Obama Care

São Tomé and Príncipe

2013-11-27T05:08:00.000-08:00

Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.

View the original article here

User:BennyFazio

2013-11-27T01:06:00.000-08:00

View the original article here

User:Glamorousgal54

2013-11-26T21:19:00.000-08:00

View the original article here

User:JenniferMelfi

2013-11-26T16:53:00.000-08:00

View the original article here

User:Cleanerservice60

2013-11-26T12:23:00.000-08:00

View the original article here

User talk:Aschlafly

2013-11-26T07:44:00.000-08:00

(Difference between revisions)Is [http://www.pi-news.org/ this] site a conservative news source?--08:55, 2 July 2013 (EDT)Is [http://www.pi-news.org/ this] site a conservative news source?--08:55, 2 July 2013 (EDT)== Andy, as a psychiatrist I think you should block Conservative for his own good, he is just abusing himself going on here. This is currently all that is in his head; ==[[File:Tumbleweed01.gif|2000px]][[File:Tumbleweed01.gif|2000px]][[File:Tumbleweed01.gif|2000px]][[File:Tumbleweed01.gif|2000px]][[File:Tumbleweed01.gif|2000px]][[File:Tumbleweed01.gif|2000px]][[File:Tumbleweed01.gif|2000px]][[File:Tumbleweed01.gif|2000px]][[File:Tumbleweed01.gif|2000px]][[File:Tumbleweed01.gif|2000px]][[File:Tumbleweed01.gif|2000px]][[File:Tumbleweed01.gif|2000px]][[File:Tumbleweed01.gif|2000px]][[File:Tumbleweed01.gif|2000px]][[File:Tumbleweed01.gif|2000px]][[File:Tumbleweed01.gif|2000px]][[File:Tumbleweed01.gif|2000px]][[File:Tumbleweed01.gif|2000px]][[File:Tumbleweed01.gif|2000px]]== Andy, as a psychiatrist I think you should block Conservative for his own good, he is just abusing himself going on here. This is currently all that is in his head; ==== Andy, as a psychiatrist I think you should block Conservative for his own good, he is just abusing himself going on here. This is currently all that is in his head; ==

Comment here

Hi! Thank for for creating this website.

Archive Index

1 Christian Feasts2 Conservapedia Proven Right3 „Jesus prayed, often publicly, for people”4 My faith is VERY IMPORTANT to me5 VivaYehshua6 Dead link7 My talk8 A copy from my post on Main page talk9 Can you please nuke10 user:Rafael11 Community Portal12 Arkansas voter ID rulemaking13 Building content vs. fighting spammers14 Quote mining15 Spammers16 Captcha17 Malachi18 Catholic Church and evolution19 Anarchism Logo20 U.S. History21 Hollywood Values strike again22 Previous Breaking News Archives23 Recent vandalism spree24 User:Ryancsh and blocks25 Markman26 recent main page right post had panache27 Ruth28 £10 Note29 Rafael30 Off topic31 PI32 Andy, as a psychiatrist I think you should block Conservative for his own good, he is just abusing himself going on here. This is currently all that is in his head;33 Andy, as a psychiatrist I think you should block Conservative for his own good, he is just abusing himself going on here. This is currently all that is in his head;34 Andy, as a psychiatrist I think you should block Conservative for his own good, he is just abusing himself going on here. This is currently all that is in his head;35 Andy, as a psychiatrist I think you should block Conservative for his own good, he is just abusing himself going on here. This is currently all that is in his head;36 Andy, as a psychiatrist I think you should block Conservative for his own good, he is just abusing himself going on here. This is currently all that is in his head;37 Andy, as a psychiatrist I think you should block Conservative for his own good, he is just abusing himself going on here. This is currently all that is in his head;38 Andy, as a psychiatrist I think you should block Conservative for his own good, he is just abusing himself going on here. This is currently all that is in his head;39 Andy, as a psychiatrist I think you should block Conservative for his own good, he is just abusing himself going on here. This is currently all that is in his head;40 Andy, as a psychiatrist I think you should block Conservative for his own good, he is just abusing himself going on here. This is currently all that is in his head;41 Andy, as a psychiatrist I think you should block Conservative for his own good, he is just abusing himself going on here. This is currently all that is in his head;42 Andy, as a psychiatrist I think you should block Conservative for his own good, he is just abusing himself going on here. This is currently all that is in his head;43 Andy, as a psychiatrist I think you should block Conservative for his own good, he is just abusing himself going on here. This is currently all that is in his head;44 Andy, as a psychiatrist I think you should block Conservative for his own good, he is just abusing himself going on here. This is currently all that is in his head;45 Andy, as a psychiatrist I think you should block Conservative for his own good, he is just abusing himself going on here. This is currently all that is in his head;46 Andy, as a psychiatrist I think you should block Conservative for his own good, he is just abusing himself going on here. This is currently all that is in his head;47 Andy, as a psychiatrist I think you should block Conservative for his own good, he is just abusing himself going on here. This is currently all that is in his head;48 Andy, as a psychiatrist I think you should block Conservative for his own good, he is just abusing himself going on here. This is currently all that is in his head;49 Andy, as a psychiatrist I think you should block Conservative for his own good, he is just abusing himself going on here. This is currently all that is in his head;50 Andy, as a psychiatrist I think you should block Conservative for his own good, he is just abusing himself going on here. This is currently all that is in his head;51 Andy, as a psychiatrist I think you should block Conservative for his own good, he is just abusing himself going on here. This is currently all that is in his head;52 Andy, as a psychiatrist I think you should block Conservative for his own good, he is just abusing himself going on here. This is currently all that is in his head;53 Andy, as a psychiatrist I think you should block Conservative for his own good, he is just abusing himself going on here. This is currently all that is in his head;54 Andy, as a psychiatrist I think you should block Conservative for his own good, he is just abusing himself going on here. This is currently all that is in his head;55 Andy, as a psychiatrist I think you should block Conservative for his own good, he is just abusing himself going on here. This is currently all that is in his head;56 Andy, as a psychiatrist I think you should block Conservative for his own good, he is just abusing himself going on here. This is currently all that is in his head;57 Andy, as a psychiatrist I think you should block Conservative for his own good, he is just abusing himself going on here. This is currently all that is in his head;58 Andy, as a psychiatrist I think you should block Conservative for his own good, he is just abusing himself going on here. This is currently all that is in his head;59 Andy, as a psychiatrist I think you should block Conservative for his own good, he is just abusing himself going on here. This is currently all that is in his head;60 Andy, as a psychiatrist I think you should block Conservative for his own good, he is just abusing himself going on here. This is currently all that is in his head;61 Andy, as a psychiatrist I think you should block Conservative for his own good, he is just abusing himself going on here. This is currently all that is in his head;62 Andy, as a psychiatrist I think you should block Conservative for his own good, he is just abusing himself going on here. This is currently all that is in his head;if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }

