|'''1994–present''' || Became General Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea and Chairman of the National Defense Commission (the highest state offices) on his father's death. Continues his father's "[[Juche]]" ideology.
|-
| align=center|[[Sonthi Boonyaratglin]] || align=center|[[Thailand]] || align=center|'''2006–present''' || Army chief seized power while Prime Minister [[Thaksin Shinawatra]] was out of the country. A state of martial law was declared, parliament was dissolved and the constitution abrogated. Instituted press censorship and restrictions on protests. The first Muslim in charge of the mostly Buddhist army.
|-
|}

==Europe==

{|class="wikitable"
|-
! Name !! Country !! Years in power !! Notes
|-
| align=center| [[Oliver Cromwell]] || align=center| [[Commonwealth of England]] || align=center| 1653-1658 || A [[Puritan]] general in the [[English Civil War]] who quickly rose through the ranks to become ''de facto'' head of the Parliamentary forces. After the Royalist defeat and the execution of [[Charles I]] the newly constituted [[Rump Parliament]] was overthrown by Cromwell who refused the Crown, choosing instead the title of Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland. After his death the monarchy was reinstated. [http://www.olivercromwell.org/].
|-
| align=center| [[Maximilien Robespierre]] || align=center| [[France]] || align=center| 1793–1794 || Head of the Committee of Public Safety during the French Revolution. To purge french society of "Counter Revolutionaries", he instituted the heavily repressive Reign of Terror, a period which killed thousands of french citizens, many of those killed were simply killed under mere suspicion, with little or no proof. Desposed when the National Convention declared him an outlaw.
|-
| align=center| [[Napoleon Bonaparte]] || align=center| [[France]]|| align=center| 1799–1814 || First Consul, 1799-1804. Emperor of the French 1804-1814. Declared himself "First Consul for Life" in 1802 and then Emperor in 1804.
|-
| align=center| [[Józef Chłopicki|Józef Grzegorz Chłopicki]] || align=center| [[Poland]] || align=center| 1830–1831 || Held official title of dictator for one year only.
|-
| align=center| [[Napoleon III of France|Charles Louis Napoléon Bonaparte]] || align=center| [[France]] || align=center| (1848–1851) 1851–1870|| President of France from 1848 to 1852. In 1851 he launched a coup against the legislature, making himself absolute ruler. From 1852 to 1870 he styled himself Emperor of the French under the name Napoléon III from 1852 to 1870. Later during his reign constitutional liberties were gradually restored. In 1870 he was captured during the abortive [[Franco-Prussian War]] and deposed in his absence by the [[Third Republic]] of France.
|-
| align=center| [[Romuald Traugutt]] || align=center| [[Poland]] || align=center| 1863–1864 || Held official title of dictator for one year. Succeeded [[Marian Langiewicz]] who had declared himself dictator previously, but only lasted less than a year in 1863. 
|-
|align=center|[[Nicholas II]] ||align=center| [[Russia]] ||align=center| 1894-1917 || Ruthless, overthrown by the "October Revolution" and the newly established communist government. The last Tsar of Russia.
|-
| align=center| [[Vladimir Lenin]] || align=center| [[Soviet Union]] || align=center| 1917-1924 || Head of Bolshevik Revolution took power in 1917. Secured victory in the Russian civil war. Headed effort to transform the Russian economy to a socialist model.[http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/lenin_vladimir.shtml] 
|-
| align=center|[[Mustafa Kemal Atatürk]] || align=center|[[Turkey]] || align=center|1918-1938 || Led the Turkish national movement. Transformed Turkey into a secular republic through broad authoritarian reforms.
|-
| align=center| [[Benito Mussolini]] || align=center| [[Italy]] || align=center| 1922–1943, and in part of the country 1943-1945 || Prime Minister of Italy 1922-1943; head of the so-called [[Italian Social Republic]] until 1945. "He introduced strict censorship and altered the methods of election so that in 1925–1926 he was able to assume dictatorial powers and dissolve all other political parties" (see [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=active&q=cache:0PFM13qC39YJ:www.ablongman.com/history_rh_bridge/assets/0321025865_ch15.pdf+%22Italian+dictator+Benito+Mussolini%22],[http://doi.contentdirections.com/mr/greenwood.jsp?doi=10.1336/0275979377]).
|-
| align=center| [[Miguel Primo de Rivera]] || align=center| [[Spain]] || align=center| 1923–1930 || Prime Minister of Spain. Gained power in a coup; suspended the constitution; established martial law; imposed strict censorship; banned all political parties. Widely described as a dictator (see[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9061388], [http://www.bartleby.com/65/pr/PrimRivM.html], [http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761565186/Miguel_Primo_de_Rivera.html]). 
|-
| align=center| [[Aleksandar Tsankov]] || align=center| [[Bulgaria]] || align=center| 1923-1926 || Established Right wing nationalist, anti communist coup against [[Stamboliyski]]’s democratic elected [[Agrarians]]. Forced out of power by Tsar [[Boris III]]. [http://www.bartleby.com/65/ts/TsankovA.html]. 
|-
| align=center| [[Joseph Stalin]] || align=center| [[Soviet Union]] || align=center| 1924–1953 || General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, 1922 - 1953; Premier of the Soviet Union 1941 - 1953. Never elected; cult of personality; heavily repressive; responsible for deaths of millions of Soviet citizens (see [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9108469], [http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761559200/Stalin_Joseph.html],[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitextlo/prof_josephstalin.html]).
|-
| align=center| [[Ahmet Bej Zogu]] || align=center| [[Albania]] || align=center| 1925–1939 || Originally elected Prime Minister of Albania 1922-1924 and 1925; President of Albania 1925-1928; crowned himself King of the Albanians (as Zog I) 1928-1939. Described as a dictator (see[http://www.albanian.com/information/history/independ.html], [http://www.diplom.org/manus/talossa/?lingo=&page=Statute&act=25RZ13], [http://www.electionworld.org/history/albania.htm]). Forced to flee with his wife, Queen Geraldine, the imminent takeover of the country by Italy under [[Benito Mussolini]].
|-
| align=center| [[José Mendes Cabeçadas]] || align=center| [[Portugal]] || align=center| 1926 || Leader of [[Ditadura Nacional]] during the first part of June immediately after the [[28th May 1926 coup d'état]]
|-
| align=center| [[Gomes da Costa]] || align=center| [[Portugal]] || align=center| 1926 || Succeeded Cabeçadas as head of the [[Ditadura Nacional]] for less than a month
|-
| align=center| [[António Óscar Carmona]] || align=center| [[Portugal]] || align=center| 1926-1928 || Head of [[Ditadura Nacional]]
|-
| align=center| [[Józef Piłsudski]]|| align=center| [[Poland]] || align=center| 1926–1935 || Polish Head of State 1918-1922, but regained power in 1926 via coup. Prime Minister of Poland 1926-1928 and 1930; Commander in Chief of the Army 1926-1935. Initiated authoritarian [[Sanacja]] government; often described as a "benevolent dictator".
|-
| align=center| [[Antanas Smetona]] || align=center| [[Lithuania]] || align=center| 1926–1940 || President of Lithuania. Seized power in a 1925 military coup (see [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=active&q=cache:wEZn53dBGtoJ:www.gla.ac.uk/departments/dcees/Duvold.pdf+Antanas+Smetona+%22dictatorship%22]); authoritarian rule. His description as a dictator is common (see[http://www.encyclopedia.com/searchpool.asp?target=@DOCKEYWORDS%20balthistbio&unkey=balthistbio&clientIp=216%2E63%2E197%2E211&userAgent=Mozilla%2F4%2E0+%28compatible%3B+MSIE+6%2E0%3B+Windows+NT+5%2E1%3B+SV1%3B+%2ENET+CLR+1%2E1%2E4322%29]), but not universal.
|-
| align=center| [[António de Oliveira Salazar]] || align=center| [[Portugal]] || align=center| 1928–1968 || Prime Minister of Portugal. Established an anti-democratic, anti-parliamentarian, ultra-[[Clericalism|clericalist]], [[Corporativism|corporativist]], extremely conservative, repressive and authoritarian dictatorship, connoted with the Italian fascism, highly supported by the [[Roman Catholic Church]]. Longest right-wing dictatorship ever (four complete decades).
|-
| align=center| [[Alexander I of Yugoslavia|Alexander I]] || align=center| [[Yugoslavia]] || align=center| 1929-1934 || King of Yugoslavia from 1921. On January 6, 1929 he abolished the constitution, prorogued parliament and established the so-called "January 6 Dictatorship." A new constitution in 1931 left all significant political power in the hands of the King.
|-
| align=center| [[Engelbert Dollfuss]] || align=center| [[Austria]] || align=center| 1933–1934 || Chancellor of Austria 1932-1934. Suspended parliament indefinitely in March 1933, governing thereafter by decree. Rule sometimes compared to Mussolini or Franco (see [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=active&q=cache:PUVNNLui6y4J:www3.la.psu.edu/hrsweb/majmin/Theses/Houlihan/Thesis.pdf+%22dictator%22+%22Dollfuss%22]).
|-
| align=center| [[Konstantin Päts]] || align=center| [[Estonia]] || align=center| 1933–1940 || State Elder 1933 - 1937; State Protector 1937 - 1938; President of Estonia 1938-1940. Established authoritarian rule following a coup. Allowed (and won) election in 1938.
|-
| align=center| [[Adolf Hitler]] || align=center| [[Nazi Germany]] || align=center| 1933–1945 || Chancellor of Germany 1933-1945; ''Führer'' (Leader) 1934-1945. The 1933 [[Enabling Act]] suspended most of the constitution and allowed Hitler to [[rule by decree]]. Heavily repressive; ordered imprisonment of millions of political opponents and members of ethnic minorities in concentration camps, where they were abused and killed.
|-
| align=center| [[Kimon Georgiev]] || align=center| [[Bulgaria]] || align=center| 1934 || Took power in coup. Overthrown by Tsar Boris III. 
|-
| align=center| Tsar [[Boris III]] || align=center| [[Bulgaria]] || align=center| 1934-1943 || Overthrew Kimon Geogiev. Took power him self ruled through puppet Prime Ministers Georgi Kyoseivanov. His Regime banned all opposition parties. Took Bulgaria into alliance with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. 
|-
| align=center| [[Kurt Schuschnigg]] || align=center| [[Austria]] || align=center| 1934–1938 || Chancellor of Austria. Maintained his predecessor Dollfuss' oppressive rule.
|-
| align=center| [[Karlis Ulmanis|Kārlis Ulmanis]] || align=center| [[Latvia]] || align=center| 1934–1940 || Prime Minister of Latvia 1934-1940; President of Latvia 1936 - 1940. Gained power in a coup and dissolved parliament; generally viewed as a "benevolent dictator" (see [http://www.ltn.lv/~krz/latvia/lat_history.html], [http://www.sciencedaily.com/encyclopedia/karlis_ulmanis], [http://www.bartleby.com/65/la/Latvia.html]).
|-
| align=center| [[Ioannis Metaxas]] || align=center| [[Greece]] || align=center| 1936–1941 || Prime Minister of Greece. Never elected; banned political parties; arrested opponents; criminalized unions; censored media. Widely described as a dictator (see[http://www.bartleby.com/65/pa/PapandrG.html], [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9052304], [http://www.ahistoryofgreece.com/biography/metaxas.htm]). 
|-
| align=center| [[Francisco Franco]] || align=center| [[Spain]] || align=center| 1936–1975 || Prime Minister of Spain 1938-1975 and Head of State 1939 - 1975 (in the Nationalist Zone, both only to 1939). Purged opposition; often referred to as a dictator or ''caudillo'' (see[http://www.policyreview.org/jun03/diamond.html], [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=active&q=cache:B1Mmefo38twJ:www.personal.psu.edu/mlb300/spainsocprob.pdf+%22dictator+Francisco+Franco%22],[http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=active&q=cache:NsfbKjiVUowJ:www.acad.carleton.edu/curricular/POSC/faculty/montero/Spain%2520Paper%25201.pdf+%22dictator+Francisco+Franco%22], [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=active&q=cache:9ZzXaMENcm8J:www.artcult.org/cst/spain_prepack_participants.pdf+%22Francisco+Franco%22+%22dictatorship%22]). Strongly supported by the [[Roman Catholic Church]] worldwide.
|-
| align=center| [[Carol II of Romania|Carol II]] || align=center| [[Romania]] || align=center| 1938-1940 || King of Romania from 1930. In January 1938 he abolished parliamentary government and pushed through a new constitution putting all executive power into his own hands.
|-
| align=center| [[Jozef Tiso]] || align=center| [[Slovakia]] || align=center| 1939–1945 || President of [[Slovak Republic (1939-1945)|WWII Slovak Republic]]. Led a partly Roman Catholic clerical, partly pro-Nazi, one-party state. Described by some as a dictator (see [http://www.adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/3578_52.asp], [http://dominican-republic.asinah.net/en/wikipedia/j/jo/jozef_tiso.html], [http://www.ce-review.org/00/19/vaknin19.html]).
|-
| align=center| [[Ion Antonescu]] || align=center| [[Romania]] || align=center| 1940–1944 || Prime Minister of Romania. Two days after his appointment, forced King Carol II (see above) to abdicate in favor of his son, Mihai. Named himself ''Conducător'' (Leader), assumed dictatorial powers and relegated monarchy to decorative role.
|-
| align=center| [[Philippe Pétain]] || align=center| [[Vichy France]] || align=center| 1940–1944 || Prime Minister of France 1940 - 1942; Head of State 1940 - 1944. The ''Assemblée Nationale'' of Vichy France suspended the [[Third Republic]] and granted Pétain dictatorial power, although ultimately he was answerable to the German Nazi hierarchy.
|-
| align=center| [[Ante Pavelic|Ante Pavelić]] || align=center| [[Croatia]] || align=center| 1941–1945 ||''Poglavnik'' ("Leader") of Croatia. Not elected; ordered massacres of Serbs, Jews, Gypsies and dissidents; hundreds of thousands slaughtered; led the genocial, devoutly Roman Catholic Ustase (see [http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/tyrants.htm], [http://www.cuttingedge.org/articles/RC130.html], [http://emperors-clothes.com/vatican/cpix.htm]). Supported by most, if not all, of the Roman Catholic church in Croatia.
|-
| align=center| [[Vidkun Quisling]] || align=center| [[Norway]]|| align=center| 1942–1945 || Minister President of Norway between 1942-1945, and founder of the fascist "National Unity" party . Traitor to his country. Executed by firing squad. Described as being the Hitler of Norway.
|-
| align=center| [[Ferenc Szálasi]] (Szálasi Ferenc) || align=center| [[Hungary]] || align=center| 1944–1945 || Leader of the [[fascist]] [[Arrow Cross]] party, Szálasi was installed as a fascist ruler by the [[Nazis]] following their overthrow of [[regent]] [[Miklós Horthy]].
|-
| align=center| [[Josip Broz Tito]] || align=center| [[Yugoslavia]] || align=center| 1944–1980 || Secretary-General of the Yugoslav Communist Party 1937 - 1963; Prime Minister of Yugoslavia 1945–1953; Premier of Yugoslavia 1953 - 1963; President of Yugoslavia 1953 - 1980; President of the ''Presidium of the League of Communists'' from 1963 until 1980. Declared himself [[President for Life]] in 1963. Viewed favorably in Yugoslavia despite authoritarian rule.
|-
| align=center| [[Enver Hoxha]] || align=center| [[Albania]] || align=center| 1944-1985|| General Secretary of the Albanian Party of Labour. Leader of single-party Communist state; extensive personality cult; Declared his nation to be the world's only officially atheist state and banned all practice of religion in 1967.
|-
| align=center| [[Mátyás Rákosi]] || align=center| [[Hungary]] || align=center| 1949-1953|| General Secretary of the [[Hungarian Workers Party]] and Prime Minister of the [[Hungarian People's Republic]]. Leader of single-party Communist state; nicknamed "Stalin's best Hungarian disciple"; Invented the phrase "[[salami tactics]]" to describe piecemeal assumption of power.
|-
| align=center| [[Nikita Khrushchev]] || align=center| [[Soviet Union]] || align=center| 1953-1964 || First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union between 1953-1964. Allowed limited liberalisation in the arts and media later on. 
|-
| align=center| [[Todor Zhivkov]] || align=center| [[Bulgaria]] || align=center| 1956-1989 || Head of pro soviet communist regimen in Bulgaria. Became party secretary in 1956 and prime minister in 1962. Forced out of power in 1989 by communist party to comply with demands of protesters.
|-
| align=center| [[Antonín Novotný]] || align=center| [[Czechoslovakia]] || align=center| 1957-1968 || Antonín Novotný, the First Secretary of the Communist Party and President of the Republic, was leader of Czechoslovakia during the Stalinisation of the country, resulting in the replacement of the Czechoslovakian democracy by a one-party communist state. His dictatorship centralized power and used force to protect his regime which lasted fifteen years.
|-
| align=center| [[Walter Ulbricht]] || align=center| [[German Democratic Republic]] || align=center| 1950/1960-1971 || General Secretary of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany 1950-1971 and Head of State 1960-1973.
|-
| align=center| [[Leonid Brezhnev]] || align=center| [[Soviet Union]] || align=center| 1964–1982 || First/General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union between 1964-1982. Formed a [[cult of Personality]] later on.
|-
| align=center| [[Nicolae Ceauşescu]] || align=center| [[Romania]] || align=center| 1965–1989 || General Secretary of the Romanian Communist Party, 1965-1989; President of Romania, 1974-1989. Leader of single-party Communist state; extensive personality cult developed during the 1970s. Lived lavish lifestyle while country was still using donkey carts.
|-
| align=center| [[George Papadopoulos]] || align=center| [[Greece]] || align=center| 1967–1973 || Prime Minister of Greece 1967 - 1973; Regent 1972 - 1973; President of Greece 1973. Gained power in a coup; lead military regime. Widely described as a dictator (see [http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0778782.html], [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/379334.stm], [http://www.hellas.net]).
|-
| align=center| [[Marcelo Caetano]] || align=center| [[Portugal]] || align=center| 1968–1974 || Prime Minister of Portugal 1968 - 1974; Upon the death of [[António de Oliveira Salazar]] he continued the dictatorial regime. Some liberties were improved but the situation of the country and the [[Portuguese Colonial War|colonial wars]] lead to the [[Carnation Revolution]].
|-
| align=center| [[Gustáv Husák]] || align=center| [[Czechoslovakia]] || align=center| 1969-1987 || Came into power through soviets, Crushed the Prague spring. Headed brutal secret police stepped down from power in 1987 two years before communism fell. 
|-
| align=center| [[Erich Honecker]] || align=center| [[German Democratic Republic]] || align=center| 1971-1989 || General Secretary of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany 1971-1989 and Head of State 1976-1989.
|-
| align=center| [[Phaedon Gizikis]] || align=center| [[Greece]] || align=center| 1973-1974 || President of Greece 1973-1974. Gained power in coup. Lead millitary regime installed by previous head of state.
|-
| align=center| [[Wojciech Jaruzelski]] || align=center|[[Poland]] || align=center|1961-1990 || Imposed martial law in Poland in 1981 in response to Solidarity party led strikes. Made himself head of the "Commission for National Salvation." Stated his actions were taken in order to prevent a Soviet invasion of Poland. Was President of Poland until his resignation in 1990. 
|-
| align=center| [[Yuri Andropov]] || align=center| [[Soviet Union]] || align=center| 1982-1984 || General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union between 1982-1984. Early signs of [[Perestroika]] and [[Glasnost]].
|-
| align=center| [[Konstantin Chernenko]] || align=center| [[Soviet Union]] || align=center| 1984-1985 || General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union between 1984-1985. Ailing stop-gap leader. 
|-
| align=center| [[Mikhail Gorbachev]] || align=center| [[Soviet Union]] || align=center| 1985-1991 || General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union from 1985 until 1991 when the Soviet Union collapsed and the CPSU was banned. Oversaw democratisation in the Soviet Union, but was never directly elected as leader.
|-
| align=center| [[Slobodan Milošević]] || align=center| [[Serbia]], [[Yugoslavia]] || align=center| 1989-1997, 1997-2000 || In 1984 he became the head of the local Communist party in Belgrade and adopted a populist style, the party's leader. He successfully took over as head of the Serbian Communist party in 1987. He challenged the federal government, championed Serbian control of the autonomous provinces of Kosovo and Vojvodina, and advocated stridently socialist economic policy. By 1988, he had replaced party leaders in Kosovo and Vojvodina, and in 1989 he became president of Serbia. However, in September 1990, a new democratic constitution was passed allowing direct, multi-party presidential and parliamentary elections. Milosevic was elected president of Serbia for the first time in December 1990, although allegations persist of electoral fraud during the Milosevic years.
|-
| align=center| [[Alexander Lukashenko]] || align=center| [[Belarus]] || align=center| '''1994-present''' || President of Belarus. Said to have an "authoritarian ruling style". Lack of democratic standards. Human rights violations. Referred to as "Europe's last dictatorship."
|}

==Oceania==
{|class="wikitable"
|-
! Name !! Country !! Years in power !! Notes
|-
| align=center| [[Sitiveni Rabuka]] || align=center|[[Fiji]] || align=center|1987–1992 || Twice gained power through coup, allowed elections in 1992, which he won.
|-
| align=center| [[Frank Bainimarama]] || align=center|[[Fiji]] || align=center|'''2006-present''' ||Launched a coup d'etat in December 2006 after weeks of threats against the elected government.
|}

==See also==
* [[Constitutional crisis]]
* [[Cult of personality]]
* [[List of political leaders who held active military ranks in office]]
* [[List of political leaders who suspended the constitution]]
* [[List of successful coups d'état]]
* [[President for Life]]
* [[Single-party state]]

==External links==
*[http://www.thedictatorship.com The Dictatorship]
*[http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Dictators_and_Non-Democratic_Governments Dictators and Non-Democratic Governments]
*[http://www.lkwdpl.org/schools/horacemann/dictators/ Modern dictators and Human Rights Violations]
*[http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Oppressive_Regimes Oppressive Regimes]
*[http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2006/edition_01-22-2006/Dictators The World’s 10 Worst Dictators]

[[Category:Lists|dictators]]

Talk:Homosexuality obsession

2008-11-26T17:29:26Z

HelpJazz: /* Latest vandalisms */

Oh goodness. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:15, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:Goodness it is indeed. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 19:58, 14 November 2008 (EST)
::What then, does that make [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Search&ns0=1&ns2=1&ns4=1&ns120=1&redirs=0&search=homosexual&limit=50&offset=0 this] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Search&ns0=1&ns2=1&ns4=1&ns120=1&redirs=0&search=gay&limit=20&offset=0 this]? {{unsigned|CPAdmin1}}

:::Depending on the article, more of the same, I'd say. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:16, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:::Seriously, though. This article has no citations and has a LOT of statements which need them. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:19, 14 November 2008 (EST)
::::Tim, we may have several articles on homosexuality, but that's because we're exposing the liberals and the gay agenda. It's hardly our fault that they've aided the infiltration of homosexuality into the mainstream, but it's our duty to point out how this infiltration is occuring and the dangers of letting it proceed unchecked.
:::: HelpJazz, many of these points are taken up in the other articles. As my edit summary said when I created this article, it's more of a place to collect the general observations. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 21:28, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:::::If that's true then we either don't need this article, or you can port over the references from those articles (assuming those articles have references...). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:53, 14 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Cite, cite, cite. HelpJazz, again, it doesn't take much work to find these references. The subject is pretty pervasive. I've added some cites to give the article some grounding, I'm sure others can find a wealth of other citations. It's nothing to ''obsess'' over :-P -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 00:10, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::It's a little better, but still a long ways to go. I'd explain what I mean, but the page is locked so it won't matter for a week.
:::::::The reason I let you do the work is 3-fold, but the most important reason is that if I teach a man to fish he can feed himself for a lifetime :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:29, 15 November 2008 (EST) <-- Dreams of a day when people cite things without having to be asked
I woke up and found the article locked. NO FUN! :( I was going to touch it up today. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 15:36, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:Too big a target for ironic vandalism, it seems. It should settle down when they get their kicks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:50, 15 November 2008 (EST)
::Sigh. They don't give up, do they? -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 06:32, 16 November 2008 (EST)

== Latest vandalisms ==

I must say, they had a point. Maybe the section on Wikipedia should be removed? --[[User:Vittu|Vittu]] 12:17, 26 November 2008 (EST)
:Kind of ironic, huh? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:29, 26 November 2008 (EST)

Roy and Silo

2008-11-25T18:32:50Z

HelpJazz: personification like whoa

'''Roy and Silo''' are male chinstrap [[penguin]]s promoted as "[[homosexual animals]]" by the proponents of the [[gay agenda]].<ref name=NYT>[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9506efd9113bf934a35751c0a9629c8b63 Love That Dare Not Squeak Its Name] ''[[New York Times]]''</ref> The penguins are not free in nature but are held in captivity at the Central Park Zoo in [[Manhattan]].<ref name=CPZGPID>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/07/MNG3N4RAV41.DTL Central Park Zoo's gay penguins ignite debate]</ref> In fact, no animal except the [[bonobo]] displays the type of very promiscuous homosexual lifestyle that has tragically shortened the lifespan of many humans.

According to the National Geographic News,<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate] ''National Geographic News''</ref>
{{cquote|Roy and Silo, two male chinstrap penguins at New York's Central Park Zoo have been inseparable for six years now. They display classic pair-bonding behavior—entwining of necks, mutual preening, flipper flapping, and the rest. }}

They were offered companionship of female penguins, they refused it. According to the chief keeper of the penguins Rob Gramzay, once both of them were so desperate to incubate an [[egg]] together that they used a rock as an egg and sat on it. In this way they kept the rock warm in the folds of their abdomen. After Gramzay gave them an egg, they incubated it and a chick named Tango was born. They also helped raising Tango.<ref name=CPZGPID/>

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Homosexuality]]

Talk:Food additives and addiction

2008-11-24T07:01:53Z

HelpJazz:

Food for thought (pun intended): the FDA has rated MSG as GRAS (generally recognized as safe) and its "acceptable daily intake" is "not specified", which is about as good as it gets. The UN and WHO both place MSG alongside salt and wheat.

I'm a little suspect of that reference. It gets its information from a book, and the author of the book (who doesn't seem to have any notoriety; he doesn't even have the bio page of his own website finished yet) just read a bunch of studies that other people made, and decided that MSG causes autism. While I haven't read the book, I'm highly suspect that this random guy figured out something that scientists can't seem to figure out, and on top of it, that the FDA doesn't know it yet. There's also (according to Amazon) a chapter in his book about "the benefit of a natural zero calorie sweetener and a natural hormone proven to reduce breast and prostate cancer". I think I hear a duck. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:55, 23 November 2008 (EST)
:MSG is still addictive. Chinese restaurants have to say "No MSG" because people are afraid of consuming it.-[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 21:09, 23 November 2008 (EST)
::Can you find a citation for that? The FDA doesn't seem to think so. And people being afraid to consume it doesn't mean anything. See [[ad populum]]. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:21, 23 November 2008 (EST)
::(ec)People being afraid of it is not indicative of being addictive. I think what you're talking about is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_restaurant_syndrome "Chinese restaurant syndrome] which is kind of an urban legend [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glutamic_acid_(flavor)#Health_concerns}]. The restaurants say "No MSG" because people are afraid, yes, but that doesn't mean the people who are afraid are informed. Life's a little rough over here right now, so I'm not sure if that really makes much sense. I hope it helps, though. [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 21:26, 23 November 2008 (EST)
:::(edit conflict) I have added two quotes from doctors about MSG while you were writing this comment, I believe. Also, I think you are confused in your edit comment about "regulation and food scares". There is a big difference in liberals unduly calling for bans on [[trans fats]] and conservatives calling for regulation of poison and highly addictive drugs in food. Remember that the D in FDA is there for a reason: drugs. Not acceptable in food, in playgrounds or elsewhere. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 21:28, 23 November 2008 (EST)
:::: (EC) The two quotes you mentioned don't say anything about MSG's supposed addictiveness. As for calling MSG a "drug"... I think you are playing a little fast and loose there with the definition. If you want to claim that the FDA can regulate MSG (and they can and do) it falls under the F: food. Drugs are those things that pharmaceutical companies make and they sell you to cure things. You are using scare tactics (let's face it, there is no mainstream science that says MSG is poison, and I haven't even seen *bad* proof that MSG is addictive) to regulate something. That's the same thing liberals do. Does it matter that you are regulating something "bad"? No... and that's the same argument that the liberals use, isn't it? So when I said that "regulation and food scares" are a tactic liberals use, and that you are using the same tactic, I was absolutely correct. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:36, 23 November 2008 (EST)
::::Perhaps we should create an article on MSG to explain who finds it addictive and who doesn't and why it could be a bad thing if it is (remember caffeine is one of the most addictive substances there is but no one is crying for Starbucks to be regulated) --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 21:34, 23 November 2008 (EST)

HelpJazz, I have added quotes about MSG's addictiveness. I am not using scare tactics and I resent you calling me a liberal (the irony of whose mouth that's coming from). If MSG is so addictive and is behind the obesity epidemic which liberals are so keen to ignore in favor of "world poverty" (see: [[Obesity#World issues on Hunger vs. Obesity|here]]), then scientists and the FDA have a moral responsibility to make Americans aware of its addictive power. Depending on how addictive it is, it may need regulation, like the removal of cocaine from Coca-Cola (or do you consider that a scare tactic too?). Again, I will stress that there is a BIG difference between any sort of regulation of addictive or toxic substances (such as cocaine, the toxic additives China has put in its products, etc) and the liberal desire to regulate unhealthy components of food (like trans fats, sugars, butter). If liberals had free reign we'd all be eating boiled hemp and washing it down with seaweed puree. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:05, 23 November 2008 (EST)

:Thank you for adding quotes/cites. Now let's go through them:
:*[http://www.msgtruth.org/addiction.htm this] (which I found as well) does not say that MSG is addictive; it says that GBGA (which is created from, but not the same as MSG) "may be addictive". The quality of the source itself is rather suspect. It uses big words, but is a rather unprofessional design and doesn't cite any studies which show that MSG is addictive
:*[http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/addiction/reward/pathways.html This] cite (which is redundant; it's just linked from the first cite) again doesn't say that MSG is addictive. In fact, the source doesn't mention MSG (nor addiction, for that matter), it mentions the essential role of glutamate in the body. So if glutamate can be gained from MSG (and without looking it up, I honestly don't know), then that citation says that MSG is essential for brain function.
:*[http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/442155/monosodium_glutamate_msg_the_addiction.html?cat=5 This] cite is from a user-generated site. In other words, anyone can write whatever they want. But let's assume, for sake of discussion, that the reference is realiable: it still doesn't say that MSG is addictive. It says that MSG makes you ''hungry'' by stimulating insulin production. Eating a bowl of sugar does the exact same thing. Should we add sugar to this page? The article tries to say that you crave chips because they have MSG, but clearly chips are craved for some other reason: [http://www.fritolay.com/fl/flstore/cgi-bin/Nutrition_ProdID_3001.htm potato] [http://www.fritolay.com/fl/flstore/cgi-bin/Nutrition_ProdID_3023.htm chips] [http://www.snydersofhanover.com/en/products.php?cat=6&id=57 don't] [http://www.fritolay.com/fl/flstore/cgi-bin/Nutrition_ProdID_3057.htm contain] [http://fritolay.com/fl/flstore/cgi-bin/Nutrition_ProdID_3065.htm MSG].
:I'm sorry if you think I called you a liberal, but I didn't mean to. I said you were using liberal tactics, which I still think is true. (I'm not a liberal, as I've said numerous times, but now you know what it feels like, eh? I don't think you ever incorrectly call people liberals, but maybe you can tell your friends to be more careful.)
:As to cocaine in Coke: as an economic conservative, I believe that the free market will remove harmful additives from food. In the case of Coke, [http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/cocaine.asp the free market worked]. The same is happening with the "evil" trans fats -- liberal NYC and Chicago banned trans fats, but most companies simply removed them from their products when they found out consumers didn't like them. We also already mentioned Chinese food: the free market worked again (and most of these people aren't even born Americans!) So are you as bad as the liberals who want to have us eat boiled hemp? No. Are you using bad science to advocate that the government force regulation onto the free market? Yes. I don't call this economic conservatism; if that's what you call it then we'll agree to disagree on that point. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:30, 23 November 2008 (EST)
::HelpJazz, that was a compelling argument, especially with regards to free market forces doing the job anyway. I would certainly agree that that has been the case with Chinese restaurants -- once enough people were aware that the Chinese use MSG ''liberally'' and that it was a bad substance, the Chinese restaurants had no economically sensible choice but to pull the ingredient and plaster NO MSG on their menus and doors. It just seemed from those sources I cited that MSG was present in numerous foods we weren't aware of -- from ramen noodles to potato chips, and under numerous pseudonyms, like hydrolized protein. But if, as you say, these cites are questionable, then I believe I have fallen victim to the liberal scare tactics. However, I thought it was a common truth that MSG was addictive. Maybe the liberals were just scaring the public by inflating the ubiquitous presence of MSG across food products? Do you know? -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 01:22, 24 November 2008 (EST)
::Wow, as I'm looking deeper and deeper into this issue, I'm finding very little concrete evidence characterizing the addictive nature of MSG and more and more liberals<ref>http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2005/05/13/msg_causes_most_obesity_but_congress_grants_immunity_to_food_producers.htm</ref> who are using the hype around MSG and aspartane and everything else to blindly accuse Bush of collusion with the food industry. This is nonsense. I appear to have been very wrong about this issue. The article needs a MAJOR rewrite. Thanks, HelpJazz, for your dogged persistence on this topic :-) We wouldn't want CP to have the wrong stance! -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 01:33, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:::I didn't mean to be harsh, but the public's fear of chemicals is a preeeeeeety big pet peeve of mine. You'know, having that chemical engineering degree and all :) (Coincidentally, food regulation is also a big interest of mine, so the two converged with an unhappy result in this article). All's well that ends well :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 02:01, 24 November 2008 (EST)

Talk:Food additives and addiction

2008-11-24T04:30:51Z

HelpJazz:

Talk:Food additives and addiction

2008-11-24T02:36:14Z

HelpJazz:

Food additives and addiction

2008-11-24T02:26:14Z

HelpJazz: if I added a fact tag it would be considered "ideologically motivated" (which I still maintain that in this case I have the conservative ideology; quite an odd twist of fate)

'''Food additives''' are used to enhance the [[flavor]] and appearance of [[food]], some of which may cause '''[[addiction]]'''. In the early days, [[Coca-Cola]] contained [[cocaine]], a highly addictive [[drug]].

Many types of readymade food, especially [[Chinese food]], use the possibly [[addictive]] flavor enhancer [[MSG]] (monosodium glutamate). Though it is generally recognized as safe<ref>[[FDA|US FDA]], [http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/msg.html FDA and Monosodium Glutamate (MSG)]</ref> by the [[Food and Drug Administration]] (the agency which regulates the usage of such additives in the [[United States]]), MSG has been implicated as a cause [[autism]] and [[ADHD]] in children, as well as many other ailments.<ref>Laleva.org, [http://www.laleva.org/eng/2004/03/autism_and_adhd_linked_to_addictive_food_additive.html Autism and ADHD Linked to Addictive Food Additive]</ref>

Dr. Robban Sica:
{{cquote|MSG Hides Behind 45+ Names, Such As 'Natural Flavoring.' MSG Is Also In Your Favorite Coffee Shops And Drive-Ups

I wondered if there could be an actual chemical causing the massive [[obesity]] epidemic. So did a friend of mine, John Erb. He was a research assistant at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada, and spent years working for the government.

He made an amazing discovery while going through scientific journals for a book he was writing called ''The Slow Poisoning of America.'' In hundreds of studies around the world, scientists were creating obese mice and rats to use in diet or [[diabetes]] test studies. No strain of rat or mice is naturally obese, so the scientists have to create them. They make these morbidly obese creatures by injecting them with MSG when they are first born. The MSG triples the amount of insulin the pancreas creates, causing rats (and humans?) to become obese. They even have a title for the fat rodents they create: 'MSG-Treated Rats.'<ref>http://www.advancedhealthplan.com/msg.html</ref>}}

Many of the most harmful additives to the [[brain]] fall under the class of [[excitotoxins]]--these include MSG and [[aspartane]].

{{cquote|How would you feel when you learn the food industry hides and disguises these excitotoxin additives (MSG and Aspartate) so they can't be recognized? Incredulous? Enraged? The fact is many foods are labeled as having "No MSG" but in fact not only contain MSG but also are laced with other excitotoxins of equal potency and danger.

All of the above are true. And all of these well-known brain toxins are poured into our food and drink by the thousands of tons to boost sales. These additives have NO OTHER purpose other than to enhance to TASTE of food and the SWEETNESS of various diet products.<ref>'Excitotoxins - The Taste That Kills' Dr. Russell Blaylock, MD</ref>}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Food and Drink]]
[[Category:Drugs]]

Food additives and addiction

2008-11-24T02:23:29Z

HelpJazz: add ref

'''Food additives''' are used to enhance the [[flavor]] and appearance of [[food]], some of which may cause '''[[addiction]]'''. In the early days, [[Coca-Cola]] contained [[cocaine]], a highly addictive [[drug]].

Many types of readymade food, especially [[Chinese food]], use the [[addictive]] flavor enhancer [[MSG]] (monosodium glutamate). Though it is generally recognized as safe<ref>[[FDA|US FDA]], [http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/msg.html FDA and Monosodium Glutamate (MSG)]</ref> by the [[Food and Drug Administration]] (the agency which regulates the usage of such additives in the [[United States]]), MSG has been implicated as a cause [[autism]] and [[ADHD]] in children, as well as many other ailments.<ref>Laleva.org, [http://www.laleva.org/eng/2004/03/autism_and_adhd_linked_to_addictive_food_additive.html Autism and ADHD Linked to Addictive Food Additive]</ref>

Dr. Robban Sica:
{{cquote|MSG Hides Behind 45+ Names, Such As 'Natural Flavoring.' MSG Is Also In Your Favorite Coffee Shops And Drive-Ups

I wondered if there could be an actual chemical causing the massive [[obesity]] epidemic. So did a friend of mine, John Erb. He was a research assistant at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada, and spent years working for the government.

He made an amazing discovery while going through scientific journals for a book he was writing called ''The Slow Poisoning of America.'' In hundreds of studies around the world, scientists were creating obese mice and rats to use in diet or [[diabetes]] test studies. No strain of rat or mice is naturally obese, so the scientists have to create them. They make these morbidly obese creatures by injecting them with MSG when they are first born. The MSG triples the amount of insulin the pancreas creates, causing rats (and humans?) to become obese. They even have a title for the fat rodents they create: 'MSG-Treated Rats.'<ref>http://www.advancedhealthplan.com/msg.html</ref>}}

Many of the most harmful additives to the [[brain]] fall under the class of [[excitotoxins]]--these include MSG and [[aspartane]].

{{cquote|How would you feel when you learn the food industry hides and disguises these excitotoxin additives (MSG and Aspartate) so they can't be recognized? Incredulous? Enraged? The fact is many foods are labeled as having "No MSG" but in fact not only contain MSG but also are laced with other excitotoxins of equal potency and danger.

All of the above are true. And all of these well-known brain toxins are poured into our food and drink by the thousands of tons to boost sales. These additives have NO OTHER purpose other than to enhance to TASTE of food and the SWEETNESS of various diet products.<ref>'Excitotoxins - The Taste That Kills' Dr. Russell Blaylock, MD</ref>}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Food and Drink]]
[[Category:Drugs]]

Talk:Food additives and addiction

2008-11-24T02:21:24Z

HelpJazz:

Desert

2008-11-24T02:03:57Z

HelpJazz: Undo revision 552225 by Nialwheate (Talk) parody

[[Image:desert-7.jpg|right|250px|thumb]]
'''Deserts''' are arid regions of extreme dryness, characteristically receiving less than 5 inches of [[precipitation]] a year. In some deserts, the amount of [[evaporation]] is greater than the amount of rainfall, making them very dry. Semi-arid deserts average 5 to 10 inches of annual precipitation. Desert moisture typically occurs in brief intervals and is unpredictable from year to year. One-third of the earth is arid to semi-arid (being either ''desert'' or ''semidesert'').

Evaporation contributes greatly to a desert's aridity. In some deserts, the amount of water evaporating exceeds the amount of rainfall making that desert very dry. Rising air cools and can hold less moisture, producing clouds and precipitation; falling air warms, absorbing moisture. Areas with few clouds, bodies of water and little vegetation absorb most of the sun's radiation, thus heating the air at the soil surface. More humid areas deflect heat in clouds, water and vegetation, remaining cooler. High wind in open country also contributes to evaporation.

Locations of deserts have changed throughout the years. Modern desert regions are centered in the [[horse latitudes]], typically straddling the [[Tropic of Cancer]] and the [[Tropic of Capricorn]], between 15 and 30 degrees north and south of the [[equator]]. Some deserts, such as the [[Kalahari]] in central [[Africa]], are very old. The [[Sahara Desert]] in northern Africa is quite old, as is the [[Sonoran Desert]] of North America. Deserts can also occur at near-polar latitudes, for example the interior of [[Iceland]].

Because they are poised in such harsh extremes of heat and aridity, deserts are among the most fragile [[ecosystem]]s on the planet.

[[Category:Ecology]]

Rain

2008-11-24T02:03:18Z

HelpJazz: Undo revision 552224 by Nialwheate (Talk) parody

'''Rain''' is part of the [[water cycle]], in which "rain falls from the clouds, evaporates, and turns into moisture in the air, which then condenses to form new clouds and thus begins the cycle once again."[http://www.ebscobooks.com/books/ProductDetails.asp?CatalogID=90977] Rain is composed of droplets of [[water]] called [[raindrops]].

==The Hydrological Cycle==

Scientifically speaking, rain is a form of [[precipitation]].

Rain is formed when [[water vapor]] condenses within [[cloud]]s. As the small droplets merge, they become too heavy to remain suspended in the cloud and fall to the surface as rain.{{fact}}

==Rain in [[Poetry]] and Song==

The association between rain and spiritual beings is found in [[poetry]] and [[song]].

*Love is but a song we sing, fear's the way we die; you can make the mountains ring or make the angels cry." ("Let's Get Together", [[Chet Powers]])

*''The Fairy Glade'' [http://live-artist.com/fairytales/faeryglade.html]

==See also==
*[[Precipitation]]
*[[Snow]]
*[[Hail]]
*[[Sleet]]
*[[Frogs]] [http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa082602a.htm]

[[Category:ecology]]

Talk:Food additives and addiction

2008-11-24T01:55:40Z

HelpJazz: New page: Food for thought (pun intended): the FDA has rated MSG as GRAS (generally recognized as safe) and its "acceptable daily intake" is "not specified", which is about as good as it gets. The ...

Food additives and addiction

2008-11-24T01:49:49Z

HelpJazz: start by removing blatant opinion -- and anyway, I thought regulation and food scares were the tactics of liberals? (also rewrite some... ok most of the article)

Talk:Liberal literary bias

2008-11-22T23:15:46Z

HelpJazz:

"Commonly-noted" = "easily cited", no? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:40, 22 November 2008 (EST)
: Sure. I'll pull out the articles I was reading about it in when I get home. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 17:44, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::You don't want to pay too much attention to HelpJazz. He likes to pose as a Liberal interloper, always raising subversive objections, but he's a decent chap really. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 18:04, 22 November 2008 (EST)
:::Funny, I never thought the commandments were liberal. Learn something every day though, thanks Bugler. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:15, 22 November 2008 (EST)

Liberal literary bias

2008-11-22T22:40:37Z

HelpJazz: I'm a glutton for punishment

The '''''liberal literary bias''''' is a commonly-noted bias among the [[publishing]], [[university]], and [[literary review]] establishments.

==Review Bias==
Novels by conservative authors are typically reviewed harshly on account of upholding conservative values (often accompanied by accusations of [[reactionism]] or [[bigotry]]), regardless of the works' actual merits. Liberal novels, conversely, are given a free pass, regardless of vulgar [[sexual]] or anti-values content; their flaws are typically glossed over.

==Revisionism==
The [[conservative]] values of literary [[classics]], such as [[War and Peace]], [[Les Miserables]], and the works of [[Mark Twain]] and [[Charles Dickens]] (to name only a few - conservatism permeates the [[canon]]) are typically ignored or marginalized in [[University]] teaching settings. This [[deceit]] by liberal [[academics]] convinces students that conservatism is not modern or capable of creating great art.

==Publishing Bias==
As publishing houses are typically controlled or strongly influenced by the academic and review establishments, they are much less likely to publish conservative works, regardless of their merits. This is worsened by the liberal media's likelihood to ignore conservative publications altogether. Thus, conservative novels must make use of [[Christian]] publishing houses, which have been established to counteract these problems, but unfortunately are lacking in size and present.

{{liberalism}}
[[category:liberalism]]

Talk:Liberal literary bias

2008-11-22T22:40:21Z

HelpJazz: New page: "Commonly-noted" = "easily cited", no? ~~~~

"Commonly-noted" = "easily cited", no? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:40, 22 November 2008 (EST)

Talk:Anne Rice

2008-11-22T22:19:25Z

HelpJazz: /* "please join discussion first, Alan" */

Don't gloss over her pornographic novels. Did she write them while she was an atheist or what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:35, 22 November 2008 (EST)
:Answering that one would have been easier if you hadn't deleted the article with the various sources, but from what I recall (and without doing research from scratch), (1) her porno novels were early works and (2) her full return to Christianity was fairly recently (after most of her vampire stories which made her so famous, I would assume).
:Going by ''very'' blurry memory, I think she stated that she gladly left the Vampire Chronicles behind her now and would only write Christianity-related things, but that she didn't explicitly distance herself from her earlier works (which would include the porn). I'd look it up, but without an article to put that info in, it's sort of a moot point, really. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 15:50, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::Perhaps we should delete all articles about atheism and liberals, in addition to deleting the Anne Rice article content. Apparently the only thing Anne Rice did in her entire life was become an atheist.

:::Less sarcasm, please.--[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:25, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::::My apologies. But seriously, adding encyclopaedic content to an article does not constitute "puffing it up". The old version seemed to me to be relatively free of bias.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 16:27, 22 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Rice's conversion appears to be a marketing move, half-hearted at best, seeking to sell novels to a wider audience while garnering attention. The last thing we should be doing is advertising her through a needlessly lengthly article, in my humble opinion. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 16:37, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Unsurprisingly, considering that I wrote large sections of this article, I have to agree with JZim. Ed, why did you delete practically the entire article? I will at least restore the stuff I wrote since it was sourced and factual (I had witnessed the clash on Amazon live back then - it was fun, in a weird sense). And there are lots of sources about her faith and conversion, so why did you delete those sections? With your permission, I'd like to revert your edits with the promise to find more sources and flesh it out. I'm no fan of Rice myself (she became famous for novels she later openly left behind, and I seriously doubt that her Christianity-related books would have become so famous without her Vampire Chronicles fanbase, so I also agree with Rod to a degree), but I won't let personal opinion influence me writing a factual article. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 16:39, 22 November 2008 (EST)

=="please join discussion first, Alan"==
Ed, you deleted the article completely with discussion and then (after at least restoring it) completely wiped it clean, again without discussion. Why do you insist on replacing mostly sourced (and definitely sourcable in the other cases) information with a butchered stub? --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 16:49, 22 November 2008 (EST)
:Huh, AlanS was blocked. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:19, 22 November 2008 (EST)

User talk:HenryS

2008-11-19T17:56:01Z

HelpJazz: /* You're funny Bohdan */ new section

== Jose83 ==

If it is that obvious, just block him. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:13, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
:I like to give them one last chance. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:17, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

::I blocked him. He was being way too obvious. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:17, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Good block. His strategy has failed him. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:21, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

== Halp ==

Bohdan!! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:08, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

==Default sorts==
Thanks for fixing Flinders. There are others - can I do them myself? (I tried something like it last year and got jumped on from a great height by TK.) Cheers.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:19, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:Oh, and another thing... I come across lists of "Terms"; "Reformation Terms", Exploration Terms" and the like. They are almost completely empty. Seeing as the Category sites do the same job, is there any reason not to delete these pages? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:19, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::I don't know about the terms, that is something to ask another. But yes, please do the default sorts if you want to. Its a pretty boring job... [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:02, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

== I have sent you a very important email to your email inbox. Your mail isn't active, so I replied to an old one you sent me that I never deleted. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:14, 12 September 2008 (EDT) ==

... actually the headline is just about the whole message, so there you go. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:14, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
:I received the email, but didn't understand it. Sorry. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:25, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

== Thank You ==

Thank you for unblocking me - I knew the block must have been a misunderstanding. --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 10:14, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
:Thanks for unblocking me too. Very fair-handed of you. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 20:20, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

== snake ==

Snake. [[User:ChimeIn|ChimeIn]] 09:14, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
:Okay. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 14:14, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

== Hello ==

Why is my edit removed again? I edit on wikipedia and my edit is never removed. I edit here and two times removes my edits. I thought this was better wikipedia that any one could edit. [[User:SyedO|SyedO]] 17:18, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
:What edit are you talking about? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 17:29, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

==Gade==

If you or any of the other Danish people wish to add/change Niels.... I play his music occasionally but don't know enough of it to get the overall feel for it. (He always sounds so darn German, but I played the Ossian piece this morning whilst writing and it was more evocative - of exactly what I don't know.) Is he known for anything in particular in Denmark? What do I need to hear? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 17:58, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
:Can't help. Sorry, I know little about music. I am just a partiot. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:08, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
::We all like a parti! [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 19:31, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Oops. Well, I could have been using Danish slang or something. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:43, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

==Red4Tribe==
He's gone to the ice box so he can cool down for a couple hours. :-P [[User:BethanyS|~Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 17:03, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

== Unlock? ==

Could you unlock [[bipolar disorder]]? A user wants to add some things, and I promise to play nice. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:41, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
:Hi, I'm going to second the request to unlock the article. The controversy seems to have long died down, and I was hoping to add some links I put on the talk page to the actual article. Sorry to bother you! [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 01:07, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::Thank you very much! [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 22:11, 5 November 2008 (EST)

==[[Michael Crichton]]==

Thanks for noting this [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Michael_Crichton&diff=prev&oldid=550792]. Keep up the good work! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:11, 14 November 2008 (EST)

== HelpJazz ==

Why the block? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 21:01, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:No particular reason. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 21:03, 15 November 2008 (EST)
::I don't think blocks for "no particular reason" are allowed here. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 21:05, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::I'm used to it. The blocks are less scary than giant pictures of Putin on my talk page. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:06, 15 November 2008 (EST)
Henry, pay him no mind, as he (the above) is obviously a friend of PUTIN! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:06, 15 November 2008 (EST)

==MylesP==
I want that sucker out of here. Three times he posts. Three times cursing the Lord.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 20:14, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:Go ahead. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:19, 17 November 2008 (EST)
::Thanks HenryS, you've supported me since day one, you rock!--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 20:29, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:::He reposted it after being asked not to. Its clear some people are not here to contribute. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:33, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== You're funny Bohdan ==

<sarcastic laugh>Ha ha ha ha that was the best ever.</sarcastic laugh> Now could you reblock me so that the block ends on midnight on Nov 21? I don't feel like doing the math ;-) Thanks, [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:56, 19 November 2008 (EST)

User talk:HelpJazz

2008-11-18T19:37:00Z

HelpJazz: /* Blocking User:TK */

{| style="width: 100%; border: black solid 1px; background-color: lightgrey;"
|-
|{{Useful links|float=right}}<center><big>'''Guidelines for my talk page'''</big></center>
*Please, no "ping-pong" conversations: if I leave a message on your talk page, please respond there; I'm watching it. If you start a conversation here, I'll reply here, so please watch this page
*Sign your posts with four tildes, like this: '''<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>'''
*At the beginning of each month I will archive all conversations which are at least 1 month and 1 day from the most recent reply.
*Please, only one picture of Putin at a time. He scares me in large doses.
*'''If you have been blocked by me''': please do not create a sock and complain on this page! Instead, [[Special:Emailuser/HelpJazz|email me]] and we can work it out. (You will need a valid, verified e-mail address for this to work).

The system is supposed to send me an email when my talk page is changed... but I don't think it's working. The regular email is working, though, so if for some reason I don't respond to a notice on my talk page, click [[Special:Emailuser/HelpJazz|here]]
|}

Archives: [[/Sept07|Sep '07]] • [[/Oct07|Oct '07]] • [[/Nov07|Nov '07]] • [[/Dec07|Dec '07]] • [[/Jan08|Jan '08]] • [[/FebApr08|Feb-Apr '08]] • [[/MaySep08|May-Sep '08]]

==For the good of the project==
and despite sore provocation I have reverted some pointed words and trust that you can be relied on to respond in an appropriately responsible manner. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:53, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
:For the good of the project, you shouldn't have written them at all.
:Don't get so worked up that I don't create new articles. There's no rule that says you have to create new articles, and it's certainly the idea of a wiki to edit other's articles, no? Plus, as I've already said, I have created numerous articles. I don't enjoy it, and I'm not good at it. I'm not here to please you, and I'm not going to try.
:It's pretty hypocritical of you to say that ''I'' have done no work on this site, when I have been doing work all morning long, and you have been simply reverting me on two pages. Now I have ''real'' work (i.e. the money-making kind) so I won't be bothering you with my non-work for the rest of the day. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:01, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

== Edit war ==

I'm addressing both you and Bugler. Stop your edit warring and try working together for the good of Conservapedia. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:02, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

== Template:lowercase ==

I seem to recall from the equivalent template on Wikipedia that the template would only display the correct case of the title in certain circumstances (such as Javascript enabled). Is this still the case, or does it ''always'' correct the display of the title?