I was a little bit disappointed that Pentecost didn't make the Main Page, even after I had mentioned it: see Talk:Main_Page#Pentecost....

I'd like to see the Christian Feasts being honored on the Main Page, be it by a masterpiece, a link to an article, etc.: the next will be Trinity Sunday. Any ideas?

Thanks, --AugustO 08:42, 21 May 2013 (EDT)

Good suggestions. Often this will depend on what else is in the news, or what other entries editors are spending their time on at a particularly moment. Other websites on the internet are purely religious sites.--Andy Schlafly 10:48, 21 May 2013 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly,
I wanted to apologize if my past edit offended you or damaged the project. It was never my intent to remove information from the table, but only to enhance the layout and supplement the content through additional citations. I have also apologized on the talk page of the article, but I thought I owed you a direct apology as well.

Additionally, I still have a desire to improve the article. I have posted a proposed plan on the talk page, and I would be very grateful for your input. I eagerly await your suggestions.

Sincerely, WilliamWB 11:27, 23 May 2013 (EDT)

Andrew Schlafly, you claimed that „Jesus prayed, often publicly, for people”. I'm still interested in an example for this - as you said that this happened often, you should be able to provide us with one. To be more precise: I don't want examples of Jesus blessing or giving thanks ( e?????? - like in Matthew 14:19) or laying hands upon someone (?p?t???µ? ?e??a? - like in Matthew 19:15), I'd like to see an example of Jesus praying (p??se???µa?) publicly for people.

Could you please give us a verse? Thank you. --AugustO 15:40, 24 May 2013 (EDT)

For example, Jesus routinely prayed in public before each meal.--Andy Schlafly 21:32, 24 May 2013 (EDT) „I don't want examples of Jesus blessing or giving thanks” „I'd like to see an example of Jesus praying (p??se???µa?) publicly for people” „Could you please give us a verse?” As you can see, your answer doesn't match the question. --AugustO 22:45, 24 May 2013 (EDT) Try John 8-14 (Translated)#11:41 - when Jesus very publicly prays to and thanks God prior to raising Lazarus from the dead.--Andy Schlafly 23:45, 24 May 2013 (EDT) I wonder if he'd be satisfied with John 17:11-17: Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one. 12 While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. 13 But now I am coming to you, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves. 14 I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 15 I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. [1] Perhaps there aren't as many transcripts of our Lord's specific prayers as we'd all like. --Ed Poor Talk 19:46, 26 May 2013 (EDT)

I may be a "liberal" Christian but I am devout, but some articles (guess by who?) suggest I am more associated with Satan them I am Jesus. I will not stand for it any longer--Patmac 09:34, 26 May 2013 (EDT)

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

Can you please unprotect this page? I would like to update it with information about VY and Shock's chatroom that has come to light at Talk:Main Page. If this is not desirable, then I would suggest unprotecting the page (which is currently sourced only to a single page on an anonymous blog) so that a more verifiable article can be written in its place (and perhaps if I can get a hold of Conservative, he can point me to reliable sources). Thanks, GregG 21:28, 31 May 2013 (EDT)

Can you do anything with this: Template:Dead link? --JoeyJ 14:02, 1 June 2013 (EDT)

What is wrong with it?--Andy Schlafly 16:20, 1 June 2013 (EDT) Maybe you can expand it. In Wikipedia there is a category for articles with dead links --JoeyJ 09:00, 2 June 2013 (EDT) I've done it. If Mr. Schlafly or someone else wants to change the exact name of the category, they can go ahead. Onward 09:25, 2 June 2013 (EDT)

Could you restore my talk page, actually? A nice little memento from the hoopla. :) Onward 20:24, 1 June 2013 (EDT)

Conservative still goes on with his hatred, I will get blocked for this but here is my promise, I will wait 3 days and if after that time this users hatred is not completely removed from this site I am going to report Conservapedia to the Southern Poverty Law Center and request it is designated a hate group.--Patmac 11:28, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

I would have preferred to send these messages to you in person but I cannot find an email for you so it has to be done here, I have requested you do something before but have been constantly ignored. Lets face it Andy, despite not holding office you are very much a politician, and what does a politician do when a subordinate constantly jeopardizes his position? He gits rid.--Patmac 11:41, 3 June 2013 (EDT) Conservapedia supports and defends the full right to free speech, and urges liberal groups to do likewise.--Andy Schlafly 12:16, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

This is not free speech, this is hate speech. When i read that Jesus eats and spits out moderate Christians that is hate speech, and it also brings the name of our saviour into disrepute. He does not just attack evolutionists and atheists, he attacks Christians, to the extent that we are not Christians at all. "Liberal" Christianity and marital infidelity, "Liberal" Christianity and whore mongering, "Liberal" Christianity and bestiality, need i say more? But if someone dare challenge his position, he blocks them, how is that free speech? I think you personally have some pretty strange ideas but you do allow them to be challenged without going on a hate spree, and you are to be respected for that. But constantly allowing Conservative to post his vile tirade, however free it may be, just undermines Conservatives and by extension your image.--Patmac 12:32, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