And the reason that you were able to edit a locked page is that it wasn't locked! It had been locked, but was deleted by a sysop who didn't understand its purpose. Deleting a locked page and reinstating it causes (or used to cause?) the locking to be lost.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:31, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

:<s>I don't think you have to have javascript enabled, but I might be wrong. It uses the DISPLAYTITLE... uh thing. It's not a template, and it seems to be built into the wikicode much like <nowiki>{{CURRENTDAY}}</nowiki>. I don't know a lot about how wikis work behind the scenes, but the template is used on Wikipedia, so if it doesn't work all of the time it works most of the time.</s>

:This is from the page of the WP template that I, uh, "borrowed" from: ''This template wraps the magic word DISPLAYTITLE so that it works automatically in any namespace (main, talk, template, etc.) to decapitalise the first letter of the name of a page it is transcluded on. (Previously, this template achieved this using JavaScript, but the DISPLAYTITLE method makes the change for all users, even those with JavaScript disabled in their browser).'' So we should be fine. :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:06, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
:: Ah, very good. Thanks for that. I've now changed the Manual of Style page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:00, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

==Brokeback==

You're breakin' my back on the Brokeback article! :-) I hope you can see that I'm very willing to defend my points, and I appreciate the civility with which you've been treating them (unlike some other posters on that page). I'm going to continue as much as I can today, but I'm leaving for a weeklong trip tonight so I won't be able to respond until I get back. Hopefully the page won't blow up to enormous proportions in the meantime :0 -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 13:49, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
:Ha ha ha! I was actually just about to tell you that I'm not trying to be harsh. I think you're a good editor, so my comments are (to the best of my ability) aimed at the article and not at you. I'll keep an eye on the page and keep it honest while you are gone. Have a good trip. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:17, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
::Thanks! See you on the talk pages in a week. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 20:04, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I'm back and will get to the posts on Brokeback Mountain probably tomorrow. In the meantime, I've noticed that the categories now appear in double boxes. Do you know why that is? It seems redundant. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:21, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Nevermind, I've found the relevant thread on Andy's talk page (it explains the appearance of other things like the new CAPTCHA, which I don't like). -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:37, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::Me neither. Hopefully it will change, or I may very well never <nowiki>{{welcome}}</nowiki> a user again! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:39, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::I didn't even think of that detail! Speaking of which, why is there an external link that occurs when we're doing a <nowiki>{{welcome}}</nowiki> anyway? -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 23:08, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::The link to Interiot's edit counter (which doesn't actually work right now) is an outside link. Don't forget that "internal" diff links (like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:HelpJazz&diff=next&oldid=519768 this], for example), counts as an outside link. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:21, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: Now ''those'' I can help you with. Administrators have the ability to add a web-site to a "white list" so that those addresses will not trigger the CAPTCHA. I've added Interiot's tool and Conservapedia itself. Give them a try and let me know if it works. It's not, of course, an ideal solution for all the other possible links. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:59, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::You mean this whole time there was a simple solution? Oh man. Let's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:HelpJazz&diff=next&oldid=519768 test]. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 09:38, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Hey it worked! You'd think the software would be smart enough to have the domain site on the whitelist by default... Thanks soooooooo much Philip! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 09:39, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

==Vote McCain==
Vote McCain!!! [[Fry2000]]

== Thank you! ==

Thanks for the block! [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 19:23, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:I do what I can :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:24, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

==Ohio==
Well, well. I always thought you were British, for some reason. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:33, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:Nope. Never even visited. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:36, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

== addition article ==

Is there a way to check the user John Peters ? His name is red link in the history. The text added to the article may be correct but makes the article very complex if aimed at a high school level. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 23:56, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:I don't know. "Checkuser" (which I don't have) only tells you what other users have used the same IP address as him, but that doesn't really help in this case. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:19, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

==Blocked==
When I attempted to log in today, I received a notice that my IP address was blocked. I think a schoolmate of mine got himself blocked by you. First and foremost, I apologize for my classmates inappropriate behavior. I will look into who it was and see if I can get them removed from the lab. I would like to ask, however, if something like this happens in the future, is there anyone I can contact about removing the IP block or is it best to just ride it out? Thank you [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 17:05, 23 October 2008 (EDT) PS, I had to edit another user's signature before it would let me post. I think their user name contained something that the spam filter blocked out
:I think the best thing to do is email the person who blocked IP address and include the IP address or block number (it's shown when you try to edit a page). In this case, since you are only blocked at school, you could ask someone with checkuser rights (basically any sysop) to unblock your IP address. I have no way of looking it up, but they can help. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:19, 23 October 2008 (EDT) PS: Out of curiosity, do you know the person I blocked?
::Ok, I will keep that in mind should it happen again. It's hard to do much else except post from school, I don't have a personal computer yet (although I'm working on it) and I don't know for sure who it was, but by cross referencing sign in logs to the time I think I can get a fairly good idea. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 11:54, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

==Pearl Jam - removal of talk edit==
Apologies may be in order. I think I may have removed that talk page contribution...our edits clahed and I must have somehow wiped yours during my amateurish attempts at saving my input. Sorry about that. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 18:15, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
:I figured that's what happened. No biggie. (It was actuallyl Liams that you removed). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:36, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
::Yeah, I didn't mind, so I didn't change it :-) [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 18:38, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks for defending me ==

Thanks for pointing out how others had mistaken comments I made. You are correct with what I said about lying in the Bible, and Peter is a perfect example. However, you and they are wrong to claim that I "cherry pick". My position has always been that you can determine whether something is meant to be taken literally by the context and knowledge of the language, as Professor James Barr (not a creationist) did (see [[creation week]]). And contrary to a claim made by someone of whom I'll have more to say in a moment (this is for their benefit) that [[creation week]] has no evidence, it in fact has (a) a number of supporting arguments about word use (admittedly unreferenced), (b) a referenced quote from an expert (Barr) who also says the other experts agree, and (c) a referenced summary of a formal study into the text. Perhaps ''he'' is simply seeing (or not seeing) what he wants to (not) see. Before I saw your comments, I was thinking of saying something anyway (such as on my user page). That same accuser (Kels) also accused ''me'' and Creation Ministries International of lying, ("he won't hesitate to lie and twist at the slightest opportunity" and "He accepts every lie creationontheweb feeds him") yet offered no evidence of that whatsoever. I accept that many people don't accept my views and think that I'm mistaken, deluded, or even stupid, but I don't go around saying things that I know to be untrue (and nor does CMI). Accusations like that without solid supporting evidence are nothing short of libel (not that I could be bothered suing), and he is despicable for making the accusation, and should be censured by others there, but by their silence they are just as bad. And they have the gall to criticise Conservapedia! Finally, to answer a loaded question, I accept both parts of the creation account, because I see no conflict between them (just like most of the rest of the millions who have studied the Bible for centuries) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:34, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
:Probably these others don't believe in censoring. Maybe you should go and explain your points of view to them at their place. I don't know what this Kels accused you of, but you can't deny that creationontheweb is your number one source of "information". Go and debate them there. Here, as you know, it is impossible. --[[User:JulianAdderley|JulianAdderley]] 09:52, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
:: Since when it is censoring to take someone to task for libel? That CreationOnTheWeb is my main source was not the accusation. How do you not know what he accused me of when I've quoted it above?? I don't go there because I'd end up spending too much time disputing so much of what they say. I spend too much time disputing here without doing it there also. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:18, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I talked about censoring as you yourself said "... and should be '''censured''' by others there". I find it unfair and cowardly that you attack them here instead of debating with them. They'd defend themselves here, but they are not allowed. --[[User:JulianAdderley|JulianAdderley]] 14:29, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
:::: ''censure: to criticise adversely; disapprove; find fault with; condemn.'' That's not the same thing as ''censor''. My reasons for not debating there have been given several times. I agree that the situation is unfortunate, but it's not out of cowardice that I don't debate there. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:38, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, Philip, I didn't mean to imply that you cherry pick (though when I reread the post I was agreeing with, it does seem that that's what I agreed to!). What I meant to say was that you draw a different line than I do on what's literal and what's figurative in the Bible. I've seen you debating this a lot across the site and I know you don't use anything so silly as quote mining or cherry picking :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:57, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
: Thanks for clearing that up. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:38, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

==Ema==
Funny Ema support Jesus as lord and supports Barack Obama because Christian principles are not Obama (gay marriage, abortion, black liberation theology, etc.). It is an oxymoron. How come you don't understand? --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 12:42, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:Because not every Christian in the world believes the exact same thing? Obama is not the anti-Christ. Full disclosure: I'm probably going to vote for McCain, even though I don't really like him, simply to make it harder for Obama to win Ohio. I'm not an Obama fan by a long shot, but saying that no Christian Who Is A True Christian can vote for Obama gives Christianity a bad name. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:46, 3 November 2008 (EST) PS: Is Obama a black liberation theologist or a Muslim? He can't be both.

::My fellow Buckeye, it is evident that many Christians will vote for Obama, just by observing primary statistics. I am just saying Christians are confused about their faith if they vote Obama. So he is not the anti-Christ. His views are anti-Christian. If a true Christian votes cares for values and votes Obama, well then, they are giving Christianity a bad name.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 12:51, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::Jpatt, check worldwide statistics on support for the two candidates. They are pretty clear on which of the two candidates the majority of all the Christians in the world support. If you are too lazy to check by yourself, it's Obama. I find that a pretty convincing argument on who has more Christian values. --[[User:JennyM|JennyM]] 12:54, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::::: What statistics? Not only have I seen no such statistics, I can't imagine that anybody is going to survey Christians worldwide to find out with of the two American presidential candidates they prefer. And Christian values are defined by the Bible, not by the values of the person that Christians would prefer to see as American president. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:31, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Just google around, not difficult to find. Sorry to hear about your lack of imagination, Philip, as imagination is what keeps us young! Surely Christian values are defined by the Bible, not by Jpatt. Quite arrogant of Jpatt to "know" that McCain has more Christian values than Obama. Billions of Christians worldwide disagree. --[[User:Jessica|Jessica]] 07:26, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::::::: If they're not difficult to find, why can't you link to them? And how many is "billions", given that there's about 2.1 billion Christians ''in total'', and they wouldn't all prefer Obama. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:47, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::50 % of 2.1 billion is more than one billion. Since all the polls show more way more than 50 %, it's not difficult to infer the "billions". --[[User:Jessica|Jessica]] 07:52, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::: Although a plural word indicates more than one, my understanding it that it is more than one ''unit'' ("billion" being the unit in this case), which doesn't allow for fractions, so "billions" means at least 2 billion. So where are these worldwide polls? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:00, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::You are wrong on two counts. First of all, when approaching or surpassing 1.5, it is perfectly legitimate to use the plural. Second, "billions", as well as "dozens" or "tens", is a perfectly acceptable way to convey ''order of magnitude''. For the polls you'll have to look by yourself. I have no time now. But do you really doubt it? --[[User:Jessica|Jessica]] 08:11, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: I do doubt that such surveys exist. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:28, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::Philip's a busy guy, but I'm notoriously bored, so I went and looked. I found plenty of surveys that showed Obama winning international popularity contests, but none of them claimed to select only Christians.
::::::::::::To the larger point of it being possible for Christians to select Obama - of course it's possible. I did it, for one. (Sorry, HelpJazz.) [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 10:56, 5 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo I can't be your online friend anymore! ;-) It's ok, in a way I wanted Obama to win. I truely believe that once the hype wore off, either candidate would have been a pretty lame duck president. If McCain won, they would just blame it on Bush, and then a candidate who's even more liberal than Obama would be elected in '12. If Obama won, then when he is (ok this tense is all messed up now, bear with me here) not the Messiah that he's supposed to be I can laugh and feel morally superior and smug and all those cool things I like to do :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:02, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::::Yeah, he doesn't match my politics in a lot of ways, but neither does the 2008 version of McCain, and Bob Barr was a carpet-bagger of a Libertarian and I refuse to endorse that. Boiled down to the fact that I felt a McCain vote is an endorsement of the current administration, for all the lip service he pays to "change."
::::::::::::::You might enjoy checking out [http://thebigstick.wordpress.com/ this blog I found] by a guy who posts on Ames' blog comments. He's a fairly articulate guy who doesn't get all riled up (in other words, don't hold Ames against him) (although Ames is plenty articulate, he just gets caught up in things...). [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 13:02, 5 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::::Grrr lost a post. Ok this is the last thing I say and then I'll be done for a while because this faulty connection thing is annoying. I didn't like any of the candidates this year, and as much as I hated myself for doing it, I had to vote against a candidate instead of for a candidate. I almost considered writing in Ron Paul just for the heck of it. *Off to read that blog link, which probably has a much better connection than this site does right now* [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:14, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Oh if the world wants Obama, then I should shut up, duh. It is convincing who has more Christian values. Hint, it aint Obama.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 13:01, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::And again I say you are trying to impose one set of beliefs on all Christians, and you are questioning the faith of those who believe differently than you. Not everybody is a one or two issue voter, you know. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:44, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::PS: Since you brought up same sex marriage, both Obama and Biden ''oppose'' it [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.samesexmarriage.html]. And you didn't mention stem cell research: McCain supports federal funding of it [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.stemcell.html]. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:54, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::: "McCain supports federal funding of ... Obama"??? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:31, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::Whoops! Fixed. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:36, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::: Oh. I thought you might have meant "and Obama does also". And to clarify, nobody has any objection to funding stem cell research. Or are you saying that McCain supports funding ''embryonic'' stem cell research? In any case, I expect that it's a case not of claiming that McCain is correct in all his views, but that they are, overall, better than Obama's. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:14, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::I did mean embryonic. To be fair, he only wants funding on embryos that are going to be discarded anyway -- I don't know if pro-lifers are ok with that. If I understand Jpatt's argument, he was trying to argue that no Christians can vote for Obama because he doesn't hold Christian values. Not only that, but he presented it as the only correct choice and anyone with a differing opinion doesn't have enough faith. I was trying to point out that Jesus is not running for president. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:39, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: Write-ins FTW!! [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 22:26, 3 November 2008 (EST) ''<-Jesus/Holy Ghost '08!''
:::::::::: Was it okay to experiment on the Jews who were going to the gas chambers in Nazi Germany because they were going to die anyway?
:::::::::: I tend to agree that Americans tie their religion too closely to their politics, but on the other hand, I can understand where he's probably coming from (although I should point out that I don't know what prompted the first post in this section). A Christian believes that God is the ultimate reality, and therefore that God's standards are more important than anything else more worldly. Therefore, in comparing two different candidates, the one that most closely follows God's standards is the one that Christians should vote for. That is, God's standards (such as on moral issues) are not just a minor consideration, but should be a major deciding factor. To that extent, I would agree with Jpatt. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:38, 3 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::What you missed was the conversaion on (the now blocked) [[user:Ema]]'s talk page. She said something about how Obama was going to win, to which Jpatt replied: "Funny how you accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and support Barack Obama." I don't think there's anything wrong to use your faith as a factor in deciding who to vote for, but to presume that ones (clearly at least partially incorrect, as seen by the gay marriage comment on this page) interpretation is infallible is hubris at its best. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:48, 3 November 2008 (EST)

==My vacation==

Hey! It's good to be back. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:07, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:Now get to work *wchapshh!* [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:45, 3 November 2008 (EST)

That has a nice [[beat]] to it . . . --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:53, 3 November 2008 (EST)

==[[User:BHarlan]]==
My apologies for bothering you with this.... But is this user for real? Or is he a parodist? If he is real, he is a very difficult person to work with. He is currently edit warring on the [[Rodney King]] page and is generally making things difficult for other users? Is there anything we can do? I think this [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Rodney_King&diff=550213&oldid=550211 this edit] sums up everything. [[User:SamuelA|SamuelA]] 18:03, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:To engage in an edit war while insisting "don't edit war" is parody at its worst.
:I contribute here by editing articles to add information, sometimes in the form of sentences and paragraphs. I suggest you do the same.
:In the meantime, I will try to be more like the Christ. He was very forgiving. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:08, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::If that doesn't clear things up for you, nothing will. There is nothing you can do about it. [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 18:23, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:::I try not to comment on the nature of parodists, unless I am blocking someone for it. It's too messy otherwise. However, BHarlan, I would ask that you be a little nicer. Legitimate editors can be blocked for not working well with others. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:56, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== Template thanks ==

Thanks for your work on {{tl|homosexualityb}} - it will be much easier to edit now. Just wanted to let you know that these things don't go unnoticed.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:03, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:Thanks. All I really did was add a line break in between each thing, since I have a hard time reading all those links squished together. A single line break won't show up in the end result, but it makes the code a little easier to look at.
:''You'' should be the one being thanked though. None of your work goes unnoticed, but I'm willing to wager that most of it is thankless. Until now!! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:26, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::I wouldn't say thankless - just yesterday Ed Poor was if anything over-generous. Congratulations on the message below, by the way.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:34, 14 November 2008 (EST)

==Sysop rights==

Er, I meant that you've been nominated in our secret enclave to become a sysop. Until then, all you edits show up for me in Recent Changes with a red mark. When you become a sysop, we don't have to patrol your changes any more. I think Jessica and Bert should be sysops. No one ever reverts them. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:08, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:I'm sure I've been nominated more than once... I'll believe it when I see it though ;-)
:About those red exlamation points: I've seen them before (not here, obviously). It makes me wonder what Wikimedia was thinking (or was it Wikipedia? Which came first?) -- do they seriously expect every single edit by a non-sysop to be marked as patrolled? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:32, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Ed, there is a reason why secret enclaves are secret. It is very unclear right now what direction Andy wishes to go and we should avoid any indication to our valued editors of what the future may hold that may not in fact be fulfilled. It can only cause possible embitterment or disenchantment and we certainly don't want that among any of the people who have made great contributions to our project. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:35, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::No worries, LT. I haven't gotten my hopes up, and my feelings won't be hurt. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:42, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Lest I trip over my beard, I must remind myself that Wikipedia was only two years old when the patrol feature was created. The rate of edits was so low that one sysop could do all the patrolling by himself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:44, 14 November 2008 (EST)

==Block==
You were blocked for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=557690 this] edit. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:53, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:Oops, my mistake. I have been away for a while, would you please sum up the events that have occured during my absence? Thanks. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:57, 15 November 2008 (EST)
::May I unblock him so he can answer? Blocked users cannot edit their own user talk pages here - although (thanks to me!) they can do so at Wikipedia. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:59, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::(Sorry Ed, I didn't know if anyone else was watching. PS: is there an easier way to unblock an IP address? I can't seem to figure out how to do it).
:::Henry, much has gone on since you went on vacation. I saw it all, but I'm not sure I can explain it all myself. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:01, 15 November 2008 (EST)

HJ, I am sorry that I blocked you. I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 21:09, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:It's ok, you picked a bad time to make a joke, is all. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:10, 15 November 2008 (EST) <-- NOONE expects the Spanish Inquisition!!! (There's never a bad time for that joke!)
::Did someone mention an Inquisition? Oh goody! (rubbing hands in glee!) --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:12, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::Our chief weapon is surprise! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:14, 15 November 2008 (EST)
::::I say we start a conservapedia inquisition. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 21:21, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Depends on who gets inquisitioned. Inquisized? Inquised? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:33, 15 November 2008 (EST)
::::::It is always THEM, Jazz! We go after <big>THEM!!!</big> --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:47, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::I stopped playing with blocks when I was six.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:02, 15 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::It is so noted. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:22, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Not a single block! That's impressive and unexpected. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:28, 15 November 2008 (EST)
*Well I am fairly certain that won't last. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:48, 16 November 2008 (EST)

==Crackpots==
*"I don't know why I bother, i'm sure some crackpot out there has said this" [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gay_heroism&diff=558704&oldid=558703]
A moment of candor. It's nice to know what you think of the sources we draw upon. I can tell you at least one person who said that: the [[User:Ed_Poor|person who wrote the article]]. Now think about whether you meant what you wrote. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 07:44, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:My point being that even though "gay heroism" is likely ''not'' part of a campaign to legitimize homosexuality, you can find a source that says anything, and there's really no standard for sources on this webite. I didn't mean that you had to be a crackpot to believe it, but I'm willing to wager that you won't find a mainstream source to back up that statement (yeah, yeah liberal bias). I wasn't calling Ed Poor a crackpot, since an editor's opinion can't be used as a source (a policy Ed himself helped to write), but yes, I still mean what I wrote. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:47, 16 November 2008 (EST)

==Sillly edit==
You are being silly but I will let it stand.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 14:47, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:Maybe I would have been in a nicer mood had you asked first, but now there's really no way to know, is there? You probably blocked their IP's anyway, which I'm guessing is why you are taking the "high road" now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:55, 16 November 2008 (EST)

==Your block==
Now try and stay civilised about this and discuss it here. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:05, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:You really make me laugh, you know? ''Bugler has no right to undo my blocks''. What on earth have you been doing in the past months, trying to worry me to an early grave? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:09, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::C'mon, HelpJazz. C'mon, man. Tell me. Have you never reverted an edit of mine? Heh? have you? Have you never reverted an edit of mine? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:13, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::(Edit conflict: Bugler's original comment was: "Now try and stay civilised about this and discuss it here.") I did discuss it. Jpatt has no right to undo my blocks; you have no right to undo my blocks. You then blocked me (and blocked my IP address for no reason other than to be annoying) with no legitimate reason. Blocking doesn't work if any other editor can decide to change another's blocks. Believe me, Bugler, be happy I respect this simple principle. If you think I complain a lot ''now'', how do you think you'd like it if I simply undid every block you did that I didn't think was appropriate? Now, a ''sysop'' has the power (and the right) to correct a block I made erroneously; a sysop's decisions take precidence over mine. Any other non-sysop has no greater authority over me. If they were to ask, I might reconsider. I've made mistakes in the past. But simply ignoring normal modes of respect is unacceptable. If you undo any of my blocks (ever) I will redo them, and I expect you would do the same.
:::Edit conflict (Bugler's *new* comment, I suspect he's intentionally edit conflicting me, is "You really make me laugh, you know? ''Bugler has no right to undo my blocks''. What on earth have you been doing in the past months, trying to worry me to an early grave?"): Which blocks of yours did I undo, except the ones where you blocked me? Name one and I'll quit this site.
:::Edit conflict *again*: First of all, edits are fundamentally different than blocks. It's clear that if you were to insert a spelling error, there is no conflict in me fixing it. Every editor on this site is given the "responsiblity" of editing. However, in getting "block" rights, Andy has decided that he trusts your judgment enough that you are given the "privilede" to excercise your good judement by blocking people. In undoing a ''block'' you are telling both me and Andy that your judgement is better than ours.
:::Even though it is irrelevant (as I have shown) I can still answer your question: Have I ever undone an ''edit'' you have done? Yes I have. Have I ever undone an edit you have done while giving no explanation or reason? No, I don't think I have. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:20, 16 November 2008 (EST)
You have certainly never given an ''adequate'' explanation. however, I am able to let the dead bury the dead. WEhat matters, as I am trying to get across to you, is the welfare of Conservapedia. I think your lenient 'name only' blocks of the two hangmen are entirely wrong for two key reasons. 1. The insults were so gross that the perpetrators do not deserve a second chance. 2. The insults, being so gross, indicate that teh perpetratorsm, if allowed back into CP, as you are in effect doing, have the potential to cause huge damage through vandalism, causing editors here an enormous amount of clean-up work.

I hope you will accept that I have not deliberately tried to edit conflict you; that is not my style. I say what I think, to you and to others. And the block was not intended to block you: I knew you would revert it post-haste. It was to get a breathing space to remove damaging saboteurs from the site. Saboteurs who you have since restored to grace. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:31, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:I cannot remember whether you have reverted any of my blocks. Given what you say, I presume you disapprove of Tim's high handed action yesterday (and before, regarding Daphnea), and PJR's similar actions towards me in the past. For the rceord, Jpatt is one of the best new editors and sysop-lites we have here. He should be encouraged and cherished, not subjected to beastings. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:33, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::(It again took you three edits to say what you think; if you instead use the preview button, you don't run the risk of edit conflicted other users multiple times)
::For starters, how did I not adequately explain why it was wrong for Jpatt to undo my block? You gave no explanation.
::Secondly, if you think my blocks are lenient, there's nothing stopping you from ''asking me about it''. There is way too much overeager blocking on this site; shame on me if I follow the letter of the law. That gives no excuse for someone else to change it without asking me. (You will notice that they never recreated their account).
::Thirdly, I can tell you that I have never undone any other editor's blocks, unless the blocks were obvious vandalism (Like MexMax) or if they were joking (like Bohdan last night).
::Fourthly, if you read what I wrote, I clearly said that I have no problem with a ''sysop'' going over the head of a normal editor. You and I are both editors, and Tim and PJR are both sysops. I don't know about Daphnea, but seeing as how you didn't undo a single one of HotDog's edits, you didn't really have a case there anyway, did you? I'd also be surprised if PJR undid a block without any explanation, but again, as a sysop it's entirely within his rights.
::Lastly, I have no responsibility to encourage or cherish someone for doing something they had no right to do. Had Jpatt asked me, I would have said "Thank you for asking Jpatt, here's my explanation." He showed no respect for me, and I had no obligation to give him any in return. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::: 1. Sysop rights have no merit whatsoever when they are abused, as I believe they were yesterday. 2. So what is your justification for giving the hangmen free rein in Conservapedia? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:48, 16 November 2008 (EST)
Hey people, don't fight. You are both good and valuable contributors. If you have to revert someone (but pleease don't block), revert my contributions: they are not as valuable as yours. Please, both of you, advance our common cause by being unite against our enemies! --[[User:Drunk|Drunk]] 15:51, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:Thank you, Drunk. I would however appreciate an acknowledgement from HelpJazz that I don't deliberately time my edits to disrup him with edit conflicts. t sounds a strange thing, and a very difficult one, to do in any case. I frequently gnash my teeth over ECs, but I don't for a moment imagine that enemies are doing it deliberately to frustrate me. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:56, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::I don't have much wiki experience, but to time edits to disrupt with edit conflicts seems very far-fetched even in my "high" (sorry) state. There are much more effective ways to disrupt. But HelpJazz, why do you think that Bugler is disrupting? Maybe it's just an incomprehension between you? --[[User:Drunk|Drunk]] 16:00, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::(Ironically, an edit conflict) 1. Then there's really no point in having sysops, is there? As much as you whine about the "liberal whinging about every decisions", do you really want to assert that every time someone thinks another user is abusing their power, that person has no obligation to sumbit to the abuser's power? Or are you the only one who gets to decide when someone is abusing power?
::::2. Free reign? Hardly. Had I wanted to give them free reign I would have unblocked them. Instead, I gave them the opportunity to rethink their actions and either go away, or come back in a better frame of mind. What's the worse that could have happened? Had they created another inappropriate username, I would have blocked them with account creation disabled (and yes, I have done this before); had they created an account and started vandalising I would have blocked their account with account creation disabled; had they never returned there's no harm to CP; had they returned and been a good editor then CP is all the better. I refuse to block people for something they might do. )This is not to say that I will contest any user who blocks people this way).
::::Ironic edit conflict: I'll admit that the first time may not have been intentional. It's very strange for someone to make three edits in a row, when they know that all three warrant a response, but the evidence is not conclusive enough to say that you did it on purpose. (I also misread the diffs and thought you were replacing your text, which lead more evidence to my claim). However, doing the exact same thing after I already pointed it out is a bit suspicious, no? That's why, to give you the benefit of the doubt, I instructed you to use the "show preview" button, which is the surefire way to avoid edit conflicts. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:07, 16 November 2008 (EST)
You got blocked again?! Ouch. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 16:12, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:You ''instructed'' me? My, oh my! I thought that editors had no authority over editors, but now I am expected to comply with the instructions of HelpJazz! Have you been appointed Lord High Panjandrum while I have been away? If so, please instruct me on the correct protocol. Is it a bow from the waist, or a full kow-tow? Do I have to walk backwards when I depart the August HelpJazzian Presence? My Lord will please excuse his humble servant's ignorance of etiquette! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 18:06, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::Bugler, please cool it, or I'll have to send an email to Andy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:13, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Well, honestly! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 18:14, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::Instruct (v.): to give knowledge to. Yes, that's what I did. I didn't say "commanded" or "required" or "demanded" or "forced" or "insisted". Alternatively, I could have said "taught" or "advised" or "showed" or "informed". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:23, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Perhaps this is a cultural difference. In the UK, instruct means order, tell. 'Advise' might have been the polite option. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 18:27, 16 November 2008 (EST)

== Category Discussion... ==

I have somehow missed the discussion about changing Categories from Liberals to Liberalism. Can you direct me, and possibly Ed Poor to it? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:49, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:I'm sorry, I didn't realize I had to discuss my use of common sense. Can you direct me to the rule that says this please? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:51, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::Are you quite certain you want to have this show-down? What exactly will you gain or lose? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:54, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::What showdown? Is there such a page? If not, I'm going to continue using my common sense. "Liberals" are people; "liberalism" is an idea. An idea is not a person and a person is not an idea. (And a person and an idea are not an organization). What's to discuss?
:::Just because you are back, it doesn't mean you can boss me around again, TK. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't work that way anymore. You won on {{tl|liberalism}}, what more do you want? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:56, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::::Boss you? Are you in 2nd grade, or what? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:57, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::I take it you don't have an answer to any of my question then? In that case, I'll continue what I'm doing. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:58, 16 November 2008 (EST)

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

:L. Beryl Baez is a person? [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal_bias_in_academia&curid=59501&diff=560052&oldid=525222&rcid=610515] I didn't understand your edit comment. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:16, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::Oh, wait: I misread it. "liberal bias is a concept, not a person" --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:18, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:::Wait, his bot is going to add everything from the "liberals" "liberalism" and "liberal organizations" categories and dump them all together into a "liberal" category? Why? Aren't categories supposed to be nouns? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:21, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::[[Homosexual Agenda]] is under the subcategory [[:Category:Liberal Deceit]]. [[Evolution]] isn't under any of the liberal categories at all. It doesn't usually make sense to put everything on a template into the same category. It makes category renames easier, but everything else harder, and category renames don't happen that often. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 20:26, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::(EC) <s>Ed, "liberal bias in acedemia", which is the title of the article, is not a person. There might be people mentioned in the article, but do you seriously want to put every single article that so much as mentions a liberal into the "liberals" category? That would mean that, for example, [[John McCain]] would be in the liberals category.</s> (EC -- this is happening a lot today. Maybe I should increase my typing speed) I think you understand where I'm coming from now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:21, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:::::You and Interiot are indeed "understood". I merely suggested one way to quickly add articles to a category, was not suggesting that would be the ONLY category applied. To me it was far easier to change the category "Liberal'''s'''" to Liberal, no plural. The "discussion-without-end" over this is everything that is wrong about Conservapedia, and in my opinion, by design and spite. However, if people want to run around like a chicken with its head cut off, in spite, go ahead. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:32, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Easier isn't always best. It might be "easier" to just put everything in the "liberal" category but (a) it goes against the category conventions and (b) it's not very descriptive.
::::::I don't see who's running around with a chicken with it's head cut off, either. All I was doing was putting articles into the most logical, pre-existing category. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:36, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::Yes, after you publicly got angry over it, insisting you were being "bossed". Do whatever you wish, of course. You and a few others insisted you were correct over something that was decided by admins months and months ago, and you don't care. I will no longer participate in this silly arguing on your part, Jazz. It is pointless, and nothing is urgent about this. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::Can you point to me where admins decided how the template should be used? Maybe I just missed it; all this mess will be cleared up rather quickly. The only thing I can find is where a group of people (including a sysop) decided how it was to be used, and then you unilaterally decided not to use it that way. So when I did what you wanted and started adding the template how you wanted to, somehow I can't do it right and I need permission to use common sense. Can you just tell me what to do already and get it over with? All this time I'm spending on my talk page I could be using to impliment the template ''you'' wanted to use. So please, direct me to the admin decision that was made months ago, so that I may submit myself to it and continue editing this encyclopedia. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:51, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Sysop discussions are not done that way, you know that, and you have absolutely no right to insist they should be. I asked Brianco to create it. I got Andy's permission, and that is that. No one, least of all me, said you were adding it incorrectly. What I do know is you got me on AIM highly agitated and upset I was using it. That is what I know. My only dispute was your public snit, and insistence about changing categories, and impatience that you were not answered IMEDIATELY, and posting that you were just going to proceed. I have the IM archive, from months ago, when you were informed about the template. And even that doesn't matter. You alone have decided you don't like the template. So, take it off, if you like. We will just make a new template, and not call it a nav box, thus removing your original complaint that it was being used for a purpose not intended for nav boxes. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:03, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:In other words, I have to take your word for it that any discussion took place?
:"You and you alone?" What about the other people who responded on the talk page? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:07, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::Yes, that's pretty much it, Jazz. We assume good faith. That is the Christian way. If I say it was that way, it was. If it is untrue, Andy can post saying I am mistaken or a liar. This is something, a Red Herring, you decided to dredge up and dispute, from months ago! It was only after I was no longer a sysop, that some people, including you, thought that meant some kind of wholesale reversal of policy could be made. That is indeed fuzzy logic. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:15, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Then let's have Andy post. You are using something I've never seen in order to control my actions.
:::I dredged it up? Really? Funny, nobody discussed the liberalism template until you came back and started doing the exact same thing you were doing when you left.
:::Wholesale reversal of policy? The policy was "TK is right; you must have permission from TK to do anything; TK has discussed everything through email with Andy". When TK is gone, the policy breaks down. Now you are back, you have no idea what has gone on in the last 7 months, and you just assume that everything is as it was. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:10, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::Speaking of what has gone on, could you sum it up tonight? Please? You refused to last night :( [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::When did you go on vacation? How long have you been gone? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:18, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::::About a month or two. When I was last here, you and another user were engaged in bitter dispute over "big science" or something like that. Is this Buglre a sysop? Are you? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:21, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::I don't think there have been any promotions in the last month or two. I'll never be promoted, so that's not something you ever have to ask ;-)
:::::::Hrm... what have you missed in the last few months? Ed and TK came back (which I'm sure you can tell).
:::::::Multiple fights have ensued, people have been called idiots, noone's been blocked -- not much has changed. (Big science got moved to the essay space though). Read over my talk page, Bugler's talk page, PJR's talk page and the Obama talk page, (Maybe Ed's talk page too) and that pretty much sums up everything you need to know over the last couple months. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:27, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::Were you called an idiot? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:29, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Not me, but Tim was (check out Bugler's talk page, I think).
:::::::::I just checked my spam email (all my CP mail goes straight to spam) and found emails from two different editors asking me to intercede with their blocks by the same user. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:33, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::Straight to spam? I have been sending you emails everyday for the past two months. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:35, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::Straight to spam. Curiously, I haven't seen any emails from teh Bohdan. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:40, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::Has anyone called me an idiot? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:42, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::Doubtful. Who could call you an idiot and expect to get away with it? I mean *seriously*! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:46, 16 November 2008 (EST)

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

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

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

By your less than kind, throw-away comments, like the "I'm sure you can tell..." above, you show yourself to be just another mean & hateful person. Just goes to show how wrong I was about you, your character, and your being good material for an admin. BTW, Ed Poor was another who put himself out there, promoting you for sysop to Andy. I have always been honest with you, always told you CP wasn't like Wikipedia, and that the owner didn't aspire to it under any circumstances. Given your actions in the past 24 hours, I know Andy was correct in holding back. I was wrong, he was right. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:55, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:TK, you started all of the arguments. Want to know how many arguments there were about the use of the liberalism template while you were gone? None. Want to know how many arguments there were about categories when you were gone? None. Formatting? None. The liberalness of Fred Phelps? None. But then within 24 hours of your arrival, all of the same arguments show up, and somehow it's everyone else's fault.

:Do you really think I could tell you what I thought of you when you were holding the banhammer over my head? I'm sorry we aren't best buddies, but our entire "relationship" consists of you telling me what to do. That's all you ever do, is tell people what to do. You came back to this site and all ready you have told Philip he's not allowed to talk on your page, you have told Brianco that he's not privy to conversations from those "above his pay grade", you have told Sideways that he's not allowed to change an edit made by Conservative, you have told me that because you start things, only you know the Truth about how they are to be used. You have only been here '''one day'''.

:I'm just another mean and hateful person? Because I thought that Bohdan can read my talk page to see you are back?

:You continually tell me CP is not like Wikipedia, and I continually tell you that '''I'm not trying to make CP like Wikipedia'''. I continually tell you that I don't even edit at Wikipedia, and yet somehow everything I do is in the "Wikipedia mindset". I'm not imposing my liberal worldview, I'm not motivated by neutrality, and I'm not using a coverup of liberalism to make desicions. Every single thing I do is to further the encycopedia '''within the Commandments''' and every reason I give is backed up by '''logic'''. I'm sorry if you don't think these are good qualities for being an admin. I'm sorry if you put yourself out on a limb to back me (which I can only take on your word; I know that Ed has vouched for me because I've actually seen it -- yet another advantage to skipping AIM in leu of the website right here at our fingertips), only to find out that sometimes following the rules means you can't always spew whatever crazy you want. I'm sorry that I'm harming your goal of destroying CP from within by using the rules on CP to rein you in. I'm sorry I gave you a second chance two nights ago, by telling you about what was going on at CP. Had I known that you were really just gathering intel into the power structures so that you could come back and wedge yourself back in, I might have pretended I wasn't home. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:27, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::So the copies of my emails to Andy, that you were copied on, CC, not BCC, months and months ago, are not to you "proof" that I backed you? You really are a despicable person. So, now you admit you are on AIM. Previously you posted you never use it, only did so because I requested it, demanded it. Oh well. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:37, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::I don't seem to have any of your emails to Andy. The closest I could find was one where you told me that you forwarded Andy, but I don't actually have any CCs. I highly doubt I deleted them since I have copies of many other random emails from you.
:::I previously explained that I never use AIM to talk to ''editors on CP''. I still use it for my personal communications. Is that clear now? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:35, 17 November 2008 (EST)

==Blocking [[User:TK]]==

Please provide reference and/or diffs to illustrate "insinuating that motorcycle accident which put a valued contributer in a coma for 10 days didn't actually happen; if someone wants to extend this block be my guest". [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] was wrong to undo your block but you should have asked an admin yourself, or Andy. Users with block rights (but no admin rights) should only block for clear and cut vandalism. I know this is not in the commandments, guidelines or user rights page but we are forming some kind of policy to address this in the near future. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 05:00, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:Actually it is [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:User_rights#Blocking_rights|here]: "''To counter blatant vandalism, some editors have the ability to block vandals. These particular rights may be granted to users who demonstrate an ongoing ability to revert vandalism. Users are also encouraged to report suspected vandals to the administration (preferably supplying evidence with diffs). Editors granted '''blocking rights should only use them for blocking vandals or other cases where immediate blocking is required. Other violations should be referred to an administrator.'''''" It Just hasn't been enforced very well so far. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 09:11, 17 November 2008 (EST)
::Jallen: As you know, BrianCo is a valued contributer to our website who was in a horrible motorcycle accident which put him '''in a coma for 10 days'''. TK, when confronted with the fact that he was '''outright lying''' about the fact that he was the one who asked for the {{tl|liberalism}} template (which was his entire reasoning for being able to use the template in the manner he demanded, and not how the community decided), responded with the following accusation: "Was this on your trip to Mexico, Genghis, or your later motorcycle accident recovery? Inquiring minds want to know!" [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template_talk:Liberalism&diff=prev&oldid=560367]. There is absolutely '''no excuse''' for such an '''unchristian''' comment towards another editor. I may not have been within my rights to block him (though I would certainly argue that this was a case where "immediate blocking is required"), but TK's incredibly low blow was intirely inexcusable, and I couldn't wait for a sysop to decide. If Bugler was the one who undid my block, then I'm going to redo it; I've said before (and you apparently agree) that Bugler had no right to undo it. Until a sysop tells me otherwise that it's ok for an editor to make light of a life-threatening event, I won't unblock TK. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:17, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:::HelpJazz, you have overstepped your authority in blocking TK. You are only allowed to use your blocking rights for vandalism. I don't believe you were justified with the immediate block either. "I couldn't wait for a sysop to decide" is not valid in this situation. I have undone your block. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 12:37, 17 November 2008 (EST)
::::Since you have undone my block, then you have made a decision. Thank you. I'm going to go appologice to BrianCo now, and I'll probably be too mad to edit today. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:39, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:Something both Tim and Dean "conveniently overlooked" in this little bashfest: '''"This restriction of only blocking vandals applies only to editors granted blocking rights after this amendment was posted in December 2007."''' (it's the footnote). And guess when HelpJazz got his rights:
::18:34, 13 September 2007 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) changed group membership for User:HelpJazz from (none) to Block
:So HelpJazz didn't overstep his authority. He is above that restriction. Unlike certain other people who block whenever they feel like it.
:Signed, a guy who will likely get instantly blocked for <s>correcting a sysop</s> <s>supporting HelpJazz</s> Not Minding His Own Business, Opposing The Project and Only Engaging In Liberal Claptrap That Goes Against Our 90/10 Rule. --[[User:SiemerD|SiemerD]] 15:09, 17 November 2008 (EST)
::What you have found is true. HelpJazz did not overstep his authority. Of course a sysop can undo his block if the sysop believes there is a reason to do so, but it should be done with respect, recognizing that we do owe a debt of gratitude to the longterm editors who have been faithful contributors to this project and have a strong track record of helping us both with articles and with administrative tasks. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:29, 17 November 2008 (EST)

HelpJazz, I think it's important to point out that no one is saying that TK's statement was appropriate; you are correct in being concerned. The only thing being questioned is the block itself. During different times when he was on this site, TK has mixed obstinate gruffness with a jovail nature and helping out a number of users -- myself included. I owe much of my knowledge of Conservapedia to TK and so do many others. You wound up stepping in a tender area because there have been blocking wars in the past and it is still a senstive issue. I wouldn't take any personal affront to what has occurred. Your own contributions to this site continue to be valued. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:41, 17 November 2008 (EST)
::: SiemerD seems to be (have been) a kind of prophet:
:::*17:39, 17 November 2008 Bugler (Talk | contribs) blocked SiemerD (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 month (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk: Sole reason for joining: to make trouble)
:::BTW:
:::*10:25, 10 June 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) changed group membership for User:Bugler from (none) to Block, edit and Upload ‎
:::So, while we are discussing these rules: did SiemerD's post require immediate action? Was he a vandal?--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 17:55, 17 November 2008 (EST)

===Response===
There are multiple issues at work here: whether or not I had the right to block TK, and whether or not the block was justified.

It has been clearly shown that, due to a grandfather clause, I was within the rules in blocking an editor for something other than vandalism. (And despite SiemerD's swipe, I don't think Jallen or Tim intentionally neglected to mention the grandfather clause; I didn't know of it myself). However, it is always true that a sysop can undo a block of a regular editor, even if that editor had the rights to make the block

Learn together claims "it's important to point out that no one is saying that TK's statement was appropriate"; this is mostly true ''de juro'' on my talk page. (However I think Ed Poor echoed TK's sentiments on the talk page, thus agreeing that TK's statment was not inappropriate; but nobody on this talk page ''de juro'' stated that TK's actions were ok). However, anyone involved ''de facto'' agreed that TK's actions were ok, by not exercising their own authority to reblock him. Had anyone placed the offence of his statement above their reticence of blocking a well-connected user, they would have had no problem reblocking him, or at least publicly asking if he should have been reblocked. As it is, he was not blocked, and no one (again, except Ed Poor, who seems to have endorsed TK's statement) made a statement either way as to whether it was a blocking offense.

Perhaps I should explain the history of this case (most if not all relevant proof can be found at [[template talk:liberalism]]):
*BrianCo created the template in February
*In April, TK started adding the template in a manner inconsistant with other templates of it's type
*It was discussed in April, and decided that TK's use of the template was wrong
*TK leaves for ~7 months
*When TK returns, he almost immediately continues his previous actions
*When pointed to the April discussion, he claims that he was the one who wanted the template, therefore he could use it however he wanted (this argument was not brought up in April)
*Other users (really, just me) tried to argue that it doesn't matter that TK created the template, but eventually gave in to the futillity of the argument, and started adding the template to pages based on the fact that TK, as creator of the template, dictated its use
*BrianCo, the person who actually built the template, points out that TK could not have asked for the template, since he had not edited for a month before or after the template was created.
*TK, out of left field and out of arguments, accuses BrianCo of being a sock, and questions the validity of a motorcycle accident which could have taken BrianCo's life.

Is such a response approprite or proportionate? Is this how we are to treat our fellow editors? Bugler calls respected editors maggots and long-time sysops idiots, and nobody cares. But there's a mile difference between calling someone an idiot and taking a jovial attitude on such a serious issue. What if TK had said "ha ha ha, yeah right like I believe you were raped" or "say, how's your murdered wife doing these days?" or "hey, sorry to hear about the miscarriage, good thing the kid never existed!" I can't, in good Christian conscience, allow someone to run around saying such hurtful, unwarranted, unproven and unChristian statements. Unlike the many users and sysops who know of and are ignoring this argument, I can't sit on the fence. This is a serious enough issue that I jumped off with both feet. And I hope that one day there is an issue strong enough to move others to take a stand as well, but I'm afraid to see what that issue is, when this issue is not it.

[[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:36, 18 November 2008 (EST)

PS: Since this whole discussion is about properly enforcing the rules, I think it should be mentioned that it's very clear that they are only being enforced "fairly" when it is in the interest of the ruling sysop. As BRichtigen pointed out, Bugler does not have the authority to block SiemerD for 90/10 (and clearly, a 1 edit 90/10 is ludicrous anyway; are we to block editors who use the [[sandbox]] before they make real edits? I should think not) and yet nobody has decided to unblock SiemerD or punish Bugler. In fact, Bugler is the winner in this case: he won the block, and he was able to make racist remarks about ''two'' senior sysops without real penalty; proving again to himself (and everyone watching) that he clearly can do whatever he wants to, without recourse.

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-11-18T18:49:56Z

HelpJazz: /* Suggestion for comprimise */

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]
[[/archive3|3]]
[[/archive4|4]]
[[/archive5|5]]

== Lenin Poster ==

The statement about the Lenin-like poster is informative. We don't censor informative information here. Let the reader decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 10 November 2008 (EST)
:Andy, did you happen to take a look at the reference? The article claims that "Obama also ''revealed'' his ''deep Marxist/Leninist roots''" and that "clear parallels between the poster design and Lenin's earlier poster was ''obviously a deliberate yet hidden hint'' to his European, socialistic audience as to his political roots and beliefs" (emphasis mine). The citation, which was a blog, by the way, and not in any way a trustworthy source of informative information, gives no evidence to back up these statements. It shows a poster of Lenin and a poster of Obama, both of which show profiles of the figures. Assuming these pictures weren't entirely made up, do you really think that this slight similarity is Obama's way of confessing closet Marxism? Not to mention the fact that Obama likely didn't make the posters anyway -- maybe we should accuse his (very expensive!!) marketing designer of being a Marxist/Leninist. 15:45, 11 November 2008 (EST)

== Obama and beer ==

There are several stories (with photos) of Obama drinking beer, which as an intoxicant is banned by Muslim sharia. <ref> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2008/05/06/20/125-6web-Obama_Beer-minor.standalone.prod_affiliate.91.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/36055.html&h=325&w=485&sz=47&hl=en&start=28&um=1&usg=__ShpWdieNIwhr4Rp3jHtLe7U9MB8=&tbnid=Se90xFLBo6rNQM:&tbnh=86&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bdrinks%26start%3D18%26ndsp%3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN </ref> <ref> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w18/img.211156_t.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w18/img.211156.html&h=332&w=400&sz=16&hl=en&start=15&um=1&usg=__Yubc0nmus36Cf4Rrf7BL7-33-0g=&tbnid=xuWGKQ1Sl8_bQM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bbeer%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DG</ref> No rational person can say that a practicing Muslim wouldn't violate the law in such a blatant, repeated manner. Another strike against the goofy Muslim charge. And remember, we don't censor here. Godspeed. [[User:Thecount|Thecount]] 12:52, 11 November 2008 (EST)

: I think many American Muslims drink beer. Nice try, though.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:57, 11 November 2008 (EST)

::And how many "dangerous" American Muslims are there that have loose enough morals to blatantly disrespect their own religious law, but are still a threat to Americans? (Of course this is all granted that he IS a secret Muslim, which I have given up trying to discuss) So I see nothing wrong if Obama turns out to be a secret Muslim. Nice try, though. [[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 23:54, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::He also smokes cigarettes, to complete his subterfuge. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:42, 11 November 2008 (EST)

== Hussein reference ==

It's factual and it's informative. If there is reasoned basis for deleting it, let's see it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 11 November 2008 (EST)

: Again, no reason has been given for deleting the Hussein reference, and there is none.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:49, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:: Andy, this is false. Reasons have been given on this talk page numerous times before. I just had a quick look, and found reasons being given in all archives except the first, as well as other places on this talk page. So you are wrong to say that no reason has been given, and wrong to say that there is no reason. And, as I have pointed out in the edit comments, five senior administrators have said that they disagree with it being there. Is your view on this somehow superior to those five put together? Do you want this to be a collaborative encyclopaedia or your blog? The former demands that you not impose your opinion regardless of who is disagreeing. Imposing your opinion regardless suggests that this is your blog. I know you don't consider it to be the latter, but that's the way it's looking. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:21, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::Not a blog but an encylopedia. If it were a blog, your opinion would carry as much weight as anyone else's. Let's put this one in [[Conservapedia:Debate Topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:24, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:::: If it were a blog, the blog owner's opinion would carry the most weight. Almost all blogs are the opinions of an ''individual'', not a group of people. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::: Philip, the truth is not dependent on consensus, and 5 out of several dozen is not a consensus anyway. Give your best reason for deleting this information here. Since the beginning we have had a policy not to delete factual, informative material, particularly when it is liberal ideology that motivates the demand for censorship of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:29, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:::: I said five of the ''senior'' administrators, which numbers about eleven. So that's five out of eleven, not dozens. Further, that's five against and one (yourself) for, as the remainder have not offered an opinion that I'm aware of. (One perhaps did support you, but because they wanted to support you, not because they considered it a valid argument.)
:::: My reason is relevance, not (primarily) accuracy. I'm not disputing that his middle name is Hussein. The claim that "most Christians would not retain" their (former/Muslim/Arabic?; it's not clear) name is not supported by the references, and even if it is true, means little in individual cases. That is, even if 99% changed their name, Obama not changing his name might mean no more than him being in the other 1%.
:::: And this is just one of the points in that section. The entire argument that Obama is a Muslim is built on very circumstantial evidence, selective evidence, and logical fallacy, and is rejected by other conservatives.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::: Philip, it obviously is relevant, which you say is your primary objection. We don't censor information here based on liberal dislike for it. Wikipedia does that. We provide the information and let the reader decide. If some readers want to conclude that someone with a Muslim name is actually a Christian, even though less than 1% of those raised as Muslims convert, so be it. We're not going to censor this factual information.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:37, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: "''...it obviously is relevant...''": Because ''you'' say so? If it was so "obvious", then you wouldn't have five senior administrators disagreeing with you. No, it's not obviously relevant at all, and you've not demonstrated the relevance.
::::::: "''We don't censor information here based on liberal dislike for it. Wikipedia does that.''": Given that I and the other senior administrators are not "liberals", and the rejection is based on relevance, not "dislike", why are you introducing red herrings like this? Has your argument got no more substance than irrelevancies like that?
::::::: "'' We provide the information and let the reader decide.''": Only if it's relevant. Otherwise we are just introducing padding for readers to wade through and discourage them getting to the relevant stuff.
::::::: "''We're not going to censor this factual information.''": It is not censorship to remove irrelevant information, and I'd appreciate you not implying that I'm trying to censor anything.
::::::: In summary, you have failed to produce any reasons substance as to why it should be retained.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:26, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Exactly. The point of Conservapedia is ''not'' to censor information, but to leave it to our readers to decide. The MSM has tried to push this under the rug, so the least we can do is offer these arguments to the intelligent public. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 11:27, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: The problem is that these points are fallacious and lead to a conclusion based on specious arguments. That is neither "trustworthy" nor encyclopedic. Obama may not be your brand of xian, but he's certianly no brand of muslim. Your inability to accept that this is incorrect despite repeated arguments wherein you have shown nothing but fallacious arguments drawing poor conclusions hurts the credibility of all Conservapedia. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 11:49, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:Did anyone notice how ASchlafly posited the question at or near closing time Tuesday night and declared that he recieved no answer at or near opening time on Wednesday? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:49, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Keep the reference, but 2 examples of people having changed their names for religious reasons does not mean "most" people would change their names as stated in the article. A good reference on this topic would list a percentage (presumably greater than 50%) of people who have switched religions also changing their names.
::I am sure we could come up with a very long list, but this article would not be the place for it. A sample of a couple of names to illustrate the point being made is surely adequate for all except those who wish to undermine the accuracy of the piece. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)

==Debate On Obama's Religion==

The debate is continuing at [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?‎]] It may be best to continue arguing the point there with the aim of reaching a conclusion which can then be utilised in the article, and leave this talk page for discussing other improvements. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 22:22, 11 November 2008 (EST)
:Get the section about him being a "Muslim" there have already been to debates concluding that this should be removed. http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F-[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 00:09, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Reference ==

<references/>

Get the section about him being a "Muslim" there have already been to debates concluding that this should be removed. http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F-[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 00:08, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action? Untrue. ==

I am no fan of Obama. I do plan on respectfully opposing him via various channels on the internet. However, I believe I should state my opposition to this sentence of the article: "He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action."