This user Pacmac is blocked indefinitely. Apparently, he thinks he can define what hatred is, even so far as to saying that the above reference concerning Jesus constitutes "hate speech". This is the place in the Bible where it comes from, Revelation, Chapter 2: 14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; 15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. 16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. 17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: 18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. What it means is that this user is trying his best to stop any mention of the Bible unless this mention is done in accordance with his liberal philosophy; which means that the above Revelation verses are null and void. He further threatens to call the SPLC on us if we don't behave in according to his whims, i.e. one hate filled individual calling a hate-filled organization to complain about our alleged hate against his own hate-filled ideas. Patmac had also forgotten about our First Amendment RIGHTS to FREE SPEECH, FREEDOM OF RELIGION, and FREEDOM TO ASSEMBLE. He's so filled with hate himself that he would demand the SPLC to try to stop us from enjoying those rights. As far as I'm concerned, he failed. And he can continue failing somewhere else. Karajou 13:12, 3 June 2013 (EDT) Firstly, let me say that I do not endorse user:Patmac`s tactics of legal threats. They have no place on a wiki, and should instead be sent to the site's owner (Mr. Schlafly) by email. However, as per hate speech and the Bible, it is clear that the Bible condemns churches who do not uphold the tenets of Christianity, but on the other hand, who is User:C to decide which churches are not upholding these tenets? brenden 13:43, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

This is an opportunity for Andy to show some leadership in setting a path that de-escallates the conflict here. On the one hand, Patmac is absolutely right about the intemperate nature of User:C's comments. On the other hand, Patmac's frustration with the failure to address that problem led him to make intemperate remarks as well. I suggest that we forgive Patmac for his transgression, and address whether User:C's edits are consistent with the fundamental commandments of Conservapedia. This is not a "Free Speech" issue. User:C is free to express his views on his private blog. Our question is whether CP should endorse and republish some sharp comments as the views of the entire project. Wschact 07:22, 4 June 2013 (EDT)

ReymeDneK's contributions? Thanks, GregG 10:15, 5 June 2013 (EDT)

There is a dispute between myself and user:Markman regarding User:Rafael's block. Could you please provide some guidance? Thanks, brenden 15:34, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

See this edit. Clear case of incivility. Considering his previous record I'd say he should be banned for at least a week if not more. I would have given him a lifetime ban but unfortunately there are too many editors with blocking rights who seem to be determined to subvert Conservapedia's rules. Interestingly enough, many of those editors are also in cordial relations with the RW userbase. - Markman 15:42, 6 June 2013 (EDT) You should also point out that, aside from you, the only other person who has given Rafael a block, was DamianJohn, and a now outed parodist. As per "determined to subvert Conservapedia's rules", I would suggest that you re-read the rules. I still haven't forgotten your bullying of AlanE. brenden 15:48, 6 June 2013 (EDT) "You should also point out that, aside from you, the only other person who has given Rafael a block, was DamianJohn, and a now outed parodist." Come on darling, don't be afraid to call the parodist by his name - Dvergne. The same Dvergne who sided with you and with AlanE against me. So you're basically admitting to both associating with a liberal website and with parodists. - Markman 15:54, 6 June 2013 (EDT) As far as I understand, User:Dvergne, Karajou, and myself were chastising you for spamming {{uncited}} specifically on AlanE's contributions. Are you insinuating that Karajou is "associating with a parodist"?? Furthermore, once again, you have shown yourself unwilling to read that userpage, that explains my goals on that website specifically. In case you can't see that website, I have the words reproduced below:

==Wat?== *Why are you here? :I'd rather not be impersonated, and I would like a word in this place. *What are you doing at Conservapedia? :I do enjoy thought exercises. While Conservapedia does go in a little overboard at times, I still have faith in it. I feel that the only reason that Conservapedia's problems are so famous, are because of the inordinate amount of trolls and parodists, trying their best to write something so ridiculous, that their comrades might congratulate them. That, and the continued threats by [[user:naca|certain]] [[user:Umichcynic|people]] [[user:Proxima Centauri|at]] [[Liberapedia|certain websites]], to (blocked by spam filter), and harrass the precarious community at Conservapedia, have not helped the situation. One of my goals there is to rectify that. brenden 16:00, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

Your other edits on that website reveal a different story. Your cordial relations with the RW userbase shows that you're one of them. - Markman 16:04, 6 June 2013 (EDT) In the days of TK your admiting you are even reading that site would have earnt you a ban. Davidspencer 16:05, 6 June 2013 (EDT) On the contrary, I have been called a dick, a parodist, a "smarmy little prefect", among other things. I do my best to present Conservapedia in a positive light, and frankly, are doing a lot more good than Markman, going there to deliberately spread a false impression of a surly, confrontational Conservapedia. brenden 16:06, 6 June 2013 (EDT) I think that I made my case and I don't need to elaborate any further. I don't only enforce the 90/10 rule but also try to comply with it, so I'll refrain from any further replies until Mr. Schlafly says his word. - Markman 16:09, 6 June 2013 (EDT) I think that you shouldn't jump the gun, and instead, should wait for Mr. Schlafly's word on this matter. brenden 16:05, 7 June 2013 (EDT)

A sock of Mr. Mason has recently posted some vile attacks on that page. Although I have undid them, someone may want to block that sock and/or take other remedial measures. Thanks, WilliamWB 12:43, 7 June 2013 (EDT)

I wouldn't worry about this. Karajou took a minute or two to learn oversighting. Mr. Mason will now become even more obscure than he already is and rightfully so. Conservative 00:12, 11 June 2013 (EDT)

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

I know you've taken interest in voter ID just as I have, and I found out this week that the Arkansas Secretary of State has proposed rules to implement Arkansas' new voter ID law. [2]. I'm planning on writing up and submitting comments to fix several issues with the rules, and I was wondering whether you were planning on submitting comments or wanted to see what I am writing. Hopefully, if the rules are fixed as I suggest, the voter ID law should survive federal and state court challenges. Thanks, GregG 13:24, 8 June 2013 (EDT)

That's interesting. I wasn't planning on submitting any comments, but I'd be curious to see what you submit. My own view is that voter ID laws are not as significant as early voting laws.--Andy Schlafly 22:36, 8 June 2013 (EDT)

Andy, I think if Conservapedians could spend more time creating content rather than fighting spammers that they would do so if given the opportunity.