I have not read the rest of the article because I believed months ago and for good reasons that Obama was going to win this election. For example, the unpopular war and poor economy that was partly caused by a guns and lots of butter spending strategy (Bush should have learned from LBJ committing us to a war and the Great Society programs at the same time). I also thought that it would have been easy for the Republicans to win 12 years in a row given the low quality of the Democratic party. I think the Republicans snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory. I also think Americans have too much debt (last time I heard the average American had lots of credit card debt). One of the reasons for the great depression is that American's had too much debt at the time. I think Bush's call for Americans to do to do more shopping mall spending was a joke. If anything, Americans need to increase their skills to be more productive (The libraries are open but you might have to watch less TV. Last time I checked the average American watches 3 hours of television a day) and work harder to pay off their debt. American's are going to get out of the hole by increasing their productivity. It seems as if Bush did not want to learn from economic history and was only looking out for short term fixes. Well sooner or later, common sense says you have to pay the piper.

Getting back to Obama, obviously, Obama's marital success in terms of not getting divorced compared to Ronald Reagan is not the result of affirmative action. I am sure I could come up with others. I have not read the article for the most part because this sentence turned me off to the whole article. Judging from the ""He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action." sentence, I believe a lot of time is probably being spent to defend an article rather than improve it where obvious improvements could be made. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 06:04, 12 November 2008 (EST)

: Staying married is laudable but in this context it would not be considered a "clear personal achievement." If you would like to add a footnote exception to the remark along the lines of, "he has been married for x years," I'm not opposed but I would expect that to caveat to seem off-topic, or even sarcastic, for most readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:52, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::One CP writer told me he equates divorce with adultery, and he accused Reagan of adultery on this basis. Is this the consensus view of Conservatives? Or just his own idea? Or what?

::We ought to be clear on the standards by which we judge public figures. And consistent, too. I mean, which is worse, committing actual adultery (JFK, Clinton) or getting divorced and then remarrying? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:06, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::: Biblically, divorce is not adultery. However, divorce is wrong unless the spouse has been unfaithful. Remarriage after a legitimate divorce is okay. The question is whether remarriage after a wrong divorce is okay. Many believe, I think that although the act of divorce may be wrong, that is a forgivable sin like any other sin, and remarriage is not a further sin. And I'd tend to agree that committing "actual" adultery is worse than divorce and remarriage. However, the point that Conservative was raising was not between those two cases, but between divorce and remarriage compared to marriage without divorce.
::: I'm not convinced that Obama's marriage does not constitute a "clear personal achievement". Given the divorce rate these days, especially among prominent people, I would think that it ''was'' a clear personal achievement. In fact I'd consider staying marriage a "clear personal achievement" for anybody these days, given all the pressures on marriage, including the peer pressure that divorce is okay.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:35, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::::I rarely disagree with you, Philip, as I find your comments to be some of the more considered on this board, but here I would have to disagree. Jesus makes it quite clear that divorce *is* adultery, not *like* adultery. More then any other text, especially OT text, I take Jesus's words to heart. Mark 10
::::2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
::::3 "What did Moses command you?" he replied.
::::4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."
::::5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied.
::::6 "But at the beginning of creation God `made them male and female.'
::::7 `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,
::::8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one.
::::9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
::::10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this.
::::11 He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.
::::12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 09:41, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::::: I didn't say that divorce is "like" adultery. I said that it's ''not'' adultery. And the evidence you've offered to refute that doesn't refute that. The Bible says that someone who divorces ''and remarries'' commits adultery, not that someone who ''divorces'' commits adultery. You can't have adultery without sexual intercourse, which would be taken as given with someone remarrying, but not a given with someone just divorcing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:33, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== Obama spiruality interview ==
http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/11/obamas-interview-with-cathleen.html a interview from a pretty religous website about Obama. Should it be mentioned? Or since it kinda contradicts abit of the article should it be ommitted? --[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:06, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:What one might say in an interview really means very little, Vmember, particularly if one is seeking to achieve a position by hiding one's essential nature or beliefs. So really what he says when seeking to impress is irrelevant. It is what he does and has done, and what he says in unguarded moments, that matters. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:16, 12 November 2008 (EST)
*um then shouldn't it atleast be mentioned somewhere in the article about this interview maybe as a response to questions about his faith section? And why is him maybe being a muslim all the way at the top of the article? Shouldn't be be somewhere towards the middle? I've never seen in all my time part of a article pushed into the intro section. Also the article contradicts itself by stating that Obama is most likely a muslim while at the same time pointing at that he was a member of a radical Christian church. That doesn't make any sense. You can't have it both ways.--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:25, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::You can if you're a sleeper for radical Islam. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:27, 12 November 2008 (EST)
**Wait you seriously think that? Hmm fringe ideas and theories on any subject is detrimental to a discussion let alone a encyclopedia. It's dangerous thinking like that is why us conservatives lost the election and alienated so many moderates and weak liberals. Would there be any objection if I were to move the muslim part to the middle and add a section with his response to questions of his faith?--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:34, 12 November 2008 (EST)
***Does this look better? http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Help:Practice_Page&oldid=555527 Hmm I kinda think instead of giving facts supporting the theory Obama is a muslim editors are trying to push it off as straight fact even though theres been evidence against it. Isn't that a tactic only liberals use and a form of deceit?--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:45, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Poster ==

Don't delete the insight about the poster. I learned from the insight, and I'm sure others have also. We don't censor here. We let the readers decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:39, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:I already explained (above) why the "insight" is not actually an insight, is not supported by the source, and is likely false. Believe me, I would love it if Obama really did intentionally model his posters after those of Lenin in a subliminal message to Europeans, but there's simply no evidence of that.

:You reverted both of my edits. Do you have problems with both of them, or just the first one? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:42, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:: Sorry, I just have a problem with the deletion of the poster edit. Your other edit looked fine, but it came right after the controversial one and there was no easy way to separate the too.

:: The similarities between Obama's poster and the famous Lenin image is too obvious for words. We don't need a citation for observing, for example, that 2+2=4. If a reader wants to reject the obvious similarity between the images, then the reader is welcome to do so. Censorship is not a preferred approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:52, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::I'm not denying that they are similar, I'm denying that their similarity "[reveals] his deep Marxist/Leninist roots" and "was obviously a deliberate yet hidden hint to his European, socialistic audience as to his political roots and belief". Can I change the text to reflect that, while the two posters are similar, there's no way to know that it's a confession? (I pointed out before that if anyone is imitating Lenin here, it's probably the over-priced poster designer). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:59, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::: I'm fine with rewording, as long as it doesn't inject liberal spin or make it look like Obama didn't approve it with the similarity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:12, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::::I'll try my best. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:40, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Your revised wording is great. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:05, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:Is anyone else put off by the fact that the Germans really hated Lennin? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:25, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Fun poster [http://img.skitch.com/20080723-pbt7dkk5ksgbystrri5px6s9fr.jpg] --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:44, 14 November 2008 (EST) The imagery is more common that you might expect. Nothing new under the sun as they say --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:44, 14 November 2008 (EST)

==Disgusted==

Mr Schlafly this page is absolutely disgusting. I am totally against Obama as you know, this is the most sorry excuse for an encyclopedia entry I have ever seen. We should leave this page as information about him as a individual, not about why we hate him and you should too. 90% of the page is opinion, and is totally innapropriate. I suggest making it into two pages. One about Obama with just simple facts about him and his backround, and you can make another about everything we hate about him. Pages like this are why we are losing our trustworthyness.
Thanks, --[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]

:Here here. At times I find this article amusing as an ironic hate piece, but at best it degrades this site and conservatives in general. Liberal or conservative, poor logic is poor logic. Because Obama and Lenin each had monochromatic posters featuring a pose directed toward the right it is evidence of Marxist intentions. Because Obama said the words "my muslim faith", irregardless of any context, it used as evidence of being a muslim. I don't even know what to say about the mind control thing, it's really amazing to me because as a religious person it reminds of the feelings I had when I discovered the truth of Jesus Christ: "a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany" [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 19:31, 13 November 2008 (EST)

==Disgusted Conservative too==

{{hide|- I did not vote for Senator Obama for political reasons, but I believe he is a good man; this article is simple character assassination; you do not go into his views and show how those are disagreeable (his views on abortion, and his want to make a hasty withdrawal from Iraq) and instead you simply accuse him of being a Muslim, and anti-American etc. also a blog is not a credible source; a blog is someone's opinion. Anyway the accusations levied upon him are for the most part completely inaccurate. He was born in The United States, he wrote his autobiography, he is not a Muslim, he is not anti-American. Please keep the disagreements political.}}{{unsigned|Rpond}}

I don't know who wrote this, but it shouldn't have been deleted. --[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]

: The odds are less than 1% that "Rpond's" posting is genuine, in light of his misspelling of "conservative" and his other rants. It is appropriate to delete insincere or deceptive postings.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:53, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:: It is an interesting experience living life each day getting verbally attacked for being a conservative then coming here and getting persecuted (justified edits to factual and encyclopedic wording) for being a liberal. You seem to be very fond of the less than 1% statistic, and have used it many times in many places, but I've never seen any solid reasoning or studies behind it (although in this case your gut instinct does seem to be credited implicitly) I think perhaps you live in a highly conservative eco chamber and aren't getting out enough to notice how little resonance this sort of thing has out in the real world. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 18:58, 13 November 2008 (EST)
::: Way to show your liberal stripes, BrendanW. Ad hominem attacks are not appreciated here, so please keep it civil. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 19:01, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Would that be an ad hominem attack like calling someone a liberal? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:24, 13 November 2008 (EST)

::::: Are you insulted by being described as a "liberal"? Or are you angry that you're not fooling anyone?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:39, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Either Way its still an Ad Hominem. However I am a little "l" libertarian, and strict constitutionalist (excluding the racist portions that is) which makes me pleanty conservative, I'm also an objectivist in the Ayn Rand model, highly capitalistic and against socialism. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 09:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)

==Cool it==

I've protected this page; only admins can edit it for the moment. Many of us have strong feelings, and we have used this page to express them.

But I would hope that we all confine our comments here to specific suggestions on how to improve the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:45, 13 November 2008 (EST)

== Did you read that reference? ==

The claim is that OBama might be a Muslim and that he might swear in on a koran. The reference -ref- Obama hoped to become President when he was sworn in as U.S. Senator in 2004, and did not use a Koran at that time. Subsequently Democratic House member Keith Ellison established the precedent for being sworn in using the Koran, and there is no guarantee that Obama would not do likewise if sworn in as President. [http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_obama.html FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, ''Sliming Obama'', January 10, 2008, retrieved on 10/16/2008]-/ref- is about how Obamma is not a Muslim and did not use the Koran to be sworn in as a senator. I simply do not see how it belongs. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Welcome to Conservapedia. Truth is relative to Andy. -[[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 15:04, 15 November 2008 (EST)

== Code name ==

The article plainly says that Obama did have a role in picking it. Hence the reversion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:01, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:My article clearly says that the White House Communications Agency chose the name for him. Hence the original edit.
:I tried to find a source directly fromt he Secret Service or the White House Communications Agency, but neither of their search functions were working. I'll keep looking. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:06, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::"President-Elect Barack Obama – 'Renegade' – had a say in choosing the code name that his guards use when they are whispering into their microphones." From the article cited on our Main Page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:11, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:::''These not-so-secret names are chosen by officials at the White House Communications Agency, which was not inclined to comment on the selection process. In a previous news report, an agency spokesman said the names are assigned by "sheer whim."'' -- From my (stateside) source. You can see why I was confused.
:::I did further research (hence my half-hour long absence) According to [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/11/13/pssst_renegade_and_renaissance_are_in_the_house/ this] source, the WHCA chooses a list of names, and the President decides which one he likes best. So we were both right! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:40, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::::Everybody wins! Yay! -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 22:41, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== For the love of God!! ==
HE IS NOT A MUSLIM. I donated 500$ to support McCain and voted for him but this beyond retarded. Please remove that info, because right now nobody in their right mind can take this seriously. Also take out the Koran thing he used the bible in the senate. [[User:Nig89|Nig89]] 20:17, 15 November 2008 (EST)

: Your comment is long on your dubious assertion of a credential, but short on substance. Give us your reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:28, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Why does Obama's religion matter so much? 18:57, 15 November 2008 {{unsigned|JamesZ}}

: Good question. I hope your fellow liberals will answer it for you. They are the ones having unexplained hysteria about a simple observation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 15 November 2008 (EST)

::The word you are looking for is "accusation" not "observation". An observation would be stating that he has some traits similar to Muslims. An accusation is claiming that he is a Muslim, regardless of his own protests. On the accusation note, great job assuming anyone who doesn't believe you is a liberal Aschfly. [[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 00:01, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== Was Barack Obama truly raised a Muslim or is he a Muslim? ==

Previously I wrote the following: Here is a well written and scholarly piece that examines Obama's religious views and it was written by the National Clergy Council: http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm The evidence does not support Obama being a muslim. The evidence also does not support Obama embracing biblical Christianity.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 09:19, 10 November 2008 (EST) Mr. Schlafly wrote the following: " I skimmed it and don't see where it concludes that Obama is not a Muslim. The article fails to recognize that less than 1% of people raised Muslim (as Obama was) ever leave the religion. The article says Obama is a member of a Christian church, but he left that many months ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:24, 10 November 2008 (EST)"

Here is my response to Mr. Schlafly's reply to my previous post on the Obama/Muslim issue:

I am not a fan of "Liberal Christianity" as I believe it often fails to fall into the realm of biblical/orthodox Christianity and when it does so it is not Christianity at all. With that being said, the article does give compelling evidence that Obama is a member of the camp of "liberal Christianity" and not biblical Christianity. If Obama is a "liberal Christian" he is not a Muslim. There are two logical fallacies called the [http://www.pnl-nlp.org/download/propaganda/page2.htm#sloth slothful inductive fallacy] and [http://www.goodart.org/exclus.htm fallacy of exclusion] whereby "Relevant evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement that all relevant information be included is called the "principle of total evidence"."[http://www.goodart.org/exclus.htm] '''Andy, I believe you are committing these two logical fallacies as can be seen by the material in the above cited work by the National Clergy Council. I would strongly suggest not skimming the material as it gives compelling evidence that Obama is a "liberal Christian" and therefore not a Muslim.'''

'''Next, was Obama truly raised a Muslim and therefore does the less than 1% of people raised Muslim ever leave the religion statistic apply. I don't think a compelling case can be made for the 1% argument being applied to Obama. I cite the following:
'''

"Barack Hussein Obama was born in 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, to a Kenyan Muslim father of the same name and an American secular humanist mother named Ann Dunham. While Obama’s father was raised in Islamic culture, he had become a functional atheist by the time he reached college. Despite his parents’ lack of religion, young Obama received his early education in both Catholic and Muslim schools.

Obama’s parents divorced when he was only two years old. Henceforth, the senior Obama was “almost entirely absent”[i] from his son’s life. Four years later, Ann Dunham relocated to Indonesia with her son to join her new husband Lolo Soetoro. A daughter, Maya, was born to the couple before their divorce. She returned to Hawaii where she went on to earn her MA in anthropology from the University of Hawaii. In his first book, Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama wrote of his mother, “She was a lonely witness for secular humanism, a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position paper liberalism.”[ii]

Obama’s mother was a huge influence in his life. In an interview with Oprah Winfrey in October 2006, he said, “My mother—when I think about the values I hold most dear, they came from her.”[iii] In a speech given at a Moms Rising event in 2006, he said, “Everything that I think is good about me, I got from her.”[http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm]

'''I will end this post by respectfully asking Mr. Schlafly a few reasonable questions''':

1. How many Muslim men are you aware of that go to a "liberal Christian church" for 20 years, get married in a "liberal Christian' church, and have their children baptized in a "liberal Christian" church, and call a Reverend of "liberal Christianity "my pastor" while living in a relatively free and democratic country like the United States? I ask this question because it appears as if all these apply to Obama.[http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/04/29/2008-04-29_obama_expresses_outrage_over_former_past.html][http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58954][http://volokh.com/posts/1209531850.shtml] Accordingly, '''How many similar historical examples can you give of Muslim men who did these type of things when they lived in a relatively free and democratic society like the United States?
'''

2. According to the press, Obama has visited churches and synagogues but has not visited a mosque while running for president.[http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/25/opinion/edcohen.php] Can you show me a single instance of Obama ever visiting a mosque while he has been an adult?

3. '''Is the case for Obama being a "liberal Christian" stronger or is the case of Obama being a Muslim stronger when the principle of total evidence being weighed is applied?''' If you state the case is stronger for Obama being a Muslim, please defend your position by truly negating the strong evidence that he is a member of "liberal Christianity" and giving compelling evidence that he is a Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 10:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:I thought the two of you might enjoy reading [http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/11/obamas-interview-with-cathleen.html this 2004 interview with Obama], where he discusses his faith, his baptism, and so forth. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 14:04, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::Both of you miss the point. It's not what Obama '''says''' - that has no relevance whatsoever. It's what he '''is''' and what he '''will do'''. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::: If what he ''says'' has no relevance, why is one of the supposed evidences for him being a Muslim something he ''said'' (the bit about "my Muslim faith")? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::::Bugler, I know I mentioned what Obama did and said which certainly has bearing on what Obama "is". Therefore, you did not in any way provide a counter argument. I also suggest you answer the reasonable questions I posed to Mr. Schlafly. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:16, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Conservative, the roots of Al Quaeda lie in the 1940s and 50s, if not before; radical terroristic Islamic fundamentalism is not a recent phenomenon. Much of its mindset and organisational apperatus was borrowed from Leninist Communism: the notion of cell, of enrtyism, of deep penetration. Now, how difficult is it to imagine that an intelligent child, of American parentage, schooled in the Islamic environment of 1960s Indonesia and vulnerable to the influences swirling around in that environment, might be schooled and indoctrinated as the sleeper to end all sleepers, given extreme dispensations to protect his cover, allowed to eat pork, drink alcohol, marry out, attend and indeed profess to be a Christian, even to publicly renounce (on the face of it) the Islamic faith? Surely the prize would merit the game. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:24, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::So you're honestly speculating that Obama might be a member of Al Qaeda, and we're expected to believe that you're ''not'' a parodist? Riiiiiiight. [[User:MarkB|MarkB]] 09:09, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::Oh, that old tune yet again. Can't you Liberals find a less boring stick to beat me with? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:17, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Oh, don't get me wrong, I think you're doing a great job. Keep it up. [[User:MarkB|MarkB]] 09:22, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Bugler, in light of the evidence I gave above concerning Obama's supposedly being raised a Muslim '''and the lack of evidence to support it''' plus the evidence I gave above to support Obama being a member of "liberal Christianity" , your post is at best a Hail Mary pass. Secondly, I noticed you did not answer my questions or give any solid historical parallels for your far fetched speculation. If you could enlighten me where the Leninists were able to install a President of a Western country that had been a sleeper for two decades I would certainly be indebted to you if you could give it. But I would add, since you never gave any compelling evidence he was raised a Muslim, this Leninist parallel speculation is a non starter anyways. Thirdly, you refer to "the prize". What prize? If you going to embrace conjecture that is contra evidence certainly you should tell your audience what the supposed prize is supposedly going to be. Should I fear I am imminently going to be put under Sharia law? Lastly, I am not stating your a parodist, but I certainly believe it is more likely that you are a parodist than it is likely that Obama is a Muslim. Your somewhat eloquent but empty defense of the indefensible proposition that Obama is likely a Muslim, certainly provides a reasonable reader to suspect you are a parodist. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:41, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::I've not heard the term 'hail Mary pass' before, despite being a good Catholic boy: please enlighten! ''If you could enlighten me where the Leninists were able to install a President of a Western country that had been a sleeper for two decades'' Not a president, but the private secretary of the West German Chancellor Willy Brandt was a Communist plant: how many were undetected? Certainly therer remain suspicions about the 1960s/70s UK Prime Minister Harold Wilson. ''What prize?'' Surely that is obvious. As to the objections you raise, I think it unlikely that he will use the ceremony on January 20 to declare a United states Caliphate. However, the prospect of an Islamic radical sleeper in the Oval Office raises any number of possibilities. And finally: your open suggestion that I am a parodist is welcome: a refreshing change from others here who smear me by innuendo without your honesty and openness. I assure you in all sincerity that I act with the best interests of God, Conservapedia, Freedom and Democracy always at heart. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:58, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Bugler, [http://www.wisegeek.com/in-football-what-is-a-hail-mary.htm Hail Mary pass]. Secondly, your Willy Brandt attempted historical parallel falls flat. I did a quick search on the internet and this is what CNN states about Brandt: "As a teen-ager Brandt first joined the Socialist Party of Germany (SPD) in 1930, but one year later switched to a more radical spin-off, the SAP."[http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/kbank/profiles/brandt/] Brandt apparently was a socialist early on (teenager to be precise), but you have not give a compelling argument that Obama was raised as a Muslim and given the information I gave above regarding there being a lack of evidence for this proposition and evidence against it, your Leninism supposed historical parallel is still a non starter. You are certainly not applying the principle of using the total evidence. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:21, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Henry Wallace, FDR's Vice President, was a "sleeper" communist and replaced by FDR for that reason. Alger Hiss, a top aide to presidents, was a proven "sleeper" communist. A big lie is often easier to pull off than a little lie.

What's remarkable is how strenuously people deny that Obama is a Muslim. His fathers (real and stepfather) were Muslims. There's no denying that Obama was raised a Muslim, and his conduct as an adult underscores that he, like 99% of others raises as Muslims, did not leave that religion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:02, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:: What's remarkable is how strenuously you claim that Obama is a Muslim without any evidence of substance, and in opposition to other conservatives, including five of your own senior administrators, who disagree with you, despite being opposed to Obama. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:An interesting question is ''why'' people try so hard to deny it to ''themselves'' when the evidence is so clearly there. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 20:51, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::Andy, Wallace appears to have had been a one time Republican who later had openly leftist views. [http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USARwallace.htm] Wallace cannot be counted as a long time "sleeper agent" who was a very high ranking public official through infiltration. Secondly, Alger Hiss never achieved a high ranking government official status like a president, Vice President, Secretary of State, etc.[http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/who.html] I do think that when someone goes for a very important government position, such as a President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, a higher degree of scrutiny often occurs. For this reason, I believe you are having trouble coming up with a historical instance of a very high ranked official in the Western World being a sleeper agent. Furthermore, by the time Hiss was charged who had been two years out of government and was working for the Carnegie Foundation. I believe it is invalid to use Hiss as an example of an ambitious sleeper agent who had gotten to the top of government when he had resigned from government 2 years before he was charged. Next, I do think my questions in my previous post were quite reasonable that you left unanswered. Also, and this is really at the heart of the issue, you never really countered this information which makes the idea of Obama being a sleeper agent a non-starter because it appears as if he was never truly raised a Muslim:

"Barack Hussein Obama was born in 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, to a Kenyan Muslim father of the same name and an American secular humanist mother named Ann Dunham. While Obama’s father was raised in Islamic culture, he had become a functional atheist by the time he reached college. Despite his parents’ lack of religion, young Obama received his early education in both Catholic and Muslim schools.

Obama’s parents divorced when he was only two years old. Henceforth, the senior Obama was “almost entirely absent”[i] from his son’s life. Four years later, Ann Dunham relocated to Indonesia with her son to join her new husband Lolo Soetoro. A daughter, Maya, was born to the couple before their divorce. She returned to Hawaii where she went on to earn her MA in anthropology from the University of Hawaii. In his first book, Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama wrote of his mother, “She was a lonely witness for '''secular humanism''', a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position paper liberalism.”[ii]

Obama’s mother was a huge influence in his life. In an interview with Oprah Winfrey in October 2006, he said, “My mother—when I think about the values I hold most dear, they came from her.”[iii] In a speech given at a Moms Rising event in 2006, he said, “Everything that I think is good about me, I got from her.”[http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:57, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: In response to your indented general comment above, there's nothing magical or divine about presidential politics that ensures honesty. Woodrow Wilson was paralyzed by a stroke for more than a year while president, and the public did not know. Your argument that it is impossible to keep such things from the public is simply wrong. Wallace was not widely known to be a communist or else Roosevelt would never have been elected with Wallace on the ticket. Roosevelt finally figured it out (or was tipped off), and without explanation replaced Wallace. The leftists were dumbfounded by this move, as they were on the verge of making Wallace president when Roosevelt died. Oh, and the sickness of Roosevelt was also kept from the public. He died from his illness within a mere weeks of becoming president for the fourth time. The public didn't expect that either.

: In response to your specific questions, you're quoting self-serving and implausible statements. Obama was raised by a Muslim stepfather. He learned to view the Muslim call to prayer as the most beautiful thing in the word. There is no real indication any change by Obama, and his keeping of the name "Hussein" illustrates that he did not have a rare adult conversion from Muslim to Christianity. All indications are that such conversion was politically motivated to persuade the public, and one might say that was obviously successful with some! But I doubt Obama will continue his charade indefinitely. Watch for aid to impose Islam on more foreign countries, and watch for inclusion of the Koran at official ceremonies, if not on Jan. 20th itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:: No, Andy, it is ''you'' who is "quoting self-serving and implausible statements". Even five of your own senior administrators disagree with you, but, like Wikipedia, you persist with imposing your own view on this article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
Andy, I don't think you can give me a single piece of evidence of Obama's mother being a Muslim and given there is evidence against this matter that is not surprising. It also appears as if Obama has a great influence in his life which is not surprising since she was his biological mother. In addition, Obama appeared to have received some Catholic education when he was young. Therefore, your supposed case that Obama was raised a Muslim is certainly not built on a bedrock of solid evidence. Accordingly, the Obama article should not state that Obama is likely a Muslim. Next, I never stated that it is impossible for someone to get to a top political office as a sleeper agent but merely improbable and historical determinations should be reached probabilistically. Also, while it may have not been known that Wallace was a communist (if indeed he was a communist which is a matter I have not investigated but which could certainly be true), there does appear to be indications that he had openly strong leftist views for even the Democrats.[http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USARwallace.htm] Therefore, you historical precedent argument in this case is certainly not a stronger one in terms of Wallace being a "sleeper agent". It does not sound plausible to me that a Communist sleeper agent would have openly strong leftist views that even the Democrats found distasteful. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:34, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: In Muslim families, like the one Obama was raised in, the father dictates the religious upbringing of the boys. Please learn more about the Muslim traditions. With so little awareness of it by Christians, it's no wonder Islam is trouncing Christianity around the world.

: Alger Hiss was later proved to be a communist and read up on how he was the TOP adviser to FDR at the key WWII conference carving up Europe. Not only was he a sleeper communist agent, but the liberals denied it for decades even after Hiss was convicted in court. Only in the last few years did one of his co-agents admit the truth. Please learn about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:43, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::: Islam is "trouncing" Christianity? In what way? Greater population growth, perhaps, but that's not relevant here. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:::Andy, have you made the case that Obama's stepfather was a staunch Muslim? I know you have not because it appears as if Obama attended a Catholic school when he was young. Therefore, you still not have made the case that Obama was raised a Muslim. Next, Hiss may have been a top advisor at one point in his life, however, an advisor is not a very top government official (President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, etc.) who certainly often faces much more scrutiny. Andy, given historical precedence and the greater scrutiny that is often given to people ascending to the very peaks of government power, I do think the case for a sleeper agent rising to the pinnacle of power in a government institution is very tenuous to say the least. I think this principle of sleeper agents not ascending to the pinnacles of large organizations is true of institutions outside of government as well. For example, people when being sarcastic in replying to a yes or no question, will sometimes say, "Is the Pope Jewish?" meaning that the pope is not likely an adherent of Judaism. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:34, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, it appears as if there is strong evidence that Obama attended a Catholic school but there may not be evidence that he attended a school that truly could be called a Muslim school. Please read [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp this article.]

Regardless of whether or not CNN or the AP did their work with diligence, there appears to be no controversy regarding that Obama did in fact attend a Catholic school. Therefore, I still maintain that the claim he was raised a Muslim does not have strong support. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:22, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: Catholic schools welcome Muslim students. They still do. The Muslim students virtually never convert.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:07, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Catholic schools may very welcome Muslim students but what staunchly Muslim father sends his son to a Catholic school? Andy, you still have not jumped over the evidential bar that Osama was raised a Muslim. The so called Muslim school was apparently not strongly Islamic or possibly not even Islamic at all ( [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp read this article.] ) and the stepfather appears to not have had a strong Muslim faith as evidenced by the fact that he sent Obama to a Catholic school. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:56, 16 November 2008 (EST)

In the Unification Church, it is not unusual for parents to send their children to a Catholic grade school. So what if they come home, crossing themselves when they pray? Overall, the education is better there than in public schools, so if they can afford it the practice makes senses. I daresay mainstream Christians likewise don't mind the sectarian differences. Any way out of secular humanism is often fine with them.

It appears likely that as president, Obama will be more sympathetic to Islamic countries in his foreign policy. Maybe he'll even be able to get them to lighten up on their "destruction of Israel" goals, or allow [[religious freedom]] for Christians and Jews. Are [[Turkey]] and [[Indonesia]] good examples of this?

I see good in all religions, and I don't see Islam as irredeemably evil. So what if Obama is or was Muslim? There is [[no religious test for office]], and he can't be impeached for it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:09, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==Another case for Obama being Muslim==
During a campaign rally, two Muslim women in Muslim garb, were removed from prominent camera view. The reason is A) Obama doesn't want his image assoc. with Muslims B) or doesn't like Muslims (we know the opposite is true). Now, he doesn't want images of Muslim assoc with him because he is A) secret Muslim or B) the American people will think he is a Muslim. (Which 27% already do). Did Obama try to hide his Muslim background and is that plan still in progress?--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 17:52, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Are A and B the only choices on why Obama does not want himself associated with Islam? Is a false dilemma being proposed? For example, setting aside whether it was right or wrong which is a whole other discussion, did 9/11 drive up the American public's negative beliefs and/or attitudes regarding Islam? Would the American public look less favorably upon a candidate who received some Muslim religious education (Obama also received Catholic training in his youth. And there is certainly reason to believe that a certain degree of philosophical skepticism was imparted to Obama via his mother). In short, I think the above post fails to use the principle of using the total evidence (see my posts above) plus contains a false dilemma. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:09, 16 November 2008 (EST)

== “Less than 1% Muslims convert” – Prosecutor error? ==

OK, time for something new and I direct this particularly to Aschlafly. There is a logical fallacy called the “Prosecutor’s Error”. It is very subtle but real enough to send innocent people to the execution chamber. In fact, many lawyers and judges don’t understand it. It works like this. Please concentrate: this isn't all that easy.

Let us suppose that it is true that Barack Obama was at one time a Muslim, even if this was at an immature age when he really had no say in his faith. And let us grant that only 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity. The argument which Aschflafly uses time and again is to deduce that that this means that, notionally at least, that there is a 99% chance that Obama is a Muslim.

The fallacy of the argument is that it does not recognize that the IF Obama was in that 99% of Muslims who did not convert, there would be no practicable way he could have run for President. Therefore the chances that he is one of those who DID convert are raised far beyond the mathematically obvious one of 1%.

Let me give you a real-life example. A woman had three children and each expired early in infancy of “cot death”. The prosecutor did his math and advised the court that there was a “one in 70 million” chance of this happening by accident. Therefore, the jury was heavily disposed to assume that she was guilty of the serial murder of her children. But the fallacy of the case is that she was ONLY arrested because of the rareness of the 3 children dying of cot death in the one family. But even if this only happens one in 70 million families, in a large country such as the U.K or U.S.A, and over a period of decades, it is BOUND to occur, purely by accident. If we then tell a courtroom that there is only a 1 in 70 million chance that she is innocent, we are guilty of the “Prosecutor’s Error”. It is tantamount to arresting a man who comes into a lot of money suddenly and is arrested under suspicion of larceny. He explains that he won it on a lottery, but the Prosecutor says he has looked into the “Lottery” business, and there is only a 1 in 20 million chance of winning it, therefore there is only a 1 in 20 million chance the indicted man is telling the truth.

In Obama’s case, once again, EVEN if it is true that only 1% of Muslims convert, AND ALSO true that he was born into the Muslim faith, the fact that his circumstances allowed him to run for the Presidency argues that he was one of those Muslims who DID convert, and thus makes his chances of being a non-Muslim substantially greater that 1%. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:05, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:I understand your math, but your reasoning does not convince me. The lottery example was the most unfortunate attempt.

:Although in any given lottery, the chances may be 1 in 20 million for one person to win - the fact is that '''every''' lottery has a winner.

:The problem with Obama's religion is not so much ''Which is it?'' but, "How shall the electorate now regard its new president elect?" Will Obama be pro-Muslim (because he's Muslim or was raised Muslim)?

:A related question is, "Will Obama be pro-Black because he is black?"

:I get along equally well with black Christians as with white Christians, so this is not an issue for me. I've also found Muslims personally just as honest, reliable and hard-working as Christians. What's all the fuss about? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Awesome article ==
Just wanted to say, finally a good resource about obama. Fantastic research about the muslim piece, it really shows him as the closet muslim like he is. Shame the libs just don't get it !! [[happymoon|happymoon]]

== Great comedy article ==

It's a shame people don't get the jokes. Just wanted to pop in and say keep up the good work! Was referred here by a friend who also got a kick out of this article. [[User:Somebody21|Somebody21]] 11:08, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:Read the article properly before you start calling it a joke. You've been looking at Obama from a left wing viewpoint; try looking at him from a right wing viewpoint. It'll do you good.--[[User:WHurst|WHurst]]

==This will be a hit on stormfront==

America reaches a milestone in his history and all you guys can do is peddle false lies which have been repudiated by just about everyone in the political business. The comment about 'possibly been sworn in by the koran' is not only false, but a terrifying example of what racism and ignorance is capable of. You may not be white nationalists, but your inability to reasonably discuss this man's faith without resorting to the most despicable acts of scaremongering is typical of the tripe we see on racist websites.

Keep this crap up and you'll make sure to keep the black vote away from your party for the forseeable future. [[User:JCharlton|JCharlton]] 17:50, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::Race and religion are two different things. Why do liberals always resort to racism? Maybe its becaus you don't have any real arguments against the issues raised here? This isn't wikipedia, we deal in facts here. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 20:20, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== Reply ==

Don't know where to start. Maybe someone else can explain why they get so enraged at the likelihood that Obama is a Muslim. What's it to someone who (1) is an atheist, (2) is an Australian, (3) is a Christian, or (4) would support him regardless? Frankly, the opposition by some is puzzling.

Regardless, some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here. Perhaps we can all agree that it's worth learning more about what many say has quickly become the world's largest religion, and the strongest religion in Europe today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:49, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:It really shouldn't be that puzzling Andy. They are calling out what they believe to be falsehood. When people made spurious, questionable claims about Bush, how did Conservapedia respond? Did you include the information or remove it? Its the exact same thing. You tried to keep the spurious information out of it. The name "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" implies intellectual honesty, and on this particular aspect most people here (myself included) find this pile of circumstantial evidence to be based on poor conclusions, false arguments, and illogical reasoning to be an absurdity without any solid claims that say he is a Muslim. The burden of proof is on you to -prove- that he is, not provide a loaded mountain of evidence that is obviously taylored to imply that he is with no proof whatsoever other than bad logic. I can't believe this topic is still going. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 22:17, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:: There is nothing "spurious" about it, and you lose credibility with your baseless claims of falsehood. Even Obama's biggest supporters would have to admit that there is a significant probability that he is a Muslim. Perhaps one can quibble whether that probability is 20% or 60% or 90%, but no one can insist with a straight face that it is 0%.

:: Given that, it's bizarre how some adamantly insist that the probability must be less than 50% rather than greater than 50%. Frankly, the demands to censor this information smacks of liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:52, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:::When you promote someone over yourself here, the beef can be over censorship. Until then, it's just people saying they think you're wrong. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 23:16, 17 November 2008 (EST) ''<-like me, for example...''

Don't fall for the devil's tricks. These "conservatives" are not true Christians. [[User:Somebody21|Somebody21]] 23:33, 17 November 2008 (EST)

"''Maybe someone else can explain why they get so enraged at the likelihood that Obama is a Muslim.''": Yes, I would like you to explain that. Because ''you'' are the one enraged at that. I, on the other hand, am "enraged" that he is being accused of being a Muslim on the basis of logical fallacy, lousy arguments, and false claims.

"''What's it to someone who ... is a Christian''": As a Christian, my concern is for the ''truth''. Why do you continually try and misrepresent this as censorship, liberal lies, or whatever?

"''... some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here...''": That is not the issue I'm arguing. You are again raising red herrings. The issue is the claim that he is a Muslim, which claim is not supported by the evidence.

"''There is nothing "spurious" about it, and you lose credibility with your baseless claims of falsehood.''": No, Andy, it '''is''' spurious, and ''you'' lose credibility with ''your'' baseless claims that he is a Muslim.

"''Even Obama's biggest supporters would have to admit that there is a significant probability that he is a Muslim.''": On what grounds? Certainly not those in this article.

"''Given that, it's bizarre how some adamantly insist that the probability must be less than 50% rather than greater than 50%.''": "That" is not given. Rather, it's bizarre how ''you'' adamantly insist that he ''is'' a Muslim given the lack of evidence.

"''Frankly, the demands to censor this information smacks of liberal bias.''": I'm going to shout because you obviously didn't hear me before: "IT IS NOT CENSORSHIP TO REMOVE IRRELEVANT INFORMATION, AND I'D APPRECIATE YOU NOT IMPLYING THAT I'M TRYING TO CENSOR ANYTHING."

I've pointed out a number of problems, and your response has been to slander the criticism as censorship and liberal, to introduce red herrings, and to assert your opinion as fact. What you have ''not'' done is actually address the issue.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:57, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:How dare you accuse Andy of slander. And what hypocricy. The only slanderer, Philip, is you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 03:40, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: Yet you make no attempt to refute that it was slanderous, nor to substantiate your accusation against me. In other words, a substanceless response. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, regarding "''(Islam being) the strongest religion in Europe today''": you never cease to amaze us with your wealth of knowledge of the world outside the USA, be it UK, the whole of Europe or Australia. Kudos to you! --[[User:Europeo|Europeo]] 07:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::''Regardless, some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here.'' I think that's a statement with which anyone would agree. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:55, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==Four Questions For The Trojan Candidate==
{{QuoteBox|1=It has taken the better part of a year, and specifically the last six months of this election season, for committed citizen journalists at TexasDarlin and many other blogs to conduct the solid, investigative research that the media, the democratic national committee, agencies of the federal government, Barack Obama himself, and Congress should have done on the eligibility and qualifications of Barack Obama. The first serious look at Barack Obama ’s Constitutional eligibility began on this blog, with the exposure of the birth certificate mystery, Obama-Soetoro’s Indonesian citizenship, and analysis of the constitutional problems with Obama’s multiple citizenship status irrespective of birthplace.
 
Although our collective knowledge of Barack Obama and the concerns of his candidacy came too late to change the outcome of the Democratic nomination and the election—especially in light of the MSM bias, the Obama campaign’s tactics, and DNC shenanigans– for all our hard work, we were successful in shedding some light on the content of his character: his associations, his deeds, his family relations, his friends, his lack of experience, stewardship, his patriotism, his potential agenda ([http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-trojan-candidate/] ) and the startling depth of his secrecy.
 
Now that we have “un-muddied” the water…..we stand on the edge of a caldera* with no idea of the complexity, depth, explosiveness, or unpredictability of this phenomenon we have witnessed in the rise of Barack Obama ! We as a country have never actually been here before, standing at the edge of possible dissolution of our country, except perhaps in the election of 1860. One realizes at once the perils of both diving into that hot pool of water, or running away to avoid the explosion….either scenario leads to serious burns!
 
While there seems to be little evidence that we will ever fully know Obama, nor avoid the explosive change he will bring, there is a way we can learn from this experience such that our Country will never again be faced with someone who is truly unknown, inexperienced, untested, and feels (to me anyway) uncommitted to America. We can use the 2008 experiences to also highlight and then design strategies to ensure that every political party is responsive to its constituents, and that our Constitution is really a living document.
 
The Constitution is by and for “we the people”; therefore “we the people” must make it work and not rely on any political party to sell America to the highest bidder.
 
'''Four Questions'''
 
I bring forward four questions that get to the heart of our rights, as American citizens, to ensure that our government and its leaders are indeed qualified to lead our great country. By extension, these questions can be used as windows to other potential areas where we the people do not yet have redress.
 
These questions are miraculously (given procedural errors and the existing lower court dismissal) before the Supreme Court with the requirement that President-elect Obama respond by December 1, 2008. It is also disturbing that these questions are before the U.S. Supreme Court when the candidate himself or the DNC could easily have dispelled any speculation by providing simple documentation.
 
While I have not kept track of the Berg v. Obama case for many reasons, it truly is miraculous that Justice Souter required Obama to respond to Berg’s writ of certiorari. Even if, as some have said, Souter ’s action is not significant and procedural only, how Obama responds will reveal much about his view of the Constitution, and will determine if the full Supreme Court decides to hear the case. In responding, Obama will be essentially arguing why the writ of certiorari should not be granted.
 
In my opinion, the questions raised by Berg in the lower Court should not have been thrown out entirely based on standing alone, or by the notion that the injury to a voter is “vague”. But some Judges do actually realize the question may be beyond their jurisdiction and ‘ask for help’ by clearly making appealable and reversible errors that a higher court can rule on. The Supreme Court Rules permit the grant of a writ of certiorari only under specific circumstances.
 
The questions presented for review are:
 
*1. Whether a citizen of the United States has standing to challenge the Constitutional qualifications of a Presidential nominee under the “natural born citizen clause” [Article II of the U.S. Constitution] when deprivation of the right to such a challenge would result in the infringement of a citizen’s Constitutional right to vote?
*2. Isn’t it true that no one has the responsibility to ensure a United States Presidential candidate is eligible to serve as President of the United States?
*3. Are there proper steps for a voter to ensure a Presidential Candidate is qualified and eligible to serve as President of the United States?
*4. Isn’t it true that there are not any checks and balances to ensure the qualifications and eligibility of a Presidential Candidate to serve as President of the United States?
 
The “questions presented for review” in the writ require Obama’ response. Notice that answering these questions does not require Obama to produce a birth certificate, but instead to answer why he does not have to prove himself eligible.
 
Although we cannot predict Obama’s answers, based on his past legal motions submitted in the lower court case, Obama may indeed respond that the writ should not be granted because (1) a citizen does not have standing, (2) that no one has responsibility to ensure eligibility, (3) that there are no proper steps for a citizen to ensure qualifications, and (4) that there are no checks and balances that exist today to ensure a candidate is qualified. Notice he is in a position of arguing technicalities here, and completely misses his own obligation to prove himself.
 
Although doubtful, it is also possible Obama would try to argue that the 14th Amendment says that “naturalized citizens” and “dual citizens” are “American citizens”, thereby satisfying the requirements of Article II. I really can’t imagine he would bring this up, unless asked in a hearing, as the question of the 14th Amendment’s modification of Article II is a constitutional matter that only the Supreme Court can decide. Recall that on Obama’s own website he claims that he is a U.S. Citizen under the 14th amendment.
 
I think these questions may have Obama boxed in. If he intends not to release his COLB, citizenship records, passport files, etc, Obama would then practically argue a big “FU” to the U.S. Supreme Court and say in effect “I don’t have to respond to this because there is no law, no avenue for citizens, and no checks and balances that require me to do so.” He will argue technicalities in how to disregard the Constitution, including, as above, that the 14th Amendment applies to Article II. I wonder how the Supreme Court might respond?
 
If Obama responds in any other way, he could be forced to disclose and/or identify when, how, and what steps citizens can take, or what steps are taken, to assure the POTUS’ eligibility. Using the process he acknowledges—for example, the “DNC vetting process”–he may then be forced to prove his eligibility to serve as POTUS under Article II by showing the documentation he provided to the DNC, if he provided anything to the DNC. Alternatively he could concede that there are no procedures to ensure eligibility of a person for POTUS, and that “America has to take his word for it”. Would the Supreme Court then order him to produce his documentation according to the original suit filed by Berg?
 
One item of interest is how Obama responds to Question 4, on the existence of checks and balances to assure the POTUS’ eligibility. “Checks and balances” can mean procedures, legislative processes, acts, bills, agencies, or resolutions. Here is where Obama could argue that the Senate Resolution promoted by Senators Leahy, Obama, and McCatskill on John McCain’s eligibility applies. In other words, Obama could argue that the checks and balances already exist and this resolution suffices (notice this is not a bill). The Senate resolution was developed in April, 2008 to “validate” John McCain ’s natural born citizen status when it was unnecessary, and in some ways the resolution’s language can be seen as an attempt by the three Senators to create a blanket provision for a naturalized citizen to be eligible to serve as POTUS. Looking at the text of the resolution and supporting statements, Senator Leahy has the following curious exchange with Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff (emphasis mine):
 
Chairman Leahy. Let me just ask this: I believe–and we have had some question in this Committee to have a special law passed declaring that Senator McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal, that he meets the constitutional requirement to be President….You are a former Federal judge. You are the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mind–I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become President?
 
Secretary Chertoff. My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.
 
As Berg’s case has evolved, he refined the scope of defendants who now must also respond to the writ, including the DNC, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and its Chair, Senator Dianne Feinstein , the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and several Pennsylvania government officials.
 
With the exception of the DNC, who also joined in Obama’s initial motion to dismiss the lower case on lack of standing, I think the other defendants’ responses might be decidedly different. The FEC could claim that it actually has no jurisdiction in the matter by way of its charter and organizing documents, and that even if it did, it is far too understaffed to perform investigatory functions, as cited by Senator Feinstein in testimony before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration on May 28, 2008 (link to http://rules.senate..gov/hearings/2008/052108feinsteinopen.pdf). And will Senator Feinstein blame the Bush administration, or will she admit that she too just assumed the DNC vetted Obama and that he was eligible?
 
After reviewing Obama’s legal argument against granting the writ of certiorari and the other defendants’ responses, Justice Souter will then review Berg’s response before deciding where the case goes next, including whether the full Supreme Court will hear the case. Remember that Souter’s clerks have all the lower court material and reviewed it before Souter required Obama to respond to the writ of certiorari. In my opinion, Justice Souter would not have granted this appeal from Berg if he thought the issues were irrelevant and not worthy of the Court’s attention.
 
How does the Supreme Court react? Will it order the production of Obama’s documents? Will it order the lower Courts to resolve the matter expeditiously, requiring the release of documents? Will it order the FEC, Electoral College, or Congress to verify his eligibility, or develop verification procedures? Will they agree with Obama, if he mentions it, that the 14th Amendment really did modify Article II criteria? Will they dismiss the case?
 
Although the Supreme Court will not want to be seen as determining the outcome of another election—even for the perception of “fairness”– the questions presented in the writ are completely different than presented in Bush v. Gore. Under Article III of the Constitution, the Supreme Court clearly has the jurisdiction to decide the matter. Legal scholars will point to Marbury v. Madison ( link to http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=19) as precedent if the full Supreme Court accepts the writ, orders the lower Court in error, directs it to secure Obama’s documentation, and chastises the DNC, FEC, the PA state agencies, the Senate, and Senator Obama for not doing their job, and not forcing the production of documents itself, while still retaining jurisdiction.
 
If this is the outcome, a motion could be made by Berg to stay the vote of the Electoral College pending the outcome of the case. If the Justices are concerned about the matter and integrity of the 2008 election, that motion could be granted. The expedited discovery of documents would proceed. Yes, I understand this is a long-shot and speculation on my part.
 
And how, in the meantime, are we to ever know about Barack Obama? Is the burden of proof really on America (Berg), or on Barack Obama ? Is it up to your employer to find out who you are, or is it up to you as an employee to provide your documentation? Isn’t Obama supposed to be working for America? I believe that the burden of proof on eligibility rests solely and unconditionally on Barack Obama’s shoulders. I am not alone in this belief (link http://americamustknow.com/Documents/OBAMA%20LAWSUIT,%20Class%20Action.doc).
 
Alinsky Returns?
 
As I sit in disbelief and alarm even writing this article—that something as basic as citizenship status of the potential POTUS is in front of the Supreme Court at this late date—I am reminded of a framework set forth in an earlier article, The Trojan Candidate (link to http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-trojan-candidate/), and the use of Alinsky-style community organizing techniques to advance an agenda of revolutionary change. In this article I posited that Barack Obama has a hidden agenda and part of implementing his agenda involves the use of techniques developed by Saul Alinsky and discussed in such books as Rules for Radicals (http://www.semcosh.org/AlinskyTactics.htm).
 
'''From the Trojan Candidate:'''
 
Alinsky laid out a set of basic principles to guide the actions and decisions of radical organizers [community organizers] and the People’s Organizations they established. The organizer, he said, ‘must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act.’ The organizer’s function, he added, was ‘to agitate to the point of conflict ’and ‘to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a “dangerous enemy.” ‘The word ‘enemy,’ said Alinsky, ‘is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people’; i.e., to convince members of the community that he is so eager to advocate on their behalf, that he has willingly opened himself up to condemnation and derision.
 
What could be the reason for withholding his citizenship papers and birth status, especially if he has nothing to hide? Does he plan to use this in some way to “rub raw the resentments of the people” [and] “fan the latent hostilities to the point of over expression”? The concerns about Obama’s Constitutional eligibility will be met with accusations of “racism”; that the “system” wouldn’t do this to a white man, and that the republicans or others are trying to ‘take Obama out’ on a “technicality”. And worse.
 
If Obama is ineligible, he could rightly be called a ‘dangerous enemy’ and forced to stand down. It is at this point that “the word ‘enemy’ is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people…” and the maneuvering and baiting of the establishment forces it to back down, with Obama prevailing whether having shown his documentation or not. As you contemplate this, think of all the money, the inevitability narrative, the shutting down of dissent, the timing of events, the threat of violence and insurrection, the establishment of the office of the president elect, and the simply overwhelming of America with all things Obama. This certainly pulls the light from shining on the real Barack Obama ’s Trojan candidacy.
 
If Obama is proven ineligible, does not stand down or even if he does stand down, it is not unreasonable to expect some “in-your-face” hostile reactions and calls for immediate changes that permit Obama to stay. How ironic: in defense of liberty and the Constitution, we will be called ‘racists’.
 
'''Implications for the Future'''
 
The four questions presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 will have a lasting and enduring effect on the course of the American Constitution in the next decade or more and will continue to feed the growing doubts about Obama’s qualifications and intentions in the next four years.. Currently there are 17 different legal actions in various state and federal courts, which now challenge the validity of the electoral process across the country, regardless of outcome (see http://www.soundinvestments.us/files/final_writ_keyes_v_bowen.pdf) .
 
Just my suspicion, but I am beginning to get a more complete picture of why Obama has sealed all of his records, including college financial aid applications, papers, and coursework. I believe his financial aid applications reveal his foreign status; and I now see that his Columbia and Harvard papers could reveal his examination of the “weaknesses” of the U.S. Constitution and ways to “remedy” them using “administrative procedures” as discussed in this 2001 radio interview. (link to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VctiYQplw8)
 
As I look at the scope of research on the issue of eligibility during this election season, I note that nearly all have concluded that there are no checks and balances to assure the eligibility of a Presidential Candidate, that no one is responsible, that the DNC did not do its job, and that indeed citizens and voters have very little recourse to ask these questions. The Supreme Court has never been presented with this question before on Article II eligibility. I personally doubt that they will duck their responsibilities to protect the Constitution.
 
Up until this time, it has been assumed that every candidate and POTUS has met Article II qualifications. We assume that in fact no one would dare to run for and claim the Presidency if he/she didn’t meet the qualifications of the Constitution. Looks like our age of innocence is over.
 
It appears that we will have to craft legislation to assure eligibility criteria are met for the POTUS, and to assign appropriate responsibilities to assure so.. If the country wants to amend the Constitution to allow naturalized or dual citizens to serve as POTUS, then we have that mechanism, which ¾ of the states have to ratify. None of this can happen before the January 20th inauguration.
 
The four questions to the Supreme Court also remind me of other areas in which we voters do not have redress when something goes wrong. Although I am now an “unaffiliated” voter, having left the democratic party after November 4th, it also appears that democrats do not have an avenue of redress when the DNC and RBC violate party rules as they did in this case to deny Hillary Clinton the nomination. In addition, we now know that caucuses can be gamed, and do not serve the interests of democracy nor do they provide a fair representation of the strength of our party’s candidates. Because of the DNC, RBC and Obama’s gaming of the system with caucus fraud, and the blatant use of race and misogyny to silence critics, we are witnessing the democrats begin the disintegration of the “democratic brand”. I am sure there are issues in the Republican party after GWB destroyed the “republican brand”. We all need a detox from our respective koolaid brands in order to really see clearly.
 
What is next for our country? Well, if we don’t want to dive into that hot pool, and we’re not going to run away, then we’d better start creating an alternative vision. A line in one of my favorite movies, The Shawshank Redemption, sums it up for me:
 
“…get busy livin’, or get busy dyin’…” [http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/11/16/four-questions-for-the-trojan-candidate/]}}
{{unsigned|TK}}

==Andy, if it can perhaps be quibbled that there is merely a 20% chance of Obama being a Muslim, then why is the Obama article stating that he is likely a Muslim? ==

Dear Andy,

You wrote above regarding the probability of Obama being a Muslim the following:

"Perhaps one can quibble whether that probability is 20% or 60% or 90%, but no one can insist with a straight face that it is 0%."

Andy, if it can be perhaps be quibbled that the likelihood of Obama being a Muslim is merely 20%, then why is the article still stating that Obama is likely a Muslim? Second, Andy do you think that a reference work should use scholarly caution and that scholarly caution helps make a reference work authoritative? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:01, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:In this case, what you describe as 'scholarly caution' means knuckling under to Liberal suppression of facts and discussion. The scholarly option is to seek out the truth, no matter how disturbing that truth or the process of uncovering it might be to those on the left. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:43, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Andy I also fear we are not doing our site any favors in this area. If Obama is a Muslim, he is certainly keeping that under wraps. There is no indication that he would suddenly take the oath of office on a Koran. Such a turnabout that he lied about his Christianity would destroy his ability to govern. It is more likely, if he is a Muslim, that he would support Muslim causes without making a profession of his own faith. We should also realize, based upon his policies, that if he does have Islamic ties that they would be akin to the type of ties that John Kerry has to Catholicism, very poor. His views on abortion alone would be considered extreme Western decadence within the greater Islamic world view. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Bugler, I purposely chose Andy's words that "perhaps one can quibble that the probability is 20%". Therefore, if Andy is correct about the 20% issue then the statement that Obama is likely a Muslim should be removed from the article. I am just following Andy's statement where the logic leads if his statement is true and no knuckling under is necessary. I do think it is fair to say that people come to an encyclopedia to read facts and not speculation. Speculation weighs down an encyclopedia by eroding its credibility. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 08:03, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Saying "One could argue that X is 20%" doesn't in any way mean accepting that that X '''is''' 20%. It merely allows the existence of theoretically possible grounds of debate. If I said there were grounds for arguing that the planet Jupiter was made of cheese, likewise it doesn't mean that I think it is reasonably possible that such is the case. Andy is (in my interpretation of his words) admitting grounds for debate; it does not mean that he (or anyone else who takes a rational view of the issue) accepts only a 20% likelihood. The whole point of the point at issue is that it disproves the blinkered dogmatism and naivety of Liberals who say "Oh, Obama has said he's a Christian so he '''can't possibly''' be a Moslem." Liberals cling to dogma like an unweaned child to its blanket; we conservatives prefer debate, rational discourse, and seeking truth from facts, not from wish-fulfillment fantasies. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:14, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::: Admitting that 20% is ''possible'' means that you've destroyed your argument that it ''is'' more than 50%.
::::::: And no, the whole point is ''not'' to support liberal views. That's a false claim. And if you as a conservative prefers debate, rational discourse, and seeking truth from facts, why are you reversing my edits without offering any rebuttal to my points?
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)
''Admitting that 20% is ''possible'' means that you've destroyed your argument that it ''is'' more than 50%.'' You haven't read it, have you? Read it again, nice and slowly, take your time, and especially consider the Jupiter analogy. As for the vulgar abuse in your edit summary, I will let that speak for itself. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)

It might be good to create a subarticle, with [[Barack Obama]] as the main article. We have templates for this; Philip is our template custodian and can place whatever we need.

I protected the article, because edit wars don't serve our readers; and they don't help us contributors much either.

I didn't look at Andy's last version. I just guessed it might make a good starting point.

Let's discuss, rather than trying to "get our way". Wiki collaboration should result in stability. Let none of us rock the boat. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Thanks, Ed. I agree that edit wars are undesirable. I don't consider that I was edit warring. I was trying to protect this article, which has been arrived at in its current form after much debate, from unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism. In the course of doing so I have yet again been accused of mendacity. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:51, 18 November 2008 (EST)

: Thanks, Ed, for bringing stability. As Bugler points out, there is nothing in my observation that "perhaps one" can quibble whether the likelihood Obama is a Muslim is 20%, 60% or 90% that justifies censoring the evidence and statement that he is likely a Muslim. Juries make such determinations based on the evidence all the time; so do encyclopedias. The evidence is compelling and will not be censored or downplayed here, despite some (for unknown reasons) disliking it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:52, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::Yes, of course there is evidence. And being a Muslim is not a punishable in the US, so the jury need not use the standard of "[[beyond any reasonable doubt]]". It's more like a lawsuit, I guess, where you need only be 51% sure to vote one way or the other.

::Personally, I'd like CP to make some indication that some conservatives are still in doubt about [[my Muslim faith|"his Muslim faith"]], but that desire does not outweigh the need for editorial harmony.

::It is liberals - rather than conservatives - who insist on censoring all views contrary to theirs, in the US. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:03, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::: Ed, when the issue is the president of the United States, then even less than a 51% chance is often sufficient to be influential, just as less than 51% chance is enough to deny someone an important job.

::: Someone is missing the the point about [[my Muslim faith]], which omits the telling phrase: "Muslim faith." No Christian would use that specific phrase so casually in reference to himself. How about someone saying "Allah the Creator"?! Christians don't use the phrase.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Falsifiability & "My Muslim Faith" ==

Aschlafly, Ed Poor, etc. -

Is there any piece of evidence that, assuming it existed, would convince you that Barack Obama is NOT a Muslim? You've now admitted there's a chance he's not a Muslim, so what piece of evidence would convince you that he's not? As it stands, your argument seems unfalsifiable, and ridiculously conspiratorial: everytime someone offers evidence that Obama's not a Muslim, you just reply with, "oooh, he's a tricky one! He must have worked to cover that up!" That's not a respectable, logical argument: it's an inability to recognize fact when it's put before your eyes. What piece of evidence could convince you of that, if any?

Further, if I go through the George W. Bush talk page I bet I'll find a million examples of you apologizing for Bush's rhetorical missteps, and arguing that when he says something incorrectly, it doesn't mean he's stupid. Why, then, are you not willing to take Obama's slip of the tongue as the same thing - unconscious error, not indicative of any deeper meaning?

The fact is, you have no principled basis for the distinction. Nor are you going to accept any evidence that Obama's a Christian. You're just clinging to a pet theory when even your own administrative staff tells you you're wrong.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 10:26, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Towards stability via discussion ==

:''unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism''

Vandalism is replacing the page with "Stinky loves Myrtle". Unilateral editing is doing your own thing, even when you know someone else will just want to revert (see [[Editing etiquette]]).

Let's come closer together, rather than battle it out on the page itself. Talk pages are for talking. Let's hear some more talk! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:29, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:The problem with that, is that if people talk about it, and say almost anything to disagree with the current state of the article, they are likely to get blocked for the "90/10 Rule against talk talk talk" or "liberal namecalling" or some other excuse. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 10:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Tim, that's simply not true. The [[90/10 rule]] guards against nothing but talk. It's easy to make substantive contributions to comply with the rule, and it's easy to refrain from namecalling in discussions. In fact, both are essential to keep the level of discourse and learning here at a high level.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::The [[90/10 rule]] might guard against nothing but talk, but it sure seems to guard against some kinds of talk a lot more than others. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 10:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::If so, there's nothing wrong with that. Jaywalking is not prosecuted as much as petty shoplifting either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Aschlafly, you can tell yourself that all you want, but this much is clear; the 90/10 rule is a content-neutral rule applied in a manner that amounts to viewpoint discrimination. You only apply it against liberals. You've long since abandoned the stance that you "don't block ideologically."
:::::This site has survived for two years ''only'' by ruthlessly persecuting anyone who disagrees with your worldview. Tim is right, but I'll take it one step farther: I think the reason you censor people who disagree with you is because you know you'll lose in a fair fight. The Barack Obama article is just one more example of that. Except now, even your own sysops disagree with you, so you devolve into insulting Philip and dodging the question.
:::::Of course you can block me, and prove Tim right.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 11:02, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::@Aschlafly: I don't get your analogy. Jaywalking and petty shoplifting are different crimes. Excessive talk by a liberal and excessive talk by a conservative is the same "crime". So the "prosecution" ought to be applied equally against both, right? Otherwise it isn't a ''rule'', it's just an ''excuse'' to make people you don't agree with go away. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 11:04, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::: Rob, within the same crimes prosecutorial patterns are different. It's called "prosecutorial discretion." It is used every day by law enforcement and it is obvious why it is needed. I'm not going to waste my morning spelling this out for you. Take a basic course on criminal justice, or simply follow the news.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Andy, you're misunderstanding "prosecutorial discretion." You're right that policemen have the right to decide which crimes to prosecute, but if they differentially allow white criminals to get away with murder, and seek the death penalty for black shoplifters, it would give rise to a disparate impact lawsuit and be illegitimate, racist, and wrong. We're arguing that your actions here are closer to abuse of prosecutorial discretion to kick out your enemies, than to the case of using prosecutorial discretion to preserve resources.
::::::It strikes me that what you're missing is the difference between "content neutral" and "viewpoint discrimination." Take a course in the First Amendment, or read a book on it; it might help your understanding of the word "censorship," too.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I would say you are partially correct, RobNewberry. Sometimes people need to be "invited" to leave, much like a dinner guest who overstays their welcome. If a person comes to Conservapedia knowing full well it is a conservative/Christian friendly wiki-encyclopedia, and is a liberal, the question is why? If the answer is they support Andy Schlafly's idea of an conservative alternative to the decidedly left-of-center editor dominated Wikipedia, that's great! All voices should be represented on the Net. But if their intentions are merely to argue and dispute conservative or Christian points of view, that becomes a subtle form of vandalism, inasmuch as it is a great time waster for those who genuinely want to contribute their conservative/Christian POV, and build this encyclopedia. My own opinion is that those who obsessively create new user names, only to argue against conservative values, and disrupt/time waste, are actually terrorists of the Internet kind. What other reason would they have to stick around? Any board or wiki does and should have the absolute right of association.

This would hold true for a conservative joining a known liberal board or wiki, and spend all their time disputing the members, arguing without end, and seeking to put their conservative point of view into their discussions or articles. I am not for truncating free speech automatically, but after weeks and weeks of disputing everything, knowing you are not going to change CP into Wikipedia's more liberal world-view, or have CP adopt all of Wikipedia's member conventions, a person's efforts then cross over into something more, what I have taken to calling Internet Terrorism. CP has an owner, it is his right to have whatever viewpoint he wants. If people agree, with even a part, they stick around and help build this place. If they don't, what other reason, other than being obstinate or having malicious intent, could they have? Disagreement is fine, debate is good. But where does it end, and the ability of like-minded individuals to associate with those they agree with, without constant disagreement begin? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 11:41, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Please don't refer to anything that isn't terrorism as terrorism. It might be censorship or vandalism or disruption. But terrorism is something else entirely. There is no terror involved in what you describe above and associating the term with it helps to undermine fear of the real kind. Terrorism should not be taken lightly. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::TK, I agree with you completely that people probably need to be "invited" to leave. My only problem is that this is done under the guise of 90/10 rule. I think this is done so that Andy can still claim something like "We don't ask editors to leave because they have a certain viewpoint, only Wikipedia does that." Make too many liberal edits, though, and you'll find that you have somehow violated the 90/10 rule. I say drop the deceit and just ban people with the comment "We don't like your viewpoint. Goodbye." It's about being honest about what kind of place this wiki really is. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 11:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::Ajkgordon, one definition of "terrorism" is "intimidating gang activity". Regardless of your rather parochial idea of its meaning, kindly refrain from saying something I clearly labeled as my own opinion, invention, is wrong usage. Organized activity, like from ''certain groups'', to disrupt other boards or wiki's, no matter how loosely organized, if it is at all coordinated, is intimidation, ergo, "terrorism".

:::RobNewberry, I know that when I was an administrator, I often followed Andy's lead in doing just that, block with the comment "Bye". As Schlafly often says, it isn't very hard to copy edit, add a source a few times a day, especially if one is spending hours and hours debating on talk pages. A person doing that, and not being obnoxious, they shouldn't be blocked. But I mostly see people with absolutely no contributions to CP, and looking at their history see only talk page posts, being blocked. Someone constantly reverting an article because of idealogical disagreement, and making no other contributions, should be blocked, or have the good grace to leave. There is more than one way to run a wiki. That's why they come with settings. Some wiki's require review of submissions before going live. Some require registration in order to edit, others do not. You sound fairly reasonable, obviously an informed person. Surely you can understand how people would grow tired of debating a topic without end. If you don't go to Wikipedia and try to insert something favorable about George W. Bush, Dick Cheney or Ann Coulter. Then when you are reverted, change it back. I don't think your experience will be a pleasant one. ;-) ----[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 12:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::RobNewberry, your own comments are misleading and illustrate the problem, because now I have to waste my time correcting them. The [[90/10 rule]] applies to people who talk, talk, talk without redeeming value in the way of substantive contributions. Nothing could be simpler. Talk is a time-waster. Different viewpoints, if logical, are welcome here. Incessant talk as can be seen on countless other sites, is not. The talkers can rant elsewhere. We're here to learn.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Andy, you're being very dishonest about the application of the rule. Your explanation of it includes several value judgments - "different viewpoints, if logical" - all we're arguing is that your definition of "logical" is "that which agrees with you." That's where the discrimination we're talking about comes from.
:::::Interestingly, while you spend some time characterizing anyone disagreeing with you as "liberal censorship," in a somewhat dishonest definition of "censorship," you seem unable to recognize that what you're doing is REAL censorship, the use of power (rather than argument & debate) to squelch uncomfortable beliefs. Open your mind.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 12:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::TK, if your definition is from Mirriam-Webster's, then it's '''''violent and''' intimidating gang activity''.
::::My request was but a courteous plea for proper usage of the term for a current and dangerous phenomenon. Scattering the term around and using it to define childish, irreverent and irritating vandalism degrades the purity of the term and lessens its impact when correctly using it. If that's parochial, so be it. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::TK and Andy, let me ask you a question. If you visited Wikipedia, and saw that, say, the Dick Cheney article contained an unreferenced assertion or an unfounded attack, you would initially try to edit and fix that problem, correct? Then, if another WP editor reverted your edit (which you believed was completely correct), you might either undo the reversion, or you might make a comment on the Talk Page, right? Now, here on CP, those of us who see something that ''we'' believe is incorrect or unfounded usually face a few problems. (Do not assume that all of us have evil intent against you - I'm entirely happy for you to have a conservative-leaning encyclopedia, and simply wish the information be factually correct and credibly referenced). First, the article may be locked, as this article is. In which case, there's nowhere to make the complaint except on the Talk Page. Second, if we can make them, our edits are often reverted, often with no supporting data provided (cf the Muslim debate here), so we usually have to make a comment on the Talk Page about that fact. It only takes one back and forth comment as we debate our position before a 90/10 block is usually enacted. Finally, those of us who frequent CP in an attempt to monitor the extreme forms of distortion that crop up now and again (as per any online community) may be shy of actually editing the articles, since bans are so often administered, so we instead first make our comments on the Talk Page. Frequently, a new user's single comment on a Talk Page is enough for a 90/10 ban. So it's pretty hard to believe that 90/10 is really about 90/10 when there are often no other options but Talk. And it's pretty hard to believe you're interested in establishing 'trustworthyness' if you aren't prepared to listen to evidence from other perspectives. [[User:FredX|FredX]] 12:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: FredX, users can talk all they want, as long as they contribute substance at the same time. It's easy to contribute substance. It's the reason we're here. No project can succeed if the participants do nothing but talk. Try it at work sometime if you don't believe me.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::Andy, consider this: "talk talk talk" is useful if it's being done to convince you, the only person with control over the article, that you're wrong. Talk towards the truth is not useless talk: it's incredibly substantive. As it stands now, it's you, Bugler, and TK versus everyone else on the site. It might be time to recognize that all this talk has the "substance" of proving your error.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:08, 18 November 2008 (EST)

FredX, having a Conservative/Christian - friendly encyclopedia does not obligate CP to prostitute those beliefs by allowing people who are not Christians, who are not Conservatives, to alter articles or their tone, to fit their outlook. The truth is the truth, but truth is always in the eye of the beholder, no? You and I could argue 24/7, over the existence of God, to use an example. No matter how many "facts" you presented me with, it would not alter my ''knowing'' he exists. Political and religious thought is highly subjective. One mans "distortion" is another mans valid "truth". To repeatedly try to alter someone's beliefs is a form of bullying. Read what you are saying. No one has the obligation to appoint himself "Internet Monitor of Truth". Your conventions of how a wiki-encyclopedia come from where? It is totally lacking in logic to think the conventions of one place should be used at another. If I go to the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post, and appoint myself the "truth" monitor there, what would happen?

If you have a complaint, you can always avail yourself the email links to other users. Or post your objection on the author's talk page. We aren't talking here about people objecting. We are talking about people who will not take "no" for an answer, and demand that their truth is better than another's. Once your point is made, posted, doing it again and again, without end, accomplishes what, other than you being able to vent? I don't spend time arguing with liberals at the Kos or HuffPo, because I know they do not agree with me, never will. I am not a YEC, yet I am here. What would be accomplished for me to argue, without end, with Philip Rayment (to use a known example of a YEC member here) over the age of the Earth? His "facts" as to Earth's age, are his. Mine are mine. In building an encyclopedia, or in any project, the trick is to focus on the areas we can agree on, and not let those we don't bog us down. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Talking with enemies ==

In the section '''"statements"''' Obama is criticised for claiming Roosevelt spoke to our enemies. Now it is true that Roosevelt did not talk to Hitler, but he certainly ''did'' talk to Stalin, who most Americans consider (and hesitantly considered back then) an enemy, and it is Stalin that Obama is presumably referring to. Rather than letting Hitler conquer Russia while the United States kept to its own war effort, or letting Patton continue on to Warsaw and Moscow after victory against Germany, Roosevelt was willing to talk to the Communist Enemy to co-ordinate action and to ultimately permit the Bolshevik conquest of eastern Europe. Naturally there are divergent opinions over whether in this particular case compromise was the best course of action, but what Obama is obviously expressing when he refers to Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy, all of whom negotiated with the Soviet enemy, is that it's better to come to talk with and possibly compromise with an opponent we may feel ideologically at polar opposites with instead of just blindly fighting whenever the oppurtunity presents itself.

For that reason it is advisable that the section is removed as it relies on the assumption that Obama was referring exclusively to Truman and Roosevelt's relationship with Hitler rather than with Stalin. [[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 12:40, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Your reasoning is confused, and your conclusion makes no sense at all.

:Compromising with an enemy is often the wrong thing to do. Your [[all or nothing]] analysis doesn't support it: it's rarely a case of "give in or fight blindly". Perhaps you have assumed that America only '''felt''' it was ideologically at a polar opposite from atheism and totalitarianism. This is [[liberal dogma]], not CP editorial policy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:52, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::You misunderstand completely. ''I'' didn't say anything about whether or not America should compromise - Obama did. Whether or not it should has absolutely nothing to do with the issue I was raising.

::What I was saying was that the section is trying to make it seem that Obama has no grasp of history, that he was claiming that Roosevelt and Truman talked to our enemies (assumed to be Hitler, Mussolini and Hideki) when those Presidents didn't. However, Roosevelt and Truman did talk to our enemies, namely Stalin. Obama was referring to the talks Roosevelt and Truman had with ''Stalin'', not Hitler, and thus he was right to claim that Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy talked to our enemies. Therefore the section is false, not because we should compromise with our enemies, but because Obama did not make a mistake as the section apparently claims.

::Hopefully I have made myself more clear. But I will repeat to make sure: I am not saying anything about whether or not it is right to compromise with enemies. I am not saying that the communists were only apparently our enemies - in fact by suggesting that Roosevelt did not talk with enemies when he clearly talked with Stalin the section in the ''article'' implies that Stalin was not really an enemy. What I am saying is that Obama was perfectly justified in saying that Roosevelt and Truman talked and compromised with our enemies. This means exactly what it says, ''not'' that compromising with our enemies was perfectly justified. I apologise if I was not clear the first time, that's why I've rephrased the same point a second and third time.[[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 13:30, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== compared to wikipedia article ==

It is interesting that the wikipedia articles on Obama does not mention Pakistan. In fact, his three week trip to Pakistan was documented in a New York Times article, but metion of it was removed at wikipedia with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Obama&diff=252397639&oldid=252397137 this edit]. It looks like some wiki contributors are running interferance at wikipedia. The conservapedia article is a nice balance to that article, though the part that he "may be sworn into office at his inauguration ... using the Koran" is dodgy, and sounds almost National Enquirer-ish. I think the wording could be improved, though I haven't looked into it. It would not surprise me if Barack Obama were a Muslim, and it would not surprise me if he were a liberal Christian with weakly held beliefs and a fondness for his early teachings. At wikipedia, I also didn't see any mention of Bill Ayers on Obama pages. That is very strange. The sad part is, if President Obama appointed Bill Ayers to be the head of the Department of Education, I don't think we would see much difference in the American education system--at least in the public schools--as people that think like him are already in control. Anyway, keep up the good work. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 12:58, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Good points, BigMike! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:24, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Suggestion for comprimise ==

Since it's clear that none of the editors involved are going to be able to agree, why don't we take Mr. Schlafly's advice [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=554261&oldid=554228 earlier on this talk page] where he says "We don't censor informative information here. Let the reader decide." How about, instead of going back and forth, back and forth, we instead allow the inclusion of evidence ''against'' Obama being a Muslim. The reader can read the evidence on both sides, and decide for themselves. Good idea? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:Practically, I think that's a workable compromise. Theoretically, of course, it's problematic: neutrality towards an incorrect idea is not objectivity. The idea that Obama is a Muslim is objectively wrong, and should be excised. But, practically, I'm willing to go with that compromise. Great idea from a helpful sysop!-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:32, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::Not a sysop, but every now and then I have a good idea ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::I think this is a very sensible idea. I don't agree with any of the arguments that Obama is a Muslim, but obviously a few people here are determined to cling to them, so including the counterarguments as well would be a good way to balance this part of the article & end the conflicts over this. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 13:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::Also, if the argument would take up a great deal of the article, it could be moved to a separate page. What's the policy on linking to debates from regular pages? I know there are two Obama/Muslim debates going, and I think linking to them from the article might not be a bad idea. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 13:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::(/signed) Totally agree, if all the arguments are presented then anyone who is open minded can make up their own mind. Those with closed minds won't be convinced either way, no matter what arguments are presented..--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 13:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)

User:RobNewberry

2008-11-18T18:32:09Z

HelpJazz: castle much?

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-11-18T18:26:49Z

HelpJazz: /* Suggestion for comprimise */ new section

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]
[[/archive3|3]]
[[/archive4|4]]
[[/archive5|5]]

== Lenin Poster ==

The statement about the Lenin-like poster is informative. We don't censor informative information here. Let the reader decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 10 November 2008 (EST)
:Andy, did you happen to take a look at the reference? The article claims that "Obama also ''revealed'' his ''deep Marxist/Leninist roots''" and that "clear parallels between the poster design and Lenin's earlier poster was ''obviously a deliberate yet hidden hint'' to his European, socialistic audience as to his political roots and beliefs" (emphasis mine). The citation, which was a blog, by the way, and not in any way a trustworthy source of informative information, gives no evidence to back up these statements. It shows a poster of Lenin and a poster of Obama, both of which show profiles of the figures. Assuming these pictures weren't entirely made up, do you really think that this slight similarity is Obama's way of confessing closet Marxism? Not to mention the fact that Obama likely didn't make the posters anyway -- maybe we should accuse his (very expensive!!) marketing designer of being a Marxist/Leninist. 15:45, 11 November 2008 (EST)

== Obama and beer ==

There are several stories (with photos) of Obama drinking beer, which as an intoxicant is banned by Muslim sharia. <ref> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2008/05/06/20/125-6web-Obama_Beer-minor.standalone.prod_affiliate.91.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/36055.html&h=325&w=485&sz=47&hl=en&start=28&um=1&usg=__ShpWdieNIwhr4Rp3jHtLe7U9MB8=&tbnid=Se90xFLBo6rNQM:&tbnh=86&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bdrinks%26start%3D18%26ndsp%3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN </ref> <ref> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w18/img.211156_t.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w18/img.211156.html&h=332&w=400&sz=16&hl=en&start=15&um=1&usg=__Yubc0nmus36Cf4Rrf7BL7-33-0g=&tbnid=xuWGKQ1Sl8_bQM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bbeer%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DG</ref> No rational person can say that a practicing Muslim wouldn't violate the law in such a blatant, repeated manner. Another strike against the goofy Muslim charge. And remember, we don't censor here. Godspeed. [[User:Thecount|Thecount]] 12:52, 11 November 2008 (EST)

: I think many American Muslims drink beer. Nice try, though.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:57, 11 November 2008 (EST)

::And how many "dangerous" American Muslims are there that have loose enough morals to blatantly disrespect their own religious law, but are still a threat to Americans? (Of course this is all granted that he IS a secret Muslim, which I have given up trying to discuss) So I see nothing wrong if Obama turns out to be a secret Muslim. Nice try, though. [[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 23:54, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::He also smokes cigarettes, to complete his subterfuge. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:42, 11 November 2008 (EST)

== Hussein reference ==

It's factual and it's informative. If there is reasoned basis for deleting it, let's see it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 11 November 2008 (EST)

: Again, no reason has been given for deleting the Hussein reference, and there is none.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:49, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:: Andy, this is false. Reasons have been given on this talk page numerous times before. I just had a quick look, and found reasons being given in all archives except the first, as well as other places on this talk page. So you are wrong to say that no reason has been given, and wrong to say that there is no reason. And, as I have pointed out in the edit comments, five senior administrators have said that they disagree with it being there. Is your view on this somehow superior to those five put together? Do you want this to be a collaborative encyclopaedia or your blog? The former demands that you not impose your opinion regardless of who is disagreeing. Imposing your opinion regardless suggests that this is your blog. I know you don't consider it to be the latter, but that's the way it's looking. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:21, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::Not a blog but an encylopedia. If it were a blog, your opinion would carry as much weight as anyone else's. Let's put this one in [[Conservapedia:Debate Topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:24, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:::: If it were a blog, the blog owner's opinion would carry the most weight. Almost all blogs are the opinions of an ''individual'', not a group of people. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::: Philip, the truth is not dependent on consensus, and 5 out of several dozen is not a consensus anyway. Give your best reason for deleting this information here. Since the beginning we have had a policy not to delete factual, informative material, particularly when it is liberal ideology that motivates the demand for censorship of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:29, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:::: I said five of the ''senior'' administrators, which numbers about eleven. So that's five out of eleven, not dozens. Further, that's five against and one (yourself) for, as the remainder have not offered an opinion that I'm aware of. (One perhaps did support you, but because they wanted to support you, not because they considered it a valid argument.)
:::: My reason is relevance, not (primarily) accuracy. I'm not disputing that his middle name is Hussein. The claim that "most Christians would not retain" their (former/Muslim/Arabic?; it's not clear) name is not supported by the references, and even if it is true, means little in individual cases. That is, even if 99% changed their name, Obama not changing his name might mean no more than him being in the other 1%.
:::: And this is just one of the points in that section. The entire argument that Obama is a Muslim is built on very circumstantial evidence, selective evidence, and logical fallacy, and is rejected by other conservatives.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::: Philip, it obviously is relevant, which you say is your primary objection. We don't censor information here based on liberal dislike for it. Wikipedia does that. We provide the information and let the reader decide. If some readers want to conclude that someone with a Muslim name is actually a Christian, even though less than 1% of those raised as Muslims convert, so be it. We're not going to censor this factual information.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:37, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: "''...it obviously is relevant...''": Because ''you'' say so? If it was so "obvious", then you wouldn't have five senior administrators disagreeing with you. No, it's not obviously relevant at all, and you've not demonstrated the relevance.
::::::: "''We don't censor information here based on liberal dislike for it. Wikipedia does that.''": Given that I and the other senior administrators are not "liberals", and the rejection is based on relevance, not "dislike", why are you introducing red herrings like this? Has your argument got no more substance than irrelevancies like that?
::::::: "'' We provide the information and let the reader decide.''": Only if it's relevant. Otherwise we are just introducing padding for readers to wade through and discourage them getting to the relevant stuff.
::::::: "''We're not going to censor this factual information.''": It is not censorship to remove irrelevant information, and I'd appreciate you not implying that I'm trying to censor anything.
::::::: In summary, you have failed to produce any reasons substance as to why it should be retained.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:26, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Exactly. The point of Conservapedia is ''not'' to censor information, but to leave it to our readers to decide. The MSM has tried to push this under the rug, so the least we can do is offer these arguments to the intelligent public. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 11:27, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: The problem is that these points are fallacious and lead to a conclusion based on specious arguments. That is neither "trustworthy" nor encyclopedic. Obama may not be your brand of xian, but he's certianly no brand of muslim. Your inability to accept that this is incorrect despite repeated arguments wherein you have shown nothing but fallacious arguments drawing poor conclusions hurts the credibility of all Conservapedia. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 11:49, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:Did anyone notice how ASchlafly posited the question at or near closing time Tuesday night and declared that he recieved no answer at or near opening time on Wednesday? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:49, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Keep the reference, but 2 examples of people having changed their names for religious reasons does not mean "most" people would change their names as stated in the article. A good reference on this topic would list a percentage (presumably greater than 50%) of people who have switched religions also changing their names.
::I am sure we could come up with a very long list, but this article would not be the place for it. A sample of a couple of names to illustrate the point being made is surely adequate for all except those who wish to undermine the accuracy of the piece. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)

==Debate On Obama's Religion==

The debate is continuing at [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?‎]] It may be best to continue arguing the point there with the aim of reaching a conclusion which can then be utilised in the article, and leave this talk page for discussing other improvements. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 22:22, 11 November 2008 (EST)
:Get the section about him being a "Muslim" there have already been to debates concluding that this should be removed. http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F-[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 00:09, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Reference ==

<references/>

Get the section about him being a "Muslim" there have already been to debates concluding that this should be removed. http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F-[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 00:08, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action? Untrue. ==

I am no fan of Obama. I do plan on respectfully opposing him via various channels on the internet. However, I believe I should state my opposition to this sentence of the article: "He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action."

I have not read the rest of the article because I believed months ago and for good reasons that Obama was going to win this election. For example, the unpopular war and poor economy that was partly caused by a guns and lots of butter spending strategy (Bush should have learned from LBJ committing us to a war and the Great Society programs at the same time). I also thought that it would have been easy for the Republicans to win 12 years in a row given the low quality of the Democratic party. I think the Republicans snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory. I also think Americans have too much debt (last time I heard the average American had lots of credit card debt). One of the reasons for the great depression is that American's had too much debt at the time. I think Bush's call for Americans to do to do more shopping mall spending was a joke. If anything, Americans need to increase their skills to be more productive (The libraries are open but you might have to watch less TV. Last time I checked the average American watches 3 hours of television a day) and work harder to pay off their debt. American's are going to get out of the hole by increasing their productivity. It seems as if Bush did not want to learn from economic history and was only looking out for short term fixes. Well sooner or later, common sense says you have to pay the piper.

Getting back to Obama, obviously, Obama's marital success in terms of not getting divorced compared to Ronald Reagan is not the result of affirmative action. I am sure I could come up with others. I have not read the article for the most part because this sentence turned me off to the whole article. Judging from the ""He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action." sentence, I believe a lot of time is probably being spent to defend an article rather than improve it where obvious improvements could be made. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 06:04, 12 November 2008 (EST)

: Staying married is laudable but in this context it would not be considered a "clear personal achievement." If you would like to add a footnote exception to the remark along the lines of, "he has been married for x years," I'm not opposed but I would expect that to caveat to seem off-topic, or even sarcastic, for most readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:52, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::One CP writer told me he equates divorce with adultery, and he accused Reagan of adultery on this basis. Is this the consensus view of Conservatives? Or just his own idea? Or what?

::We ought to be clear on the standards by which we judge public figures. And consistent, too. I mean, which is worse, committing actual adultery (JFK, Clinton) or getting divorced and then remarrying? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:06, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::: Biblically, divorce is not adultery. However, divorce is wrong unless the spouse has been unfaithful. Remarriage after a legitimate divorce is okay. The question is whether remarriage after a wrong divorce is okay. Many believe, I think that although the act of divorce may be wrong, that is a forgivable sin like any other sin, and remarriage is not a further sin. And I'd tend to agree that committing "actual" adultery is worse than divorce and remarriage. However, the point that Conservative was raising was not between those two cases, but between divorce and remarriage compared to marriage without divorce.
::: I'm not convinced that Obama's marriage does not constitute a "clear personal achievement". Given the divorce rate these days, especially among prominent people, I would think that it ''was'' a clear personal achievement. In fact I'd consider staying marriage a "clear personal achievement" for anybody these days, given all the pressures on marriage, including the peer pressure that divorce is okay.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:35, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::::I rarely disagree with you, Philip, as I find your comments to be some of the more considered on this board, but here I would have to disagree. Jesus makes it quite clear that divorce *is* adultery, not *like* adultery. More then any other text, especially OT text, I take Jesus's words to heart. Mark 10
::::2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
::::3 "What did Moses command you?" he replied.
::::4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."
::::5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied.
::::6 "But at the beginning of creation God `made them male and female.'
::::7 `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,
::::8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one.
::::9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
::::10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this.
::::11 He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.
::::12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 09:41, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::::: I didn't say that divorce is "like" adultery. I said that it's ''not'' adultery. And the evidence you've offered to refute that doesn't refute that. The Bible says that someone who divorces ''and remarries'' commits adultery, not that someone who ''divorces'' commits adultery. You can't have adultery without sexual intercourse, which would be taken as given with someone remarrying, but not a given with someone just divorcing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:33, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== Obama spiruality interview ==
http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/11/obamas-interview-with-cathleen.html a interview from a pretty religous website about Obama. Should it be mentioned? Or since it kinda contradicts abit of the article should it be ommitted? --[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:06, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:What one might say in an interview really means very little, Vmember, particularly if one is seeking to achieve a position by hiding one's essential nature or beliefs. So really what he says when seeking to impress is irrelevant. It is what he does and has done, and what he says in unguarded moments, that matters. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:16, 12 November 2008 (EST)
*um then shouldn't it atleast be mentioned somewhere in the article about this interview maybe as a response to questions about his faith section? And why is him maybe being a muslim all the way at the top of the article? Shouldn't be be somewhere towards the middle? I've never seen in all my time part of a article pushed into the intro section. Also the article contradicts itself by stating that Obama is most likely a muslim while at the same time pointing at that he was a member of a radical Christian church. That doesn't make any sense. You can't have it both ways.--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:25, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::You can if you're a sleeper for radical Islam. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:27, 12 November 2008 (EST)
**Wait you seriously think that? Hmm fringe ideas and theories on any subject is detrimental to a discussion let alone a encyclopedia. It's dangerous thinking like that is why us conservatives lost the election and alienated so many moderates and weak liberals. Would there be any objection if I were to move the muslim part to the middle and add a section with his response to questions of his faith?--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:34, 12 November 2008 (EST)
***Does this look better? http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Help:Practice_Page&oldid=555527 Hmm I kinda think instead of giving facts supporting the theory Obama is a muslim editors are trying to push it off as straight fact even though theres been evidence against it. Isn't that a tactic only liberals use and a form of deceit?--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:45, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Poster ==

Don't delete the insight about the poster. I learned from the insight, and I'm sure others have also. We don't censor here. We let the readers decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:39, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:I already explained (above) why the "insight" is not actually an insight, is not supported by the source, and is likely false. Believe me, I would love it if Obama really did intentionally model his posters after those of Lenin in a subliminal message to Europeans, but there's simply no evidence of that.

:You reverted both of my edits. Do you have problems with both of them, or just the first one? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:42, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:: Sorry, I just have a problem with the deletion of the poster edit. Your other edit looked fine, but it came right after the controversial one and there was no easy way to separate the too.

:: The similarities between Obama's poster and the famous Lenin image is too obvious for words. We don't need a citation for observing, for example, that 2+2=4. If a reader wants to reject the obvious similarity between the images, then the reader is welcome to do so. Censorship is not a preferred approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:52, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::I'm not denying that they are similar, I'm denying that their similarity "[reveals] his deep Marxist/Leninist roots" and "was obviously a deliberate yet hidden hint to his European, socialistic audience as to his political roots and belief". Can I change the text to reflect that, while the two posters are similar, there's no way to know that it's a confession? (I pointed out before that if anyone is imitating Lenin here, it's probably the over-priced poster designer). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:59, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::: I'm fine with rewording, as long as it doesn't inject liberal spin or make it look like Obama didn't approve it with the similarity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:12, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::::I'll try my best. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:40, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Your revised wording is great. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:05, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:Is anyone else put off by the fact that the Germans really hated Lennin? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:25, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Fun poster [http://img.skitch.com/20080723-pbt7dkk5ksgbystrri5px6s9fr.jpg] --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:44, 14 November 2008 (EST) The imagery is more common that you might expect. Nothing new under the sun as they say --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:44, 14 November 2008 (EST)

==Disgusted==

Mr Schlafly this page is absolutely disgusting. I am totally against Obama as you know, this is the most sorry excuse for an encyclopedia entry I have ever seen. We should leave this page as information about him as a individual, not about why we hate him and you should too. 90% of the page is opinion, and is totally innapropriate. I suggest making it into two pages. One about Obama with just simple facts about him and his backround, and you can make another about everything we hate about him. Pages like this are why we are losing our trustworthyness.
Thanks, --[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]

:Here here. At times I find this article amusing as an ironic hate piece, but at best it degrades this site and conservatives in general. Liberal or conservative, poor logic is poor logic. Because Obama and Lenin each had monochromatic posters featuring a pose directed toward the right it is evidence of Marxist intentions. Because Obama said the words "my muslim faith", irregardless of any context, it used as evidence of being a muslim. I don't even know what to say about the mind control thing, it's really amazing to me because as a religious person it reminds of the feelings I had when I discovered the truth of Jesus Christ: "a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany" [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 19:31, 13 November 2008 (EST)

==Disgusted Conservative too==

{{hide|- I did not vote for Senator Obama for political reasons, but I believe he is a good man; this article is simple character assassination; you do not go into his views and show how those are disagreeable (his views on abortion, and his want to make a hasty withdrawal from Iraq) and instead you simply accuse him of being a Muslim, and anti-American etc. also a blog is not a credible source; a blog is someone's opinion. Anyway the accusations levied upon him are for the most part completely inaccurate. He was born in The United States, he wrote his autobiography, he is not a Muslim, he is not anti-American. Please keep the disagreements political.}}{{unsigned|Rpond}}

I don't know who wrote this, but it shouldn't have been deleted. --[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]

: The odds are less than 1% that "Rpond's" posting is genuine, in light of his misspelling of "conservative" and his other rants. It is appropriate to delete insincere or deceptive postings.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:53, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:: It is an interesting experience living life each day getting verbally attacked for being a conservative then coming here and getting persecuted (justified edits to factual and encyclopedic wording) for being a liberal. You seem to be very fond of the less than 1% statistic, and have used it many times in many places, but I've never seen any solid reasoning or studies behind it (although in this case your gut instinct does seem to be credited implicitly) I think perhaps you live in a highly conservative eco chamber and aren't getting out enough to notice how little resonance this sort of thing has out in the real world. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 18:58, 13 November 2008 (EST)
::: Way to show your liberal stripes, BrendanW. Ad hominem attacks are not appreciated here, so please keep it civil. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 19:01, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Would that be an ad hominem attack like calling someone a liberal? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:24, 13 November 2008 (EST)

::::: Are you insulted by being described as a "liberal"? Or are you angry that you're not fooling anyone?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:39, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Either Way its still an Ad Hominem. However I am a little "l" libertarian, and strict constitutionalist (excluding the racist portions that is) which makes me pleanty conservative, I'm also an objectivist in the Ayn Rand model, highly capitalistic and against socialism. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 09:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)

==Cool it==

I've protected this page; only admins can edit it for the moment. Many of us have strong feelings, and we have used this page to express them.

But I would hope that we all confine our comments here to specific suggestions on how to improve the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:45, 13 November 2008 (EST)

== Did you read that reference? ==

The claim is that OBama might be a Muslim and that he might swear in on a koran. The reference -ref- Obama hoped to become President when he was sworn in as U.S. Senator in 2004, and did not use a Koran at that time. Subsequently Democratic House member Keith Ellison established the precedent for being sworn in using the Koran, and there is no guarantee that Obama would not do likewise if sworn in as President. [http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_obama.html FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, ''Sliming Obama'', January 10, 2008, retrieved on 10/16/2008]-/ref- is about how Obamma is not a Muslim and did not use the Koran to be sworn in as a senator. I simply do not see how it belongs. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Welcome to Conservapedia. Truth is relative to Andy. -[[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 15:04, 15 November 2008 (EST)

== Code name ==

The article plainly says that Obama did have a role in picking it. Hence the reversion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:01, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:My article clearly says that the White House Communications Agency chose the name for him. Hence the original edit.
:I tried to find a source directly fromt he Secret Service or the White House Communications Agency, but neither of their search functions were working. I'll keep looking. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:06, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::"President-Elect Barack Obama – 'Renegade' – had a say in choosing the code name that his guards use when they are whispering into their microphones." From the article cited on our Main Page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:11, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:::''These not-so-secret names are chosen by officials at the White House Communications Agency, which was not inclined to comment on the selection process. In a previous news report, an agency spokesman said the names are assigned by "sheer whim."'' -- From my (stateside) source. You can see why I was confused.
:::I did further research (hence my half-hour long absence) According to [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/11/13/pssst_renegade_and_renaissance_are_in_the_house/ this] source, the WHCA chooses a list of names, and the President decides which one he likes best. So we were both right! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:40, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::::Everybody wins! Yay! -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 22:41, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== For the love of God!! ==
HE IS NOT A MUSLIM. I donated 500$ to support McCain and voted for him but this beyond retarded. Please remove that info, because right now nobody in their right mind can take this seriously. Also take out the Koran thing he used the bible in the senate. [[User:Nig89|Nig89]] 20:17, 15 November 2008 (EST)

: Your comment is long on your dubious assertion of a credential, but short on substance. Give us your reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:28, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Why does Obama's religion matter so much? 18:57, 15 November 2008 {{unsigned|JamesZ}}

: Good question. I hope your fellow liberals will answer it for you. They are the ones having unexplained hysteria about a simple observation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 15 November 2008 (EST)

::The word you are looking for is "accusation" not "observation". An observation would be stating that he has some traits similar to Muslims. An accusation is claiming that he is a Muslim, regardless of his own protests. On the accusation note, great job assuming anyone who doesn't believe you is a liberal Aschfly. [[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 00:01, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== Was Barack Obama truly raised a Muslim or is he a Muslim? ==

Previously I wrote the following: Here is a well written and scholarly piece that examines Obama's religious views and it was written by the National Clergy Council: http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm The evidence does not support Obama being a muslim. The evidence also does not support Obama embracing biblical Christianity.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 09:19, 10 November 2008 (EST) Mr. Schlafly wrote the following: " I skimmed it and don't see where it concludes that Obama is not a Muslim. The article fails to recognize that less than 1% of people raised Muslim (as Obama was) ever leave the religion. The article says Obama is a member of a Christian church, but he left that many months ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:24, 10 November 2008 (EST)"

Here is my response to Mr. Schlafly's reply to my previous post on the Obama/Muslim issue:

I am not a fan of "Liberal Christianity" as I believe it often fails to fall into the realm of biblical/orthodox Christianity and when it does so it is not Christianity at all. With that being said, the article does give compelling evidence that Obama is a member of the camp of "liberal Christianity" and not biblical Christianity. If Obama is a "liberal Christian" he is not a Muslim. There are two logical fallacies called the [http://www.pnl-nlp.org/download/propaganda/page2.htm#sloth slothful inductive fallacy] and [http://www.goodart.org/exclus.htm fallacy of exclusion] whereby "Relevant evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement that all relevant information be included is called the "principle of total evidence"."[http://www.goodart.org/exclus.htm] '''Andy, I believe you are committing these two logical fallacies as can be seen by the material in the above cited work by the National Clergy Council. I would strongly suggest not skimming the material as it gives compelling evidence that Obama is a "liberal Christian" and therefore not a Muslim.'''

'''Next, was Obama truly raised a Muslim and therefore does the less than 1% of people raised Muslim ever leave the religion statistic apply. I don't think a compelling case can be made for the 1% argument being applied to Obama. I cite the following:
'''

"Barack Hussein Obama was born in 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, to a Kenyan Muslim father of the same name and an American secular humanist mother named Ann Dunham. While Obama’s father was raised in Islamic culture, he had become a functional atheist by the time he reached college. Despite his parents’ lack of religion, young Obama received his early education in both Catholic and Muslim schools.

Obama’s parents divorced when he was only two years old. Henceforth, the senior Obama was “almost entirely absent”[i] from his son’s life. Four years later, Ann Dunham relocated to Indonesia with her son to join her new husband Lolo Soetoro. A daughter, Maya, was born to the couple before their divorce. She returned to Hawaii where she went on to earn her MA in anthropology from the University of Hawaii. In his first book, Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama wrote of his mother, “She was a lonely witness for secular humanism, a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position paper liberalism.”[ii]

Obama’s mother was a huge influence in his life. In an interview with Oprah Winfrey in October 2006, he said, “My mother—when I think about the values I hold most dear, they came from her.”[iii] In a speech given at a Moms Rising event in 2006, he said, “Everything that I think is good about me, I got from her.”[http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm]

'''I will end this post by respectfully asking Mr. Schlafly a few reasonable questions''':

1. How many Muslim men are you aware of that go to a "liberal Christian church" for 20 years, get married in a "liberal Christian' church, and have their children baptized in a "liberal Christian" church, and call a Reverend of "liberal Christianity "my pastor" while living in a relatively free and democratic country like the United States? I ask this question because it appears as if all these apply to Obama.[http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/04/29/2008-04-29_obama_expresses_outrage_over_former_past.html][http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58954][http://volokh.com/posts/1209531850.shtml] Accordingly, '''How many similar historical examples can you give of Muslim men who did these type of things when they lived in a relatively free and democratic society like the United States?
'''

2. According to the press, Obama has visited churches and synagogues but has not visited a mosque while running for president.[http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/25/opinion/edcohen.php] Can you show me a single instance of Obama ever visiting a mosque while he has been an adult?

3. '''Is the case for Obama being a "liberal Christian" stronger or is the case of Obama being a Muslim stronger when the principle of total evidence being weighed is applied?''' If you state the case is stronger for Obama being a Muslim, please defend your position by truly negating the strong evidence that he is a member of "liberal Christianity" and giving compelling evidence that he is a Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 10:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:I thought the two of you might enjoy reading [http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/11/obamas-interview-with-cathleen.html this 2004 interview with Obama], where he discusses his faith, his baptism, and so forth. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 14:04, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::Both of you miss the point. It's not what Obama '''says''' - that has no relevance whatsoever. It's what he '''is''' and what he '''will do'''. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::: If what he ''says'' has no relevance, why is one of the supposed evidences for him being a Muslim something he ''said'' (the bit about "my Muslim faith")? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::::Bugler, I know I mentioned what Obama did and said which certainly has bearing on what Obama "is". Therefore, you did not in any way provide a counter argument. I also suggest you answer the reasonable questions I posed to Mr. Schlafly. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:16, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Conservative, the roots of Al Quaeda lie in the 1940s and 50s, if not before; radical terroristic Islamic fundamentalism is not a recent phenomenon. Much of its mindset and organisational apperatus was borrowed from Leninist Communism: the notion of cell, of enrtyism, of deep penetration. Now, how difficult is it to imagine that an intelligent child, of American parentage, schooled in the Islamic environment of 1960s Indonesia and vulnerable to the influences swirling around in that environment, might be schooled and indoctrinated as the sleeper to end all sleepers, given extreme dispensations to protect his cover, allowed to eat pork, drink alcohol, marry out, attend and indeed profess to be a Christian, even to publicly renounce (on the face of it) the Islamic faith? Surely the prize would merit the game. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:24, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::So you're honestly speculating that Obama might be a member of Al Qaeda, and we're expected to believe that you're ''not'' a parodist? Riiiiiiight. [[User:MarkB|MarkB]] 09:09, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::Oh, that old tune yet again. Can't you Liberals find a less boring stick to beat me with? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:17, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Oh, don't get me wrong, I think you're doing a great job. Keep it up. [[User:MarkB|MarkB]] 09:22, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Bugler, in light of the evidence I gave above concerning Obama's supposedly being raised a Muslim '''and the lack of evidence to support it''' plus the evidence I gave above to support Obama being a member of "liberal Christianity" , your post is at best a Hail Mary pass. Secondly, I noticed you did not answer my questions or give any solid historical parallels for your far fetched speculation. If you could enlighten me where the Leninists were able to install a President of a Western country that had been a sleeper for two decades I would certainly be indebted to you if you could give it. But I would add, since you never gave any compelling evidence he was raised a Muslim, this Leninist parallel speculation is a non starter anyways. Thirdly, you refer to "the prize". What prize? If you going to embrace conjecture that is contra evidence certainly you should tell your audience what the supposed prize is supposedly going to be. Should I fear I am imminently going to be put under Sharia law? Lastly, I am not stating your a parodist, but I certainly believe it is more likely that you are a parodist than it is likely that Obama is a Muslim. Your somewhat eloquent but empty defense of the indefensible proposition that Obama is likely a Muslim, certainly provides a reasonable reader to suspect you are a parodist. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:41, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::I've not heard the term 'hail Mary pass' before, despite being a good Catholic boy: please enlighten! ''If you could enlighten me where the Leninists were able to install a President of a Western country that had been a sleeper for two decades'' Not a president, but the private secretary of the West German Chancellor Willy Brandt was a Communist plant: how many were undetected? Certainly therer remain suspicions about the 1960s/70s UK Prime Minister Harold Wilson. ''What prize?'' Surely that is obvious. As to the objections you raise, I think it unlikely that he will use the ceremony on January 20 to declare a United states Caliphate. However, the prospect of an Islamic radical sleeper in the Oval Office raises any number of possibilities. And finally: your open suggestion that I am a parodist is welcome: a refreshing change from others here who smear me by innuendo without your honesty and openness. I assure you in all sincerity that I act with the best interests of God, Conservapedia, Freedom and Democracy always at heart. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:58, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Bugler, [http://www.wisegeek.com/in-football-what-is-a-hail-mary.htm Hail Mary pass]. Secondly, your Willy Brandt attempted historical parallel falls flat. I did a quick search on the internet and this is what CNN states about Brandt: "As a teen-ager Brandt first joined the Socialist Party of Germany (SPD) in 1930, but one year later switched to a more radical spin-off, the SAP."[http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/kbank/profiles/brandt/] Brandt apparently was a socialist early on (teenager to be precise), but you have not give a compelling argument that Obama was raised as a Muslim and given the information I gave above regarding there being a lack of evidence for this proposition and evidence against it, your Leninism supposed historical parallel is still a non starter. You are certainly not applying the principle of using the total evidence. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:21, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Henry Wallace, FDR's Vice President, was a "sleeper" communist and replaced by FDR for that reason. Alger Hiss, a top aide to presidents, was a proven "sleeper" communist. A big lie is often easier to pull off than a little lie.

What's remarkable is how strenuously people deny that Obama is a Muslim. His fathers (real and stepfather) were Muslims. There's no denying that Obama was raised a Muslim, and his conduct as an adult underscores that he, like 99% of others raises as Muslims, did not leave that religion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:02, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:: What's remarkable is how strenuously you claim that Obama is a Muslim without any evidence of substance, and in opposition to other conservatives, including five of your own senior administrators, who disagree with you, despite being opposed to Obama. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:An interesting question is ''why'' people try so hard to deny it to ''themselves'' when the evidence is so clearly there. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 20:51, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::Andy, Wallace appears to have had been a one time Republican who later had openly leftist views. [http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USARwallace.htm] Wallace cannot be counted as a long time "sleeper agent" who was a very high ranking public official through infiltration. Secondly, Alger Hiss never achieved a high ranking government official status like a president, Vice President, Secretary of State, etc.[http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/who.html] I do think that when someone goes for a very important government position, such as a President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, a higher degree of scrutiny often occurs. For this reason, I believe you are having trouble coming up with a historical instance of a very high ranked official in the Western World being a sleeper agent. Furthermore, by the time Hiss was charged who had been two years out of government and was working for the Carnegie Foundation. I believe it is invalid to use Hiss as an example of an ambitious sleeper agent who had gotten to the top of government when he had resigned from government 2 years before he was charged. Next, I do think my questions in my previous post were quite reasonable that you left unanswered. Also, and this is really at the heart of the issue, you never really countered this information which makes the idea of Obama being a sleeper agent a non-starter because it appears as if he was never truly raised a Muslim:

"Barack Hussein Obama was born in 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, to a Kenyan Muslim father of the same name and an American secular humanist mother named Ann Dunham. While Obama’s father was raised in Islamic culture, he had become a functional atheist by the time he reached college. Despite his parents’ lack of religion, young Obama received his early education in both Catholic and Muslim schools.

Obama’s parents divorced when he was only two years old. Henceforth, the senior Obama was “almost entirely absent”[i] from his son’s life. Four years later, Ann Dunham relocated to Indonesia with her son to join her new husband Lolo Soetoro. A daughter, Maya, was born to the couple before their divorce. She returned to Hawaii where she went on to earn her MA in anthropology from the University of Hawaii. In his first book, Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama wrote of his mother, “She was a lonely witness for '''secular humanism''', a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position paper liberalism.”[ii]

Obama’s mother was a huge influence in his life. In an interview with Oprah Winfrey in October 2006, he said, “My mother—when I think about the values I hold most dear, they came from her.”[iii] In a speech given at a Moms Rising event in 2006, he said, “Everything that I think is good about me, I got from her.”[http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:57, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: In response to your indented general comment above, there's nothing magical or divine about presidential politics that ensures honesty. Woodrow Wilson was paralyzed by a stroke for more than a year while president, and the public did not know. Your argument that it is impossible to keep such things from the public is simply wrong. Wallace was not widely known to be a communist or else Roosevelt would never have been elected with Wallace on the ticket. Roosevelt finally figured it out (or was tipped off), and without explanation replaced Wallace. The leftists were dumbfounded by this move, as they were on the verge of making Wallace president when Roosevelt died. Oh, and the sickness of Roosevelt was also kept from the public. He died from his illness within a mere weeks of becoming president for the fourth time. The public didn't expect that either.