Why don't you add the feature to the wiki that fights spammers that Brenden says works great at his wiki?

Here is the informmation:

I noticed that in the RC, there's been a large amount of spammers. Perhaps implementing QuestyCaptcha, a system that uses questions that Mr. Schlafly chooses, could stem the onslaught. It works excellently at my wiki. Here is the information for this extention: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:QuestyCaptcha brenden 21:10, 1 June 2013 (EDT)

I hope this helps. Conservative 10:30, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

User:Conservative reverted my recent edits without explanation and protected the page. Since there is no way to contact U:C and I don't see it likely that there will be fruitful discussion about improving the article about the logical fallacy of quote mining, I would request that the page be unprotected and that U:C work in collegiality with me to improve the page. Thanks, GregG 11:21, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

There is nothing wrong about quoting the other side and using those quotes to disprove and discredit their position. Some evolutionists pretend there is something wrong with this, yet politicians, attorneys, and any debater properly does this frequently.--Andy Schlafly 13:00, 9 June 2013 (EDT) I'm glad you are offering your input, and I should probably explain my changes fully on the talk page. Science, law, theology, politics, mathematics, and philosophy are all different systems for answering questions about our world. Each system has its own rules, so what may be a valid argument in law (citing to binding precedent or quoting an authority) is not necessarily valid in science or math. Likewise, logical deduction from axioms is the main way mathematical results are proven, but it has less utility in the other systems of answering questions. In any event, I think there should be a full discussion on the talk page, and, revisiting this issue, I think that what would probably be best (and what I will therefore request) is for the page protection to automatically expire, say, a week or two from now, and hopefully, the discussion that takes place during this next week will improve the article. Thanks, GregG 13:10, 9 June 2013 (EDT) EDIT You wrote "politicians, attorneys, and any debater properly does [sic] this frequently." I trust you are familiar with Rule 3.3 of the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct. GregG 13:23, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

Try this:

$wgGroupPermissions['*' ]['createpage'] = false; $wgGroupPermissions['user' ]['createpage'] = false; $wgGroupPermissions['autoconfirmed']['createpage'] = true; $wgAutoConfirmAge = 600 ; # Ten Minutes

I disagree with this proposal. I think one of the things that makes wikis so successful is that people can jump in by creating an account and instantly contribute by improving pages. To be honest, I think that there are enough blockers to handle the spam efficiently, but if there needs to be a solution, I would recommend QuestyCaptcha. GregG 17:03, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

It keeps on coming up everytime I add a link to references, is there any way that you can turn it off for my user? I clearly am not a bot or spammer so if you can it would be much appreciated. JAnderson 20:51, 10 June 2013 (EDT)

Thanks for asking. I've added SkipCatcha privileges to your account.--Andy Schlafly 21:19, 10 June 2013 (EDT)

I'm happy to announce that the Book of Malachi is now fully translated. I would like you to take a look at it and if needed help improve it. Note: not all of the book's translation was done by me, but in the parts that I did translate I changed "LORD of hosts" into "LORD of armies". The Hebrew word "tsvaot" (?????) that is sometimes translated into "hosts" actually means "armies". I think that this translation is more accurate, plus it sends a strong anti-pacifist message.

I also see that I can't add Malachi to the list of fully translated books in Template:ConservativeBible. Could you please do that for me? - Markman 06:16, 15 June 2013 (EDT)

Fabulous! I like your correction of the pacifist bias. I've updated the template. Well done!--Andy Schlafly 11:41, 15 June 2013 (EDT) Thanks you for your kind words! - Markman 11:41, 15 June 2013 (EDT) I look forward to more of your translations.--Andy Schlafly 11:48, 15 June 2013 (EDT)

Schlafly, could you please answer to my post on Talk:Roman Catholic Church about the RCC and evolution? Thanks, cheers. --Swordsman 08:10, 15 June 2013 (EDT)

Replied.--Andy Schlafly 11:48, 15 June 2013 (EDT)

Hi can you please uploud these pictures: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anarchy-symbol.svg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ancapflag.svg Thanks --JoeyJ 13:49, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

Done as requested.--Andy Schlafly 14:28, 16 June 2013 (EDT) Thank you but I cant put them into the articles Anarchism and Anarcho-capitalism Can you help me, please? --JoeyJ 13:58, 18 June 2013 (EDT) I resized them from 500px to 200px and now you can use them in a format smaller than 500px. See: Anarchism and http://conservapedia.com/File:200px-Ancapflag.svg.png Conservative 14:35, 18 June 2013 (EDT) Thanks Conservative. Please uploud yet this here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anarchist_flag.svg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Christian_punk.svg --JoeyJ 08:47, 21 June 2013 (EDT) and this one also --JoeyJ 09:30, 21 June 2013 (EDT)

Mr Schlafly, Having visited the Eagle Forum website I noticed you run courses on US history which interests me, but have noticed the registration is restricted to those living in the USA. Is it possible to enrole from elsewhere?--Tomqua 16:27, 18 June 2013 (EDT)

Consider using the U.S. History course I posted here: Conservapedia:Index.--Andy Schlafly 16:41, 18 June 2013 (EDT)

Thank you--Tomqua 16:42, 18 June 2013 (EDT)

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-207_162-57590166/james-gandolfini-dead-at-51/

It's the same old story over and over: a Hollywood liberal (he helped raise money for Kerry) engages in a self destructive lifestyle (compulsive eating in this case) leading to his own demise. So tragic and yet so preventable. - Markman 15:08, 20 June 2013 (EDT)

The archives from "Previous Breaking News" are very unvalid. Where are the archives from 2012/2013?--JoeyJ 12:01, 24 June 2013 (EDT)

Here: [3].--Andy Schlafly 12:13, 24 June 2013 (EDT)

We've under a vandalism spree recently. Users involved: SwissE, Namkram, JackieS. I think we should consider a range block in case their IP addressees are dynamic.