: In response to your specific questions, you're quoting self-serving and implausible statements. Obama was raised by a Muslim stepfather. He learned to view the Muslim call to prayer as the most beautiful thing in the word. There is no real indication any change by Obama, and his keeping of the name "Hussein" illustrates that he did not have a rare adult conversion from Muslim to Christianity. All indications are that such conversion was politically motivated to persuade the public, and one might say that was obviously successful with some! But I doubt Obama will continue his charade indefinitely. Watch for aid to impose Islam on more foreign countries, and watch for inclusion of the Koran at official ceremonies, if not on Jan. 20th itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:: No, Andy, it is ''you'' who is "quoting self-serving and implausible statements". Even five of your own senior administrators disagree with you, but, like Wikipedia, you persist with imposing your own view on this article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
Andy, I don't think you can give me a single piece of evidence of Obama's mother being a Muslim and given there is evidence against this matter that is not surprising. It also appears as if Obama has a great influence in his life which is not surprising since she was his biological mother. In addition, Obama appeared to have received some Catholic education when he was young. Therefore, your supposed case that Obama was raised a Muslim is certainly not built on a bedrock of solid evidence. Accordingly, the Obama article should not state that Obama is likely a Muslim. Next, I never stated that it is impossible for someone to get to a top political office as a sleeper agent but merely improbable and historical determinations should be reached probabilistically. Also, while it may have not been known that Wallace was a communist (if indeed he was a communist which is a matter I have not investigated but which could certainly be true), there does appear to be indications that he had openly strong leftist views for even the Democrats.[http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USARwallace.htm] Therefore, you historical precedent argument in this case is certainly not a stronger one in terms of Wallace being a "sleeper agent". It does not sound plausible to me that a Communist sleeper agent would have openly strong leftist views that even the Democrats found distasteful. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:34, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: In Muslim families, like the one Obama was raised in, the father dictates the religious upbringing of the boys. Please learn more about the Muslim traditions. With so little awareness of it by Christians, it's no wonder Islam is trouncing Christianity around the world.

: Alger Hiss was later proved to be a communist and read up on how he was the TOP adviser to FDR at the key WWII conference carving up Europe. Not only was he a sleeper communist agent, but the liberals denied it for decades even after Hiss was convicted in court. Only in the last few years did one of his co-agents admit the truth. Please learn about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:43, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::: Islam is "trouncing" Christianity? In what way? Greater population growth, perhaps, but that's not relevant here. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:::Andy, have you made the case that Obama's stepfather was a staunch Muslim? I know you have not because it appears as if Obama attended a Catholic school when he was young. Therefore, you still not have made the case that Obama was raised a Muslim. Next, Hiss may have been a top advisor at one point in his life, however, an advisor is not a very top government official (President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, etc.) who certainly often faces much more scrutiny. Andy, given historical precedence and the greater scrutiny that is often given to people ascending to the very peaks of government power, I do think the case for a sleeper agent rising to the pinnacle of power in a government institution is very tenuous to say the least. I think this principle of sleeper agents not ascending to the pinnacles of large organizations is true of institutions outside of government as well. For example, people when being sarcastic in replying to a yes or no question, will sometimes say, "Is the Pope Jewish?" meaning that the pope is not likely an adherent of Judaism. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:34, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, it appears as if there is strong evidence that Obama attended a Catholic school but there may not be evidence that he attended a school that truly could be called a Muslim school. Please read [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp this article.]

Regardless of whether or not CNN or the AP did their work with diligence, there appears to be no controversy regarding that Obama did in fact attend a Catholic school. Therefore, I still maintain that the claim he was raised a Muslim does not have strong support. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:22, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: Catholic schools welcome Muslim students. They still do. The Muslim students virtually never convert.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:07, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Catholic schools may very welcome Muslim students but what staunchly Muslim father sends his son to a Catholic school? Andy, you still have not jumped over the evidential bar that Osama was raised a Muslim. The so called Muslim school was apparently not strongly Islamic or possibly not even Islamic at all ( [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp read this article.] ) and the stepfather appears to not have had a strong Muslim faith as evidenced by the fact that he sent Obama to a Catholic school. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:56, 16 November 2008 (EST)

In the Unification Church, it is not unusual for parents to send their children to a Catholic grade school. So what if they come home, crossing themselves when they pray? Overall, the education is better there than in public schools, so if they can afford it the practice makes senses. I daresay mainstream Christians likewise don't mind the sectarian differences. Any way out of secular humanism is often fine with them.

It appears likely that as president, Obama will be more sympathetic to Islamic countries in his foreign policy. Maybe he'll even be able to get them to lighten up on their "destruction of Israel" goals, or allow [[religious freedom]] for Christians and Jews. Are [[Turkey]] and [[Indonesia]] good examples of this?

I see good in all religions, and I don't see Islam as irredeemably evil. So what if Obama is or was Muslim? There is [[no religious test for office]], and he can't be impeached for it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:09, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==Another case for Obama being Muslim==
During a campaign rally, two Muslim women in Muslim garb, were removed from prominent camera view. The reason is A) Obama doesn't want his image assoc. with Muslims B) or doesn't like Muslims (we know the opposite is true). Now, he doesn't want images of Muslim assoc with him because he is A) secret Muslim or B) the American people will think he is a Muslim. (Which 27% already do). Did Obama try to hide his Muslim background and is that plan still in progress?--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 17:52, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Are A and B the only choices on why Obama does not want himself associated with Islam? Is a false dilemma being proposed? For example, setting aside whether it was right or wrong which is a whole other discussion, did 9/11 drive up the American public's negative beliefs and/or attitudes regarding Islam? Would the American public look less favorably upon a candidate who received some Muslim religious education (Obama also received Catholic training in his youth. And there is certainly reason to believe that a certain degree of philosophical skepticism was imparted to Obama via his mother). In short, I think the above post fails to use the principle of using the total evidence (see my posts above) plus contains a false dilemma. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:09, 16 November 2008 (EST)

== “Less than 1% Muslims convert” – Prosecutor error? ==

OK, time for something new and I direct this particularly to Aschlafly. There is a logical fallacy called the “Prosecutor’s Error”. It is very subtle but real enough to send innocent people to the execution chamber. In fact, many lawyers and judges don’t understand it. It works like this. Please concentrate: this isn't all that easy.

Let us suppose that it is true that Barack Obama was at one time a Muslim, even if this was at an immature age when he really had no say in his faith. And let us grant that only 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity. The argument which Aschflafly uses time and again is to deduce that that this means that, notionally at least, that there is a 99% chance that Obama is a Muslim.

The fallacy of the argument is that it does not recognize that the IF Obama was in that 99% of Muslims who did not convert, there would be no practicable way he could have run for President. Therefore the chances that he is one of those who DID convert are raised far beyond the mathematically obvious one of 1%.

Let me give you a real-life example. A woman had three children and each expired early in infancy of “cot death”. The prosecutor did his math and advised the court that there was a “one in 70 million” chance of this happening by accident. Therefore, the jury was heavily disposed to assume that she was guilty of the serial murder of her children. But the fallacy of the case is that she was ONLY arrested because of the rareness of the 3 children dying of cot death in the one family. But even if this only happens one in 70 million families, in a large country such as the U.K or U.S.A, and over a period of decades, it is BOUND to occur, purely by accident. If we then tell a courtroom that there is only a 1 in 70 million chance that she is innocent, we are guilty of the “Prosecutor’s Error”. It is tantamount to arresting a man who comes into a lot of money suddenly and is arrested under suspicion of larceny. He explains that he won it on a lottery, but the Prosecutor says he has looked into the “Lottery” business, and there is only a 1 in 20 million chance of winning it, therefore there is only a 1 in 20 million chance the indicted man is telling the truth.

In Obama’s case, once again, EVEN if it is true that only 1% of Muslims convert, AND ALSO true that he was born into the Muslim faith, the fact that his circumstances allowed him to run for the Presidency argues that he was one of those Muslims who DID convert, and thus makes his chances of being a non-Muslim substantially greater that 1%. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:05, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:I understand your math, but your reasoning does not convince me. The lottery example was the most unfortunate attempt.

:Although in any given lottery, the chances may be 1 in 20 million for one person to win - the fact is that '''every''' lottery has a winner.

:The problem with Obama's religion is not so much ''Which is it?'' but, "How shall the electorate now regard its new president elect?" Will Obama be pro-Muslim (because he's Muslim or was raised Muslim)?

:A related question is, "Will Obama be pro-Black because he is black?"

:I get along equally well with black Christians as with white Christians, so this is not an issue for me. I've also found Muslims personally just as honest, reliable and hard-working as Christians. What's all the fuss about? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Awesome article ==
Just wanted to say, finally a good resource about obama. Fantastic research about the muslim piece, it really shows him as the closet muslim like he is. Shame the libs just don't get it !! [[happymoon|happymoon]]

== Great comedy article ==

It's a shame people don't get the jokes. Just wanted to pop in and say keep up the good work! Was referred here by a friend who also got a kick out of this article. [[User:Somebody21|Somebody21]] 11:08, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:Read the article properly before you start calling it a joke. You've been looking at Obama from a left wing viewpoint; try looking at him from a right wing viewpoint. It'll do you good.--[[User:WHurst|WHurst]]

==This will be a hit on stormfront==

America reaches a milestone in his history and all you guys can do is peddle false lies which have been repudiated by just about everyone in the political business. The comment about 'possibly been sworn in by the koran' is not only false, but a terrifying example of what racism and ignorance is capable of. You may not be white nationalists, but your inability to reasonably discuss this man's faith without resorting to the most despicable acts of scaremongering is typical of the tripe we see on racist websites.

Keep this crap up and you'll make sure to keep the black vote away from your party for the forseeable future. [[User:JCharlton|JCharlton]] 17:50, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::Race and religion are two different things. Why do liberals always resort to racism? Maybe its becaus you don't have any real arguments against the issues raised here? This isn't wikipedia, we deal in facts here. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 20:20, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== Reply ==

Don't know where to start. Maybe someone else can explain why they get so enraged at the likelihood that Obama is a Muslim. What's it to someone who (1) is an atheist, (2) is an Australian, (3) is a Christian, or (4) would support him regardless? Frankly, the opposition by some is puzzling.

Regardless, some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here. Perhaps we can all agree that it's worth learning more about what many say has quickly become the world's largest religion, and the strongest religion in Europe today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:49, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:It really shouldn't be that puzzling Andy. They are calling out what they believe to be falsehood. When people made spurious, questionable claims about Bush, how did Conservapedia respond? Did you include the information or remove it? Its the exact same thing. You tried to keep the spurious information out of it. The name "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" implies intellectual honesty, and on this particular aspect most people here (myself included) find this pile of circumstantial evidence to be based on poor conclusions, false arguments, and illogical reasoning to be an absurdity without any solid claims that say he is a Muslim. The burden of proof is on you to -prove- that he is, not provide a loaded mountain of evidence that is obviously taylored to imply that he is with no proof whatsoever other than bad logic. I can't believe this topic is still going. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 22:17, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:: There is nothing "spurious" about it, and you lose credibility with your baseless claims of falsehood. Even Obama's biggest supporters would have to admit that there is a significant probability that he is a Muslim. Perhaps one can quibble whether that probability is 20% or 60% or 90%, but no one can insist with a straight face that it is 0%.

:: Given that, it's bizarre how some adamantly insist that the probability must be less than 50% rather than greater than 50%. Frankly, the demands to censor this information smacks of liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:52, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:::When you promote someone over yourself here, the beef can be over censorship. Until then, it's just people saying they think you're wrong. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 23:16, 17 November 2008 (EST) ''<-like me, for example...''

Don't fall for the devil's tricks. These "conservatives" are not true Christians. [[User:Somebody21|Somebody21]] 23:33, 17 November 2008 (EST)

"''Maybe someone else can explain why they get so enraged at the likelihood that Obama is a Muslim.''": Yes, I would like you to explain that. Because ''you'' are the one enraged at that. I, on the other hand, am "enraged" that he is being accused of being a Muslim on the basis of logical fallacy, lousy arguments, and false claims.

"''What's it to someone who ... is a Christian''": As a Christian, my concern is for the ''truth''. Why do you continually try and misrepresent this as censorship, liberal lies, or whatever?

"''... some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here...''": That is not the issue I'm arguing. You are again raising red herrings. The issue is the claim that he is a Muslim, which claim is not supported by the evidence.

"''There is nothing "spurious" about it, and you lose credibility with your baseless claims of falsehood.''": No, Andy, it '''is''' spurious, and ''you'' lose credibility with ''your'' baseless claims that he is a Muslim.

"''Even Obama's biggest supporters would have to admit that there is a significant probability that he is a Muslim.''": On what grounds? Certainly not those in this article.

"''Given that, it's bizarre how some adamantly insist that the probability must be less than 50% rather than greater than 50%.''": "That" is not given. Rather, it's bizarre how ''you'' adamantly insist that he ''is'' a Muslim given the lack of evidence.

"''Frankly, the demands to censor this information smacks of liberal bias.''": I'm going to shout because you obviously didn't hear me before: "IT IS NOT CENSORSHIP TO REMOVE IRRELEVANT INFORMATION, AND I'D APPRECIATE YOU NOT IMPLYING THAT I'M TRYING TO CENSOR ANYTHING."

I've pointed out a number of problems, and your response has been to slander the criticism as censorship and liberal, to introduce red herrings, and to assert your opinion as fact. What you have ''not'' done is actually address the issue.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:57, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:How dare you accuse Andy of slander. And what hypocricy. The only slanderer, Philip, is you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 03:40, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: Yet you make no attempt to refute that it was slanderous, nor to substantiate your accusation against me. In other words, a substanceless response. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, regarding "''(Islam being) the strongest religion in Europe today''": you never cease to amaze us with your wealth of knowledge of the world outside the USA, be it UK, the whole of Europe or Australia. Kudos to you! --[[User:Europeo|Europeo]] 07:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::''Regardless, some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here.'' I think that's a statement with which anyone would agree. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:55, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==Four Questions For The Trojan Candidate==
{{QuoteBox|1=It has taken the better part of a year, and specifically the last six months of this election season, for committed citizen journalists at TexasDarlin and many other blogs to conduct the solid, investigative research that the media, the democratic national committee, agencies of the federal government, Barack Obama himself, and Congress should have done on the eligibility and qualifications of Barack Obama. The first serious look at Barack Obama ’s Constitutional eligibility began on this blog, with the exposure of the birth certificate mystery, Obama-Soetoro’s Indonesian citizenship, and analysis of the constitutional problems with Obama’s multiple citizenship status irrespective of birthplace.
 
Although our collective knowledge of Barack Obama and the concerns of his candidacy came too late to change the outcome of the Democratic nomination and the election—especially in light of the MSM bias, the Obama campaign’s tactics, and DNC shenanigans– for all our hard work, we were successful in shedding some light on the content of his character: his associations, his deeds, his family relations, his friends, his lack of experience, stewardship, his patriotism, his potential agenda ([http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-trojan-candidate/] ) and the startling depth of his secrecy.
 
Now that we have “un-muddied” the water…..we stand on the edge of a caldera* with no idea of the complexity, depth, explosiveness, or unpredictability of this phenomenon we have witnessed in the rise of Barack Obama ! We as a country have never actually been here before, standing at the edge of possible dissolution of our country, except perhaps in the election of 1860. One realizes at once the perils of both diving into that hot pool of water, or running away to avoid the explosion….either scenario leads to serious burns!
 
While there seems to be little evidence that we will ever fully know Obama, nor avoid the explosive change he will bring, there is a way we can learn from this experience such that our Country will never again be faced with someone who is truly unknown, inexperienced, untested, and feels (to me anyway) uncommitted to America. We can use the 2008 experiences to also highlight and then design strategies to ensure that every political party is responsive to its constituents, and that our Constitution is really a living document.
 
The Constitution is by and for “we the people”; therefore “we the people” must make it work and not rely on any political party to sell America to the highest bidder.
 
'''Four Questions'''
 
I bring forward four questions that get to the heart of our rights, as American citizens, to ensure that our government and its leaders are indeed qualified to lead our great country. By extension, these questions can be used as windows to other potential areas where we the people do not yet have redress.
 
These questions are miraculously (given procedural errors and the existing lower court dismissal) before the Supreme Court with the requirement that President-elect Obama respond by December 1, 2008. It is also disturbing that these questions are before the U.S. Supreme Court when the candidate himself or the DNC could easily have dispelled any speculation by providing simple documentation.
 
While I have not kept track of the Berg v. Obama case for many reasons, it truly is miraculous that Justice Souter required Obama to respond to Berg’s writ of certiorari. Even if, as some have said, Souter ’s action is not significant and procedural only, how Obama responds will reveal much about his view of the Constitution, and will determine if the full Supreme Court decides to hear the case. In responding, Obama will be essentially arguing why the writ of certiorari should not be granted.
 
In my opinion, the questions raised by Berg in the lower Court should not have been thrown out entirely based on standing alone, or by the notion that the injury to a voter is “vague”. But some Judges do actually realize the question may be beyond their jurisdiction and ‘ask for help’ by clearly making appealable and reversible errors that a higher court can rule on. The Supreme Court Rules permit the grant of a writ of certiorari only under specific circumstances.
 
The questions presented for review are:
 
*1. Whether a citizen of the United States has standing to challenge the Constitutional qualifications of a Presidential nominee under the “natural born citizen clause” [Article II of the U.S. Constitution] when deprivation of the right to such a challenge would result in the infringement of a citizen’s Constitutional right to vote?
*2. Isn’t it true that no one has the responsibility to ensure a United States Presidential candidate is eligible to serve as President of the United States?
*3. Are there proper steps for a voter to ensure a Presidential Candidate is qualified and eligible to serve as President of the United States?
*4. Isn’t it true that there are not any checks and balances to ensure the qualifications and eligibility of a Presidential Candidate to serve as President of the United States?
 
The “questions presented for review” in the writ require Obama’ response. Notice that answering these questions does not require Obama to produce a birth certificate, but instead to answer why he does not have to prove himself eligible.
 
Although we cannot predict Obama’s answers, based on his past legal motions submitted in the lower court case, Obama may indeed respond that the writ should not be granted because (1) a citizen does not have standing, (2) that no one has responsibility to ensure eligibility, (3) that there are no proper steps for a citizen to ensure qualifications, and (4) that there are no checks and balances that exist today to ensure a candidate is qualified. Notice he is in a position of arguing technicalities here, and completely misses his own obligation to prove himself.
 
Although doubtful, it is also possible Obama would try to argue that the 14th Amendment says that “naturalized citizens” and “dual citizens” are “American citizens”, thereby satisfying the requirements of Article II. I really can’t imagine he would bring this up, unless asked in a hearing, as the question of the 14th Amendment’s modification of Article II is a constitutional matter that only the Supreme Court can decide. Recall that on Obama’s own website he claims that he is a U.S. Citizen under the 14th amendment.
 
I think these questions may have Obama boxed in. If he intends not to release his COLB, citizenship records, passport files, etc, Obama would then practically argue a big “FU” to the U.S. Supreme Court and say in effect “I don’t have to respond to this because there is no law, no avenue for citizens, and no checks and balances that require me to do so.” He will argue technicalities in how to disregard the Constitution, including, as above, that the 14th Amendment applies to Article II. I wonder how the Supreme Court might respond?
 
If Obama responds in any other way, he could be forced to disclose and/or identify when, how, and what steps citizens can take, or what steps are taken, to assure the POTUS’ eligibility. Using the process he acknowledges—for example, the “DNC vetting process”–he may then be forced to prove his eligibility to serve as POTUS under Article II by showing the documentation he provided to the DNC, if he provided anything to the DNC. Alternatively he could concede that there are no procedures to ensure eligibility of a person for POTUS, and that “America has to take his word for it”. Would the Supreme Court then order him to produce his documentation according to the original suit filed by Berg?
 
One item of interest is how Obama responds to Question 4, on the existence of checks and balances to assure the POTUS’ eligibility. “Checks and balances” can mean procedures, legislative processes, acts, bills, agencies, or resolutions. Here is where Obama could argue that the Senate Resolution promoted by Senators Leahy, Obama, and McCatskill on John McCain’s eligibility applies. In other words, Obama could argue that the checks and balances already exist and this resolution suffices (notice this is not a bill). The Senate resolution was developed in April, 2008 to “validate” John McCain ’s natural born citizen status when it was unnecessary, and in some ways the resolution’s language can be seen as an attempt by the three Senators to create a blanket provision for a naturalized citizen to be eligible to serve as POTUS. Looking at the text of the resolution and supporting statements, Senator Leahy has the following curious exchange with Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff (emphasis mine):
 
Chairman Leahy. Let me just ask this: I believe–and we have had some question in this Committee to have a special law passed declaring that Senator McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal, that he meets the constitutional requirement to be President….You are a former Federal judge. You are the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mind–I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become President?
 
Secretary Chertoff. My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.
 
As Berg’s case has evolved, he refined the scope of defendants who now must also respond to the writ, including the DNC, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and its Chair, Senator Dianne Feinstein , the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and several Pennsylvania government officials.
 
With the exception of the DNC, who also joined in Obama’s initial motion to dismiss the lower case on lack of standing, I think the other defendants’ responses might be decidedly different. The FEC could claim that it actually has no jurisdiction in the matter by way of its charter and organizing documents, and that even if it did, it is far too understaffed to perform investigatory functions, as cited by Senator Feinstein in testimony before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration on May 28, 2008 (link to http://rules.senate..gov/hearings/2008/052108feinsteinopen.pdf). And will Senator Feinstein blame the Bush administration, or will she admit that she too just assumed the DNC vetted Obama and that he was eligible?
 
After reviewing Obama’s legal argument against granting the writ of certiorari and the other defendants’ responses, Justice Souter will then review Berg’s response before deciding where the case goes next, including whether the full Supreme Court will hear the case. Remember that Souter’s clerks have all the lower court material and reviewed it before Souter required Obama to respond to the writ of certiorari. In my opinion, Justice Souter would not have granted this appeal from Berg if he thought the issues were irrelevant and not worthy of the Court’s attention.
 
How does the Supreme Court react? Will it order the production of Obama’s documents? Will it order the lower Courts to resolve the matter expeditiously, requiring the release of documents? Will it order the FEC, Electoral College, or Congress to verify his eligibility, or develop verification procedures? Will they agree with Obama, if he mentions it, that the 14th Amendment really did modify Article II criteria? Will they dismiss the case?
 
Although the Supreme Court will not want to be seen as determining the outcome of another election—even for the perception of “fairness”– the questions presented in the writ are completely different than presented in Bush v. Gore. Under Article III of the Constitution, the Supreme Court clearly has the jurisdiction to decide the matter. Legal scholars will point to Marbury v. Madison ( link to http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=19) as precedent if the full Supreme Court accepts the writ, orders the lower Court in error, directs it to secure Obama’s documentation, and chastises the DNC, FEC, the PA state agencies, the Senate, and Senator Obama for not doing their job, and not forcing the production of documents itself, while still retaining jurisdiction.
 
If this is the outcome, a motion could be made by Berg to stay the vote of the Electoral College pending the outcome of the case. If the Justices are concerned about the matter and integrity of the 2008 election, that motion could be granted. The expedited discovery of documents would proceed. Yes, I understand this is a long-shot and speculation on my part.
 
And how, in the meantime, are we to ever know about Barack Obama? Is the burden of proof really on America (Berg), or on Barack Obama ? Is it up to your employer to find out who you are, or is it up to you as an employee to provide your documentation? Isn’t Obama supposed to be working for America? I believe that the burden of proof on eligibility rests solely and unconditionally on Barack Obama’s shoulders. I am not alone in this belief (link http://americamustknow.com/Documents/OBAMA%20LAWSUIT,%20Class%20Action.doc).
 
Alinsky Returns?
 
As I sit in disbelief and alarm even writing this article—that something as basic as citizenship status of the potential POTUS is in front of the Supreme Court at this late date—I am reminded of a framework set forth in an earlier article, The Trojan Candidate (link to http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-trojan-candidate/), and the use of Alinsky-style community organizing techniques to advance an agenda of revolutionary change. In this article I posited that Barack Obama has a hidden agenda and part of implementing his agenda involves the use of techniques developed by Saul Alinsky and discussed in such books as Rules for Radicals (http://www.semcosh.org/AlinskyTactics.htm).
 
'''From the Trojan Candidate:'''
 
Alinsky laid out a set of basic principles to guide the actions and decisions of radical organizers [community organizers] and the People’s Organizations they established. The organizer, he said, ‘must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act.’ The organizer’s function, he added, was ‘to agitate to the point of conflict ’and ‘to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a “dangerous enemy.” ‘The word ‘enemy,’ said Alinsky, ‘is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people’; i.e., to convince members of the community that he is so eager to advocate on their behalf, that he has willingly opened himself up to condemnation and derision.
 
What could be the reason for withholding his citizenship papers and birth status, especially if he has nothing to hide? Does he plan to use this in some way to “rub raw the resentments of the people” [and] “fan the latent hostilities to the point of over expression”? The concerns about Obama’s Constitutional eligibility will be met with accusations of “racism”; that the “system” wouldn’t do this to a white man, and that the republicans or others are trying to ‘take Obama out’ on a “technicality”. And worse.
 
If Obama is ineligible, he could rightly be called a ‘dangerous enemy’ and forced to stand down. It is at this point that “the word ‘enemy’ is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people…” and the maneuvering and baiting of the establishment forces it to back down, with Obama prevailing whether having shown his documentation or not. As you contemplate this, think of all the money, the inevitability narrative, the shutting down of dissent, the timing of events, the threat of violence and insurrection, the establishment of the office of the president elect, and the simply overwhelming of America with all things Obama. This certainly pulls the light from shining on the real Barack Obama ’s Trojan candidacy.
 
If Obama is proven ineligible, does not stand down or even if he does stand down, it is not unreasonable to expect some “in-your-face” hostile reactions and calls for immediate changes that permit Obama to stay. How ironic: in defense of liberty and the Constitution, we will be called ‘racists’.
 
'''Implications for the Future'''
 
The four questions presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 will have a lasting and enduring effect on the course of the American Constitution in the next decade or more and will continue to feed the growing doubts about Obama’s qualifications and intentions in the next four years.. Currently there are 17 different legal actions in various state and federal courts, which now challenge the validity of the electoral process across the country, regardless of outcome (see http://www.soundinvestments.us/files/final_writ_keyes_v_bowen.pdf) .
 
Just my suspicion, but I am beginning to get a more complete picture of why Obama has sealed all of his records, including college financial aid applications, papers, and coursework. I believe his financial aid applications reveal his foreign status; and I now see that his Columbia and Harvard papers could reveal his examination of the “weaknesses” of the U.S. Constitution and ways to “remedy” them using “administrative procedures” as discussed in this 2001 radio interview. (link to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VctiYQplw8)
 
As I look at the scope of research on the issue of eligibility during this election season, I note that nearly all have concluded that there are no checks and balances to assure the eligibility of a Presidential Candidate, that no one is responsible, that the DNC did not do its job, and that indeed citizens and voters have very little recourse to ask these questions. The Supreme Court has never been presented with this question before on Article II eligibility. I personally doubt that they will duck their responsibilities to protect the Constitution.
 
Up until this time, it has been assumed that every candidate and POTUS has met Article II qualifications. We assume that in fact no one would dare to run for and claim the Presidency if he/she didn’t meet the qualifications of the Constitution. Looks like our age of innocence is over.
 
It appears that we will have to craft legislation to assure eligibility criteria are met for the POTUS, and to assign appropriate responsibilities to assure so.. If the country wants to amend the Constitution to allow naturalized or dual citizens to serve as POTUS, then we have that mechanism, which ¾ of the states have to ratify. None of this can happen before the January 20th inauguration.
 
The four questions to the Supreme Court also remind me of other areas in which we voters do not have redress when something goes wrong. Although I am now an “unaffiliated” voter, having left the democratic party after November 4th, it also appears that democrats do not have an avenue of redress when the DNC and RBC violate party rules as they did in this case to deny Hillary Clinton the nomination. In addition, we now know that caucuses can be gamed, and do not serve the interests of democracy nor do they provide a fair representation of the strength of our party’s candidates. Because of the DNC, RBC and Obama’s gaming of the system with caucus fraud, and the blatant use of race and misogyny to silence critics, we are witnessing the democrats begin the disintegration of the “democratic brand”. I am sure there are issues in the Republican party after GWB destroyed the “republican brand”. We all need a detox from our respective koolaid brands in order to really see clearly.
 
What is next for our country? Well, if we don’t want to dive into that hot pool, and we’re not going to run away, then we’d better start creating an alternative vision. A line in one of my favorite movies, The Shawshank Redemption, sums it up for me:
 
“…get busy livin’, or get busy dyin’…” [http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/11/16/four-questions-for-the-trojan-candidate/]}}
{{unsigned|TK}}

==Andy, if it can perhaps be quibbled that there is merely a 20% chance of Obama being a Muslim, then why is the Obama article stating that he is likely a Muslim? ==

Dear Andy,

You wrote above regarding the probability of Obama being a Muslim the following:

"Perhaps one can quibble whether that probability is 20% or 60% or 90%, but no one can insist with a straight face that it is 0%."

Andy, if it can be perhaps be quibbled that the likelihood of Obama being a Muslim is merely 20%, then why is the article still stating that Obama is likely a Muslim? Second, Andy do you think that a reference work should use scholarly caution and that scholarly caution helps make a reference work authoritative? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:01, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:In this case, what you describe as 'scholarly caution' means knuckling under to Liberal suppression of facts and discussion. The scholarly option is to seek out the truth, no matter how disturbing that truth or the process of uncovering it might be to those on the left. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:43, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Andy I also fear we are not doing our site any favors in this area. If Obama is a Muslim, he is certainly keeping that under wraps. There is no indication that he would suddenly take the oath of office on a Koran. Such a turnabout that he lied about his Christianity would destroy his ability to govern. It is more likely, if he is a Muslim, that he would support Muslim causes without making a profession of his own faith. We should also realize, based upon his policies, that if he does have Islamic ties that they would be akin to the type of ties that John Kerry has to Catholicism, very poor. His views on abortion alone would be considered extreme Western decadence within the greater Islamic world view. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Bugler, I purposely chose Andy's words that "perhaps one can quibble that the probability is 20%". Therefore, if Andy is correct about the 20% issue then the statement that Obama is likely a Muslim should be removed from the article. I am just following Andy's statement where the logic leads if his statement is true and no knuckling under is necessary. I do think it is fair to say that people come to an encyclopedia to read facts and not speculation. Speculation weighs down an encyclopedia by eroding its credibility. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 08:03, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Saying "One could argue that X is 20%" doesn't in any way mean accepting that that X '''is''' 20%. It merely allows the existence of theoretically possible grounds of debate. If I said there were grounds for arguing that the planet Jupiter was made of cheese, likewise it doesn't mean that I think it is reasonably possible that such is the case. Andy is (in my interpretation of his words) admitting grounds for debate; it does not mean that he (or anyone else who takes a rational view of the issue) accepts only a 20% likelihood. The whole point of the point at issue is that it disproves the blinkered dogmatism and naivety of Liberals who say "Oh, Obama has said he's a Christian so he '''can't possibly''' be a Moslem." Liberals cling to dogma like an unweaned child to its blanket; we conservatives prefer debate, rational discourse, and seeking truth from facts, not from wish-fulfillment fantasies. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:14, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::: Admitting that 20% is ''possible'' means that you've destroyed your argument that it ''is'' more than 50%.
::::::: And no, the whole point is ''not'' to support liberal views. That's a false claim. And if you as a conservative prefers debate, rational discourse, and seeking truth from facts, why are you reversing my edits without offering any rebuttal to my points?
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)
''Admitting that 20% is ''possible'' means that you've destroyed your argument that it ''is'' more than 50%.'' You haven't read it, have you? Read it again, nice and slowly, take your time, and especially consider the Jupiter analogy. As for the vulgar abuse in your edit summary, I will let that speak for itself. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)

It might be good to create a subarticle, with [[Barack Obama]] as the main article. We have templates for this; Philip is our template custodian and can place whatever we need.

I protected the article, because edit wars don't serve our readers; and they don't help us contributors much either.

I didn't look at Andy's last version. I just guessed it might make a good starting point.

Let's discuss, rather than trying to "get our way". Wiki collaboration should result in stability. Let none of us rock the boat. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Thanks, Ed. I agree that edit wars are undesirable. I don't consider that I was edit warring. I was trying to protect this article, which has been arrived at in its current form after much debate, from unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism. In the course of doing so I have yet again been accused of mendacity. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:51, 18 November 2008 (EST)

: Thanks, Ed, for bringing stability. As Bugler points out, there is nothing in my observation that "perhaps one" can quibble whether the likelihood Obama is a Muslim is 20%, 60% or 90% that justifies censoring the evidence and statement that he is likely a Muslim. Juries make such determinations based on the evidence all the time; so do encyclopedias. The evidence is compelling and will not be censored or downplayed here, despite some (for unknown reasons) disliking it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:52, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::Yes, of course there is evidence. And being a Muslim is not a punishable in the US, so the jury need not use the standard of "[[beyond any reasonable doubt]]". It's more like a lawsuit, I guess, where you need only be 51% sure to vote one way or the other.

::Personally, I'd like CP to make some indication that some conservatives are still in doubt about [[my Muslim faith|"his Muslim faith"]], but that desire does not outweigh the need for editorial harmony.

::It is liberals - rather than conservatives - who insist on censoring all views contrary to theirs, in the US. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:03, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::: Ed, when the issue is the president of the United States, then even less than a 51% chance is often sufficient to be influential, just as less than 51% chance is enough to deny someone an important job.

::: Someone is missing the the point about [[my Muslim faith]], which omits the telling phrase: "Muslim faith." No Christian would use that specific phrase so casually in reference to himself. How about someone saying "Allah the Creator"?! Christians don't use the phrase.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Falsifiability & "My Muslim Faith" ==

Aschlafly, Ed Poor, etc. -

Is there any piece of evidence that, assuming it existed, would convince you that Barack Obama is NOT a Muslim? You've now admitted there's a chance he's not a Muslim, so what piece of evidence would convince you that he's not? As it stands, your argument seems unfalsifiable, and ridiculously conspiratorial: everytime someone offers evidence that Obama's not a Muslim, you just reply with, "oooh, he's a tricky one! He must have worked to cover that up!" That's not a respectable, logical argument: it's an inability to recognize fact when it's put before your eyes. What piece of evidence could convince you of that, if any?

Further, if I go through the George W. Bush talk page I bet I'll find a million examples of you apologizing for Bush's rhetorical missteps, and arguing that when he says something incorrectly, it doesn't mean he's stupid. Why, then, are you not willing to take Obama's slip of the tongue as the same thing - unconscious error, not indicative of any deeper meaning?

The fact is, you have no principled basis for the distinction. Nor are you going to accept any evidence that Obama's a Christian. You're just clinging to a pet theory when even your own administrative staff tells you you're wrong.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 10:26, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Towards stability via discussion ==

:''unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism''

Vandalism is replacing the page with "Stinky loves Myrtle". Unilateral editing is doing your own thing, even when you know someone else will just want to revert (see [[Editing etiquette]]).

Let's come closer together, rather than battle it out on the page itself. Talk pages are for talking. Let's hear some more talk! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:29, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:The problem with that, is that if people talk about it, and say almost anything to disagree with the current state of the article, they are likely to get blocked for the "90/10 Rule against talk talk talk" or "liberal namecalling" or some other excuse. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 10:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Tim, that's simply not true. The [[90/10 rule]] guards against nothing but talk. It's easy to make substantive contributions to comply with the rule, and it's easy to refrain from namecalling in discussions. In fact, both are essential to keep the level of discourse and learning here at a high level.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::The [[90/10 rule]] might guard against nothing but talk, but it sure seems to guard against some kinds of talk a lot more than others. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 10:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::If so, there's nothing wrong with that. Jaywalking is not prosecuted as much as petty shoplifting either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Aschlafly, you can tell yourself that all you want, but this much is clear; the 90/10 rule is a content-neutral rule applied in a manner that amounts to viewpoint discrimination. You only apply it against liberals. You've long since abandoned the stance that you "don't block ideologically."
:::::This site has survived for two years ''only'' by ruthlessly persecuting anyone who disagrees with your worldview. Tim is right, but I'll take it one step farther: I think the reason you censor people who disagree with you is because you know you'll lose in a fair fight. The Barack Obama article is just one more example of that. Except now, even your own sysops disagree with you, so you devolve into insulting Philip and dodging the question.
:::::Of course you can block me, and prove Tim right.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 11:02, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::@Aschlafly: I don't get your analogy. Jaywalking and petty shoplifting are different crimes. Excessive talk by a liberal and excessive talk by a conservative is the same "crime". So the "prosecution" ought to be applied equally against both, right? Otherwise it isn't a ''rule'', it's just an ''excuse'' to make people you don't agree with go away. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 11:04, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::: Rob, within the same crimes prosecutorial patterns are different. It's called "prosecutorial discretion." It is used every day by law enforcement and it is obvious why it is needed. I'm not going to waste my morning spelling this out for you. Take a basic course on criminal justice, or simply follow the news.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I would say you are partially correct, RobNewberry. Sometimes people need to be "invited" to leave, much like a dinner guest who overstays their welcome. If a person comes to Conservapedia knowing full well it is a conservative/Christian friendly wiki-encyclopedia, and is a liberal, the question is why? If the answer is they support Andy Schlafly's idea of an conservative alternative to the decidedly left-of-center editor dominated Wikipedia, that's great! All voices should be represented on the Net. But if their intentions are merely to argue and dispute conservative or Christian points of view, that becomes a subtle form of vandalism, inasmuch as it is a great time waster for those who genuinely want to contribute their conservative/Christian POV, and build this encyclopedia. My own opinion is that those who obsessively create new user names, only to argue against conservative values, and disrupt/time waste, are actually terrorists of the Internet kind. What other reason would they have to stick around? Any board or wiki does and should have the absolute right of association.

This would hold true for a conservative joining a known liberal board or wiki, and spend all their time disputing the members, arguing without end, and seeking to put their conservative point of view into their discussions or articles. I am not for truncating free speech automatically, but after weeks and weeks of disputing everything, knowing you are not going to change CP into Wikipedia's more liberal world-view, or have CP adopt all of Wikipedia's member conventions, a person's efforts then cross over into something more, what I have taken to calling Internet Terrorism. CP has an owner, it is his right to have whatever viewpoint he wants. If people agree, with even a part, they stick around and help build this place. If they don't, what other reason, other than being obstinate or having malicious intent, could they have? Disagreement is fine, debate is good. But where does it end, and the ability of like-minded individuals to associate with those they agree with, without constant disagreement begin? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 11:41, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Please don't refer to anything that isn't terrorism as terrorism. It might be censorship or vandalism or disruption. But terrorism is something else entirely. There is no terror involved in what you describe above and associating the term with it helps to undermine fear of the real kind. Terrorism should not be taken lightly. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::TK, I agree with you completely that people probably need to be "invited" to leave. My only problem is that this is done under the guise of 90/10 rule. I think this is done so that Andy can still claim something like "We don't ask editors to leave because they have a certain viewpoint, only Wikipedia does that." Make too many liberal edits, though, and you'll find that you have somehow violated the 90/10 rule. I say drop the deceit and just ban people with the comment "We don't like your viewpoint. Goodbye." It's about being honest about what kind of place this wiki really is. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 11:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::Ajkgordon, one definition of "terrorism" is "intimidating gang activity". Regardless of your rather parochial idea of its meaning, kindly refrain from saying something I clearly labeled as my own opinion, invention, is wrong usage. Organized activity, like from ''certain groups'', to disrupt other boards or wiki's, no matter how loosely organized, if it is at all coordinated, is intimidation, ergo, "terrorism".

:::RobNewberry, I know that when I was an administrator, I often followed Andy's lead in doing just that, block with the comment "Bye". As Schlafly often says, it isn't very hard to copy edit, add a source a few times a day, especially if one is spending hours and hours debating on talk pages. A person doing that, and not being obnoxious, they shouldn't be blocked. But I mostly see people with absolutely no contributions to CP, and looking at their history see only talk page posts, being blocked. Someone constantly reverting an article because of idealogical disagreement, and making no other contributions, should be blocked, or have the good grace to leave. There is more than one way to run a wiki. That's why they come with settings. Some wiki's require review of submissions before going live. Some require registration in order to edit, others do not. You sound fairly reasonable, obviously an informed person. Surely you can understand how people would grow tired of debating a topic without end. If you don't go to Wikipedia and try to insert something favorable about George W. Bush, Dick Cheney or Ann Coulter. Then when you are reverted, change it back. I don't think your experience will be a pleasant one. ;-) ----[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 12:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::RobNewberry, your own comments are misleading and illustrate the problem, because now I have to waste my time correcting them. The [[90/10 rule]] applies to people who talk, talk, talk without redeeming value in the way of substantive contributions. Nothing could be simpler. Talk is a time-waster. Different viewpoints, if logical, are welcome here. Incessant talk as can be seen on countless other sites, is not. The talkers can rant elsewhere. We're here to learn.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Andy, you're being very dishonest about the application of the rule. Your explanation of it includes several value judgments - "different viewpoints, if logical" - all we're arguing is that your definition of "logical" is "that which agrees with you." That's where the discrimination we're talking about comes from.
:::::Interestingly, while you spend some time characterizing anyone disagreeing with you as "liberal censorship," in a somewhat dishonest definition of "censorship," you seem unable to recognize that what you're doing is REAL censorship, the use of power (rather than argument & debate) to squelch uncomfortable beliefs. Open your mind.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 12:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::TK, if your definition is from Mirriam-Webster's, then it's '''''violent and''' intimidating gang activity''.
::::My request was but a courteous plea for proper usage of the term for a current and dangerous phenomenon. Scattering the term around and using it to define childish, irreverent and irritating vandalism degrades the purity of the term and lessens its impact when correctly using it. If that's parochial, so be it. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::TK and Andy, let me ask you a question. If you visited Wikipedia, and saw that, say, the Dick Cheney article contained an unreferenced assertion or an unfounded attack, you would initially try to edit and fix that problem, correct? Then, if another WP editor reverted your edit (which you believed was completely correct), you might either undo the reversion, or you might make a comment on the Talk Page, right? Now, here on CP, those of us who see something that ''we'' believe is incorrect or unfounded usually face a few problems. (Do not assume that all of us have evil intent against you - I'm entirely happy for you to have a conservative-leaning encyclopedia, and simply wish the information be factually correct and credibly referenced). First, the article may be locked, as this article is. In which case, there's nowhere to make the complaint except on the Talk Page. Second, if we can make them, our edits are often reverted, often with no supporting data provided (cf the Muslim debate here), so we usually have to make a comment on the Talk Page about that fact. It only takes one back and forth comment as we debate our position before a 90/10 block is usually enacted. Finally, those of us who frequent CP in an attempt to monitor the extreme forms of distortion that crop up now and again (as per any online community) may be shy of actually editing the articles, since bans are so often administered, so we instead first make our comments on the Talk Page. Frequently, a new user's single comment on a Talk Page is enough for a 90/10 ban. So it's pretty hard to believe that 90/10 is really about 90/10 when there are often no other options but Talk. And it's pretty hard to believe you're interested in establishing 'trustworthyness' if you aren't prepared to listen to evidence from other perspectives. [[User:FredX|FredX]] 12:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: FredX, users can talk all they want, as long as they contribute substance at the same time. It's easy to contribute substance. It's the reason we're here. No project can succeed if the participants do nothing but talk. Try it at work sometime if you don't believe me.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::Andy, consider this: "talk talk talk" is useful if it's being done to convince you, the only person with control over the article, that you're wrong. Talk towards the truth is not useless talk: it's incredibly substantive. As it stands now, it's you, Bugler, and TK versus everyone else on the site. It might be time to recognize that all this talk has the "substance" of proving your error.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:08, 18 November 2008 (EST)

FredX, having a Conservative/Christian - friendly encyclopedia does not obligate CP to prostitute those beliefs by allowing people who are not Christians, who are not Conservatives, to alter articles or their tone, to fit their outlook. The truth is the truth, but truth is always in the eye of the beholder, no? You and I could argue 24/7, over the existence of God, to use an example. No matter how many "facts" you presented me with, it would not alter my ''knowing'' he exists. Political and religious thought is highly subjective. One mans "distortion" is another mans valid "truth". To repeatedly try to alter someone's beliefs is a form of bullying. Read what you are saying. No one has the obligation to appoint himself "Internet Monitor of Truth". Your conventions of how a wiki-encyclopedia come from where? It is totally lacking in logic to think the conventions of one place should be used at another. If I go to the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post, and appoint myself the "truth" monitor there, what would happen?

If you have a complaint, you can always avail yourself the email links to other users. Or post your objection on the author's talk page. We aren't talking here about people objecting. We are talking about people who will not take "no" for an answer, and demand that their truth is better than another's. Once your point is made, posted, doing it again and again, without end, accomplishes what, other than you being able to vent? I don't spend time arguing with liberals at the Kos or HuffPo, because I know they do not agree with me, never will. I am not a YEC, yet I am here. What would be accomplished for me to argue, without end, with Philip Rayment (to use a known example of a YEC member here) over the age of the Earth? His "facts" as to Earth's age, are his. Mine are mine. In building an encyclopedia, or in any project, the trick is to focus on the areas we can agree on, and not let those we don't bog us down. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Talking with enemies ==

In the section '''"statements"''' Obama is criticised for claiming Roosevelt spoke to our enemies. Now it is true that Roosevelt did not talk to Hitler, but he certainly ''did'' talk to Stalin, who most Americans consider (and hesitantly considered back then) an enemy, and it is Stalin that Obama is presumably referring to. Rather than letting Hitler conquer Russia while the United States kept to its own war effort, or letting Patton continue on to Warsaw and Moscow after victory against Germany, Roosevelt was willing to talk to the Communist Enemy to co-ordinate action and to ultimately permit the Bolshevik conquest of eastern Europe. Naturally there are divergent opinions over whether in this particular case compromise was the best course of action, but what Obama is obviously expressing when he refers to Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy, all of whom negotiated with the Soviet enemy, is that it's better to come to talk with and possibly compromise with an opponent we may feel ideologically at polar opposites with instead of just blindly fighting whenever the oppurtunity presents itself.

For that reason it is advisable that the section is removed as it relies on the assumption that Obama was referring exclusively to Truman and Roosevelt's relationship with Hitler rather than with Stalin, and I would do so myself if the article was not unfortunately locked. [[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 12:40, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Your reasoning is confused, and your conclusion makes no sense at all.

:Compromising with an enemy is often the wrong thing to do. Your [[all or nothing]] analysis doesn't support it: it's rarely a case of "give in or fight blindly". Perhaps you have assumed that America only '''felt''' it was ideologically at a polar opposite from atheism and totalitarianism. This is [[liberal dogma]], not CP editorial policy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:52, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== compared to wikipedia article ==

It is interesting that the wikipedia articles on Obama does not mention Pakistan. In fact, his three week trip to Pakistan was documented in a New York Times article, but metion of it was removed at wikipedia with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Obama&diff=252397639&oldid=252397137 this edit]. It looks like some wiki contributors are running interferance at wikipedia. The conservapedia article is a nice balance to that article, though the part that he "may be sworn into office at his inauguration ... using the Koran" is dodgy, and sounds almost National Enquirer-ish. I think the wording could be improved, though I haven't looked into it. It would not surprise me if Barack Obama were a Muslim, and it would not surprise me if he were a liberal Christian with weakly held beliefs and a fondness for his early teachings. At wikipedia, I also didn't see any mention of Bill Ayers on Obama pages. That is very strange. The sad part is, if President Obama appointed Bill Ayers to be the head of the Department of Education, I don't think we would see much difference in the American education system--at least in the public schools--as people that think like him are already in control. Anyway, keep up the good work. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 12:58, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Good points, BigMike! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:24, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Suggestion for comprimise ==

Since it's clear that none of the editors involved are going to be able to agree, why don't we take Mr. Schlafly's advice [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=554261&oldid=554228 earlier on this talk page] where he says "We don't censor informative information here. Let the reader decide." How about, instead of going back and forth, back and forth, we instead allow the inclusion of evidence ''against'' Obama being a Muslim. The reader can read the evidence on both sides, and decide for themselves. Good idea? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 18 November 2008 (EST)

User talk:HelpJazz

2008-11-17T17:39:25Z

HelpJazz: /* Blocking User:TK */

{| style="width: 100%; border: black solid 1px; background-color: lightgrey;"
|-
|{{Useful links|float=right}}<center><big>'''Guidelines for my talk page'''</big></center>
*Please, no "ping-pong" conversations: if I leave a message on your talk page, please respond there; I'm watching it. If you start a conversation here, I'll reply here, so please watch this page
*Sign your posts with four tildes, like this: '''<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>'''
*At the beginning of each month I will archive all conversations which are at least 1 month and 1 day from the most recent reply.
*Please, only one picture of Putin at a time. He scares me in large doses.
*'''If you have been blocked by me''': please do not create a sock and complain on this page! Instead, [[Special:Emailuser/HelpJazz|email me]] and we can work it out. (You will need a valid, verified e-mail address for this to work).

The system is supposed to send me an email when my talk page is changed... but I don't think it's working. The regular email is working, though, so if for some reason I don't respond to a notice on my talk page, click [[Special:Emailuser/HelpJazz|here]]
|}

Archives: [[/Sept07|Sep '07]] • [[/Oct07|Oct '07]] • [[/Nov07|Nov '07]] • [[/Dec07|Dec '07]] • [[/Jan08|Jan '08]] • [[/FebApr08|Feb-Apr '08]] • [[/MaySep08|May-Sep '08]]

==For the good of the project==
and despite sore provocation I have reverted some pointed words and trust that you can be relied on to respond in an appropriately responsible manner. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:53, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
:For the good of the project, you shouldn't have written them at all.
:Don't get so worked up that I don't create new articles. There's no rule that says you have to create new articles, and it's certainly the idea of a wiki to edit other's articles, no? Plus, as I've already said, I have created numerous articles. I don't enjoy it, and I'm not good at it. I'm not here to please you, and I'm not going to try.
:It's pretty hypocritical of you to say that ''I'' have done no work on this site, when I have been doing work all morning long, and you have been simply reverting me on two pages. Now I have ''real'' work (i.e. the money-making kind) so I won't be bothering you with my non-work for the rest of the day. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:01, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

== Edit war ==

I'm addressing both you and Bugler. Stop your edit warring and try working together for the good of Conservapedia. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:02, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

== Template:lowercase ==

I seem to recall from the equivalent template on Wikipedia that the template would only display the correct case of the title in certain circumstances (such as Javascript enabled). Is this still the case, or does it ''always'' correct the display of the title?

And the reason that you were able to edit a locked page is that it wasn't locked! It had been locked, but was deleted by a sysop who didn't understand its purpose. Deleting a locked page and reinstating it causes (or used to cause?) the locking to be lost.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:31, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

:<s>I don't think you have to have javascript enabled, but I might be wrong. It uses the DISPLAYTITLE... uh thing. It's not a template, and it seems to be built into the wikicode much like <nowiki>{{CURRENTDAY}}</nowiki>. I don't know a lot about how wikis work behind the scenes, but the template is used on Wikipedia, so if it doesn't work all of the time it works most of the time.</s>

:This is from the page of the WP template that I, uh, "borrowed" from: ''This template wraps the magic word DISPLAYTITLE so that it works automatically in any namespace (main, talk, template, etc.) to decapitalise the first letter of the name of a page it is transcluded on. (Previously, this template achieved this using JavaScript, but the DISPLAYTITLE method makes the change for all users, even those with JavaScript disabled in their browser).'' So we should be fine. :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:06, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
:: Ah, very good. Thanks for that. I've now changed the Manual of Style page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:00, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

==Brokeback==

You're breakin' my back on the Brokeback article! :-) I hope you can see that I'm very willing to defend my points, and I appreciate the civility with which you've been treating them (unlike some other posters on that page). I'm going to continue as much as I can today, but I'm leaving for a weeklong trip tonight so I won't be able to respond until I get back. Hopefully the page won't blow up to enormous proportions in the meantime :0 -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 13:49, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
:Ha ha ha! I was actually just about to tell you that I'm not trying to be harsh. I think you're a good editor, so my comments are (to the best of my ability) aimed at the article and not at you. I'll keep an eye on the page and keep it honest while you are gone. Have a good trip. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:17, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
::Thanks! See you on the talk pages in a week. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 20:04, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I'm back and will get to the posts on Brokeback Mountain probably tomorrow. In the meantime, I've noticed that the categories now appear in double boxes. Do you know why that is? It seems redundant. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:21, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Nevermind, I've found the relevant thread on Andy's talk page (it explains the appearance of other things like the new CAPTCHA, which I don't like). -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:37, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::Me neither. Hopefully it will change, or I may very well never <nowiki>{{welcome}}</nowiki> a user again! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:39, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::I didn't even think of that detail! Speaking of which, why is there an external link that occurs when we're doing a <nowiki>{{welcome}}</nowiki> anyway? -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 23:08, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::The link to Interiot's edit counter (which doesn't actually work right now) is an outside link. Don't forget that "internal" diff links (like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:HelpJazz&diff=next&oldid=519768 this], for example), counts as an outside link. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:21, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: Now ''those'' I can help you with. Administrators have the ability to add a web-site to a "white list" so that those addresses will not trigger the CAPTCHA. I've added Interiot's tool and Conservapedia itself. Give them a try and let me know if it works. It's not, of course, an ideal solution for all the other possible links. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:59, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::You mean this whole time there was a simple solution? Oh man. Let's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:HelpJazz&diff=next&oldid=519768 test]. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 09:38, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Hey it worked! You'd think the software would be smart enough to have the domain site on the whitelist by default... Thanks soooooooo much Philip! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 09:39, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

==Vote McCain==
Vote McCain!!! [[Fry2000]]

== Thank you! ==

Thanks for the block! [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 19:23, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:I do what I can :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:24, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

==Ohio==
Well, well. I always thought you were British, for some reason. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:33, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:Nope. Never even visited. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:36, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

== addition article ==

Is there a way to check the user John Peters ? His name is red link in the history. The text added to the article may be correct but makes the article very complex if aimed at a high school level. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 23:56, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:I don't know. "Checkuser" (which I don't have) only tells you what other users have used the same IP address as him, but that doesn't really help in this case. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:19, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

==Blocked==
When I attempted to log in today, I received a notice that my IP address was blocked. I think a schoolmate of mine got himself blocked by you. First and foremost, I apologize for my classmates inappropriate behavior. I will look into who it was and see if I can get them removed from the lab. I would like to ask, however, if something like this happens in the future, is there anyone I can contact about removing the IP block or is it best to just ride it out? Thank you [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 17:05, 23 October 2008 (EDT) PS, I had to edit another user's signature before it would let me post. I think their user name contained something that the spam filter blocked out
:I think the best thing to do is email the person who blocked IP address and include the IP address or block number (it's shown when you try to edit a page). In this case, since you are only blocked at school, you could ask someone with checkuser rights (basically any sysop) to unblock your IP address. I have no way of looking it up, but they can help. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:19, 23 October 2008 (EDT) PS: Out of curiosity, do you know the person I blocked?
::Ok, I will keep that in mind should it happen again. It's hard to do much else except post from school, I don't have a personal computer yet (although I'm working on it) and I don't know for sure who it was, but by cross referencing sign in logs to the time I think I can get a fairly good idea. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 11:54, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

==Pearl Jam - removal of talk edit==
Apologies may be in order. I think I may have removed that talk page contribution...our edits clahed and I must have somehow wiped yours during my amateurish attempts at saving my input. Sorry about that. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 18:15, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
:I figured that's what happened. No biggie. (It was actuallyl Liams that you removed). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:36, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
::Yeah, I didn't mind, so I didn't change it :-) [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 18:38, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks for defending me ==

Thanks for pointing out how others had mistaken comments I made. You are correct with what I said about lying in the Bible, and Peter is a perfect example. However, you and they are wrong to claim that I "cherry pick". My position has always been that you can determine whether something is meant to be taken literally by the context and knowledge of the language, as Professor James Barr (not a creationist) did (see [[creation week]]). And contrary to a claim made by someone of whom I'll have more to say in a moment (this is for their benefit) that [[creation week]] has no evidence, it in fact has (a) a number of supporting arguments about word use (admittedly unreferenced), (b) a referenced quote from an expert (Barr) who also says the other experts agree, and (c) a referenced summary of a formal study into the text. Perhaps ''he'' is simply seeing (or not seeing) what he wants to (not) see. Before I saw your comments, I was thinking of saying something anyway (such as on my user page). That same accuser (Kels) also accused ''me'' and Creation Ministries International of lying, ("he won't hesitate to lie and twist at the slightest opportunity" and "He accepts every lie creationontheweb feeds him") yet offered no evidence of that whatsoever. I accept that many people don't accept my views and think that I'm mistaken, deluded, or even stupid, but I don't go around saying things that I know to be untrue (and nor does CMI). Accusations like that without solid supporting evidence are nothing short of libel (not that I could be bothered suing), and he is despicable for making the accusation, and should be censured by others there, but by their silence they are just as bad. And they have the gall to criticise Conservapedia! Finally, to answer a loaded question, I accept both parts of the creation account, because I see no conflict between them (just like most of the rest of the millions who have studied the Bible for centuries) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:34, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
:Probably these others don't believe in censoring. Maybe you should go and explain your points of view to them at their place. I don't know what this Kels accused you of, but you can't deny that creationontheweb is your number one source of "information". Go and debate them there. Here, as you know, it is impossible. --[[User:JulianAdderley|JulianAdderley]] 09:52, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
:: Since when it is censoring to take someone to task for libel? That CreationOnTheWeb is my main source was not the accusation. How do you not know what he accused me of when I've quoted it above?? I don't go there because I'd end up spending too much time disputing so much of what they say. I spend too much time disputing here without doing it there also. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:18, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I talked about censoring as you yourself said "... and should be '''censured''' by others there". I find it unfair and cowardly that you attack them here instead of debating with them. They'd defend themselves here, but they are not allowed. --[[User:JulianAdderley|JulianAdderley]] 14:29, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
:::: ''censure: to criticise adversely; disapprove; find fault with; condemn.'' That's not the same thing as ''censor''. My reasons for not debating there have been given several times. I agree that the situation is unfortunate, but it's not out of cowardice that I don't debate there. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:38, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, Philip, I didn't mean to imply that you cherry pick (though when I reread the post I was agreeing with, it does seem that that's what I agreed to!). What I meant to say was that you draw a different line than I do on what's literal and what's figurative in the Bible. I've seen you debating this a lot across the site and I know you don't use anything so silly as quote mining or cherry picking :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:57, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
: Thanks for clearing that up. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:38, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

==Ema==
Funny Ema support Jesus as lord and supports Barack Obama because Christian principles are not Obama (gay marriage, abortion, black liberation theology, etc.). It is an oxymoron. How come you don't understand? --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 12:42, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:Because not every Christian in the world believes the exact same thing? Obama is not the anti-Christ. Full disclosure: I'm probably going to vote for McCain, even though I don't really like him, simply to make it harder for Obama to win Ohio. I'm not an Obama fan by a long shot, but saying that no Christian Who Is A True Christian can vote for Obama gives Christianity a bad name. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:46, 3 November 2008 (EST) PS: Is Obama a black liberation theologist or a Muslim? He can't be both.

::My fellow Buckeye, it is evident that many Christians will vote for Obama, just by observing primary statistics. I am just saying Christians are confused about their faith if they vote Obama. So he is not the anti-Christ. His views are anti-Christian. If a true Christian votes cares for values and votes Obama, well then, they are giving Christianity a bad name.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 12:51, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::Jpatt, check worldwide statistics on support for the two candidates. They are pretty clear on which of the two candidates the majority of all the Christians in the world support. If you are too lazy to check by yourself, it's Obama. I find that a pretty convincing argument on who has more Christian values. --[[User:JennyM|JennyM]] 12:54, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::::: What statistics? Not only have I seen no such statistics, I can't imagine that anybody is going to survey Christians worldwide to find out with of the two American presidential candidates they prefer. And Christian values are defined by the Bible, not by the values of the person that Christians would prefer to see as American president. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:31, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Just google around, not difficult to find. Sorry to hear about your lack of imagination, Philip, as imagination is what keeps us young! Surely Christian values are defined by the Bible, not by Jpatt. Quite arrogant of Jpatt to "know" that McCain has more Christian values than Obama. Billions of Christians worldwide disagree. --[[User:Jessica|Jessica]] 07:26, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::::::: If they're not difficult to find, why can't you link to them? And how many is "billions", given that there's about 2.1 billion Christians ''in total'', and they wouldn't all prefer Obama. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:47, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::50 % of 2.1 billion is more than one billion. Since all the polls show more way more than 50 %, it's not difficult to infer the "billions". --[[User:Jessica|Jessica]] 07:52, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::: Although a plural word indicates more than one, my understanding it that it is more than one ''unit'' ("billion" being the unit in this case), which doesn't allow for fractions, so "billions" means at least 2 billion. So where are these worldwide polls? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:00, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::You are wrong on two counts. First of all, when approaching or surpassing 1.5, it is perfectly legitimate to use the plural. Second, "billions", as well as "dozens" or "tens", is a perfectly acceptable way to convey ''order of magnitude''. For the polls you'll have to look by yourself. I have no time now. But do you really doubt it? --[[User:Jessica|Jessica]] 08:11, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: I do doubt that such surveys exist. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:28, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::Philip's a busy guy, but I'm notoriously bored, so I went and looked. I found plenty of surveys that showed Obama winning international popularity contests, but none of them claimed to select only Christians.
::::::::::::To the larger point of it being possible for Christians to select Obama - of course it's possible. I did it, for one. (Sorry, HelpJazz.) [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 10:56, 5 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo I can't be your online friend anymore! ;-) It's ok, in a way I wanted Obama to win. I truely believe that once the hype wore off, either candidate would have been a pretty lame duck president. If McCain won, they would just blame it on Bush, and then a candidate who's even more liberal than Obama would be elected in '12. If Obama won, then when he is (ok this tense is all messed up now, bear with me here) not the Messiah that he's supposed to be I can laugh and feel morally superior and smug and all those cool things I like to do :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:02, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::::Yeah, he doesn't match my politics in a lot of ways, but neither does the 2008 version of McCain, and Bob Barr was a carpet-bagger of a Libertarian and I refuse to endorse that. Boiled down to the fact that I felt a McCain vote is an endorsement of the current administration, for all the lip service he pays to "change."
::::::::::::::You might enjoy checking out [http://thebigstick.wordpress.com/ this blog I found] by a guy who posts on Ames' blog comments. He's a fairly articulate guy who doesn't get all riled up (in other words, don't hold Ames against him) (although Ames is plenty articulate, he just gets caught up in things...). [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 13:02, 5 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::::Grrr lost a post. Ok this is the last thing I say and then I'll be done for a while because this faulty connection thing is annoying. I didn't like any of the candidates this year, and as much as I hated myself for doing it, I had to vote against a candidate instead of for a candidate. I almost considered writing in Ron Paul just for the heck of it. *Off to read that blog link, which probably has a much better connection than this site does right now* [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:14, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Oh if the world wants Obama, then I should shut up, duh. It is convincing who has more Christian values. Hint, it aint Obama.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 13:01, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::And again I say you are trying to impose one set of beliefs on all Christians, and you are questioning the faith of those who believe differently than you. Not everybody is a one or two issue voter, you know. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:44, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::PS: Since you brought up same sex marriage, both Obama and Biden ''oppose'' it [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.samesexmarriage.html]. And you didn't mention stem cell research: McCain supports federal funding of it [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.stemcell.html]. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:54, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::: "McCain supports federal funding of ... Obama"??? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:31, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::Whoops! Fixed. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:36, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::: Oh. I thought you might have meant "and Obama does also". And to clarify, nobody has any objection to funding stem cell research. Or are you saying that McCain supports funding ''embryonic'' stem cell research? In any case, I expect that it's a case not of claiming that McCain is correct in all his views, but that they are, overall, better than Obama's. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:14, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::I did mean embryonic. To be fair, he only wants funding on embryos that are going to be discarded anyway -- I don't know if pro-lifers are ok with that. If I understand Jpatt's argument, he was trying to argue that no Christians can vote for Obama because he doesn't hold Christian values. Not only that, but he presented it as the only correct choice and anyone with a differing opinion doesn't have enough faith. I was trying to point out that Jesus is not running for president. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:39, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: Write-ins FTW!! [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 22:26, 3 November 2008 (EST) ''<-Jesus/Holy Ghost '08!''
:::::::::: Was it okay to experiment on the Jews who were going to the gas chambers in Nazi Germany because they were going to die anyway?
:::::::::: I tend to agree that Americans tie their religion too closely to their politics, but on the other hand, I can understand where he's probably coming from (although I should point out that I don't know what prompted the first post in this section). A Christian believes that God is the ultimate reality, and therefore that God's standards are more important than anything else more worldly. Therefore, in comparing two different candidates, the one that most closely follows God's standards is the one that Christians should vote for. That is, God's standards (such as on moral issues) are not just a minor consideration, but should be a major deciding factor. To that extent, I would agree with Jpatt. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:38, 3 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::What you missed was the conversaion on (the now blocked) [[user:Ema]]'s talk page. She said something about how Obama was going to win, to which Jpatt replied: "Funny how you accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and support Barack Obama." I don't think there's anything wrong to use your faith as a factor in deciding who to vote for, but to presume that ones (clearly at least partially incorrect, as seen by the gay marriage comment on this page) interpretation is infallible is hubris at its best. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:48, 3 November 2008 (EST)

==My vacation==

Hey! It's good to be back. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:07, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:Now get to work *wchapshh!* [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:45, 3 November 2008 (EST)

That has a nice [[beat]] to it . . . --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:53, 3 November 2008 (EST)

==[[User:BHarlan]]==
My apologies for bothering you with this.... But is this user for real? Or is he a parodist? If he is real, he is a very difficult person to work with. He is currently edit warring on the [[Rodney King]] page and is generally making things difficult for other users? Is there anything we can do? I think this [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Rodney_King&diff=550213&oldid=550211 this edit] sums up everything. [[User:SamuelA|SamuelA]] 18:03, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:To engage in an edit war while insisting "don't edit war" is parody at its worst.
:I contribute here by editing articles to add information, sometimes in the form of sentences and paragraphs. I suggest you do the same.
:In the meantime, I will try to be more like the Christ. He was very forgiving. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:08, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::If that doesn't clear things up for you, nothing will. There is nothing you can do about it. [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 18:23, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:::I try not to comment on the nature of parodists, unless I am blocking someone for it. It's too messy otherwise. However, BHarlan, I would ask that you be a little nicer. Legitimate editors can be blocked for not working well with others. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:56, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== Template thanks ==

Thanks for your work on {{tl|homosexualityb}} - it will be much easier to edit now. Just wanted to let you know that these things don't go unnoticed.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:03, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:Thanks. All I really did was add a line break in between each thing, since I have a hard time reading all those links squished together. A single line break won't show up in the end result, but it makes the code a little easier to look at.
:''You'' should be the one being thanked though. None of your work goes unnoticed, but I'm willing to wager that most of it is thankless. Until now!! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:26, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::I wouldn't say thankless - just yesterday Ed Poor was if anything over-generous. Congratulations on the message below, by the way.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:34, 14 November 2008 (EST)

==Sysop rights==

Er, I meant that you've been nominated in our secret enclave to become a sysop. Until then, all you edits show up for me in Recent Changes with a red mark. When you become a sysop, we don't have to patrol your changes any more. I think Jessica and Bert should be sysops. No one ever reverts them. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:08, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:I'm sure I've been nominated more than once... I'll believe it when I see it though ;-)
:About those red exlamation points: I've seen them before (not here, obviously). It makes me wonder what Wikimedia was thinking (or was it Wikipedia? Which came first?) -- do they seriously expect every single edit by a non-sysop to be marked as patrolled? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:32, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Ed, there is a reason why secret enclaves are secret. It is very unclear right now what direction Andy wishes to go and we should avoid any indication to our valued editors of what the future may hold that may not in fact be fulfilled. It can only cause possible embitterment or disenchantment and we certainly don't want that among any of the people who have made great contributions to our project. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:35, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::No worries, LT. I haven't gotten my hopes up, and my feelings won't be hurt. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:42, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Lest I trip over my beard, I must remind myself that Wikipedia was only two years old when the patrol feature was created. The rate of edits was so low that one sysop could do all the patrolling by himself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:44, 14 November 2008 (EST)

==Block==
You were blocked for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=557690 this] edit. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:53, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:Oops, my mistake. I have been away for a while, would you please sum up the events that have occured during my absence? Thanks. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:57, 15 November 2008 (EST)
::May I unblock him so he can answer? Blocked users cannot edit their own user talk pages here - although (thanks to me!) they can do so at Wikipedia. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:59, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::(Sorry Ed, I didn't know if anyone else was watching. PS: is there an easier way to unblock an IP address? I can't seem to figure out how to do it).
:::Henry, much has gone on since you went on vacation. I saw it all, but I'm not sure I can explain it all myself. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:01, 15 November 2008 (EST)

HJ, I am sorry that I blocked you. I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 21:09, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:It's ok, you picked a bad time to make a joke, is all. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:10, 15 November 2008 (EST) <-- NOONE expects the Spanish Inquisition!!! (There's never a bad time for that joke!)
::Did someone mention an Inquisition? Oh goody! (rubbing hands in glee!) --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:12, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::Our chief weapon is surprise! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:14, 15 November 2008 (EST)
::::I say we start a conservapedia inquisition. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 21:21, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Depends on who gets inquisitioned. Inquisized? Inquised? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:33, 15 November 2008 (EST)
::::::It is always THEM, Jazz! We go after <big>THEM!!!</big> --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:47, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::I stopped playing with blocks when I was six.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:02, 15 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::It is so noted. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:22, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Not a single block! That's impressive and unexpected. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:28, 15 November 2008 (EST)
*Well I am fairly certain that won't last. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:48, 16 November 2008 (EST)

==Crackpots==
*"I don't know why I bother, i'm sure some crackpot out there has said this" [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gay_heroism&diff=558704&oldid=558703]
A moment of candor. It's nice to know what you think of the sources we draw upon. I can tell you at least one person who said that: the [[User:Ed_Poor|person who wrote the article]]. Now think about whether you meant what you wrote. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 07:44, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:My point being that even though "gay heroism" is likely ''not'' part of a campaign to legitimize homosexuality, you can find a source that says anything, and there's really no standard for sources on this webite. I didn't mean that you had to be a crackpot to believe it, but I'm willing to wager that you won't find a mainstream source to back up that statement (yeah, yeah liberal bias). I wasn't calling Ed Poor a crackpot, since an editor's opinion can't be used as a source (a policy Ed himself helped to write), but yes, I still mean what I wrote. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:47, 16 November 2008 (EST)

==Sillly edit==
You are being silly but I will let it stand.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 14:47, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:Maybe I would have been in a nicer mood had you asked first, but now there's really no way to know, is there? You probably blocked their IP's anyway, which I'm guessing is why you are taking the "high road" now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:55, 16 November 2008 (EST)

==Your block==
Now try and stay civilised about this and discuss it here. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:05, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:You really make me laugh, you know? ''Bugler has no right to undo my blocks''. What on earth have you been doing in the past months, trying to worry me to an early grave? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:09, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::C'mon, HelpJazz. C'mon, man. Tell me. Have you never reverted an edit of mine? Heh? have you? Have you never reverted an edit of mine? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:13, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::(Edit conflict: Bugler's original comment was: "Now try and stay civilised about this and discuss it here.") I did discuss it. Jpatt has no right to undo my blocks; you have no right to undo my blocks. You then blocked me (and blocked my IP address for no reason other than to be annoying) with no legitimate reason. Blocking doesn't work if any other editor can decide to change another's blocks. Believe me, Bugler, be happy I respect this simple principle. If you think I complain a lot ''now'', how do you think you'd like it if I simply undid every block you did that I didn't think was appropriate? Now, a ''sysop'' has the power (and the right) to correct a block I made erroneously; a sysop's decisions take precidence over mine. Any other non-sysop has no greater authority over me. If they were to ask, I might reconsider. I've made mistakes in the past. But simply ignoring normal modes of respect is unacceptable. If you undo any of my blocks (ever) I will redo them, and I expect you would do the same.
:::Edit conflict (Bugler's *new* comment, I suspect he's intentionally edit conflicting me, is "You really make me laugh, you know? ''Bugler has no right to undo my blocks''. What on earth have you been doing in the past months, trying to worry me to an early grave?"): Which blocks of yours did I undo, except the ones where you blocked me? Name one and I'll quit this site.
:::Edit conflict *again*: First of all, edits are fundamentally different than blocks. It's clear that if you were to insert a spelling error, there is no conflict in me fixing it. Every editor on this site is given the "responsiblity" of editing. However, in getting "block" rights, Andy has decided that he trusts your judgment enough that you are given the "privilede" to excercise your good judement by blocking people. In undoing a ''block'' you are telling both me and Andy that your judgement is better than ours.
:::Even though it is irrelevant (as I have shown) I can still answer your question: Have I ever undone an ''edit'' you have done? Yes I have. Have I ever undone an edit you have done while giving no explanation or reason? No, I don't think I have. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:20, 16 November 2008 (EST)
You have certainly never given an ''adequate'' explanation. however, I am able to let the dead bury the dead. WEhat matters, as I am trying to get across to you, is the welfare of Conservapedia. I think your lenient 'name only' blocks of the two hangmen are entirely wrong for two key reasons. 1. The insults were so gross that the perpetrators do not deserve a second chance. 2. The insults, being so gross, indicate that teh perpetratorsm, if allowed back into CP, as you are in effect doing, have the potential to cause huge damage through vandalism, causing editors here an enormous amount of clean-up work.

I hope you will accept that I have not deliberately tried to edit conflict you; that is not my style. I say what I think, to you and to others. And the block was not intended to block you: I knew you would revert it post-haste. It was to get a breathing space to remove damaging saboteurs from the site. Saboteurs who you have since restored to grace. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:31, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:I cannot remember whether you have reverted any of my blocks. Given what you say, I presume you disapprove of Tim's high handed action yesterday (and before, regarding Daphnea), and PJR's similar actions towards me in the past. For the rceord, Jpatt is one of the best new editors and sysop-lites we have here. He should be encouraged and cherished, not subjected to beastings. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:33, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::(It again took you three edits to say what you think; if you instead use the preview button, you don't run the risk of edit conflicted other users multiple times)
::For starters, how did I not adequately explain why it was wrong for Jpatt to undo my block? You gave no explanation.
::Secondly, if you think my blocks are lenient, there's nothing stopping you from ''asking me about it''. There is way too much overeager blocking on this site; shame on me if I follow the letter of the law. That gives no excuse for someone else to change it without asking me. (You will notice that they never recreated their account).
::Thirdly, I can tell you that I have never undone any other editor's blocks, unless the blocks were obvious vandalism (Like MexMax) or if they were joking (like Bohdan last night).
::Fourthly, if you read what I wrote, I clearly said that I have no problem with a ''sysop'' going over the head of a normal editor. You and I are both editors, and Tim and PJR are both sysops. I don't know about Daphnea, but seeing as how you didn't undo a single one of HotDog's edits, you didn't really have a case there anyway, did you? I'd also be surprised if PJR undid a block without any explanation, but again, as a sysop it's entirely within his rights.
::Lastly, I have no responsibility to encourage or cherish someone for doing something they had no right to do. Had Jpatt asked me, I would have said "Thank you for asking Jpatt, here's my explanation." He showed no respect for me, and I had no obligation to give him any in return. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::: 1. Sysop rights have no merit whatsoever when they are abused, as I believe they were yesterday. 2. So what is your justification for giving the hangmen free rein in Conservapedia? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:48, 16 November 2008 (EST)
Hey people, don't fight. You are both good and valuable contributors. If you have to revert someone (but pleease don't block), revert my contributions: they are not as valuable as yours. Please, both of you, advance our common cause by being unite against our enemies! --[[User:Drunk|Drunk]] 15:51, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:Thank you, Drunk. I would however appreciate an acknowledgement from HelpJazz that I don't deliberately time my edits to disrup him with edit conflicts. t sounds a strange thing, and a very difficult one, to do in any case. I frequently gnash my teeth over ECs, but I don't for a moment imagine that enemies are doing it deliberately to frustrate me. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:56, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::I don't have much wiki experience, but to time edits to disrupt with edit conflicts seems very far-fetched even in my "high" (sorry) state. There are much more effective ways to disrupt. But HelpJazz, why do you think that Bugler is disrupting? Maybe it's just an incomprehension between you? --[[User:Drunk|Drunk]] 16:00, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::(Ironically, an edit conflict) 1. Then there's really no point in having sysops, is there? As much as you whine about the "liberal whinging about every decisions", do you really want to assert that every time someone thinks another user is abusing their power, that person has no obligation to sumbit to the abuser's power? Or are you the only one who gets to decide when someone is abusing power?
::::2. Free reign? Hardly. Had I wanted to give them free reign I would have unblocked them. Instead, I gave them the opportunity to rethink their actions and either go away, or come back in a better frame of mind. What's the worse that could have happened? Had they created another inappropriate username, I would have blocked them with account creation disabled (and yes, I have done this before); had they created an account and started vandalising I would have blocked their account with account creation disabled; had they never returned there's no harm to CP; had they returned and been a good editor then CP is all the better. I refuse to block people for something they might do. )This is not to say that I will contest any user who blocks people this way).
::::Ironic edit conflict: I'll admit that the first time may not have been intentional. It's very strange for someone to make three edits in a row, when they know that all three warrant a response, but the evidence is not conclusive enough to say that you did it on purpose. (I also misread the diffs and thought you were replacing your text, which lead more evidence to my claim). However, doing the exact same thing after I already pointed it out is a bit suspicious, no? That's why, to give you the benefit of the doubt, I instructed you to use the "show preview" button, which is the surefire way to avoid edit conflicts. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:07, 16 November 2008 (EST)
You got blocked again?! Ouch. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 16:12, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:You ''instructed'' me? My, oh my! I thought that editors had no authority over editors, but now I am expected to comply with the instructions of HelpJazz! Have you been appointed Lord High Panjandrum while I have been away? If so, please instruct me on the correct protocol. Is it a bow from the waist, or a full kow-tow? Do I have to walk backwards when I depart the August HelpJazzian Presence? My Lord will please excuse his humble servant's ignorance of etiquette! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 18:06, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::Bugler, please cool it, or I'll have to send an email to Andy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:13, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Well, honestly! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 18:14, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::Instruct (v.): to give knowledge to. Yes, that's what I did. I didn't say "commanded" or "required" or "demanded" or "forced" or "insisted". Alternatively, I could have said "taught" or "advised" or "showed" or "informed". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:23, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Perhaps this is a cultural difference. In the UK, instruct means order, tell. 'Advise' might have been the polite option. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 18:27, 16 November 2008 (EST)

== Category Discussion... ==

I have somehow missed the discussion about changing Categories from Liberals to Liberalism. Can you direct me, and possibly Ed Poor to it? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:49, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:I'm sorry, I didn't realize I had to discuss my use of common sense. Can you direct me to the rule that says this please? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:51, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::Are you quite certain you want to have this show-down? What exactly will you gain or lose? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:54, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::What showdown? Is there such a page? If not, I'm going to continue using my common sense. "Liberals" are people; "liberalism" is an idea. An idea is not a person and a person is not an idea. (And a person and an idea are not an organization). What's to discuss?
:::Just because you are back, it doesn't mean you can boss me around again, TK. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't work that way anymore. You won on {{tl|liberalism}}, what more do you want? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:56, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::::Boss you? Are you in 2nd grade, or what? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:57, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::I take it you don't have an answer to any of my question then? In that case, I'll continue what I'm doing. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:58, 16 November 2008 (EST)

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

:L. Beryl Baez is a person? [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal_bias_in_academia&curid=59501&diff=560052&oldid=525222&rcid=610515] I didn't understand your edit comment. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:16, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::Oh, wait: I misread it. "liberal bias is a concept, not a person" --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:18, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:::Wait, his bot is going to add everything from the "liberals" "liberalism" and "liberal organizations" categories and dump them all together into a "liberal" category? Why? Aren't categories supposed to be nouns? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:21, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::[[Homosexual Agenda]] is under the subcategory [[:Category:Liberal Deceit]]. [[Evolution]] isn't under any of the liberal categories at all. It doesn't usually make sense to put everything on a template into the same category. It makes category renames easier, but everything else harder, and category renames don't happen that often. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 20:26, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::(EC) <s>Ed, "liberal bias in acedemia", which is the title of the article, is not a person. There might be people mentioned in the article, but do you seriously want to put every single article that so much as mentions a liberal into the "liberals" category? That would mean that, for example, [[John McCain]] would be in the liberals category.</s> (EC -- this is happening a lot today. Maybe I should increase my typing speed) I think you understand where I'm coming from now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:21, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:::::You and Interiot are indeed "understood". I merely suggested one way to quickly add articles to a category, was not suggesting that would be the ONLY category applied. To me it was far easier to change the category "Liberal'''s'''" to Liberal, no plural. The "discussion-without-end" over this is everything that is wrong about Conservapedia, and in my opinion, by design and spite. However, if people want to run around like a chicken with its head cut off, in spite, go ahead. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:32, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Easier isn't always best. It might be "easier" to just put everything in the "liberal" category but (a) it goes against the category conventions and (b) it's not very descriptive.
::::::I don't see who's running around with a chicken with it's head cut off, either. All I was doing was putting articles into the most logical, pre-existing category. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:36, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::Yes, after you publicly got angry over it, insisting you were being "bossed". Do whatever you wish, of course. You and a few others insisted you were correct over something that was decided by admins months and months ago, and you don't care. I will no longer participate in this silly arguing on your part, Jazz. It is pointless, and nothing is urgent about this. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::Can you point to me where admins decided how the template should be used? Maybe I just missed it; all this mess will be cleared up rather quickly. The only thing I can find is where a group of people (including a sysop) decided how it was to be used, and then you unilaterally decided not to use it that way. So when I did what you wanted and started adding the template how you wanted to, somehow I can't do it right and I need permission to use common sense. Can you just tell me what to do already and get it over with? All this time I'm spending on my talk page I could be using to impliment the template ''you'' wanted to use. So please, direct me to the admin decision that was made months ago, so that I may submit myself to it and continue editing this encyclopedia. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:51, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Sysop discussions are not done that way, you know that, and you have absolutely no right to insist they should be. I asked Brianco to create it. I got Andy's permission, and that is that. No one, least of all me, said you were adding it incorrectly. What I do know is you got me on AIM highly agitated and upset I was using it. That is what I know. My only dispute was your public snit, and insistence about changing categories, and impatience that you were not answered IMEDIATELY, and posting that you were just going to proceed. I have the IM archive, from months ago, when you were informed about the template. And even that doesn't matter. You alone have decided you don't like the template. So, take it off, if you like. We will just make a new template, and not call it a nav box, thus removing your original complaint that it was being used for a purpose not intended for nav boxes. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:03, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:In other words, I have to take your word for it that any discussion took place?
:"You and you alone?" What about the other people who responded on the talk page? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:07, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::Yes, that's pretty much it, Jazz. We assume good faith. That is the Christian way. If I say it was that way, it was. If it is untrue, Andy can post saying I am mistaken or a liar. This is something, a Red Herring, you decided to dredge up and dispute, from months ago! It was only after I was no longer a sysop, that some people, including you, thought that meant some kind of wholesale reversal of policy could be made. That is indeed fuzzy logic. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:15, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Then let's have Andy post. You are using something I've never seen in order to control my actions.
:::I dredged it up? Really? Funny, nobody discussed the liberalism template until you came back and started doing the exact same thing you were doing when you left.
:::Wholesale reversal of policy? The policy was "TK is right; you must have permission from TK to do anything; TK has discussed everything through email with Andy". When TK is gone, the policy breaks down. Now you are back, you have no idea what has gone on in the last 7 months, and you just assume that everything is as it was. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:10, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::Speaking of what has gone on, could you sum it up tonight? Please? You refused to last night :( [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::When did you go on vacation? How long have you been gone? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:18, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::::About a month or two. When I was last here, you and another user were engaged in bitter dispute over "big science" or something like that. Is this Buglre a sysop? Are you? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:21, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::I don't think there have been any promotions in the last month or two. I'll never be promoted, so that's not something you ever have to ask ;-)
:::::::Hrm... what have you missed in the last few months? Ed and TK came back (which I'm sure you can tell).
:::::::Multiple fights have ensued, people have been called idiots, noone's been blocked -- not much has changed. (Big science got moved to the essay space though). Read over my talk page, Bugler's talk page, PJR's talk page and the Obama talk page, (Maybe Ed's talk page too) and that pretty much sums up everything you need to know over the last couple months. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:27, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::Were you called an idiot? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:29, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Not me, but Tim was (check out Bugler's talk page, I think).
:::::::::I just checked my spam email (all my CP mail goes straight to spam) and found emails from two different editors asking me to intercede with their blocks by the same user. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:33, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::Straight to spam? I have been sending you emails everyday for the past two months. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:35, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::Straight to spam. Curiously, I haven't seen any emails from teh Bohdan. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:40, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::Has anyone called me an idiot? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:42, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::Doubtful. Who could call you an idiot and expect to get away with it? I mean *seriously*! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:46, 16 November 2008 (EST)

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

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

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

By your less than kind, throw-away comments, like the "I'm sure you can tell..." above, you show yourself to be just another mean & hateful person. Just goes to show how wrong I was about you, your character, and your being good material for an admin. BTW, Ed Poor was another who put himself out there, promoting you for sysop to Andy. I have always been honest with you, always told you CP wasn't like Wikipedia, and that the owner didn't aspire to it under any circumstances. Given your actions in the past 24 hours, I know Andy was correct in holding back. I was wrong, he was right. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:55, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:TK, you started all of the arguments. Want to know how many arguments there were about the use of the liberalism template while you were gone? None. Want to know how many arguments there were about categories when you were gone? None. Formatting? None. The liberalness of Fred Phelps? None. But then within 24 hours of your arrival, all of the same arguments show up, and somehow it's everyone else's fault.

:Do you really think I could tell you what I thought of you when you were holding the banhammer over my head? I'm sorry we aren't best buddies, but our entire "relationship" consists of you telling me what to do. That's all you ever do, is tell people what to do. You came back to this site and all ready you have told Philip he's not allowed to talk on your page, you have told Brianco that he's not privy to conversations from those "above his pay grade", you have told Sideways that he's not allowed to change an edit made by Conservative, you have told me that because you start things, only you know the Truth about how they are to be used. You have only been here '''one day'''.

:I'm just another mean and hateful person? Because I thought that Bohdan can read my talk page to see you are back?

:You continually tell me CP is not like Wikipedia, and I continually tell you that '''I'm not trying to make CP like Wikipedia'''. I continually tell you that I don't even edit at Wikipedia, and yet somehow everything I do is in the "Wikipedia mindset". I'm not imposing my liberal worldview, I'm not motivated by neutrality, and I'm not using a coverup of liberalism to make desicions. Every single thing I do is to further the encycopedia '''within the Commandments''' and every reason I give is backed up by '''logic'''. I'm sorry if you don't think these are good qualities for being an admin. I'm sorry if you put yourself out on a limb to back me (which I can only take on your word; I know that Ed has vouched for me because I've actually seen it -- yet another advantage to skipping AIM in leu of the website right here at our fingertips), only to find out that sometimes following the rules means you can't always spew whatever crazy you want. I'm sorry that I'm harming your goal of destroying CP from within by using the rules on CP to rein you in. I'm sorry I gave you a second chance two nights ago, by telling you about what was going on at CP. Had I known that you were really just gathering intel into the power structures so that you could come back and wedge yourself back in, I might have pretended I wasn't home. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:27, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::So the copies of my emails to Andy, that you were copied on, CC, not BCC, months and months ago, are not to you "proof" that I backed you? You really are a despicable person. So, now you admit you are on AIM. Previously you posted you never use it, only did so because I requested it, demanded it. Oh well. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:37, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::I don't seem to have any of your emails to Andy. The closest I could find was one where you told me that you forwarded Andy, but I don't actually have any CCs. I highly doubt I deleted them since I have copies of many other random emails from you.
:::I previously explained that I never use AIM to talk to ''editors on CP''. I still use it for my personal communications. Is that clear now? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:35, 17 November 2008 (EST)

==Blocking [[User:TK]]==

Please provide reference and/or diffs to illustrate "insinuating that motorcycle accident which put a valued contributer in a coma for 10 days didn't actually happen; if someone wants to extend this block be my guest". [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] was wrong to undo your block but you should have asked an admin yourself, or Andy. Users with block rights (but no admin rights) should only block for clear and cut vandalism. I know this is not in the commandments, guidelines or user rights page but we are forming some kind of policy to address this in the near future. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 05:00, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:Actually it is [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:User_rights#Blocking_rights|here]: "''To counter blatant vandalism, some editors have the ability to block vandals. These particular rights may be granted to users who demonstrate an ongoing ability to revert vandalism. Users are also encouraged to report suspected vandals to the administration (preferably supplying evidence with diffs). Editors granted '''blocking rights should only use them for blocking vandals or other cases where immediate blocking is required. Other violations should be referred to an administrator.'''''" It Just hasn't been enforced very well so far. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 09:11, 17 November 2008 (EST)
::Jallen: As you know, BrianCo is a valued contributer to our website who was in a horrible motorcycle accident which put him '''in a coma for 10 days'''. TK, when confronted with the fact that he was '''outright lying''' about the fact that he was the one who asked for the {{tl|liberalism}} template (which was his entire reasoning for being able to use the template in the manner he demanded, and not how the community decided), responded with the following accusation: "Was this on your trip to Mexico, Genghis, or your later motorcycle accident recovery? Inquiring minds want to know!" [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template_talk:Liberalism&diff=prev&oldid=560367]. There is absolutely '''no excuse''' for such an '''unchristian''' comment towards another editor. I may not have been within my rights to block him (though I would certainly argue that this was a case where "immediate blocking is required"), but TK's incredibly low blow was intirely inexcusable, and I couldn't wait for a sysop to decide. If Bugler was the one who undid my block, then I'm going to redo it; I've said before (and you apparently agree) that Bugler had no right to undo it. Until a sysop tells me otherwise that it's ok for an editor to make light of a life-threatening event, I won't unblock TK. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:17, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:::HelpJazz, you have overstepped your authority in blocking TK. You are only allowed to use your blocking rights for vandalism. I don't believe you were justified with the immediate block either. "I couldn't wait for a sysop to decide" is not valid in this situation. I have undone your block. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 12:37, 17 November 2008 (EST)
::::Since you have undone my block, then you have made a decision. Thank you. I'm going to go appologice to BrianCo now, and I'll probably be too mad to edit today. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:39, 17 November 2008 (EST)

User talk:HelpJazz

2008-11-17T17:17:29Z

HelpJazz: /* Blocking User:TK */

{| style="width: 100%; border: black solid 1px; background-color: lightgrey;"
|-
|{{Useful links|float=right}}<center><big>'''Guidelines for my talk page'''</big></center>
*Please, no "ping-pong" conversations: if I leave a message on your talk page, please respond there; I'm watching it. If you start a conversation here, I'll reply here, so please watch this page
*Sign your posts with four tildes, like this: '''<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>'''
*At the beginning of each month I will archive all conversations which are at least 1 month and 1 day from the most recent reply.
*Please, only one picture of Putin at a time. He scares me in large doses.
*'''If you have been blocked by me''': please do not create a sock and complain on this page! Instead, [[Special:Emailuser/HelpJazz|email me]] and we can work it out. (You will need a valid, verified e-mail address for this to work).

The system is supposed to send me an email when my talk page is changed... but I don't think it's working. The regular email is working, though, so if for some reason I don't respond to a notice on my talk page, click [[Special:Emailuser/HelpJazz|here]]
|}

Archives: [[/Sept07|Sep '07]] • [[/Oct07|Oct '07]] • [[/Nov07|Nov '07]] • [[/Dec07|Dec '07]] • [[/Jan08|Jan '08]] • [[/FebApr08|Feb-Apr '08]] • [[/MaySep08|May-Sep '08]]

==For the good of the project==
and despite sore provocation I have reverted some pointed words and trust that you can be relied on to respond in an appropriately responsible manner. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:53, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
:For the good of the project, you shouldn't have written them at all.
:Don't get so worked up that I don't create new articles. There's no rule that says you have to create new articles, and it's certainly the idea of a wiki to edit other's articles, no? Plus, as I've already said, I have created numerous articles. I don't enjoy it, and I'm not good at it. I'm not here to please you, and I'm not going to try.
:It's pretty hypocritical of you to say that ''I'' have done no work on this site, when I have been doing work all morning long, and you have been simply reverting me on two pages. Now I have ''real'' work (i.e. the money-making kind) so I won't be bothering you with my non-work for the rest of the day. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:01, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

== Edit war ==

I'm addressing both you and Bugler. Stop your edit warring and try working together for the good of Conservapedia. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:02, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

== Template:lowercase ==

I seem to recall from the equivalent template on Wikipedia that the template would only display the correct case of the title in certain circumstances (such as Javascript enabled). Is this still the case, or does it ''always'' correct the display of the title?

And the reason that you were able to edit a locked page is that it wasn't locked! It had been locked, but was deleted by a sysop who didn't understand its purpose. Deleting a locked page and reinstating it causes (or used to cause?) the locking to be lost.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:31, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

:<s>I don't think you have to have javascript enabled, but I might be wrong. It uses the DISPLAYTITLE... uh thing. It's not a template, and it seems to be built into the wikicode much like <nowiki>{{CURRENTDAY}}</nowiki>. I don't know a lot about how wikis work behind the scenes, but the template is used on Wikipedia, so if it doesn't work all of the time it works most of the time.</s>

:This is from the page of the WP template that I, uh, "borrowed" from: ''This template wraps the magic word DISPLAYTITLE so that it works automatically in any namespace (main, talk, template, etc.) to decapitalise the first letter of the name of a page it is transcluded on. (Previously, this template achieved this using JavaScript, but the DISPLAYTITLE method makes the change for all users, even those with JavaScript disabled in their browser).'' So we should be fine. :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:06, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
:: Ah, very good. Thanks for that. I've now changed the Manual of Style page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:00, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

==Brokeback==

You're breakin' my back on the Brokeback article! :-) I hope you can see that I'm very willing to defend my points, and I appreciate the civility with which you've been treating them (unlike some other posters on that page). I'm going to continue as much as I can today, but I'm leaving for a weeklong trip tonight so I won't be able to respond until I get back. Hopefully the page won't blow up to enormous proportions in the meantime :0 -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 13:49, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
:Ha ha ha! I was actually just about to tell you that I'm not trying to be harsh. I think you're a good editor, so my comments are (to the best of my ability) aimed at the article and not at you. I'll keep an eye on the page and keep it honest while you are gone. Have a good trip. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:17, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
::Thanks! See you on the talk pages in a week. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 20:04, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I'm back and will get to the posts on Brokeback Mountain probably tomorrow. In the meantime, I've noticed that the categories now appear in double boxes. Do you know why that is? It seems redundant. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:21, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Nevermind, I've found the relevant thread on Andy's talk page (it explains the appearance of other things like the new CAPTCHA, which I don't like). -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:37, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::Me neither. Hopefully it will change, or I may very well never <nowiki>{{welcome}}</nowiki> a user again! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:39, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::I didn't even think of that detail! Speaking of which, why is there an external link that occurs when we're doing a <nowiki>{{welcome}}</nowiki> anyway? -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 23:08, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::The link to Interiot's edit counter (which doesn't actually work right now) is an outside link. Don't forget that "internal" diff links (like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:HelpJazz&diff=next&oldid=519768 this], for example), counts as an outside link. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:21, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: Now ''those'' I can help you with. Administrators have the ability to add a web-site to a "white list" so that those addresses will not trigger the CAPTCHA. I've added Interiot's tool and Conservapedia itself. Give them a try and let me know if it works. It's not, of course, an ideal solution for all the other possible links. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:59, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::You mean this whole time there was a simple solution? Oh man. Let's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:HelpJazz&diff=next&oldid=519768 test]. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 09:38, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Hey it worked! You'd think the software would be smart enough to have the domain site on the whitelist by default... Thanks soooooooo much Philip! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 09:39, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

==Vote McCain==
Vote McCain!!! [[Fry2000]]

== Thank you! ==

Thanks for the block! [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 19:23, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:I do what I can :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:24, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

==Ohio==
Well, well. I always thought you were British, for some reason. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:33, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:Nope. Never even visited. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:36, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

== addition article ==

Is there a way to check the user John Peters ? His name is red link in the history. The text added to the article may be correct but makes the article very complex if aimed at a high school level. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 23:56, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:I don't know. "Checkuser" (which I don't have) only tells you what other users have used the same IP address as him, but that doesn't really help in this case. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:19, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

==Blocked==
When I attempted to log in today, I received a notice that my IP address was blocked. I think a schoolmate of mine got himself blocked by you. First and foremost, I apologize for my classmates inappropriate behavior. I will look into who it was and see if I can get them removed from the lab. I would like to ask, however, if something like this happens in the future, is there anyone I can contact about removing the IP block or is it best to just ride it out? Thank you [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 17:05, 23 October 2008 (EDT) PS, I had to edit another user's signature before it would let me post. I think their user name contained something that the spam filter blocked out
:I think the best thing to do is email the person who blocked IP address and include the IP address or block number (it's shown when you try to edit a page). In this case, since you are only blocked at school, you could ask someone with checkuser rights (basically any sysop) to unblock your IP address. I have no way of looking it up, but they can help. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:19, 23 October 2008 (EDT) PS: Out of curiosity, do you know the person I blocked?
::Ok, I will keep that in mind should it happen again. It's hard to do much else except post from school, I don't have a personal computer yet (although I'm working on it) and I don't know for sure who it was, but by cross referencing sign in logs to the time I think I can get a fairly good idea. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 11:54, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

==Pearl Jam - removal of talk edit==
Apologies may be in order. I think I may have removed that talk page contribution...our edits clahed and I must have somehow wiped yours during my amateurish attempts at saving my input. Sorry about that. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 18:15, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
:I figured that's what happened. No biggie. (It was actuallyl Liams that you removed). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:36, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
::Yeah, I didn't mind, so I didn't change it :-) [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 18:38, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks for defending me ==

Thanks for pointing out how others had mistaken comments I made. You are correct with what I said about lying in the Bible, and Peter is a perfect example. However, you and they are wrong to claim that I "cherry pick". My position has always been that you can determine whether something is meant to be taken literally by the context and knowledge of the language, as Professor James Barr (not a creationist) did (see [[creation week]]). And contrary to a claim made by someone of whom I'll have more to say in a moment (this is for their benefit) that [[creation week]] has no evidence, it in fact has (a) a number of supporting arguments about word use (admittedly unreferenced), (b) a referenced quote from an expert (Barr) who also says the other experts agree, and (c) a referenced summary of a formal study into the text. Perhaps ''he'' is simply seeing (or not seeing) what he wants to (not) see. Before I saw your comments, I was thinking of saying something anyway (such as on my user page). That same accuser (Kels) also accused ''me'' and Creation Ministries International of lying, ("he won't hesitate to lie and twist at the slightest opportunity" and "He accepts every lie creationontheweb feeds him") yet offered no evidence of that whatsoever. I accept that many people don't accept my views and think that I'm mistaken, deluded, or even stupid, but I don't go around saying things that I know to be untrue (and nor does CMI). Accusations like that without solid supporting evidence are nothing short of libel (not that I could be bothered suing), and he is despicable for making the accusation, and should be censured by others there, but by their silence they are just as bad. And they have the gall to criticise Conservapedia! Finally, to answer a loaded question, I accept both parts of the creation account, because I see no conflict between them (just like most of the rest of the millions who have studied the Bible for centuries) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:34, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
:Probably these others don't believe in censoring. Maybe you should go and explain your points of view to them at their place. I don't know what this Kels accused you of, but you can't deny that creationontheweb is your number one source of "information". Go and debate them there. Here, as you know, it is impossible. --[[User:JulianAdderley|JulianAdderley]] 09:52, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
:: Since when it is censoring to take someone to task for libel? That CreationOnTheWeb is my main source was not the accusation. How do you not know what he accused me of when I've quoted it above?? I don't go there because I'd end up spending too much time disputing so much of what they say. I spend too much time disputing here without doing it there also. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:18, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I talked about censoring as you yourself said "... and should be '''censured''' by others there". I find it unfair and cowardly that you attack them here instead of debating with them. They'd defend themselves here, but they are not allowed. --[[User:JulianAdderley|JulianAdderley]] 14:29, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
:::: ''censure: to criticise adversely; disapprove; find fault with; condemn.'' That's not the same thing as ''censor''. My reasons for not debating there have been given several times. I agree that the situation is unfortunate, but it's not out of cowardice that I don't debate there. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:38, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, Philip, I didn't mean to imply that you cherry pick (though when I reread the post I was agreeing with, it does seem that that's what I agreed to!). What I meant to say was that you draw a different line than I do on what's literal and what's figurative in the Bible. I've seen you debating this a lot across the site and I know you don't use anything so silly as quote mining or cherry picking :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:57, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
: Thanks for clearing that up. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:38, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

==Ema==
Funny Ema support Jesus as lord and supports Barack Obama because Christian principles are not Obama (gay marriage, abortion, black liberation theology, etc.). It is an oxymoron. How come you don't understand? --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 12:42, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:Because not every Christian in the world believes the exact same thing? Obama is not the anti-Christ. Full disclosure: I'm probably going to vote for McCain, even though I don't really like him, simply to make it harder for Obama to win Ohio. I'm not an Obama fan by a long shot, but saying that no Christian Who Is A True Christian can vote for Obama gives Christianity a bad name. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:46, 3 November 2008 (EST) PS: Is Obama a black liberation theologist or a Muslim? He can't be both.