I also blocked some users who registered in close proximity to the vandal spree: Mar92vg8br, Numisexpert37, Car9d94nha, NigelM, DennyH. I recommend using checkuser to see if they share IP addressees with the vandals. If not, than those with a proper username should be unblocked while those with an improper username should remain blocked but with their IP unblocked and account creation enabled. - Markman 09:09, 25 June 2013 (EDT)

Thanks. I'll look into this.--Andy Schlafly 09:13, 25 June 2013 (EDT)

You don't have any problems with his blocks, do you? brenden 14:11, 25 June 2013 (EDT)

Checkers, stop barking at Mr. Schlafly this instant! - Markman 14:16, 25 June 2013 (EDT)

Please do something about this person. I realise has has been very helpful to you in the Bible Project but he is now blocking long standing and valued contributors on the most spurious of reasons. Davidspencer 15:03, 25 June 2013 (EDT)

Hate to join on but I agree. Markman is a good editor of the bible project but he does engage in block wars and the infighting between Him and Brendan managed to drag me in when he attempted to associate my name is a previously unknown (to me anyway) internet joke. Also, I have serious issue with him questioning my Conservative Ideology simply because I am British and calling British conservatives "sexual degenerates"Ryancsh 20:07, 25 June 2013 (GMT) And before he comes back with an accusation of me being a sock of another user I have been here for far longer than he has, I may not have been that active a contributor but I am not a parodist. And I am not a sock of anyone on this site I assure you. Davidspencer 15:18, 25 June 2013 (EDT) I find no need to defend myself from accusations of libs such as yourself. Mr. Schlafly knows what's right, I trust him to act on it. - Markman 15:26, 25 June 2013 (EDT) Ad hominem attack from someone who quite frankly has no real arguments to defend himself. I may end up perma-banned from this site but the site will be worse in the long run for allowing you to continue editing and stopping those you block for no reason other than your whim. I will now bow out and leave you the last word, I would certainly not want someone to block me for 90-10 (an advisory limit only ayway). Davidspencer 15:31, 25 June 2013 (EDT) Since when was I a liberal? Last time I checked, I was more conservative than a lot of other users on conservapedia Ryancsh 21:39, 25 June 2013 (GMT)

"If he cannot even control his own NSA, then why would anyone believe he can control the climate?". This most recent main page right post had panache. :) Conservative 02:28, 26 June 2013 (EDT)

I'm happy to announce that Ruth has been fully translated. Can you please add it to template:ConservativeBible? I would have done so myself but I'm not an admin. - Markman 07:35, 29 June 2013 (EDT)

Fabulous work! I've added Ruth (Translated) to the template, and also trimmed the template a bit. Well done!--Andy Schlafly 09:11, 29 June 2013 (EDT) Thank you for your kinds words! - Markman 10:13, 1 July 2013 (EDT)

May I suggest using this source, from the conservative Telegraph rather than the leftist Daily Mirror http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/money/money-matters/jane-austen-could-become-the-new-face-of-britains-10-pound-note/story-fni0ctl0-1226669886966 --Tomqua 18:20, 29 June 2013 (EDT)

Recently a vandal who attacked my talk page claimed that the users Eg, Brenden and Rafael are his socks. Eg is already banned for other reasons, I suggest an investigation into Brenden and Rafael (whom I temporarily blocked for emergency reason) to see whether or not this claim is true. - Markman 10:13, 1 July 2013 (EDT)

The account for User:Eg does not appear to be a sock.--Andy Schlafly 11:37, 2 July 2013 (EDT)

Glad that got cleared out. Kind of off topic, but it came to my attention that some of your family members have a brewery, and that the Schlafly brand has been getting some really good reviews. Is it sold anywhere outside of the US, such as in Israel or in one of the more friendlier Mediterranean nations that are close to it (such as Cyprus or Greece)? - Markman 11:59, 2 July 2013 (EDT)

I don't think it is sold outside of the U.S. I don't have any connection with the product, which was started by a cousin.--Andy Schlafly 12:05, 2 July 2013 (EDT) Really? I'm an avid home-brewer myself. How are the beers? WilcoxD 23:10, 2 July 2013 (EDT)

Is this site a conservative news source?--08:55, 2 July 2013 (EDT)

View the original article here

User talk:Markman

2013-11-26T04:41:00.000-08:00

(Difference between revisions)You're blocking people too much for frivolous or non-existent reasons, as well as engaging in blocking wars with other users. Several individuals you blocked I unblocked, due to no evidence to support your reasons. In the future, please block only those people who have actually committed vandalism or trolling; do not block for 90/10 if the conversation taking place is meant for the improvement of the article in question, or if the participants are engaged in friendly talk. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:37, 3 July 2013 (EDT)You're blocking people too much for frivolous or non-existent reasons, as well as engaging in blocking wars with other users. Several individuals you blocked I unblocked, due to no evidence to support your reasons. In the future, please block only those people who have actually committed vandalism or trolling; do not block for 90/10 if the conversation taking place is meant for the improvement of the article in question, or if the participants are engaged in friendly talk. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:37, 3 July 2013 (EDT)== Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard. ==[[File:The transitional life form flying kitty.gif|center|1000px]][[File:The transitional life form flying kitty.gif|center|1000px]][[File:The transitional life form flying kitty.gif|center|1000px]][[File:The transitional life form flying kitty.gif|center|1000px]][[File:The transitional life form flying kitty.gif|center|1000px]]== Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard. ==== Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard. ==

Welcome!

Hello, --Jpatt 10:00, 19 October 2011 (EDT), and welcome to Conservapedia!

We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.

At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page. Any questions--ask!

Thanks for reading, --Jpatt 10:00, 19 October 2011 (EDT)!

1 Congratulations2 Conservacelt3 AlanA Block4 Blocks5 SergeiforCROY6 Block comments7 Harold etc8 Blocking9 Irony10 E=mc²11 AmyPond12 Great blocks13 DonnyC14 My Warning15 Blocked?16 Referencing17 Citation Needed tags and AlanE18 Yo bro19 Ryancsh20 Ryancsh Response21 "Smoozing with the enemy"22 North Pole23 Brednen24 Ruth Edits and Subsequent Block25 Just so you know...26 "I hope you're demoralized"27 Block log28 Your blocking habit29 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard.30 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard.31 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard.32 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard.33 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard.34 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard.35 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard.36 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard.37 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard.38 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard.39 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard.40 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard.41 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard.42 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard.43 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard.44 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard.45 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard.46 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard.47 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard.48 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard.49 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard.50 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard.51 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard.52 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard.53 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard.54 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard.55 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard.56 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard.57 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard.58 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard.59 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard.60 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard.61 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard.62 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard.63 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard.64 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard.65 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard.66 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard.67 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard.68 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard.69 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard.70 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard.71 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard.72 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard.73 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard.74 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard.75 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard.76 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard.77 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, You got whacked by Angry Bear, he is the least of your problems, Ken is gonna get u and get u hard.if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }

Congratulations, your account has been promoted such that you can now block other accounts!--Andy Schlafly 16:41, 7 November 2011 (EST)

Great block and reverts this morning.--Andy Schlafly 09:33, 8 November 2011 (EST)

I don't think that's a good example of a block, sorry, and changed it to 3 days. They were using the Talk pages. They were providing sources. I think this shows a need for warning, not permanent blocking. They shouldn't have re-added material removed by Aschlafly but I don't think that's cause for a permablock. Some of their edits show they believe in Christianity. --Jzyehoshua 20:04, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

I'd originally changed it to 10 minutes, because I'd just glanced at the Diff and not seen any blatant vandalism. But when I checked the page history, I realized he'd re-added material reverted by the site's founder, pretty serious, so that's why I changed it to 3 days. I've explained it to him at his talk page. I still think it was an honest mistake made by a newbie, not intentional vandalism. Intentional vandals wouldn't go to that much trouble with serious writing and attempted sources. I think he probably spent time writing it, saw it reverted, and thought he could re-add it and discuss it, not realizing who had removed it. I'd like to see him get another chance. --Jzyehoshua 20:33, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

I was wondering what AlanA was blocked for. According to Conservapedia's Guidelines, "Unlike Wikipedia, we do not block for ideological reasons. Warnings are appropriate, not for obscenity, vandalism or parody (Which are block-able offenses without warning.), but for silliness and other problems. In rare cases, our approach to repeated ideological conflict is to lock the page, and then allow the Administrator Group to make changes on a manual basis based upon submitted suggestions on the Talk page."

So if AlanA was blocked for an ideological comment, questioning whether Gallup results are critical of religion, then isn't that contrary to guidelines? And if we are allowed to block based on ideological reasons, shouldn't the guidelines be updated so people at least know what to expect? --Jzyehoshua 12:12, 24 July 2012 (EDT)

I just don't know if it sends that good a message to respond to such a comment by banning and preventing conversation. I disagree with his comment, but I think the right approach is to discuss it so long as he remains courteous and honest in the discusssion. --Jzyehoshua 12:14, 24 July 2012 (EDT) The atheistic Britons comment was vandalism I suppose though, so that might be worthy of a block. I hadn't noticed that one as much before. --Jzyehoshua 12:18, 24 July 2012 (EDT)

Okay, what is with some of these blocks? You just blocked some people on the main page who said some stuff about video games in disagreement with you, even when they were remaining courteous. What was with the block of GuitarSniper in particular? You said he was "trolling" for expressing disagreement about video games causing violence? Are we just blocking everybody who dares disagree with every single one of our most esoteric opinions now?[1] Just blocking everybody who dares make a single comment we disagree with? What's the point of Debate pages if people can't disagree reasonably? Why don't you just delete those and put up a "Dictatorship of Markman" flag on the site if you're going to make blocks like that? Man... This isn't compatible with the Guidelines at all. The site claims that "Unlike Wikipedia, we do not block for ideological reasons. Warnings are appropriate, not for obscenity, vandalism or parody (Which are block-able offenses without warning.), but for silliness and other problems. In rare cases, our approach to repeated ideological conflict is to lock the page, and then allow the Administrator Group to make changes on a manual basis based upon submitted suggestions on the Talk page."[2] Start treating these people fairly so I don't have to reverse all these silly blocks that are contary to Conservapedia's guidelines. It wastes my time and yours. --Joshua Zambrano 23:40, 24 July 2012 (EDT)

I am not saying it is but, like those of a number of long-serving editors here, this user name can be explained with about 5 seconds of thought. Croy is a surname. I also know at least one town in Britain. Ifor is a Welsh name - quite common, a variation of Ivor. Serge is a particularly common name. It's the anglisisation of Sergei, as in Prokofiev, Rachmaninov etc. I went to school with a Serge. Ban him if you like for username reasons, but I thought your comments were a little gratuitous. Just saying.... AlanE 20:23, 22 February 2013 (EST)

While I do not disagree with your recent blocks, I do feel that the the comments you put for the block reason are a little bit over the top, and do not reflect on Conservapedia's professional policies. It is perfectly fair to block a troll, but you don't need to reciprocate by making some more accusations, that have little to do with the user's actions. Thanks for reading,

brenden 21:10, 22 February 2013 (EST)

Bear in mind I was the one who started the baby-eating thing. I think he found it far more welcoming than the "FNQ Hello" (Dvergne will know what I mean.) There is a lack of basic courtesy on this site that one feels unless they are completely within the ideological circle - which you are of course.