::My fellow Buckeye, it is evident that many Christians will vote for Obama, just by observing primary statistics. I am just saying Christians are confused about their faith if they vote Obama. So he is not the anti-Christ. His views are anti-Christian. If a true Christian votes cares for values and votes Obama, well then, they are giving Christianity a bad name.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 12:51, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::Jpatt, check worldwide statistics on support for the two candidates. They are pretty clear on which of the two candidates the majority of all the Christians in the world support. If you are too lazy to check by yourself, it's Obama. I find that a pretty convincing argument on who has more Christian values. --[[User:JennyM|JennyM]] 12:54, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::::: What statistics? Not only have I seen no such statistics, I can't imagine that anybody is going to survey Christians worldwide to find out with of the two American presidential candidates they prefer. And Christian values are defined by the Bible, not by the values of the person that Christians would prefer to see as American president. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:31, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Just google around, not difficult to find. Sorry to hear about your lack of imagination, Philip, as imagination is what keeps us young! Surely Christian values are defined by the Bible, not by Jpatt. Quite arrogant of Jpatt to "know" that McCain has more Christian values than Obama. Billions of Christians worldwide disagree. --[[User:Jessica|Jessica]] 07:26, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::::::: If they're not difficult to find, why can't you link to them? And how many is "billions", given that there's about 2.1 billion Christians ''in total'', and they wouldn't all prefer Obama. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:47, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::50 % of 2.1 billion is more than one billion. Since all the polls show more way more than 50 %, it's not difficult to infer the "billions". --[[User:Jessica|Jessica]] 07:52, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::: Although a plural word indicates more than one, my understanding it that it is more than one ''unit'' ("billion" being the unit in this case), which doesn't allow for fractions, so "billions" means at least 2 billion. So where are these worldwide polls? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:00, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::You are wrong on two counts. First of all, when approaching or surpassing 1.5, it is perfectly legitimate to use the plural. Second, "billions", as well as "dozens" or "tens", is a perfectly acceptable way to convey ''order of magnitude''. For the polls you'll have to look by yourself. I have no time now. But do you really doubt it? --[[User:Jessica|Jessica]] 08:11, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: I do doubt that such surveys exist. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:28, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::Philip's a busy guy, but I'm notoriously bored, so I went and looked. I found plenty of surveys that showed Obama winning international popularity contests, but none of them claimed to select only Christians.
::::::::::::To the larger point of it being possible for Christians to select Obama - of course it's possible. I did it, for one. (Sorry, HelpJazz.) [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 10:56, 5 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo I can't be your online friend anymore! ;-) It's ok, in a way I wanted Obama to win. I truely believe that once the hype wore off, either candidate would have been a pretty lame duck president. If McCain won, they would just blame it on Bush, and then a candidate who's even more liberal than Obama would be elected in '12. If Obama won, then when he is (ok this tense is all messed up now, bear with me here) not the Messiah that he's supposed to be I can laugh and feel morally superior and smug and all those cool things I like to do :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:02, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::::Yeah, he doesn't match my politics in a lot of ways, but neither does the 2008 version of McCain, and Bob Barr was a carpet-bagger of a Libertarian and I refuse to endorse that. Boiled down to the fact that I felt a McCain vote is an endorsement of the current administration, for all the lip service he pays to "change."
::::::::::::::You might enjoy checking out [http://thebigstick.wordpress.com/ this blog I found] by a guy who posts on Ames' blog comments. He's a fairly articulate guy who doesn't get all riled up (in other words, don't hold Ames against him) (although Ames is plenty articulate, he just gets caught up in things...). [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 13:02, 5 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::::Grrr lost a post. Ok this is the last thing I say and then I'll be done for a while because this faulty connection thing is annoying. I didn't like any of the candidates this year, and as much as I hated myself for doing it, I had to vote against a candidate instead of for a candidate. I almost considered writing in Ron Paul just for the heck of it. *Off to read that blog link, which probably has a much better connection than this site does right now* [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:14, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Oh if the world wants Obama, then I should shut up, duh. It is convincing who has more Christian values. Hint, it aint Obama.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 13:01, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::And again I say you are trying to impose one set of beliefs on all Christians, and you are questioning the faith of those who believe differently than you. Not everybody is a one or two issue voter, you know. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:44, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::PS: Since you brought up same sex marriage, both Obama and Biden ''oppose'' it [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.samesexmarriage.html]. And you didn't mention stem cell research: McCain supports federal funding of it [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.stemcell.html]. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:54, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::: "McCain supports federal funding of ... Obama"??? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:31, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::Whoops! Fixed. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:36, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::: Oh. I thought you might have meant "and Obama does also". And to clarify, nobody has any objection to funding stem cell research. Or are you saying that McCain supports funding ''embryonic'' stem cell research? In any case, I expect that it's a case not of claiming that McCain is correct in all his views, but that they are, overall, better than Obama's. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:14, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::I did mean embryonic. To be fair, he only wants funding on embryos that are going to be discarded anyway -- I don't know if pro-lifers are ok with that. If I understand Jpatt's argument, he was trying to argue that no Christians can vote for Obama because he doesn't hold Christian values. Not only that, but he presented it as the only correct choice and anyone with a differing opinion doesn't have enough faith. I was trying to point out that Jesus is not running for president. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:39, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: Write-ins FTW!! [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 22:26, 3 November 2008 (EST) ''<-Jesus/Holy Ghost '08!''
:::::::::: Was it okay to experiment on the Jews who were going to the gas chambers in Nazi Germany because they were going to die anyway?
:::::::::: I tend to agree that Americans tie their religion too closely to their politics, but on the other hand, I can understand where he's probably coming from (although I should point out that I don't know what prompted the first post in this section). A Christian believes that God is the ultimate reality, and therefore that God's standards are more important than anything else more worldly. Therefore, in comparing two different candidates, the one that most closely follows God's standards is the one that Christians should vote for. That is, God's standards (such as on moral issues) are not just a minor consideration, but should be a major deciding factor. To that extent, I would agree with Jpatt. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:38, 3 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::What you missed was the conversaion on (the now blocked) [[user:Ema]]'s talk page. She said something about how Obama was going to win, to which Jpatt replied: "Funny how you accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and support Barack Obama." I don't think there's anything wrong to use your faith as a factor in deciding who to vote for, but to presume that ones (clearly at least partially incorrect, as seen by the gay marriage comment on this page) interpretation is infallible is hubris at its best. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:48, 3 November 2008 (EST)

==My vacation==

Hey! It's good to be back. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:07, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:Now get to work *wchapshh!* [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:45, 3 November 2008 (EST)

That has a nice [[beat]] to it . . . --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:53, 3 November 2008 (EST)

==[[User:BHarlan]]==
My apologies for bothering you with this.... But is this user for real? Or is he a parodist? If he is real, he is a very difficult person to work with. He is currently edit warring on the [[Rodney King]] page and is generally making things difficult for other users? Is there anything we can do? I think this [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Rodney_King&diff=550213&oldid=550211 this edit] sums up everything. [[User:SamuelA|SamuelA]] 18:03, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:To engage in an edit war while insisting "don't edit war" is parody at its worst.
:I contribute here by editing articles to add information, sometimes in the form of sentences and paragraphs. I suggest you do the same.
:In the meantime, I will try to be more like the Christ. He was very forgiving. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:08, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::If that doesn't clear things up for you, nothing will. There is nothing you can do about it. [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 18:23, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:::I try not to comment on the nature of parodists, unless I am blocking someone for it. It's too messy otherwise. However, BHarlan, I would ask that you be a little nicer. Legitimate editors can be blocked for not working well with others. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:56, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== Template thanks ==

Thanks for your work on {{tl|homosexualityb}} - it will be much easier to edit now. Just wanted to let you know that these things don't go unnoticed.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:03, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:Thanks. All I really did was add a line break in between each thing, since I have a hard time reading all those links squished together. A single line break won't show up in the end result, but it makes the code a little easier to look at.
:''You'' should be the one being thanked though. None of your work goes unnoticed, but I'm willing to wager that most of it is thankless. Until now!! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:26, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::I wouldn't say thankless - just yesterday Ed Poor was if anything over-generous. Congratulations on the message below, by the way.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:34, 14 November 2008 (EST)

==Sysop rights==

Er, I meant that you've been nominated in our secret enclave to become a sysop. Until then, all you edits show up for me in Recent Changes with a red mark. When you become a sysop, we don't have to patrol your changes any more. I think Jessica and Bert should be sysops. No one ever reverts them. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:08, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:I'm sure I've been nominated more than once... I'll believe it when I see it though ;-)
:About those red exlamation points: I've seen them before (not here, obviously). It makes me wonder what Wikimedia was thinking (or was it Wikipedia? Which came first?) -- do they seriously expect every single edit by a non-sysop to be marked as patrolled? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:32, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Ed, there is a reason why secret enclaves are secret. It is very unclear right now what direction Andy wishes to go and we should avoid any indication to our valued editors of what the future may hold that may not in fact be fulfilled. It can only cause possible embitterment or disenchantment and we certainly don't want that among any of the people who have made great contributions to our project. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:35, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::No worries, LT. I haven't gotten my hopes up, and my feelings won't be hurt. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:42, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Lest I trip over my beard, I must remind myself that Wikipedia was only two years old when the patrol feature was created. The rate of edits was so low that one sysop could do all the patrolling by himself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:44, 14 November 2008 (EST)

==Block==
You were blocked for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=557690 this] edit. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:53, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:Oops, my mistake. I have been away for a while, would you please sum up the events that have occured during my absence? Thanks. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:57, 15 November 2008 (EST)
::May I unblock him so he can answer? Blocked users cannot edit their own user talk pages here - although (thanks to me!) they can do so at Wikipedia. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:59, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::(Sorry Ed, I didn't know if anyone else was watching. PS: is there an easier way to unblock an IP address? I can't seem to figure out how to do it).
:::Henry, much has gone on since you went on vacation. I saw it all, but I'm not sure I can explain it all myself. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:01, 15 November 2008 (EST)

HJ, I am sorry that I blocked you. I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 21:09, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:It's ok, you picked a bad time to make a joke, is all. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:10, 15 November 2008 (EST) <-- NOONE expects the Spanish Inquisition!!! (There's never a bad time for that joke!)
::Did someone mention an Inquisition? Oh goody! (rubbing hands in glee!) --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:12, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::Our chief weapon is surprise! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:14, 15 November 2008 (EST)
::::I say we start a conservapedia inquisition. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 21:21, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Depends on who gets inquisitioned. Inquisized? Inquised? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:33, 15 November 2008 (EST)
::::::It is always THEM, Jazz! We go after <big>THEM!!!</big> --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:47, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::I stopped playing with blocks when I was six.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:02, 15 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::It is so noted. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:22, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Not a single block! That's impressive and unexpected. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:28, 15 November 2008 (EST)
*Well I am fairly certain that won't last. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:48, 16 November 2008 (EST)

==Crackpots==
*"I don't know why I bother, i'm sure some crackpot out there has said this" [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gay_heroism&diff=558704&oldid=558703]
A moment of candor. It's nice to know what you think of the sources we draw upon. I can tell you at least one person who said that: the [[User:Ed_Poor|person who wrote the article]]. Now think about whether you meant what you wrote. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 07:44, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:My point being that even though "gay heroism" is likely ''not'' part of a campaign to legitimize homosexuality, you can find a source that says anything, and there's really no standard for sources on this webite. I didn't mean that you had to be a crackpot to believe it, but I'm willing to wager that you won't find a mainstream source to back up that statement (yeah, yeah liberal bias). I wasn't calling Ed Poor a crackpot, since an editor's opinion can't be used as a source (a policy Ed himself helped to write), but yes, I still mean what I wrote. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:47, 16 November 2008 (EST)

==Sillly edit==
You are being silly but I will let it stand.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 14:47, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:Maybe I would have been in a nicer mood had you asked first, but now there's really no way to know, is there? You probably blocked their IP's anyway, which I'm guessing is why you are taking the "high road" now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:55, 16 November 2008 (EST)

==Your block==
Now try and stay civilised about this and discuss it here. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:05, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:You really make me laugh, you know? ''Bugler has no right to undo my blocks''. What on earth have you been doing in the past months, trying to worry me to an early grave? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:09, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::C'mon, HelpJazz. C'mon, man. Tell me. Have you never reverted an edit of mine? Heh? have you? Have you never reverted an edit of mine? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:13, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::(Edit conflict: Bugler's original comment was: "Now try and stay civilised about this and discuss it here.") I did discuss it. Jpatt has no right to undo my blocks; you have no right to undo my blocks. You then blocked me (and blocked my IP address for no reason other than to be annoying) with no legitimate reason. Blocking doesn't work if any other editor can decide to change another's blocks. Believe me, Bugler, be happy I respect this simple principle. If you think I complain a lot ''now'', how do you think you'd like it if I simply undid every block you did that I didn't think was appropriate? Now, a ''sysop'' has the power (and the right) to correct a block I made erroneously; a sysop's decisions take precidence over mine. Any other non-sysop has no greater authority over me. If they were to ask, I might reconsider. I've made mistakes in the past. But simply ignoring normal modes of respect is unacceptable. If you undo any of my blocks (ever) I will redo them, and I expect you would do the same.
:::Edit conflict (Bugler's *new* comment, I suspect he's intentionally edit conflicting me, is "You really make me laugh, you know? ''Bugler has no right to undo my blocks''. What on earth have you been doing in the past months, trying to worry me to an early grave?"): Which blocks of yours did I undo, except the ones where you blocked me? Name one and I'll quit this site.
:::Edit conflict *again*: First of all, edits are fundamentally different than blocks. It's clear that if you were to insert a spelling error, there is no conflict in me fixing it. Every editor on this site is given the "responsiblity" of editing. However, in getting "block" rights, Andy has decided that he trusts your judgment enough that you are given the "privilede" to excercise your good judement by blocking people. In undoing a ''block'' you are telling both me and Andy that your judgement is better than ours.
:::Even though it is irrelevant (as I have shown) I can still answer your question: Have I ever undone an ''edit'' you have done? Yes I have. Have I ever undone an edit you have done while giving no explanation or reason? No, I don't think I have. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:20, 16 November 2008 (EST)
You have certainly never given an ''adequate'' explanation. however, I am able to let the dead bury the dead. WEhat matters, as I am trying to get across to you, is the welfare of Conservapedia. I think your lenient 'name only' blocks of the two hangmen are entirely wrong for two key reasons. 1. The insults were so gross that the perpetrators do not deserve a second chance. 2. The insults, being so gross, indicate that teh perpetratorsm, if allowed back into CP, as you are in effect doing, have the potential to cause huge damage through vandalism, causing editors here an enormous amount of clean-up work.

I hope you will accept that I have not deliberately tried to edit conflict you; that is not my style. I say what I think, to you and to others. And the block was not intended to block you: I knew you would revert it post-haste. It was to get a breathing space to remove damaging saboteurs from the site. Saboteurs who you have since restored to grace. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:31, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:I cannot remember whether you have reverted any of my blocks. Given what you say, I presume you disapprove of Tim's high handed action yesterday (and before, regarding Daphnea), and PJR's similar actions towards me in the past. For the rceord, Jpatt is one of the best new editors and sysop-lites we have here. He should be encouraged and cherished, not subjected to beastings. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:33, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::(It again took you three edits to say what you think; if you instead use the preview button, you don't run the risk of edit conflicted other users multiple times)
::For starters, how did I not adequately explain why it was wrong for Jpatt to undo my block? You gave no explanation.
::Secondly, if you think my blocks are lenient, there's nothing stopping you from ''asking me about it''. There is way too much overeager blocking on this site; shame on me if I follow the letter of the law. That gives no excuse for someone else to change it without asking me. (You will notice that they never recreated their account).
::Thirdly, I can tell you that I have never undone any other editor's blocks, unless the blocks were obvious vandalism (Like MexMax) or if they were joking (like Bohdan last night).
::Fourthly, if you read what I wrote, I clearly said that I have no problem with a ''sysop'' going over the head of a normal editor. You and I are both editors, and Tim and PJR are both sysops. I don't know about Daphnea, but seeing as how you didn't undo a single one of HotDog's edits, you didn't really have a case there anyway, did you? I'd also be surprised if PJR undid a block without any explanation, but again, as a sysop it's entirely within his rights.
::Lastly, I have no responsibility to encourage or cherish someone for doing something they had no right to do. Had Jpatt asked me, I would have said "Thank you for asking Jpatt, here's my explanation." He showed no respect for me, and I had no obligation to give him any in return. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::: 1. Sysop rights have no merit whatsoever when they are abused, as I believe they were yesterday. 2. So what is your justification for giving the hangmen free rein in Conservapedia? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:48, 16 November 2008 (EST)
Hey people, don't fight. You are both good and valuable contributors. If you have to revert someone (but pleease don't block), revert my contributions: they are not as valuable as yours. Please, both of you, advance our common cause by being unite against our enemies! --[[User:Drunk|Drunk]] 15:51, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:Thank you, Drunk. I would however appreciate an acknowledgement from HelpJazz that I don't deliberately time my edits to disrup him with edit conflicts. t sounds a strange thing, and a very difficult one, to do in any case. I frequently gnash my teeth over ECs, but I don't for a moment imagine that enemies are doing it deliberately to frustrate me. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:56, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::I don't have much wiki experience, but to time edits to disrupt with edit conflicts seems very far-fetched even in my "high" (sorry) state. There are much more effective ways to disrupt. But HelpJazz, why do you think that Bugler is disrupting? Maybe it's just an incomprehension between you? --[[User:Drunk|Drunk]] 16:00, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::(Ironically, an edit conflict) 1. Then there's really no point in having sysops, is there? As much as you whine about the "liberal whinging about every decisions", do you really want to assert that every time someone thinks another user is abusing their power, that person has no obligation to sumbit to the abuser's power? Or are you the only one who gets to decide when someone is abusing power?
::::2. Free reign? Hardly. Had I wanted to give them free reign I would have unblocked them. Instead, I gave them the opportunity to rethink their actions and either go away, or come back in a better frame of mind. What's the worse that could have happened? Had they created another inappropriate username, I would have blocked them with account creation disabled (and yes, I have done this before); had they created an account and started vandalising I would have blocked their account with account creation disabled; had they never returned there's no harm to CP; had they returned and been a good editor then CP is all the better. I refuse to block people for something they might do. )This is not to say that I will contest any user who blocks people this way).
::::Ironic edit conflict: I'll admit that the first time may not have been intentional. It's very strange for someone to make three edits in a row, when they know that all three warrant a response, but the evidence is not conclusive enough to say that you did it on purpose. (I also misread the diffs and thought you were replacing your text, which lead more evidence to my claim). However, doing the exact same thing after I already pointed it out is a bit suspicious, no? That's why, to give you the benefit of the doubt, I instructed you to use the "show preview" button, which is the surefire way to avoid edit conflicts. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:07, 16 November 2008 (EST)
You got blocked again?! Ouch. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 16:12, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:You ''instructed'' me? My, oh my! I thought that editors had no authority over editors, but now I am expected to comply with the instructions of HelpJazz! Have you been appointed Lord High Panjandrum while I have been away? If so, please instruct me on the correct protocol. Is it a bow from the waist, or a full kow-tow? Do I have to walk backwards when I depart the August HelpJazzian Presence? My Lord will please excuse his humble servant's ignorance of etiquette! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 18:06, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::Bugler, please cool it, or I'll have to send an email to Andy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:13, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Well, honestly! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 18:14, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::Instruct (v.): to give knowledge to. Yes, that's what I did. I didn't say "commanded" or "required" or "demanded" or "forced" or "insisted". Alternatively, I could have said "taught" or "advised" or "showed" or "informed". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:23, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Perhaps this is a cultural difference. In the UK, instruct means order, tell. 'Advise' might have been the polite option. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 18:27, 16 November 2008 (EST)

== Category Discussion... ==

I have somehow missed the discussion about changing Categories from Liberals to Liberalism. Can you direct me, and possibly Ed Poor to it? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:49, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:I'm sorry, I didn't realize I had to discuss my use of common sense. Can you direct me to the rule that says this please? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:51, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::Are you quite certain you want to have this show-down? What exactly will you gain or lose? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:54, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::What showdown? Is there such a page? If not, I'm going to continue using my common sense. "Liberals" are people; "liberalism" is an idea. An idea is not a person and a person is not an idea. (And a person and an idea are not an organization). What's to discuss?
:::Just because you are back, it doesn't mean you can boss me around again, TK. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't work that way anymore. You won on {{tl|liberalism}}, what more do you want? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:56, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::::Boss you? Are you in 2nd grade, or what? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:57, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::I take it you don't have an answer to any of my question then? In that case, I'll continue what I'm doing. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:58, 16 November 2008 (EST)

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

:L. Beryl Baez is a person? [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal_bias_in_academia&curid=59501&diff=560052&oldid=525222&rcid=610515] I didn't understand your edit comment. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:16, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::Oh, wait: I misread it. "liberal bias is a concept, not a person" --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:18, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:::Wait, his bot is going to add everything from the "liberals" "liberalism" and "liberal organizations" categories and dump them all together into a "liberal" category? Why? Aren't categories supposed to be nouns? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:21, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::[[Homosexual Agenda]] is under the subcategory [[:Category:Liberal Deceit]]. [[Evolution]] isn't under any of the liberal categories at all. It doesn't usually make sense to put everything on a template into the same category. It makes category renames easier, but everything else harder, and category renames don't happen that often. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 20:26, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::(EC) <s>Ed, "liberal bias in acedemia", which is the title of the article, is not a person. There might be people mentioned in the article, but do you seriously want to put every single article that so much as mentions a liberal into the "liberals" category? That would mean that, for example, [[John McCain]] would be in the liberals category.</s> (EC -- this is happening a lot today. Maybe I should increase my typing speed) I think you understand where I'm coming from now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:21, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:::::You and Interiot are indeed "understood". I merely suggested one way to quickly add articles to a category, was not suggesting that would be the ONLY category applied. To me it was far easier to change the category "Liberal'''s'''" to Liberal, no plural. The "discussion-without-end" over this is everything that is wrong about Conservapedia, and in my opinion, by design and spite. However, if people want to run around like a chicken with its head cut off, in spite, go ahead. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:32, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Easier isn't always best. It might be "easier" to just put everything in the "liberal" category but (a) it goes against the category conventions and (b) it's not very descriptive.
::::::I don't see who's running around with a chicken with it's head cut off, either. All I was doing was putting articles into the most logical, pre-existing category. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:36, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::Yes, after you publicly got angry over it, insisting you were being "bossed". Do whatever you wish, of course. You and a few others insisted you were correct over something that was decided by admins months and months ago, and you don't care. I will no longer participate in this silly arguing on your part, Jazz. It is pointless, and nothing is urgent about this. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::Can you point to me where admins decided how the template should be used? Maybe I just missed it; all this mess will be cleared up rather quickly. The only thing I can find is where a group of people (including a sysop) decided how it was to be used, and then you unilaterally decided not to use it that way. So when I did what you wanted and started adding the template how you wanted to, somehow I can't do it right and I need permission to use common sense. Can you just tell me what to do already and get it over with? All this time I'm spending on my talk page I could be using to impliment the template ''you'' wanted to use. So please, direct me to the admin decision that was made months ago, so that I may submit myself to it and continue editing this encyclopedia. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:51, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Sysop discussions are not done that way, you know that, and you have absolutely no right to insist they should be. I asked Brianco to create it. I got Andy's permission, and that is that. No one, least of all me, said you were adding it incorrectly. What I do know is you got me on AIM highly agitated and upset I was using it. That is what I know. My only dispute was your public snit, and insistence about changing categories, and impatience that you were not answered IMEDIATELY, and posting that you were just going to proceed. I have the IM archive, from months ago, when you were informed about the template. And even that doesn't matter. You alone have decided you don't like the template. So, take it off, if you like. We will just make a new template, and not call it a nav box, thus removing your original complaint that it was being used for a purpose not intended for nav boxes. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:03, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:In other words, I have to take your word for it that any discussion took place?
:"You and you alone?" What about the other people who responded on the talk page? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:07, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::Yes, that's pretty much it, Jazz. We assume good faith. That is the Christian way. If I say it was that way, it was. If it is untrue, Andy can post saying I am mistaken or a liar. This is something, a Red Herring, you decided to dredge up and dispute, from months ago! It was only after I was no longer a sysop, that some people, including you, thought that meant some kind of wholesale reversal of policy could be made. That is indeed fuzzy logic. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:15, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Then let's have Andy post. You are using something I've never seen in order to control my actions.
:::I dredged it up? Really? Funny, nobody discussed the liberalism template until you came back and started doing the exact same thing you were doing when you left.
:::Wholesale reversal of policy? The policy was "TK is right; you must have permission from TK to do anything; TK has discussed everything through email with Andy". When TK is gone, the policy breaks down. Now you are back, you have no idea what has gone on in the last 7 months, and you just assume that everything is as it was. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:10, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::Speaking of what has gone on, could you sum it up tonight? Please? You refused to last night :( [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::When did you go on vacation? How long have you been gone? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:18, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::::About a month or two. When I was last here, you and another user were engaged in bitter dispute over "big science" or something like that. Is this Buglre a sysop? Are you? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:21, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::I don't think there have been any promotions in the last month or two. I'll never be promoted, so that's not something you ever have to ask ;-)
:::::::Hrm... what have you missed in the last few months? Ed and TK came back (which I'm sure you can tell).
:::::::Multiple fights have ensued, people have been called idiots, noone's been blocked -- not much has changed. (Big science got moved to the essay space though). Read over my talk page, Bugler's talk page, PJR's talk page and the Obama talk page, (Maybe Ed's talk page too) and that pretty much sums up everything you need to know over the last couple months. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:27, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::Were you called an idiot? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:29, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Not me, but Tim was (check out Bugler's talk page, I think).
:::::::::I just checked my spam email (all my CP mail goes straight to spam) and found emails from two different editors asking me to intercede with their blocks by the same user. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:33, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::Straight to spam? I have been sending you emails everyday for the past two months. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:35, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::Straight to spam. Curiously, I haven't seen any emails from teh Bohdan. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:40, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::Has anyone called me an idiot? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:42, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::Doubtful. Who could call you an idiot and expect to get away with it? I mean *seriously*! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:46, 16 November 2008 (EST)

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

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

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

By your less than kind, throw-away comments, like the "I'm sure you can tell..." above, you show yourself to be just another mean & hateful person. Just goes to show how wrong I was about you, your character, and your being good material for an admin. BTW, Ed Poor was another who put himself out there, promoting you for sysop to Andy. I have always been honest with you, always told you CP wasn't like Wikipedia, and that the owner didn't aspire to it under any circumstances. Given your actions in the past 24 hours, I know Andy was correct in holding back. I was wrong, he was right. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:55, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:TK, you started all of the arguments. Want to know how many arguments there were about the use of the liberalism template while you were gone? None. Want to know how many arguments there were about categories when you were gone? None. Formatting? None. The liberalness of Fred Phelps? None. But then within 24 hours of your arrival, all of the same arguments show up, and somehow it's everyone else's fault.

:Do you really think I could tell you what I thought of you when you were holding the banhammer over my head? I'm sorry we aren't best buddies, but our entire "relationship" consists of you telling me what to do. That's all you ever do, is tell people what to do. You came back to this site and all ready you have told Philip he's not allowed to talk on your page, you have told Brianco that he's not privy to conversations from those "above his pay grade", you have told Sideways that he's not allowed to change an edit made by Conservative, you have told me that because you start things, only you know the Truth about how they are to be used. You have only been here '''one day'''.

:I'm just another mean and hateful person? Because I thought that Bohdan can read my talk page to see you are back?

:You continually tell me CP is not like Wikipedia, and I continually tell you that '''I'm not trying to make CP like Wikipedia'''. I continually tell you that I don't even edit at Wikipedia, and yet somehow everything I do is in the "Wikipedia mindset". I'm not imposing my liberal worldview, I'm not motivated by neutrality, and I'm not using a coverup of liberalism to make desicions. Every single thing I do is to further the encycopedia '''within the Commandments''' and every reason I give is backed up by '''logic'''. I'm sorry if you don't think these are good qualities for being an admin. I'm sorry if you put yourself out on a limb to back me (which I can only take on your word; I know that Ed has vouched for me because I've actually seen it -- yet another advantage to skipping AIM in leu of the website right here at our fingertips), only to find out that sometimes following the rules means you can't always spew whatever crazy you want. I'm sorry that I'm harming your goal of destroying CP from within by using the rules on CP to rein you in. I'm sorry I gave you a second chance two nights ago, by telling you about what was going on at CP. Had I known that you were really just gathering intel into the power structures so that you could come back and wedge yourself back in, I might have pretended I wasn't home. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:27, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::So the copies of my emails to Andy, that you were copied on, CC, not BCC, months and months ago, are not to you "proof" that I backed you? You really are a despicable person. So, now you admit you are on AIM. Previously you posted you never use it, only did so because I requested it, demanded it. Oh well. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:37, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::I don't seem to have any of your emails to Andy. The closest I could find was one where you told me that you forwarded Andy, but I don't actually have any CCs. I highly doubt I deleted them since I have copies of many other random emails from you.
:::I previously explained that I never use AIM to talk to ''editors on CP''. I still use it for my personal communications. Is that clear now? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:35, 17 November 2008 (EST)

==Blocking [[User:TK]]==

Please provide reference and/or diffs to illustrate "insinuating that motorcycle accident which put a valued contributer in a coma for 10 days didn't actually happen; if someone wants to extend this block be my guest". [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] was wrong to undo your block but you should have asked an admin yourself, or Andy. Users with block rights (but no admin rights) should only block for clear and cut vandalism. I know this is not in the commandments, guidelines or user rights page but we are forming some kind of policy to address this in the near future. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 05:00, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:Actually it is [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:User_rights#Blocking_rights|here]: "''To counter blatant vandalism, some editors have the ability to block vandals. These particular rights may be granted to users who demonstrate an ongoing ability to revert vandalism. Users are also encouraged to report suspected vandals to the administration (preferably supplying evidence with diffs). Editors granted '''blocking rights should only use them for blocking vandals or other cases where immediate blocking is required. Other violations should be referred to an administrator.'''''" It Just hasn't been enforced very well so far. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 09:11, 17 November 2008 (EST)
::Jallen: As you know, BrianCo is a valued contributer to our website who was in a horrible motorcycle accident which put him '''in a coma for 10 days'''. TK, when confronted with the fact that he was '''outright lying''' about the fact that he was the one who asked for the {{tl|liberalism}} template (which was his entire reasoning for being able to use the template in the manner he demanded, and not how the community decided), responded with the following accusation: "Was this on your trip to Mexico, Genghis, or your later motorcycle accident recovery? Inquiring minds want to know!" [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template_talk:Liberalism&diff=prev&oldid=560367]. There is absolutely '''no excuse''' for such an '''unchristian''' comment towards another editor. I may not have been within my rights to block him (though I would certainly argue that this was a case where "immediate blocking is required"), but TK's incredibly low blow was intirely inexcusable, and I couldn't wait for a sysop to decide. If Bugler was the one who undid my block, then I'm going to redo it; I've said before (and you apparently agree) that Bugler had no right to undo it. Until a sysop tells me otherwise that it's ok for an editor to make light of a life-threatening event, I won't unblock TK. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:17, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Template talk:Liberalism

2008-11-17T06:30:06Z

HelpJazz: /* How is this to be used? */

It seems that there are so many terms and articles related with liberal characteristics that there is a need for a navbox to link them all together. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 06:04, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:Hrm. I would say take out the ones which don't have "liberal" in the title, like global warming and gun control, as there's nothing inherently liberal about them. They are topics which have liberal and conservative viewpoints. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:10, 27 February 2008 (EST)
::HelpJazz, I added them as they are categorized under things like "Liberal Bias" or "Liberal Falsehoods". I know that this could be perceived as some sort of parody so I have refrained from using the template as I think it needs some discussion first. However, there are so many topics on Liberal-related issues that I think it is useful to unite them through a navbox. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:23, 28 February 2008 (EST)
:::Oh I didn't realize that! I should probably head over to the talk pages of those articles and petition for the removals of the categories.... I didn't think there was anything wrong with your navbox itself though, it looks very nice. It would be very helpful to keep track of all the liberal articles. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 09:07, 29 February 2008 (EST)

== Template name ==

Shouldn't this be renamed/moved to Template:Liberal or Template:Liberals instead? Liberalism is a much specific subject and is not necessarily relevant to these subjects. [[User:Hammet|Hammet]] 18:54, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Use of the template ==

Since this is being added to several pages and disputed on those same pages, it seems the best place to discuss the use would be here, instead of on every page where it is used. I'll start this discussion. (No need to follow my formatting, btw).
*'''Pro''': handy link to "liberalism traits" on all liberal topics
*'''Con''': is it really needed on all liberal topics? Does the ACLU espouse Hollywood values, or liberal grading, for example?
*'''Suggest''': use this the same way we use every other link template on CP (see, e.g., {{tl|Nb mythology greece}} or {{tl|Scientology}}, or {{tl|Nb_US_universities}}
Discuss. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:08, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
: Navigation boxes such as these are designed to be put on the pages with the terms or names in the box, not in other pages. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:29, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
::I agree with Philip. Its use on [[Richard Dawkins]], for example, looks just silly. The list of terms in the template has nothing to do with Dawkins. Its inclusion there looks like an attempt to make the subject of the article look as bad as possible by chucking in a load of other hate-topics (a slur-by-association), rather than an honest attempt to lead the reader to other relevant topics. Use only '''where appropriate'''. Unless of course this encyclopedia really has redefined "liberal" to mean "any viewpoint I disagree with". [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 10:35, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Thank you, HelpJazz, for inviting me. I absolutely agree with PJR/HumblPi's assessments, too. I'd also like to state that [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Philip_J._Rayment&diff=418351&oldid=418334 this] statement by TK, on the matter, was RIDICULOUSLY inappropriate, and I'm offended ''for'' PJR for having to suffer through an insult like that.-[[User:DParker|DParker]] 11:29, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Gentleman, I add the template to pages having to do with well-known liberal organizations and people because the template is informative! It directs users to other pages having to do with how and why a liberal thinks, and do what they do. For example, adding the "liberalism" template to Obama and Clinton, users can then use the links in the template to read more, and discover the "tools" or "tricks of the trade" liberals use to obfuscate and shape the public dialog. Adding it to the [[ACLU]] allows users a handy "go to" where they can read more about things that explains the tactics and agenda of the ACLU. Now I am not going to be drawn into yet another non-productive argument made by liberals, who hate the articles the template directs users to, and will seek any means they can to modify or change the POV CP has. You knew what that was coming here, and unless you wish to argue CP has no right to have a conservative voice and POV, you are on shaky ground.

What I see is a very few people not agreeing with CP's point of view, and doing whatever they can to hide it. First and foremost, this is meant to be an instructional wiki. It is also a Conservative and Christian POV friendly one. Our "job" is to teach! We provide tools to users that lead them to discovery, IMO. The template in question can put into context what is read on the pages involved. It acts exactly like a "which-see", helping to explain and expound on what the user reads. It also helps call attention to other CP articles, linking to them, and that is a good thing. So, I reject the reasoning above, as having none. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:02, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

:TK - You say that those who disagree with you are trying to '''hide''' CP's point of view. In my case, not at all. I am trying to '''defend''' it by not letting it turn into self-parody. Slapping that template on all sorts of tangentially relevant articles like [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[The God Delusion]] makes the encyclopedia look silly, and risks making a mockery of it, as if the aim was to indulge every half-opportunity to take a swipe at liberals, rather than to produce a reliable and family-friendly encylopedia. It's unfocused, evidence of sloppy thinking, and ultimately self-defeating. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 07:47, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

::I disagree that the template makes us look like a parody of ourselves, or that it's necessarily being used to try to take a swipe at liberals. However, I agree that it shouldn't be used, and not because I don't like it, but because it's being improperly used. Navboxes are used to connect articles within said navbox (see the examples above, along with {{tl|2008_presidential_candidates}}, which is another one I just remembered), not as a "see also". I wouldn't be against adding [[conservative links]] to the See Also section of these articles, since that article has on it all these liberal traits as well as many other resources which serve the same purpose that TK is trying to serve by adding this template to the page.

::Two other minor things: would it be possible to discontinue adding this template until we have decided here what's to be done? Additionally, if the template is added, I think it should be added at the very bottom of the page, not in the middle. Since it takes up the whole screen, if it's placed in the middle it cuts the article in two. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:18, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Ed Poor has created {{tl|Atheists}}, apparently as a replacement for using this on articles about atheists. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:53, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Request for sysop ==

Philip (or any sysop who reads this), since TK's talk page is protected, can you please direct him to this conversation? He has made no comment in this discussion and is adding this template to every page which involves a liberal. Thanks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:42, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:Done. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:58, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

== How is this to be used? ==

I thought we had decided the use of this template, but it's being used inapropriately again. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:34, 15 November 2008 (EST)

:I asked for the templates creation, so I know why I asked for it. But of course I could be wrong. The idea for making and using it, was to put on an article, about people or things, similar traits that all liberals share. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:39, 15 November 2008 (EST)

:::In the interest of historical accuracy I should point out that I created the template entirely of my own volition on 26 February during a period (14 January - 23 March when TK was not contributing to Conservapedia). [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 00:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
Was this on your trip to Mexico, Genghis, or your later motorcycle accident recovery? Inquiring minds want to know! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:25, 17 November 2008 (EST)
::Are you joking about a motorcycle accident which could have taken his life?! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:30, 17 November 2008 (EST)
::::Huh. I hadn't noticed that. That changes things, doesn't it? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:08, 17 November 2008 (EST)
::Then fix it like you agreed to offline. Navtemplates are to be used to link together the articles on the template, not to be plastered on any marginally related topic. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:42, 15 November 2008 (EST)

:::Sorry, I reject your opinion as to NavTemplates needing to be used in only one way. Ease of use trumps your idea of how it must be used. When that template is put on an article of a liberal person or institution/organization, it enables our readers to easily find and read information on liberal traits. Why would anyone object to that, unless they are trying to hide liberal traits? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:46, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::::: Whilst it's true that just because something has been done one way we don't have to stick with that (i.e. how navigation boxes are used), there is also the argument that it saves confusion if we use them consistently, and that includes consistently with other encyclopaedias. So I would suggest that we change how they are typically used only if there is an overriding reason to do so. I haven't seen that reason yet. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::<s>Then I'll do it myself.</s> Are we to add this template to every single liberal or liberal act described on Conservapedia? That's a big job, not a very easy use. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:48, 15 November 2008 (EST)

*I hardly think anyone needs to be dogmatic about it, or slavish in its application. Isn't common sense enough? In the case of Dawkins, it is entirely reasonable to expect that not everyone will know who he is, or be familiar with what liberal means in America. By adding that template to his article, it will enpower users to click the examples listed on the template, and understand what qualities he exhibits make him a liberal. That make sense? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:43, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::Can't the same be said for [[Barack Obama]] or [[Ted Kennedy]] or [[FDR]] or the [[ACLU]] -- where do we stop? You don't have to be dogmatic about it, but in a community website you need to at least have some consistency. You can't just make up new uses for things -- how is a new editor supposed to know what to do? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:::HelpJazz, the only people I see making up uses is you and Brianco. I requested the template to be made. I discussed it before asking for it, with Andy, Ed Poor and a couple of others. As I have repeated several times, my intent was to place it on the article for everyone/thing, that is identified as being a liberal in the article. Period.

:::And I did not intend to link all articles with each other, as you insist a nav template must be used. ''I respectfully submit that there isn't just one way to use such a vehicle.'' The intent was to allow users to easily look up those qualities that caused whatever person/institution to be labeled a liberal in the article. It isn't such a big job as compared to the thousands of articles where a persons liberal nature has been obfuscated. One simply adds it whenever one comes across an article about a liberal. It allows a reader to easily click the links included in the template to read in more depth what makes a liberal a liberal:

<blockquote>
'''Bias • Deceit • Denial • Evolutionary Ideology • Friendship • Global warming • Globalism • Gun control • Hate speech • Hollywood values • Homosexual agenda • Hypocrisy • Ideology • Liberals • Logic • Media elite • Myths • Obfuscation • Quotient • Redefinition • School grading • Style • Values
'''
</blockquote>
:::What I cannot fathom is why anyone would go to the lengths you and BrianCo have gone to not use it, complain about it. Oh, wait, neither one of you is a conservative! I forgot. So neither one of you like calling out liberals, or making them, and their qualities transparent and easily identified by others. So be it. If you are not interested in showing liberals for what they are, my suggesting would be to edit Wikipedia. Here, the decision was made long before you, Brianco or me came here, to showcase liberal attributes, [[liberal values]], identify [[liberal]] people and institutions, and clearly show their [[deceit]]. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:36, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::: It is not "making up uses" to be using them they way they are typically used.
:::: One reason for ''not'' using it on pages of "liberals" is that "liberal" and "conservative" are not black-and-white categories, but extremes on a linear scale, which linear scale doesn't reflect reality in any case. So you'll get, for example, someone who is anti-evolution but pro-feminism (and yes, I have met such a person). So putting a box on a "liberal"'s page to indicate what they believe can be misleading. If they want to know more about what makes a liberal a liberal, then they click the link to "[[liberal]]" which would no doubt already exist in such articles.
:::: And please stick to the issue, and don't resort to ''ad hominem arguments'' about other editor's beliefs. What they believe has no bearing on the validity of their arguments.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)

At Wikipedia, they pay lip service to the idea of "assuming good faith". But then, once they find out you're on to them, the gloves come off. Well, the gloves are off here too.

Some people tell the truth; others lie. Liberals tend to do this much more than conservatives, although they don't have a monopoly (not any more than Bill Gates has a monopoly on operating systems. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:16, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:First of all, TK, you are the one who added "this might be an unorthodox use for a navigation template", so Brianco and I are not the one chenging the rules, you are. (If, as you claim, you invented this template, can you please show me where? Not that that actually makes a difference in how a navtemplate is supposed to be used, but it would be nice to finally see what the original intent of this template was).
:Secondly, stop saying that I'm out to destroy this wiki because I'm a liberal. It's a stupid argument and it makes no sense: "HelpJazz and Brianco want to use a navtemplate in the way that every single other navtemplate is used because they are dirty liberals". You know I'm not a liberal (as you have told me numerous times on IM), and you are only saying it here in order to discredit me. If you continue your disruptive behavior I will block you, just like I would any other editor who does the same.
:<Deep breath>
:Now that that's out of the way, thank you for finally explaining the use of this template. Are you going to take up the project of adding it to every liberal? Of so the [[:category:liberals|liberals category]] is a good place to start. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:32, 16 November 2008 (EST)
'''
::I would not be adding it to yet another template, as this one is informational in nature, and not intended to be linked to all other articles about liberals. '''Nice try, using a Red Herring, Jazz. ''I didn't call you a liberal'', I stated a fact, that you are, self-admittedly so, a libertarian, and not a conservative.''' Do I need to provide links to where you posted that fact? What several of us are wondering is, why you would take this fight to public postings, instead of your usual contact via AIM? To many it appears it is done to better coordinate with others who agree with you. As I said, if you have a problem calling out liberals, Wikipedia is the place for you and anyone else who has trouble doing that. Our job here is to identify [[liberals]], [[liberal deceit]] and [[Liberal myths]] wherever it/they exists. Ours is an educational mission, to educate the public about what makes a liberal a liberal, and clearly show their deceitful methods of obfuscation, deflection and arguing-without-end to ensure liberal deceit is not exposed. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:23, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::: This page, not somewhere private such as AIM, is the appropriate place to discuss this matter. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::I didn't say you should add another template, I'm not sure what you are talking about. You said "One simply adds it whenever one comes across an article about a liberal"; I was pointing out that many such articles can be found in the liberals category.
:::"Red hearing", yeah right. First of all, you were the one who started the red herring by bringing up ideologies at all. You are correct, you didn't call me a liberal, you called me a non-conservative. (You didn't call me a libertarian). Either way, your implication that the only reason I want to use the template in the manner discussed back in April is because I am a "non-conservative" and I have trouble identifying liberals or liberal deciet is patently false, and is only being used to derail this conversation. I have already stated, in the above discussion, back in April, that your line of reasoning has no bearing on why I want to use the navtemplate as a navtemplate. If you would please read that discussion and stop using the same faulty line of reasoning it would be greatly appreciated.
:::Lasty, AIM is ''not'' my usual contact, it's yours. Ask any other editor if I ever contact them through AIM. I used to contact you over AIM only because you did it, not because I wanted to. The reason I'm not using AIM now is because I'm tired of you saying one thing in AIM and then doing something else online. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:59, 16 November 2008 (EST)

*Well thanks for coming out of the closet and exposing yourself for the deceitful liar you are. What on AIM, did I say I was going to do, and didn't? When I sign into AIM, and it shows you there, that is a clear indication, since I have been gone from CP for 7 months, that you are indeed on it for reasons other than me. This case and matter is now closed. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:09, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::What makes you think that I only use AIM for CP? I have friends, you know, and my friend list doesn't overlap with the people I interact with on CP. So, I'm not a deceitful liar when I say that you are the only editor I talk to about CP, and it's because you want to, not because I want to. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:55, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Can we stick to the point? Liberals are related to Liberalism. It helps educate our readers to use templates that are chock full of links.

I don't think we have to put every article, that uses a template, in that template. But if it's a major article, go ahead.

We can also split this template up into [[Template:Liberalism]] and [[Template:Liberalism]] if it gets too big to be useful. We can start with [[Teddy Kennedy]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:10, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::Did you mean to say [[Edward Kennedy]] ? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:14, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:::So since Ed has protected it, are you going to be in charge of adding major articles to the template? TK doesn't seem to want to do it, so I'll start adding the template to every page we have about a liberal. I'll need Ed's help, though, because some of them will probably be protected. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:55, 16 November 2008 (EST)

*HelpJazz, it is not up to you, nor is it up to you to organize how it will be done. Let me repeat one final time. You were given blocking rights to fight off vandals, not to decide policy. I know that to be a fact, because I was one who pushed for your blocking rights, for months. You inserting yourself into something, and arguing your POV endlessly, without an end, isn't exactly wanted. Not everyone can just drop what they are doing, and jump into doing what you suggested immediately. I think Ed is trying to finish some code. I am trying to finish off two articles and dealing with a horrible backlog of emails, so please forgive us for not getting it done when you demand it to be. I previously posted that one shouldn't be dogmatic, and we can add it catch-as-catch-can, a few at a time, as we see pages it would benefit. Jeeze. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:02, 16 November 2008 (EST)
: It's not up to you to organise or decide policy either. Stick to the subject and stop insulting other editors. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Ok, I see a problem off the bat. The template adds the category "liberals" to the page, but clearly the category can be applied to more than just liberal ''people''. I think the category should be removed, and the "liberals" or "liberalism" or "liberal organizations" category can be added to the article, as appropriate.

TK: I'm not arguing POV, I don't know how many different ways I can tell you that you are wrong. Secondly, you keep calling things "dogmatic" when you really mean "consistent". I'm sorry if I want things to be applied equally across equal cases. If we added it on just willie-nillie then clearly pages will be missed. So, I volunteered to do it systematically (not "dogmatically"). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:07, 16 November 2008 (EST)

*Do what you will, HelpJazz. Ed has a bot than can do/undo anything in minutes, not hours. It is a simple matter to change the Cat to Liberal not Liberal'''s''' no? That way it would fit people and institutions, right? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:14, 16 November 2008 (EST)

== Switching auto-tag for category ==

Seems fine to me, but would it not be far less work to simply re-name category Liberal'''s''' to Liberal? As I understand it, Jazz's objection was that Liberal'''s''' didn't fit with some article names, and simply dropping the "S" seems to be easier. I might be wrong. Adding yet another new category name seemed silly. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:40, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:The first part is correct (Liberals, with an s, doesn't fit many of the pages this template is to be used on). However I suggested that the category be removed from the template entirely, so that we can add categories on a case to case basis, instead of adding one category across the board. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:42, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:If it makes a difference to the final decision, [[:category:liberal]] does not exsist, so if we chose to add it to the tempate, we would have to port over everything that's currently in a more descriptive category. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:44, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::We are talking past one-another. I was talking about two issues. One, my suggestion was to change the name of the Category, make it non plural, so it would be appropriate for people and organizations. The other was to have the Template add pages it was applied to the non-plural Liberal category. '''I am assuming one can actually change the category name instead of repopulating all the articles.''' --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:48, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:::You can't change the category name, you have to manually change the category on each article. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:53, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::::Ahh. But I think an admin can do that, through the database. Still.....the rush is? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:56, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::I don't think an admin can. There's no rush, except that I'd like to continue what I was doing. The longer it waits the less likely it is to be done well, and the more likely it is to become a mess. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:00, 16 November 2008 (EST) <-- well, we will have to wait an hour, because Dexter is on :)
::::::LOL! You were only doing what you were because you were angry and trying to bludgeon a point. When you decide to communicate, you can be in the loop. Until then, don't get upset when decisions are made, and you are not included. Pretty simple. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:07, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::That's helpful. Putting words in my mouth and thoughts into my head. I communicate (see, oh I don't know, all over this talk page as well as my user talk), and yet, now I'm going to be kept out of the loop for not communicating. Then next time, you can chastise me for not following a rule I didn't see because you kept me out of the loop. Clever. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:56, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Template talk:Liberalism

2008-11-17T06:08:41Z

HelpJazz: /* How is this to be used? */ so this entire conversation was based on a false pretense?

It seems that there are so many terms and articles related with liberal characteristics that there is a need for a navbox to link them all together. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 06:04, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:Hrm. I would say take out the ones which don't have "liberal" in the title, like global warming and gun control, as there's nothing inherently liberal about them. They are topics which have liberal and conservative viewpoints. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:10, 27 February 2008 (EST)
::HelpJazz, I added them as they are categorized under things like "Liberal Bias" or "Liberal Falsehoods". I know that this could be perceived as some sort of parody so I have refrained from using the template as I think it needs some discussion first. However, there are so many topics on Liberal-related issues that I think it is useful to unite them through a navbox. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:23, 28 February 2008 (EST)
:::Oh I didn't realize that! I should probably head over to the talk pages of those articles and petition for the removals of the categories.... I didn't think there was anything wrong with your navbox itself though, it looks very nice. It would be very helpful to keep track of all the liberal articles. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 09:07, 29 February 2008 (EST)

== Template name ==

Shouldn't this be renamed/moved to Template:Liberal or Template:Liberals instead? Liberalism is a much specific subject and is not necessarily relevant to these subjects. [[User:Hammet|Hammet]] 18:54, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Use of the template ==

Since this is being added to several pages and disputed on those same pages, it seems the best place to discuss the use would be here, instead of on every page where it is used. I'll start this discussion. (No need to follow my formatting, btw).
*'''Pro''': handy link to "liberalism traits" on all liberal topics
*'''Con''': is it really needed on all liberal topics? Does the ACLU espouse Hollywood values, or liberal grading, for example?
*'''Suggest''': use this the same way we use every other link template on CP (see, e.g., {{tl|Nb mythology greece}} or {{tl|Scientology}}, or {{tl|Nb_US_universities}}
Discuss. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:08, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
: Navigation boxes such as these are designed to be put on the pages with the terms or names in the box, not in other pages. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:29, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
::I agree with Philip. Its use on [[Richard Dawkins]], for example, looks just silly. The list of terms in the template has nothing to do with Dawkins. Its inclusion there looks like an attempt to make the subject of the article look as bad as possible by chucking in a load of other hate-topics (a slur-by-association), rather than an honest attempt to lead the reader to other relevant topics. Use only '''where appropriate'''. Unless of course this encyclopedia really has redefined "liberal" to mean "any viewpoint I disagree with". [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 10:35, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Thank you, HelpJazz, for inviting me. I absolutely agree with PJR/HumblPi's assessments, too. I'd also like to state that [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Philip_J._Rayment&diff=418351&oldid=418334 this] statement by TK, on the matter, was RIDICULOUSLY inappropriate, and I'm offended ''for'' PJR for having to suffer through an insult like that.-[[User:DParker|DParker]] 11:29, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Gentleman, I add the template to pages having to do with well-known liberal organizations and people because the template is informative! It directs users to other pages having to do with how and why a liberal thinks, and do what they do. For example, adding the "liberalism" template to Obama and Clinton, users can then use the links in the template to read more, and discover the "tools" or "tricks of the trade" liberals use to obfuscate and shape the public dialog. Adding it to the [[ACLU]] allows users a handy "go to" where they can read more about things that explains the tactics and agenda of the ACLU. Now I am not going to be drawn into yet another non-productive argument made by liberals, who hate the articles the template directs users to, and will seek any means they can to modify or change the POV CP has. You knew what that was coming here, and unless you wish to argue CP has no right to have a conservative voice and POV, you are on shaky ground.

What I see is a very few people not agreeing with CP's point of view, and doing whatever they can to hide it. First and foremost, this is meant to be an instructional wiki. It is also a Conservative and Christian POV friendly one. Our "job" is to teach! We provide tools to users that lead them to discovery, IMO. The template in question can put into context what is read on the pages involved. It acts exactly like a "which-see", helping to explain and expound on what the user reads. It also helps call attention to other CP articles, linking to them, and that is a good thing. So, I reject the reasoning above, as having none. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:02, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

:TK - You say that those who disagree with you are trying to '''hide''' CP's point of view. In my case, not at all. I am trying to '''defend''' it by not letting it turn into self-parody. Slapping that template on all sorts of tangentially relevant articles like [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[The God Delusion]] makes the encyclopedia look silly, and risks making a mockery of it, as if the aim was to indulge every half-opportunity to take a swipe at liberals, rather than to produce a reliable and family-friendly encylopedia. It's unfocused, evidence of sloppy thinking, and ultimately self-defeating. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 07:47, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

::I disagree that the template makes us look like a parody of ourselves, or that it's necessarily being used to try to take a swipe at liberals. However, I agree that it shouldn't be used, and not because I don't like it, but because it's being improperly used. Navboxes are used to connect articles within said navbox (see the examples above, along with {{tl|2008_presidential_candidates}}, which is another one I just remembered), not as a "see also". I wouldn't be against adding [[conservative links]] to the See Also section of these articles, since that article has on it all these liberal traits as well as many other resources which serve the same purpose that TK is trying to serve by adding this template to the page.

::Two other minor things: would it be possible to discontinue adding this template until we have decided here what's to be done? Additionally, if the template is added, I think it should be added at the very bottom of the page, not in the middle. Since it takes up the whole screen, if it's placed in the middle it cuts the article in two. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:18, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Ed Poor has created {{tl|Atheists}}, apparently as a replacement for using this on articles about atheists. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:53, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Request for sysop ==

Philip (or any sysop who reads this), since TK's talk page is protected, can you please direct him to this conversation? He has made no comment in this discussion and is adding this template to every page which involves a liberal. Thanks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:42, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:Done. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:58, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

== How is this to be used? ==

I thought we had decided the use of this template, but it's being used inapropriately again. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:34, 15 November 2008 (EST)

:I asked for the templates creation, so I know why I asked for it. But of course I could be wrong. The idea for making and using it, was to put on an article, about people or things, similar traits that all liberals share. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:39, 15 November 2008 (EST)

:::In the interest of historical accuracy I should point out that I created the template entirely of my own volition on 26 February during a period (14 January - 23 March when TK was not contributing to Conservapedia). [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 00:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
::::Huh. I hadn't noticed that. That changes things, doesn't it? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:08, 17 November 2008 (EST)
::Then fix it like you agreed to offline. Navtemplates are to be used to link together the articles on the template, not to be plastered on any marginally related topic. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:42, 15 November 2008 (EST)

:::Sorry, I reject your opinion as to NavTemplates needing to be used in only one way. Ease of use trumps your idea of how it must be used. When that template is put on an article of a liberal person or institution/organization, it enables our readers to easily find and read information on liberal traits. Why would anyone object to that, unless they are trying to hide liberal traits? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:46, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::::: Whilst it's true that just because something has been done one way we don't have to stick with that (i.e. how navigation boxes are used), there is also the argument that it saves confusion if we use them consistently, and that includes consistently with other encyclopaedias. So I would suggest that we change how they are typically used only if there is an overriding reason to do so. I haven't seen that reason yet. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::<s>Then I'll do it myself.</s> Are we to add this template to every single liberal or liberal act described on Conservapedia? That's a big job, not a very easy use. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:48, 15 November 2008 (EST)

*I hardly think anyone needs to be dogmatic about it, or slavish in its application. Isn't common sense enough? In the case of Dawkins, it is entirely reasonable to expect that not everyone will know who he is, or be familiar with what liberal means in America. By adding that template to his article, it will enpower users to click the examples listed on the template, and understand what qualities he exhibits make him a liberal. That make sense? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:43, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::Can't the same be said for [[Barack Obama]] or [[Ted Kennedy]] or [[FDR]] or the [[ACLU]] -- where do we stop? You don't have to be dogmatic about it, but in a community website you need to at least have some consistency. You can't just make up new uses for things -- how is a new editor supposed to know what to do? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:::HelpJazz, the only people I see making up uses is you and Brianco. I requested the template to be made. I discussed it before asking for it, with Andy, Ed Poor and a couple of others. As I have repeated several times, my intent was to place it on the article for everyone/thing, that is identified as being a liberal in the article. Period.

:::And I did not intend to link all articles with each other, as you insist a nav template must be used. ''I respectfully submit that there isn't just one way to use such a vehicle.'' The intent was to allow users to easily look up those qualities that caused whatever person/institution to be labeled a liberal in the article. It isn't such a big job as compared to the thousands of articles where a persons liberal nature has been obfuscated. One simply adds it whenever one comes across an article about a liberal. It allows a reader to easily click the links included in the template to read in more depth what makes a liberal a liberal:

<blockquote>
'''Bias • Deceit • Denial • Evolutionary Ideology • Friendship • Global warming • Globalism • Gun control • Hate speech • Hollywood values • Homosexual agenda • Hypocrisy • Ideology • Liberals • Logic • Media elite • Myths • Obfuscation • Quotient • Redefinition • School grading • Style • Values
'''
</blockquote>
:::What I cannot fathom is why anyone would go to the lengths you and BrianCo have gone to not use it, complain about it. Oh, wait, neither one of you is a conservative! I forgot. So neither one of you like calling out liberals, or making them, and their qualities transparent and easily identified by others. So be it. If you are not interested in showing liberals for what they are, my suggesting would be to edit Wikipedia. Here, the decision was made long before you, Brianco or me came here, to showcase liberal attributes, [[liberal values]], identify [[liberal]] people and institutions, and clearly show their [[deceit]]. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:36, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::: It is not "making up uses" to be using them they way they are typically used.
:::: One reason for ''not'' using it on pages of "liberals" is that "liberal" and "conservative" are not black-and-white categories, but extremes on a linear scale, which linear scale doesn't reflect reality in any case. So you'll get, for example, someone who is anti-evolution but pro-feminism (and yes, I have met such a person). So putting a box on a "liberal"'s page to indicate what they believe can be misleading. If they want to know more about what makes a liberal a liberal, then they click the link to "[[liberal]]" which would no doubt already exist in such articles.
:::: And please stick to the issue, and don't resort to ''ad hominem arguments'' about other editor's beliefs. What they believe has no bearing on the validity of their arguments.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)

At Wikipedia, they pay lip service to the idea of "assuming good faith". But then, once they find out you're on to them, the gloves come off. Well, the gloves are off here too.