What I said had to be said. It needs to be said every now and then because people come here, they do all the right things to get Andy's favour and are given power. They use it. Some of them abuse it. They know they have the boss's blessing. They don't know my history - usually because they haven't bothered to find out. To them I am just another troll, when really I am just letting off a bit of steam as a grumpy old man who likes taking the mickey occasionally . And I have always been a keen and somewhat amused observer of social interaction. And yes, it is trolling to an extent. So are Cons' constant hardly relevant incursions into talk pages. (And just to stir the possum (an Australianism) .... without the homosexual couple who lived in the next apartment from when I was 11 to 18 years of age I may not have been able to create the articles in Category:Sacred music for they instilled in me a love of church music that has lasted over 50 years. Musical vermin, they were.) Cheers - and sorry I misunderstood. AlanE 03:57, 23 February 2013 (EST)

What is the point of blocking a new user and telling them to recreate their account with a more appropriate username if you block them with autoblock enabled and account creation disabled ??? It seems a bit counter intuitive and unproductive to me. Dvergne 03:47, 24 February 2013 (EST)

Whoops, didn't notice I did that. Thanks, I'll avoid this mistake next time. - Markman 03:48, 24 February 2013 (EST) I suggest you be less vigorous with your blocking otherwise I may need to have a word with Andy, it seems you are starting to drive away genuine users as well as the parodists, spammers and trolls. Dvergne 09:12, 25 February 2013 (EST) Just to be sure here, could you put a diff of the offending edits that DonnyC made? brenden 23:23, 26 February 2013 (EST) I have gone through his contributions for the past week and there is nothing that is deserving of a block. --DamianJohn 01:41, 27 February 2013 (EST)

Blocking the User:GiseleRom because of Silly and/or foul username. Account may be recreated as a first name and last initial sounds quite ironic when the block isn't performed by User:MarkM but by User:Markman :-) --AugustO 14:40, 28 February 2013 (EST)

I haven't seen your input to this article on Talk:E=mc² yet - I'm interested in your thoughts! --AugustO 14:49, 28 February 2013 (EST)

If you don't know what you are doing, just don't do it! --AugustO 15:09, 28 February 2013 (EST) See my recent edit summary. - Markman 15:10, 28 February 2013 (EST) See Talk:E=mc² and my recent edit summary. --AugustO 15:11, 28 February 2013 (EST)

Hmmn - I suppose CP's policy on usernames may justify blocking him/her, but still, there remains the possibility the s/he was merely a fan of DW, and was unaware of our username policy (Usernames shall be a variation of your real name). brenden 14:27, 1 March 2013 (EST)

Great blocks, but the better block reason is "user name policy: please consider recreating ...." Thanks!--Andy Schlafly 08:57, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Given your personal feelings you should not be blocking DonnyC. In any case he was engaging playfully with a sysop who has not taken offence, and who is big enough and ugly enough to deal with it. Our role is to block obvious trolls and vandals, not editors we happen not to like. Leave that sort of blocking to the sysops, which you are not. Please try to get along with others, rather than picking fights all the time. Thanks. --DamianJohn 15:14, 3 March 2013 (EST)

I have seen your warning regarding my excessive talk posts. Note that 13 of the 20 that you mention represent four discussions. I was unaware that a three post dialog, say, resulted in a 30-post article quota, or that correcting a misspelling in a talk post added 10 more to deficit.

Another two of my talk posts were a suggestion to improve an article (which was met with a request from the original editor to make the change), plus a "done" response from me. If that exchange puts me in the hole for 20 more article updates, I can see this is a very potent rule.

I do admit that the "letter of the law" can be interpreted this way. I will be more careful in the future. As long as I'm here, I wonder if you saw my question to you regarding why you prefer "sheep" to "lamb" in Exodus? MelH 17:03, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Can I ask why you blocked me? All I did was follow the procedures to delete obvious spam. JohnQu 09:47, 5 March 2013 (EST)

How nice of you to go around ask for citations for all my contributions. A lot of the information in those articles was written through knowledge I have gained over the years so probably can't point to a specific location for the referencing. It would be much appreciated if you would help me find these references. Dvergne 03:24, 6 March 2013 (EST)

You fool! You're even doing it to items that are cited. Look at USS Sturgeon. But keep going - it's showing people just how useful I was to the "information" part of the "Encyclopedia. There are hundreds yet. (How many article have you created and on what variety of subjects?) AlanE 14:18, 6 March 2013 (EST)

So sorry but I find Markman "uncited" edits correct. You are encouraged to add sources for verifiability or ask for help.--Joaquín Martínez 19:17, 6 March 2013 (EST) Joachin, I hadn't realised how much you disliked me. I had gone out of my way to treat you with respect and to give you some grounding in the music I love. I had no idea you disrespected my knowledge. Thanks for supporting a person who is doing this for no other reason than malice towards me. AlanE 20:53, 6 March 2013 (EST) While Citation Needed tags are good, it really makes no sense that you are simply systematically going through AlanE's edits, and sticking spamming his perfectly fine pages with them. A quick Google search would verify the credence of his edits, and I see no motive behind this beside petty disagreements with AlanE. brenden 21:08, 6 March 2013 (EST)

Ya might wanna check out the edits by MattyD as BryanF was a sock of that particularly annoying user.