Some people tell the truth; others lie. Liberals tend to do this much more than conservatives, although they don't have a monopoly (not any more than Bill Gates has a monopoly on operating systems. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:16, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:First of all, TK, you are the one who added "this might be an unorthodox use for a navigation template", so Brianco and I are not the one chenging the rules, you are. (If, as you claim, you invented this template, can you please show me where? Not that that actually makes a difference in how a navtemplate is supposed to be used, but it would be nice to finally see what the original intent of this template was).
:Secondly, stop saying that I'm out to destroy this wiki because I'm a liberal. It's a stupid argument and it makes no sense: "HelpJazz and Brianco want to use a navtemplate in the way that every single other navtemplate is used because they are dirty liberals". You know I'm not a liberal (as you have told me numerous times on IM), and you are only saying it here in order to discredit me. If you continue your disruptive behavior I will block you, just like I would any other editor who does the same.
:<Deep breath>
:Now that that's out of the way, thank you for finally explaining the use of this template. Are you going to take up the project of adding it to every liberal? Of so the [[:category:liberals|liberals category]] is a good place to start. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:32, 16 November 2008 (EST)
'''
::I would not be adding it to yet another template, as this one is informational in nature, and not intended to be linked to all other articles about liberals. '''Nice try, using a Red Herring, Jazz. ''I didn't call you a liberal'', I stated a fact, that you are, self-admittedly so, a libertarian, and not a conservative.''' Do I need to provide links to where you posted that fact? What several of us are wondering is, why you would take this fight to public postings, instead of your usual contact via AIM? To many it appears it is done to better coordinate with others who agree with you. As I said, if you have a problem calling out liberals, Wikipedia is the place for you and anyone else who has trouble doing that. Our job here is to identify [[liberals]], [[liberal deceit]] and [[Liberal myths]] wherever it/they exists. Ours is an educational mission, to educate the public about what makes a liberal a liberal, and clearly show their deceitful methods of obfuscation, deflection and arguing-without-end to ensure liberal deceit is not exposed. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:23, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::: This page, not somewhere private such as AIM, is the appropriate place to discuss this matter. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::I didn't say you should add another template, I'm not sure what you are talking about. You said "One simply adds it whenever one comes across an article about a liberal"; I was pointing out that many such articles can be found in the liberals category.
:::"Red hearing", yeah right. First of all, you were the one who started the red herring by bringing up ideologies at all. You are correct, you didn't call me a liberal, you called me a non-conservative. (You didn't call me a libertarian). Either way, your implication that the only reason I want to use the template in the manner discussed back in April is because I am a "non-conservative" and I have trouble identifying liberals or liberal deciet is patently false, and is only being used to derail this conversation. I have already stated, in the above discussion, back in April, that your line of reasoning has no bearing on why I want to use the navtemplate as a navtemplate. If you would please read that discussion and stop using the same faulty line of reasoning it would be greatly appreciated.
:::Lasty, AIM is ''not'' my usual contact, it's yours. Ask any other editor if I ever contact them through AIM. I used to contact you over AIM only because you did it, not because I wanted to. The reason I'm not using AIM now is because I'm tired of you saying one thing in AIM and then doing something else online. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:59, 16 November 2008 (EST)

*Well thanks for coming out of the closet and exposing yourself for the deceitful liar you are. What on AIM, did I say I was going to do, and didn't? When I sign into AIM, and it shows you there, that is a clear indication, since I have been gone from CP for 7 months, that you are indeed on it for reasons other than me. This case and matter is now closed. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:09, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::What makes you think that I only use AIM for CP? I have friends, you know, and my friend list doesn't overlap with the people I interact with on CP. So, I'm not a deceitful liar when I say that you are the only editor I talk to about CP, and it's because you want to, not because I want to. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:55, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Can we stick to the point? Liberals are related to Liberalism. It helps educate our readers to use templates that are chock full of links.

I don't think we have to put every article, that uses a template, in that template. But if it's a major article, go ahead.

We can also split this template up into [[Template:Liberalism]] and [[Template:Liberalism]] if it gets too big to be useful. We can start with [[Teddy Kennedy]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:10, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::Did you mean to say [[Edward Kennedy]] ? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:14, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:::So since Ed has protected it, are you going to be in charge of adding major articles to the template? TK doesn't seem to want to do it, so I'll start adding the template to every page we have about a liberal. I'll need Ed's help, though, because some of them will probably be protected. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:55, 16 November 2008 (EST)

*HelpJazz, it is not up to you, nor is it up to you to organize how it will be done. Let me repeat one final time. You were given blocking rights to fight off vandals, not to decide policy. I know that to be a fact, because I was one who pushed for your blocking rights, for months. You inserting yourself into something, and arguing your POV endlessly, without an end, isn't exactly wanted. Not everyone can just drop what they are doing, and jump into doing what you suggested immediately. I think Ed is trying to finish some code. I am trying to finish off two articles and dealing with a horrible backlog of emails, so please forgive us for not getting it done when you demand it to be. I previously posted that one shouldn't be dogmatic, and we can add it catch-as-catch-can, a few at a time, as we see pages it would benefit. Jeeze. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:02, 16 November 2008 (EST)
: It's not up to you to organise or decide policy either. Stick to the subject and stop insulting other editors. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Ok, I see a problem off the bat. The template adds the category "liberals" to the page, but clearly the category can be applied to more than just liberal ''people''. I think the category should be removed, and the "liberals" or "liberalism" or "liberal organizations" category can be added to the article, as appropriate.

TK: I'm not arguing POV, I don't know how many different ways I can tell you that you are wrong. Secondly, you keep calling things "dogmatic" when you really mean "consistent". I'm sorry if I want things to be applied equally across equal cases. If we added it on just willie-nillie then clearly pages will be missed. So, I volunteered to do it systematically (not "dogmatically"). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:07, 16 November 2008 (EST)

*Do what you will, HelpJazz. Ed has a bot than can do/undo anything in minutes, not hours. It is a simple matter to change the Cat to Liberal not Liberal'''s''' no? That way it would fit people and institutions, right? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:14, 16 November 2008 (EST)

== Switching auto-tag for category ==

Seems fine to me, but would it not be far less work to simply re-name category Liberal'''s''' to Liberal? As I understand it, Jazz's objection was that Liberal'''s''' didn't fit with some article names, and simply dropping the "S" seems to be easier. I might be wrong. Adding yet another new category name seemed silly. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:40, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:The first part is correct (Liberals, with an s, doesn't fit many of the pages this template is to be used on). However I suggested that the category be removed from the template entirely, so that we can add categories on a case to case basis, instead of adding one category across the board. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:42, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:If it makes a difference to the final decision, [[:category:liberal]] does not exsist, so if we chose to add it to the tempate, we would have to port over everything that's currently in a more descriptive category. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:44, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::We are talking past one-another. I was talking about two issues. One, my suggestion was to change the name of the Category, make it non plural, so it would be appropriate for people and organizations. The other was to have the Template add pages it was applied to the non-plural Liberal category. '''I am assuming one can actually change the category name instead of repopulating all the articles.''' --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:48, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:::You can't change the category name, you have to manually change the category on each article. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:53, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::::Ahh. But I think an admin can do that, through the database. Still.....the rush is? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:56, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::I don't think an admin can. There's no rush, except that I'd like to continue what I was doing. The longer it waits the less likely it is to be done well, and the more likely it is to become a mess. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:00, 16 November 2008 (EST) <-- well, we will have to wait an hour, because Dexter is on :)
::::::LOL! You were only doing what you were because you were angry and trying to bludgeon a point. When you decide to communicate, you can be in the loop. Until then, don't get upset when decisions are made, and you are not included. Pretty simple. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:07, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::That's helpful. Putting words in my mouth and thoughts into my head. I communicate (see, oh I don't know, all over this talk page as well as my user talk), and yet, now I'm going to be kept out of the loop for not communicating. Then next time, you can chastise me for not following a rule I didn't see because you kept me out of the loop. Clever. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:56, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Harpsichord

2008-11-17T05:59:38Z

HelpJazz:

A '''harpsichord''' is a [[string instrument]] similar to a [[piano]], but its strings are plucked rather than hammered. The harpsichord was known to exist as early as the 1500's. It was supplanted by the piano in the 1800's.<ref>[http://cfaonline.asu.edu/haefer/classes/564/564.papers/pierceharpsichord.html History of the Harpsichord in Eighteenth Century France and the Flemish Influence by Janet Pierce]</ref>

==External Links==
* [http://www.harpsichord-man.com/audio.htm| Picture and sound samples]

==References==
<references />

[[Category:String Instruments]]

Debate:Why the Bible

2008-11-17T05:36:06Z

HelpJazz: Undo revision 560335 by Amantine2 (Talk)

==Nothing==
There is no evidence that the Bible is more trustworthy than any other piece of literature. The Bible is merely a fictional novel which has traditionally been believed and baselessly seen as the infallible word of God for hundreds of generations.
-Helios

What idiot puts page-long geniologies in a novel??!! Whether the bible is true or not (as I know it is) the ''authors'' seemed to think it's true. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 07:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. I think it was made by some men wanting to show people morals and values, like Aesop fables.

While some Biblical events may be confirmable by more scientific-based types of knowledge, belief in most of the Bible is contingent on faith. Nothing more, nothing less. Take that for what it's worth. [[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 19:44, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

"Take that for what it's worth."-Ooooo... I get a free Bible. -Helios

I will watch this discussion and see when it gets deleted. There seems to be a concerted effort at policing even these debate areas. [[User:Seekcommon|Seekcommon]] 19:34 8 April 2007 (CDT)

Hmmm... if we consider the New Testament as Bible 2.0, then would the Koran be Bible 3.0 or Bible 2.1? And where does this leave the Book of Mormon? 4.0? 3.1? 2.2? 3.1.1? --[[User:AppalledBystander|AppalledBystander]] 07:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Well since Christianity actually branched off of Judaism the '''Old''' Testament would be v2.0 -Helios

The bible has been put together by hundreds of authors, over the course of around 900 years, and has subsequently been translated (several times), re-written and "improved" by many other hundreds of contributers and writers since. To put any kind of significance upon it at all is at best misguided and at worst plain idiotic. That is not to say that there are some good messages in there, however the majority is just plain weird. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:02, 19 April 2007

If a book was made today and was said to be the work of god, would you believe it? The world isn't as small as it used to be. Chris

You guys are right, the bible is total garbage.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 23:01, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

==2Nihilism==
I know the Bible to be the true Word of God because I have studied it for decades. They are the reasons why I am, as well as others, are driven to study it. There are no grave errors or inconsistencies within the Bible. This is only professed by those who hate Christians and Jews that keep repeating it in the vain hope someone will believe them. Just because you don't get it doesn't make it errant. It just betrays their ignorance and illiteracy. It is readily apparent that some of the ridiculous statements being made here are thinly disguised examples of religious bigotry. Every one of the statements denouncing the Bible as being the Word of God are false, out of context, and total garbage. I see no serious discussion here but only an adolescently motivated hatefest against Judeo-Christianity.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 14:31, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::Roopilots6, you mind as well just give this up. The people you are debating with are nothing more than hard-core Christ haters.[[User:Bohdan|Sysop-Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 15:01, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I'm not writing it for them. It's for everyone else that reads it. Just so people can see the difference between nihilists and everyone else.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 22:12, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
This is a typical comment by a brainwashed Christian zealot. They always say how accepting they are of other people. Until any discussion comes into play questioning the bible or their faith. Its a silly book written by some desert nomads and has no basis guiding todays societies and norms. If Jesus could cure blind people...why are people blind? And to say the earth life was created 5K years ago has not facts to support it. Face it we all are a byproduct of algae

I would agree that this arguement is somewhat one sided. I personaly believe that the bible was written by the gretest scolars ever or by beggers, if it provides some sense moral and comfort for people then its worth a read. Even if your not a christian it still has some good morals and is probably worth a read. .[[User:Concretemuncher|Concretemuncher]]

:I personally hold to the idea of limited Biblical Inerrancy, however most of the stories in it are based on '''History''' (although frequently changed by author bias, or changes during the oral tradition). The Authors did not intend on writing a simple novel. The wrote what they believed as Truth. Even though modern science calls the historic, geographic, and scientific statements into question, it still provides what should be common sense morals and ideas. It shows a loving God who cares for us, desires us to be good, not a people hating "Volcano" god. I have gotten something out of it, ideas about life, and thanks to my Jewish friends, humor (Apparently the OT is riddled with Yiddish humor). That's my rant. I dare you to counter it. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 21:37, 7 February 2008 (EST)

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

The danger of the direction this discussion is going is for simple minded people to read this, in passing, and believe that the bible is just a collection of cute myths that were gathered together. It is far more than that based on MANY evidences. The most obvious one I would like to site is the thousands, thats right, thousands of documents we have discovered over the years from ancient history. The oldest of which, the book of Mark, was found to be dated within like a few decades of the ACTUAL events taking place. I have learned that the bible has somewhere in the neighborhood of 5,000 different manuscripts that are survived from that time period. These NUMEROUS attestations provide overwhelming evidence that the bible can be trusted as a whole as the inspired word of God, and our savior Jesus Christ. -matt

User talk:HelpJazz

2008-11-17T05:35:31Z

HelpJazz: /* Category Discussion... */

{| style="width: 100%; border: black solid 1px; background-color: lightgrey;"
|-
|{{Useful links|float=right}}<center><big>'''Guidelines for my talk page'''</big></center>
*Please, no "ping-pong" conversations: if I leave a message on your talk page, please respond there; I'm watching it. If you start a conversation here, I'll reply here, so please watch this page
*Sign your posts with four tildes, like this: '''<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>'''
*At the beginning of each month I will archive all conversations which are at least 1 month and 1 day from the most recent reply.
*Please, only one picture of Putin at a time. He scares me in large doses.
*'''If you have been blocked by me''': please do not create a sock and complain on this page! Instead, [[Special:Emailuser/HelpJazz|email me]] and we can work it out. (You will need a valid, verified e-mail address for this to work).

The system is supposed to send me an email when my talk page is changed... but I don't think it's working. The regular email is working, though, so if for some reason I don't respond to a notice on my talk page, click [[Special:Emailuser/HelpJazz|here]]
|}

Archives: [[/Sept07|Sep '07]] • [[/Oct07|Oct '07]] • [[/Nov07|Nov '07]] • [[/Dec07|Dec '07]] • [[/Jan08|Jan '08]] • [[/FebApr08|Feb-Apr '08]] • [[/MaySep08|May-Sep '08]]

==For the good of the project==
and despite sore provocation I have reverted some pointed words and trust that you can be relied on to respond in an appropriately responsible manner. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:53, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
:For the good of the project, you shouldn't have written them at all.
:Don't get so worked up that I don't create new articles. There's no rule that says you have to create new articles, and it's certainly the idea of a wiki to edit other's articles, no? Plus, as I've already said, I have created numerous articles. I don't enjoy it, and I'm not good at it. I'm not here to please you, and I'm not going to try.
:It's pretty hypocritical of you to say that ''I'' have done no work on this site, when I have been doing work all morning long, and you have been simply reverting me on two pages. Now I have ''real'' work (i.e. the money-making kind) so I won't be bothering you with my non-work for the rest of the day. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:01, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

== Edit war ==

I'm addressing both you and Bugler. Stop your edit warring and try working together for the good of Conservapedia. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:02, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

== Template:lowercase ==

I seem to recall from the equivalent template on Wikipedia that the template would only display the correct case of the title in certain circumstances (such as Javascript enabled). Is this still the case, or does it ''always'' correct the display of the title?

And the reason that you were able to edit a locked page is that it wasn't locked! It had been locked, but was deleted by a sysop who didn't understand its purpose. Deleting a locked page and reinstating it causes (or used to cause?) the locking to be lost.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:31, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

:<s>I don't think you have to have javascript enabled, but I might be wrong. It uses the DISPLAYTITLE... uh thing. It's not a template, and it seems to be built into the wikicode much like <nowiki>{{CURRENTDAY}}</nowiki>. I don't know a lot about how wikis work behind the scenes, but the template is used on Wikipedia, so if it doesn't work all of the time it works most of the time.</s>

:This is from the page of the WP template that I, uh, "borrowed" from: ''This template wraps the magic word DISPLAYTITLE so that it works automatically in any namespace (main, talk, template, etc.) to decapitalise the first letter of the name of a page it is transcluded on. (Previously, this template achieved this using JavaScript, but the DISPLAYTITLE method makes the change for all users, even those with JavaScript disabled in their browser).'' So we should be fine. :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:06, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
:: Ah, very good. Thanks for that. I've now changed the Manual of Style page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:00, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

==Brokeback==

You're breakin' my back on the Brokeback article! :-) I hope you can see that I'm very willing to defend my points, and I appreciate the civility with which you've been treating them (unlike some other posters on that page). I'm going to continue as much as I can today, but I'm leaving for a weeklong trip tonight so I won't be able to respond until I get back. Hopefully the page won't blow up to enormous proportions in the meantime :0 -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 13:49, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
:Ha ha ha! I was actually just about to tell you that I'm not trying to be harsh. I think you're a good editor, so my comments are (to the best of my ability) aimed at the article and not at you. I'll keep an eye on the page and keep it honest while you are gone. Have a good trip. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:17, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
::Thanks! See you on the talk pages in a week. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 20:04, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I'm back and will get to the posts on Brokeback Mountain probably tomorrow. In the meantime, I've noticed that the categories now appear in double boxes. Do you know why that is? It seems redundant. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:21, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Nevermind, I've found the relevant thread on Andy's talk page (it explains the appearance of other things like the new CAPTCHA, which I don't like). -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:37, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::Me neither. Hopefully it will change, or I may very well never <nowiki>{{welcome}}</nowiki> a user again! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:39, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::I didn't even think of that detail! Speaking of which, why is there an external link that occurs when we're doing a <nowiki>{{welcome}}</nowiki> anyway? -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 23:08, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::The link to Interiot's edit counter (which doesn't actually work right now) is an outside link. Don't forget that "internal" diff links (like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:HelpJazz&diff=next&oldid=519768 this], for example), counts as an outside link. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:21, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: Now ''those'' I can help you with. Administrators have the ability to add a web-site to a "white list" so that those addresses will not trigger the CAPTCHA. I've added Interiot's tool and Conservapedia itself. Give them a try and let me know if it works. It's not, of course, an ideal solution for all the other possible links. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:59, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::You mean this whole time there was a simple solution? Oh man. Let's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:HelpJazz&diff=next&oldid=519768 test]. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 09:38, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Hey it worked! You'd think the software would be smart enough to have the domain site on the whitelist by default... Thanks soooooooo much Philip! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 09:39, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

==Vote McCain==
Vote McCain!!! [[Fry2000]]

== Thank you! ==

Thanks for the block! [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 19:23, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:I do what I can :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:24, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

==Ohio==
Well, well. I always thought you were British, for some reason. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:33, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:Nope. Never even visited. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:36, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

== addition article ==

Is there a way to check the user John Peters ? His name is red link in the history. The text added to the article may be correct but makes the article very complex if aimed at a high school level. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 23:56, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:I don't know. "Checkuser" (which I don't have) only tells you what other users have used the same IP address as him, but that doesn't really help in this case. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:19, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

==Blocked==
When I attempted to log in today, I received a notice that my IP address was blocked. I think a schoolmate of mine got himself blocked by you. First and foremost, I apologize for my classmates inappropriate behavior. I will look into who it was and see if I can get them removed from the lab. I would like to ask, however, if something like this happens in the future, is there anyone I can contact about removing the IP block or is it best to just ride it out? Thank you [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 17:05, 23 October 2008 (EDT) PS, I had to edit another user's signature before it would let me post. I think their user name contained something that the spam filter blocked out
:I think the best thing to do is email the person who blocked IP address and include the IP address or block number (it's shown when you try to edit a page). In this case, since you are only blocked at school, you could ask someone with checkuser rights (basically any sysop) to unblock your IP address. I have no way of looking it up, but they can help. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:19, 23 October 2008 (EDT) PS: Out of curiosity, do you know the person I blocked?
::Ok, I will keep that in mind should it happen again. It's hard to do much else except post from school, I don't have a personal computer yet (although I'm working on it) and I don't know for sure who it was, but by cross referencing sign in logs to the time I think I can get a fairly good idea. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 11:54, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

==Pearl Jam - removal of talk edit==
Apologies may be in order. I think I may have removed that talk page contribution...our edits clahed and I must have somehow wiped yours during my amateurish attempts at saving my input. Sorry about that. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 18:15, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
:I figured that's what happened. No biggie. (It was actuallyl Liams that you removed). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:36, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
::Yeah, I didn't mind, so I didn't change it :-) [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 18:38, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks for defending me ==

Thanks for pointing out how others had mistaken comments I made. You are correct with what I said about lying in the Bible, and Peter is a perfect example. However, you and they are wrong to claim that I "cherry pick". My position has always been that you can determine whether something is meant to be taken literally by the context and knowledge of the language, as Professor James Barr (not a creationist) did (see [[creation week]]). And contrary to a claim made by someone of whom I'll have more to say in a moment (this is for their benefit) that [[creation week]] has no evidence, it in fact has (a) a number of supporting arguments about word use (admittedly unreferenced), (b) a referenced quote from an expert (Barr) who also says the other experts agree, and (c) a referenced summary of a formal study into the text. Perhaps ''he'' is simply seeing (or not seeing) what he wants to (not) see. Before I saw your comments, I was thinking of saying something anyway (such as on my user page). That same accuser (Kels) also accused ''me'' and Creation Ministries International of lying, ("he won't hesitate to lie and twist at the slightest opportunity" and "He accepts every lie creationontheweb feeds him") yet offered no evidence of that whatsoever. I accept that many people don't accept my views and think that I'm mistaken, deluded, or even stupid, but I don't go around saying things that I know to be untrue (and nor does CMI). Accusations like that without solid supporting evidence are nothing short of libel (not that I could be bothered suing), and he is despicable for making the accusation, and should be censured by others there, but by their silence they are just as bad. And they have the gall to criticise Conservapedia! Finally, to answer a loaded question, I accept both parts of the creation account, because I see no conflict between them (just like most of the rest of the millions who have studied the Bible for centuries) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:34, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
:Probably these others don't believe in censoring. Maybe you should go and explain your points of view to them at their place. I don't know what this Kels accused you of, but you can't deny that creationontheweb is your number one source of "information". Go and debate them there. Here, as you know, it is impossible. --[[User:JulianAdderley|JulianAdderley]] 09:52, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
:: Since when it is censoring to take someone to task for libel? That CreationOnTheWeb is my main source was not the accusation. How do you not know what he accused me of when I've quoted it above?? I don't go there because I'd end up spending too much time disputing so much of what they say. I spend too much time disputing here without doing it there also. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:18, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I talked about censoring as you yourself said "... and should be '''censured''' by others there". I find it unfair and cowardly that you attack them here instead of debating with them. They'd defend themselves here, but they are not allowed. --[[User:JulianAdderley|JulianAdderley]] 14:29, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
:::: ''censure: to criticise adversely; disapprove; find fault with; condemn.'' That's not the same thing as ''censor''. My reasons for not debating there have been given several times. I agree that the situation is unfortunate, but it's not out of cowardice that I don't debate there. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:38, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, Philip, I didn't mean to imply that you cherry pick (though when I reread the post I was agreeing with, it does seem that that's what I agreed to!). What I meant to say was that you draw a different line than I do on what's literal and what's figurative in the Bible. I've seen you debating this a lot across the site and I know you don't use anything so silly as quote mining or cherry picking :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:57, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
: Thanks for clearing that up. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:38, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

==Ema==
Funny Ema support Jesus as lord and supports Barack Obama because Christian principles are not Obama (gay marriage, abortion, black liberation theology, etc.). It is an oxymoron. How come you don't understand? --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 12:42, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:Because not every Christian in the world believes the exact same thing? Obama is not the anti-Christ. Full disclosure: I'm probably going to vote for McCain, even though I don't really like him, simply to make it harder for Obama to win Ohio. I'm not an Obama fan by a long shot, but saying that no Christian Who Is A True Christian can vote for Obama gives Christianity a bad name. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:46, 3 November 2008 (EST) PS: Is Obama a black liberation theologist or a Muslim? He can't be both.

::My fellow Buckeye, it is evident that many Christians will vote for Obama, just by observing primary statistics. I am just saying Christians are confused about their faith if they vote Obama. So he is not the anti-Christ. His views are anti-Christian. If a true Christian votes cares for values and votes Obama, well then, they are giving Christianity a bad name.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 12:51, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::Jpatt, check worldwide statistics on support for the two candidates. They are pretty clear on which of the two candidates the majority of all the Christians in the world support. If you are too lazy to check by yourself, it's Obama. I find that a pretty convincing argument on who has more Christian values. --[[User:JennyM|JennyM]] 12:54, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::::: What statistics? Not only have I seen no such statistics, I can't imagine that anybody is going to survey Christians worldwide to find out with of the two American presidential candidates they prefer. And Christian values are defined by the Bible, not by the values of the person that Christians would prefer to see as American president. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:31, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Just google around, not difficult to find. Sorry to hear about your lack of imagination, Philip, as imagination is what keeps us young! Surely Christian values are defined by the Bible, not by Jpatt. Quite arrogant of Jpatt to "know" that McCain has more Christian values than Obama. Billions of Christians worldwide disagree. --[[User:Jessica|Jessica]] 07:26, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::::::: If they're not difficult to find, why can't you link to them? And how many is "billions", given that there's about 2.1 billion Christians ''in total'', and they wouldn't all prefer Obama. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:47, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::50 % of 2.1 billion is more than one billion. Since all the polls show more way more than 50 %, it's not difficult to infer the "billions". --[[User:Jessica|Jessica]] 07:52, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::: Although a plural word indicates more than one, my understanding it that it is more than one ''unit'' ("billion" being the unit in this case), which doesn't allow for fractions, so "billions" means at least 2 billion. So where are these worldwide polls? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:00, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::You are wrong on two counts. First of all, when approaching or surpassing 1.5, it is perfectly legitimate to use the plural. Second, "billions", as well as "dozens" or "tens", is a perfectly acceptable way to convey ''order of magnitude''. For the polls you'll have to look by yourself. I have no time now. But do you really doubt it? --[[User:Jessica|Jessica]] 08:11, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: I do doubt that such surveys exist. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:28, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::Philip's a busy guy, but I'm notoriously bored, so I went and looked. I found plenty of surveys that showed Obama winning international popularity contests, but none of them claimed to select only Christians.
::::::::::::To the larger point of it being possible for Christians to select Obama - of course it's possible. I did it, for one. (Sorry, HelpJazz.) [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 10:56, 5 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo I can't be your online friend anymore! ;-) It's ok, in a way I wanted Obama to win. I truely believe that once the hype wore off, either candidate would have been a pretty lame duck president. If McCain won, they would just blame it on Bush, and then a candidate who's even more liberal than Obama would be elected in '12. If Obama won, then when he is (ok this tense is all messed up now, bear with me here) not the Messiah that he's supposed to be I can laugh and feel morally superior and smug and all those cool things I like to do :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:02, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::::Yeah, he doesn't match my politics in a lot of ways, but neither does the 2008 version of McCain, and Bob Barr was a carpet-bagger of a Libertarian and I refuse to endorse that. Boiled down to the fact that I felt a McCain vote is an endorsement of the current administration, for all the lip service he pays to "change."
::::::::::::::You might enjoy checking out [http://thebigstick.wordpress.com/ this blog I found] by a guy who posts on Ames' blog comments. He's a fairly articulate guy who doesn't get all riled up (in other words, don't hold Ames against him) (although Ames is plenty articulate, he just gets caught up in things...). [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 13:02, 5 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::::Grrr lost a post. Ok this is the last thing I say and then I'll be done for a while because this faulty connection thing is annoying. I didn't like any of the candidates this year, and as much as I hated myself for doing it, I had to vote against a candidate instead of for a candidate. I almost considered writing in Ron Paul just for the heck of it. *Off to read that blog link, which probably has a much better connection than this site does right now* [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:14, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Oh if the world wants Obama, then I should shut up, duh. It is convincing who has more Christian values. Hint, it aint Obama.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 13:01, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::And again I say you are trying to impose one set of beliefs on all Christians, and you are questioning the faith of those who believe differently than you. Not everybody is a one or two issue voter, you know. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:44, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::PS: Since you brought up same sex marriage, both Obama and Biden ''oppose'' it [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.samesexmarriage.html]. And you didn't mention stem cell research: McCain supports federal funding of it [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.stemcell.html]. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:54, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::: "McCain supports federal funding of ... Obama"??? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:31, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::Whoops! Fixed. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:36, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::: Oh. I thought you might have meant "and Obama does also". And to clarify, nobody has any objection to funding stem cell research. Or are you saying that McCain supports funding ''embryonic'' stem cell research? In any case, I expect that it's a case not of claiming that McCain is correct in all his views, but that they are, overall, better than Obama's. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:14, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::I did mean embryonic. To be fair, he only wants funding on embryos that are going to be discarded anyway -- I don't know if pro-lifers are ok with that. If I understand Jpatt's argument, he was trying to argue that no Christians can vote for Obama because he doesn't hold Christian values. Not only that, but he presented it as the only correct choice and anyone with a differing opinion doesn't have enough faith. I was trying to point out that Jesus is not running for president. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:39, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: Write-ins FTW!! [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 22:26, 3 November 2008 (EST) ''<-Jesus/Holy Ghost '08!''
:::::::::: Was it okay to experiment on the Jews who were going to the gas chambers in Nazi Germany because they were going to die anyway?
:::::::::: I tend to agree that Americans tie their religion too closely to their politics, but on the other hand, I can understand where he's probably coming from (although I should point out that I don't know what prompted the first post in this section). A Christian believes that God is the ultimate reality, and therefore that God's standards are more important than anything else more worldly. Therefore, in comparing two different candidates, the one that most closely follows God's standards is the one that Christians should vote for. That is, God's standards (such as on moral issues) are not just a minor consideration, but should be a major deciding factor. To that extent, I would agree with Jpatt. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:38, 3 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::What you missed was the conversaion on (the now blocked) [[user:Ema]]'s talk page. She said something about how Obama was going to win, to which Jpatt replied: "Funny how you accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and support Barack Obama." I don't think there's anything wrong to use your faith as a factor in deciding who to vote for, but to presume that ones (clearly at least partially incorrect, as seen by the gay marriage comment on this page) interpretation is infallible is hubris at its best. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:48, 3 November 2008 (EST)

==My vacation==

Hey! It's good to be back. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:07, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:Now get to work *wchapshh!* [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:45, 3 November 2008 (EST)

That has a nice [[beat]] to it . . . --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:53, 3 November 2008 (EST)

==[[User:BHarlan]]==
My apologies for bothering you with this.... But is this user for real? Or is he a parodist? If he is real, he is a very difficult person to work with. He is currently edit warring on the [[Rodney King]] page and is generally making things difficult for other users? Is there anything we can do? I think this [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Rodney_King&diff=550213&oldid=550211 this edit] sums up everything. [[User:SamuelA|SamuelA]] 18:03, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:To engage in an edit war while insisting "don't edit war" is parody at its worst.
:I contribute here by editing articles to add information, sometimes in the form of sentences and paragraphs. I suggest you do the same.
:In the meantime, I will try to be more like the Christ. He was very forgiving. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:08, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::If that doesn't clear things up for you, nothing will. There is nothing you can do about it. [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 18:23, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:::I try not to comment on the nature of parodists, unless I am blocking someone for it. It's too messy otherwise. However, BHarlan, I would ask that you be a little nicer. Legitimate editors can be blocked for not working well with others. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:56, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== Template thanks ==

Thanks for your work on {{tl|homosexualityb}} - it will be much easier to edit now. Just wanted to let you know that these things don't go unnoticed.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:03, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:Thanks. All I really did was add a line break in between each thing, since I have a hard time reading all those links squished together. A single line break won't show up in the end result, but it makes the code a little easier to look at.
:''You'' should be the one being thanked though. None of your work goes unnoticed, but I'm willing to wager that most of it is thankless. Until now!! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:26, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::I wouldn't say thankless - just yesterday Ed Poor was if anything over-generous. Congratulations on the message below, by the way.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:34, 14 November 2008 (EST)

==Sysop rights==

Er, I meant that you've been nominated in our secret enclave to become a sysop. Until then, all you edits show up for me in Recent Changes with a red mark. When you become a sysop, we don't have to patrol your changes any more. I think Jessica and Bert should be sysops. No one ever reverts them. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:08, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:I'm sure I've been nominated more than once... I'll believe it when I see it though ;-)
:About those red exlamation points: I've seen them before (not here, obviously). It makes me wonder what Wikimedia was thinking (or was it Wikipedia? Which came first?) -- do they seriously expect every single edit by a non-sysop to be marked as patrolled? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:32, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Ed, there is a reason why secret enclaves are secret. It is very unclear right now what direction Andy wishes to go and we should avoid any indication to our valued editors of what the future may hold that may not in fact be fulfilled. It can only cause possible embitterment or disenchantment and we certainly don't want that among any of the people who have made great contributions to our project. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:35, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::No worries, LT. I haven't gotten my hopes up, and my feelings won't be hurt. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:42, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Lest I trip over my beard, I must remind myself that Wikipedia was only two years old when the patrol feature was created. The rate of edits was so low that one sysop could do all the patrolling by himself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:44, 14 November 2008 (EST)

==Block==
You were blocked for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=557690 this] edit. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:53, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:Oops, my mistake. I have been away for a while, would you please sum up the events that have occured during my absence? Thanks. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:57, 15 November 2008 (EST)
::May I unblock him so he can answer? Blocked users cannot edit their own user talk pages here - although (thanks to me!) they can do so at Wikipedia. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:59, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::(Sorry Ed, I didn't know if anyone else was watching. PS: is there an easier way to unblock an IP address? I can't seem to figure out how to do it).
:::Henry, much has gone on since you went on vacation. I saw it all, but I'm not sure I can explain it all myself. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:01, 15 November 2008 (EST)

HJ, I am sorry that I blocked you. I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 21:09, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:It's ok, you picked a bad time to make a joke, is all. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:10, 15 November 2008 (EST) <-- NOONE expects the Spanish Inquisition!!! (There's never a bad time for that joke!)
::Did someone mention an Inquisition? Oh goody! (rubbing hands in glee!) --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:12, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::Our chief weapon is surprise! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:14, 15 November 2008 (EST)
::::I say we start a conservapedia inquisition. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 21:21, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Depends on who gets inquisitioned. Inquisized? Inquised? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:33, 15 November 2008 (EST)
::::::It is always THEM, Jazz! We go after <big>THEM!!!</big> --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:47, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::I stopped playing with blocks when I was six.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:02, 15 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::It is so noted. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:22, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Not a single block! That's impressive and unexpected. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:28, 15 November 2008 (EST)
*Well I am fairly certain that won't last. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:48, 16 November 2008 (EST)

==Crackpots==
*"I don't know why I bother, i'm sure some crackpot out there has said this" [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gay_heroism&diff=558704&oldid=558703]
A moment of candor. It's nice to know what you think of the sources we draw upon. I can tell you at least one person who said that: the [[User:Ed_Poor|person who wrote the article]]. Now think about whether you meant what you wrote. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 07:44, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:My point being that even though "gay heroism" is likely ''not'' part of a campaign to legitimize homosexuality, you can find a source that says anything, and there's really no standard for sources on this webite. I didn't mean that you had to be a crackpot to believe it, but I'm willing to wager that you won't find a mainstream source to back up that statement (yeah, yeah liberal bias). I wasn't calling Ed Poor a crackpot, since an editor's opinion can't be used as a source (a policy Ed himself helped to write), but yes, I still mean what I wrote. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:47, 16 November 2008 (EST)

==Sillly edit==
You are being silly but I will let it stand.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 14:47, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:Maybe I would have been in a nicer mood had you asked first, but now there's really no way to know, is there? You probably blocked their IP's anyway, which I'm guessing is why you are taking the "high road" now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:55, 16 November 2008 (EST)

==Your block==
Now try and stay civilised about this and discuss it here. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:05, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:You really make me laugh, you know? ''Bugler has no right to undo my blocks''. What on earth have you been doing in the past months, trying to worry me to an early grave? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:09, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::C'mon, HelpJazz. C'mon, man. Tell me. Have you never reverted an edit of mine? Heh? have you? Have you never reverted an edit of mine? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:13, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::(Edit conflict: Bugler's original comment was: "Now try and stay civilised about this and discuss it here.") I did discuss it. Jpatt has no right to undo my blocks; you have no right to undo my blocks. You then blocked me (and blocked my IP address for no reason other than to be annoying) with no legitimate reason. Blocking doesn't work if any other editor can decide to change another's blocks. Believe me, Bugler, be happy I respect this simple principle. If you think I complain a lot ''now'', how do you think you'd like it if I simply undid every block you did that I didn't think was appropriate? Now, a ''sysop'' has the power (and the right) to correct a block I made erroneously; a sysop's decisions take precidence over mine. Any other non-sysop has no greater authority over me. If they were to ask, I might reconsider. I've made mistakes in the past. But simply ignoring normal modes of respect is unacceptable. If you undo any of my blocks (ever) I will redo them, and I expect you would do the same.
:::Edit conflict (Bugler's *new* comment, I suspect he's intentionally edit conflicting me, is "You really make me laugh, you know? ''Bugler has no right to undo my blocks''. What on earth have you been doing in the past months, trying to worry me to an early grave?"): Which blocks of yours did I undo, except the ones where you blocked me? Name one and I'll quit this site.
:::Edit conflict *again*: First of all, edits are fundamentally different than blocks. It's clear that if you were to insert a spelling error, there is no conflict in me fixing it. Every editor on this site is given the "responsiblity" of editing. However, in getting "block" rights, Andy has decided that he trusts your judgment enough that you are given the "privilede" to excercise your good judement by blocking people. In undoing a ''block'' you are telling both me and Andy that your judgement is better than ours.
:::Even though it is irrelevant (as I have shown) I can still answer your question: Have I ever undone an ''edit'' you have done? Yes I have. Have I ever undone an edit you have done while giving no explanation or reason? No, I don't think I have. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:20, 16 November 2008 (EST)
You have certainly never given an ''adequate'' explanation. however, I am able to let the dead bury the dead. WEhat matters, as I am trying to get across to you, is the welfare of Conservapedia. I think your lenient 'name only' blocks of the two hangmen are entirely wrong for two key reasons. 1. The insults were so gross that the perpetrators do not deserve a second chance. 2. The insults, being so gross, indicate that teh perpetratorsm, if allowed back into CP, as you are in effect doing, have the potential to cause huge damage through vandalism, causing editors here an enormous amount of clean-up work.

I hope you will accept that I have not deliberately tried to edit conflict you; that is not my style. I say what I think, to you and to others. And the block was not intended to block you: I knew you would revert it post-haste. It was to get a breathing space to remove damaging saboteurs from the site. Saboteurs who you have since restored to grace. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:31, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:I cannot remember whether you have reverted any of my blocks. Given what you say, I presume you disapprove of Tim's high handed action yesterday (and before, regarding Daphnea), and PJR's similar actions towards me in the past. For the rceord, Jpatt is one of the best new editors and sysop-lites we have here. He should be encouraged and cherished, not subjected to beastings. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:33, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::(It again took you three edits to say what you think; if you instead use the preview button, you don't run the risk of edit conflicted other users multiple times)
::For starters, how did I not adequately explain why it was wrong for Jpatt to undo my block? You gave no explanation.
::Secondly, if you think my blocks are lenient, there's nothing stopping you from ''asking me about it''. There is way too much overeager blocking on this site; shame on me if I follow the letter of the law. That gives no excuse for someone else to change it without asking me. (You will notice that they never recreated their account).
::Thirdly, I can tell you that I have never undone any other editor's blocks, unless the blocks were obvious vandalism (Like MexMax) or if they were joking (like Bohdan last night).
::Fourthly, if you read what I wrote, I clearly said that I have no problem with a ''sysop'' going over the head of a normal editor. You and I are both editors, and Tim and PJR are both sysops. I don't know about Daphnea, but seeing as how you didn't undo a single one of HotDog's edits, you didn't really have a case there anyway, did you? I'd also be surprised if PJR undid a block without any explanation, but again, as a sysop it's entirely within his rights.
::Lastly, I have no responsibility to encourage or cherish someone for doing something they had no right to do. Had Jpatt asked me, I would have said "Thank you for asking Jpatt, here's my explanation." He showed no respect for me, and I had no obligation to give him any in return. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::: 1. Sysop rights have no merit whatsoever when they are abused, as I believe they were yesterday. 2. So what is your justification for giving the hangmen free rein in Conservapedia? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:48, 16 November 2008 (EST)
Hey people, don't fight. You are both good and valuable contributors. If you have to revert someone (but pleease don't block), revert my contributions: they are not as valuable as yours. Please, both of you, advance our common cause by being unite against our enemies! --[[User:Drunk|Drunk]] 15:51, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:Thank you, Drunk. I would however appreciate an acknowledgement from HelpJazz that I don't deliberately time my edits to disrup him with edit conflicts. t sounds a strange thing, and a very difficult one, to do in any case. I frequently gnash my teeth over ECs, but I don't for a moment imagine that enemies are doing it deliberately to frustrate me. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:56, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::I don't have much wiki experience, but to time edits to disrupt with edit conflicts seems very far-fetched even in my "high" (sorry) state. There are much more effective ways to disrupt. But HelpJazz, why do you think that Bugler is disrupting? Maybe it's just an incomprehension between you? --[[User:Drunk|Drunk]] 16:00, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::(Ironically, an edit conflict) 1. Then there's really no point in having sysops, is there? As much as you whine about the "liberal whinging about every decisions", do you really want to assert that every time someone thinks another user is abusing their power, that person has no obligation to sumbit to the abuser's power? Or are you the only one who gets to decide when someone is abusing power?
::::2. Free reign? Hardly. Had I wanted to give them free reign I would have unblocked them. Instead, I gave them the opportunity to rethink their actions and either go away, or come back in a better frame of mind. What's the worse that could have happened? Had they created another inappropriate username, I would have blocked them with account creation disabled (and yes, I have done this before); had they created an account and started vandalising I would have blocked their account with account creation disabled; had they never returned there's no harm to CP; had they returned and been a good editor then CP is all the better. I refuse to block people for something they might do. )This is not to say that I will contest any user who blocks people this way).
::::Ironic edit conflict: I'll admit that the first time may not have been intentional. It's very strange for someone to make three edits in a row, when they know that all three warrant a response, but the evidence is not conclusive enough to say that you did it on purpose. (I also misread the diffs and thought you were replacing your text, which lead more evidence to my claim). However, doing the exact same thing after I already pointed it out is a bit suspicious, no? That's why, to give you the benefit of the doubt, I instructed you to use the "show preview" button, which is the surefire way to avoid edit conflicts. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:07, 16 November 2008 (EST)
You got blocked again?! Ouch. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 16:12, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:You ''instructed'' me? My, oh my! I thought that editors had no authority over editors, but now I am expected to comply with the instructions of HelpJazz! Have you been appointed Lord High Panjandrum while I have been away? If so, please instruct me on the correct protocol. Is it a bow from the waist, or a full kow-tow? Do I have to walk backwards when I depart the August HelpJazzian Presence? My Lord will please excuse his humble servant's ignorance of etiquette! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 18:06, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::Bugler, please cool it, or I'll have to send an email to Andy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:13, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Well, honestly! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 18:14, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::Instruct (v.): to give knowledge to. Yes, that's what I did. I didn't say "commanded" or "required" or "demanded" or "forced" or "insisted". Alternatively, I could have said "taught" or "advised" or "showed" or "informed". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:23, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Perhaps this is a cultural difference. In the UK, instruct means order, tell. 'Advise' might have been the polite option. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 18:27, 16 November 2008 (EST)

== Category Discussion... ==

I have somehow missed the discussion about changing Categories from Liberals to Liberalism. Can you direct me, and possibly Ed Poor to it? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:49, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:I'm sorry, I didn't realize I had to discuss my use of common sense. Can you direct me to the rule that says this please? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:51, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::Are you quite certain you want to have this show-down? What exactly will you gain or lose? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:54, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::What showdown? Is there such a page? If not, I'm going to continue using my common sense. "Liberals" are people; "liberalism" is an idea. An idea is not a person and a person is not an idea. (And a person and an idea are not an organization). What's to discuss?
:::Just because you are back, it doesn't mean you can boss me around again, TK. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't work that way anymore. You won on {{tl|liberalism}}, what more do you want? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:56, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::::Boss you? Are you in 2nd grade, or what? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:57, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::I take it you don't have an answer to any of my question then? In that case, I'll continue what I'm doing. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:58, 16 November 2008 (EST)

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

:L. Beryl Baez is a person? [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal_bias_in_academia&curid=59501&diff=560052&oldid=525222&rcid=610515] I didn't understand your edit comment. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:16, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::Oh, wait: I misread it. "liberal bias is a concept, not a person" --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:18, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:::Wait, his bot is going to add everything from the "liberals" "liberalism" and "liberal organizations" categories and dump them all together into a "liberal" category? Why? Aren't categories supposed to be nouns? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:21, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::[[Homosexual Agenda]] is under the subcategory [[:Category:Liberal Deceit]]. [[Evolution]] isn't under any of the liberal categories at all. It doesn't usually make sense to put everything on a template into the same category. It makes category renames easier, but everything else harder, and category renames don't happen that often. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 20:26, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::(EC) <s>Ed, "liberal bias in acedemia", which is the title of the article, is not a person. There might be people mentioned in the article, but do you seriously want to put every single article that so much as mentions a liberal into the "liberals" category? That would mean that, for example, [[John McCain]] would be in the liberals category.</s> (EC -- this is happening a lot today. Maybe I should increase my typing speed) I think you understand where I'm coming from now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:21, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:::::You and Interiot are indeed "understood". I merely suggested one way to quickly add articles to a category, was not suggesting that would be the ONLY category applied. To me it was far easier to change the category "Liberal'''s'''" to Liberal, no plural. The "discussion-without-end" over this is everything that is wrong about Conservapedia, and in my opinion, by design and spite. However, if people want to run around like a chicken with its head cut off, in spite, go ahead. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:32, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Easier isn't always best. It might be "easier" to just put everything in the "liberal" category but (a) it goes against the category conventions and (b) it's not very descriptive.
::::::I don't see who's running around with a chicken with it's head cut off, either. All I was doing was putting articles into the most logical, pre-existing category. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:36, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::Yes, after you publicly got angry over it, insisting you were being "bossed". Do whatever you wish, of course. You and a few others insisted you were correct over something that was decided by admins months and months ago, and you don't care. I will no longer participate in this silly arguing on your part, Jazz. It is pointless, and nothing is urgent about this. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::Can you point to me where admins decided how the template should be used? Maybe I just missed it; all this mess will be cleared up rather quickly. The only thing I can find is where a group of people (including a sysop) decided how it was to be used, and then you unilaterally decided not to use it that way. So when I did what you wanted and started adding the template how you wanted to, somehow I can't do it right and I need permission to use common sense. Can you just tell me what to do already and get it over with? All this time I'm spending on my talk page I could be using to impliment the template ''you'' wanted to use. So please, direct me to the admin decision that was made months ago, so that I may submit myself to it and continue editing this encyclopedia. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:51, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Sysop discussions are not done that way, you know that, and you have absolutely no right to insist they should be. I asked Brianco to create it. I got Andy's permission, and that is that. No one, least of all me, said you were adding it incorrectly. What I do know is you got me on AIM highly agitated and upset I was using it. That is what I know. My only dispute was your public snit, and insistence about changing categories, and impatience that you were not answered IMEDIATELY, and posting that you were just going to proceed. I have the IM archive, from months ago, when you were informed about the template. And even that doesn't matter. You alone have decided you don't like the template. So, take it off, if you like. We will just make a new template, and not call it a nav box, thus removing your original complaint that it was being used for a purpose not intended for nav boxes. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:03, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:In other words, I have to take your word for it that any discussion took place?
:"You and you alone?" What about the other people who responded on the talk page? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:07, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::Yes, that's pretty much it, Jazz. We assume good faith. That is the Christian way. If I say it was that way, it was. If it is untrue, Andy can post saying I am mistaken or a liar. This is something, a Red Herring, you decided to dredge up and dispute, from months ago! It was only after I was no longer a sysop, that some people, including you, thought that meant some kind of wholesale reversal of policy could be made. That is indeed fuzzy logic. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:15, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Then let's have Andy post. You are using something I've never seen in order to control my actions.
:::I dredged it up? Really? Funny, nobody discussed the liberalism template until you came back and started doing the exact same thing you were doing when you left.
:::Wholesale reversal of policy? The policy was "TK is right; you must have permission from TK to do anything; TK has discussed everything through email with Andy". When TK is gone, the policy breaks down. Now you are back, you have no idea what has gone on in the last 7 months, and you just assume that everything is as it was. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:10, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::Speaking of what has gone on, could you sum it up tonight? Please? You refused to last night :( [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::When did you go on vacation? How long have you been gone? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:18, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::::About a month or two. When I was last here, you and another user were engaged in bitter dispute over "big science" or something like that. Is this Buglre a sysop? Are you? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:21, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::I don't think there have been any promotions in the last month or two. I'll never be promoted, so that's not something you ever have to ask ;-)
:::::::Hrm... what have you missed in the last few months? Ed and TK came back (which I'm sure you can tell).
:::::::Multiple fights have ensued, people have been called idiots, noone's been blocked -- not much has changed. (Big science got moved to the essay space though). Read over my talk page, Bugler's talk page, PJR's talk page and the Obama talk page, (Maybe Ed's talk page too) and that pretty much sums up everything you need to know over the last couple months. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:27, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::Were you called an idiot? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:29, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Not me, but Tim was (check out Bugler's talk page, I think).
:::::::::I just checked my spam email (all my CP mail goes straight to spam) and found emails from two different editors asking me to intercede with their blocks by the same user. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:33, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::Straight to spam? I have been sending you emails everyday for the past two months. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:35, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::Straight to spam. Curiously, I haven't seen any emails from teh Bohdan. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:40, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::Has anyone called me an idiot? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:42, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::Doubtful. Who could call you an idiot and expect to get away with it? I mean *seriously*! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:46, 16 November 2008 (EST)

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

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

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

By your less than kind, throw-away comments, like the "I'm sure you can tell..." above, you show yourself to be just another mean & hateful person. Just goes to show how wrong I was about you, your character, and your being good material for an admin. BTW, Ed Poor was another who put himself out there, promoting you for sysop to Andy. I have always been honest with you, always told you CP wasn't like Wikipedia, and that the owner didn't aspire to it under any circumstances. Given your actions in the past 24 hours, I know Andy was correct in holding back. I was wrong, he was right. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:55, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:TK, you started all of the arguments. Want to know how many arguments there were about the use of the liberalism template while you were gone? None. Want to know how many arguments there were about categories when you were gone? None. Formatting? None. The liberalness of Fred Phelps? None. But then within 24 hours of your arrival, all of the same arguments show up, and somehow it's everyone else's fault.

:Do you really think I could tell you what I thought of you when you were holding the banhammer over my head? I'm sorry we aren't best buddies, but our entire "relationship" consists of you telling me what to do. That's all you ever do, is tell people what to do. You came back to this site and all ready you have told Philip he's not allowed to talk on your page, you have told Brianco that he's not privy to conversations from those "above his pay grade", you have told Sideways that he's not allowed to change an edit made by Conservative, you have told me that because you start things, only you know the Truth about how they are to be used. You have only been here '''one day'''.

:I'm just another mean and hateful person? Because I thought that Bohdan can read my talk page to see you are back?

:You continually tell me CP is not like Wikipedia, and I continually tell you that '''I'm not trying to make CP like Wikipedia'''. I continually tell you that I don't even edit at Wikipedia, and yet somehow everything I do is in the "Wikipedia mindset". I'm not imposing my liberal worldview, I'm not motivated by neutrality, and I'm not using a coverup of liberalism to make desicions. Every single thing I do is to further the encycopedia '''within the Commandments''' and every reason I give is backed up by '''logic'''. I'm sorry if you don't think these are good qualities for being an admin. I'm sorry if you put yourself out on a limb to back me (which I can only take on your word; I know that Ed has vouched for me because I've actually seen it -- yet another advantage to skipping AIM in leu of the website right here at our fingertips), only to find out that sometimes following the rules means you can't always spew whatever crazy you want. I'm sorry that I'm harming your goal of destroying CP from within by using the rules on CP to rein you in. I'm sorry I gave you a second chance two nights ago, by telling you about what was going on at CP. Had I known that you were really just gathering intel into the power structures so that you could come back and wedge yourself back in, I might have pretended I wasn't home. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:27, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::So the copies of my emails to Andy, that you were copied on, CC, not BCC, months and months ago, are not to you "proof" that I backed you? You really are a despicable person. So, now you admit you are on AIM. Previously you posted you never use it, only did so because I requested it, demanded it. Oh well. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:37, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::I don't seem to have any of your emails to Andy. The closest I could find was one where you told me that you forwarded Andy, but I don't actually have any CCs. I highly doubt I deleted them since I have copies of many other random emails from you.
:::I previously explained that I never use AIM to talk to ''editors on CP''. I still use it for my personal communications. Is that clear now? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:35, 17 November 2008 (EST)