There are a lot of animal articles without citations, u might wanna look at them. 10:31, 8 March 2013 (EST)

And I expect those whining about citations had better be prepared to find and add them. "That's not my job" is an excuse I will never accept. Karajou 11:38, 8 March 2013 (EST)

Try this [3] template instead for short or stub articles. Karajou 17:41, 8 March 2013 (EST)

This is good, but the uncited template is still needed for articles lacking in citations. And in regards to your previous remarks, don't worry about it. As I've already said, tomorrow I'm going to start going through articles lacking in citations and work on fixing them. - Markman 17:43, 8 March 2013 (EST)

Leave mine to me and I will use the books I use to check my facts. I will do them category by category. But don't put that tag on any more of my edits. Seeing as I'm being hung out to dry here, give me at least that. Now excuse me for an hour or three - I'm laying bricks today, at least they are going to stay where I put them.AlanE 19:23, 8 March 2013 (EST)

I've drastically reduced his block period, as his edits to mainspace articles have been helpful, and his edits to talkpages have been rather productive, and insightful. brenden 23:31, 4 June 2013 (EDT)

And then you block him for 2 hours, on the grounds of "accusing you of blocking him out of vengeance". Please explain what this really means. Also, Rafael, 2 day block?? For mocking users (I presume User:C, as he is the primary editor at MPR)? User:C has demonstrated that he prefers to engage in such banter, and the rather gentle mocking from rafael (in comparison to user:C's downright belligerent words) was certainly tolerable by any standards. brenden 13:29, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

I have three issues with what you have said: 1. Before today, I have never heard of the internet joke "Ryan Cash." My account was made in June 2010 and I'm not even sure if that joke was around then, considering that you are the first person to ever bring that to my attention. If the name sounds similar, it is purely coincidence, let me explain. Ryan is my first name and cs is the initials of my double-barreled surname. H was added in when I made my very first internet account and ryancs was taken, with ryancsh being the closest option. Since then, it's just been habit to stick to it.

2. You accuse me of Parody yet there is no evidence on conservapedia to prove that I am guilty of being a parody. I have only spoke with my own opinion and the guild-lines clearly state that the parody must me on conservapedia. In fact, I direct you to the difference between conservapedia and Wikipedia page in which it clearly states that conservapedia does not ban users due to outside blogs or activities. Even though the link to an internet joke is incorrect, you are still going against the values of conservapedia by trying to discredit me with outside information. Also, I might add that if I was a parodist would I not have begun being a parody when I joined and not 2 years later?

3. You blocked me for the 90/10 rule. Firstly I would point out that the rule states "90% talk page edits and only 10% quality edits to Conservapedia articles" on the conservative commandments. My contribution as a whole as been 75%talk and 25% edits, (5 to 20) but that includes the 4 debate talks I did over a year ago. This year it has been 5-15 and in June it was 5-2 (or 5-4 if you count my user page as talk). Surely this would show that I was starting to reform my behavior when you blocked me. I trust that an administrator, who is obviously dedicated as he is fervent to expel any troublemakers, would not like to give the impression "it doesn't matter if you reform we will still ban you" as this goes against the whole idea of repentance and forgiveness. In fact, your block has meant that I am not able to make the planned edits to the Liberal Denial page as I was blocked until 11PM and then had to spend my time writing this to prove my innocence.

So please, in the future, could you just ask before you block or give a verbal warning so that the accused (me in this case) has time to explain. Justice, not vengeance, is truly conservative. Ryancsh 5 June 2013 20:34 GMT

There is no evidence of parody or intentional misinformation from user Ryancsh. Karajou 02:02, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

I like how you didn't even bother to read that userpage. *sarcastic slow clap* brenden 15:50, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

You do have to admit, some of it is quite witty :) -- Penny

Can you please restore/undelete it so I can save it to a CD/USB ? God Be upon you, PennyS

That's really enough of the in-fighting with you and Brenden - he shouldn't be reverting your post on Andy's page, but your block of Rafael for suspected sock-puppetry is out of line. You don't have checkuser privileges and that he gets along with another user is not sufficient evidence. Frankly it's a questionable block of Eg too.--IDuan 14:31, 25 June 2013 (EDT)

Also you know it's ridiculous to block users with blocking privileges - he shouldn't be doing it to you; you shouldn't be doing it to him.--IDuan 14:37, 25 June 2013 (EDT)

First, I'd like to offer my sincere apologies for the accidental removal of those lines. I assure you it was completely inadvertent and I'm still not sure how it happened.

I was rather enjoying your modernized translation of one of my favorite books but noticed a number of minor spelling and grammatical errors. The intent of the translation was clear, but so were these typos. I had two tabs up, one in which I was reading and one in which I was editing. I can only imagine some finger-trouble between the tabs was the cause of my error.

It should have been clear that this was a simple error and not vandalism. Why would I vandalize a page and then continue to make edits to improve it? I admit the deletion was my fault, but we could have cleared this up an hour ago had you not been so quick to block.

In any case, you might wish to look at the typos that you reintroduced by reverting my edits. None are controversial. When blocked, I was also in the process of correcting another, changing "say lat next to his feet" to "she lay ..." I think it would be best if I don't touch this page (or others of yours) again so I will leave these to you to correct or not, but this wonderful text could use a simple copy-edit pass.

Again, please accept my apologies for accidentally triggering this episode. MelH 18:24, 25 June 2013 (EDT)

our First Commandment also applies to log entries, including block reasons. Thank you for keeping this in mind when blocking users. GregG 19:09, 28 June 2013 (EDT)

Well since not only Mr. Schlafly and my "liberal allies" here agree with me that "demoralizing" users via blocks is inappropriate, it seems that User:C has also agreed with me here. I hope you are demoralized about blocking users based on supposed "liberal sports stars". brenden 05:43, 29 June 2013 (EDT)

Ps - Your attempts at bullying Rafael should stop too, as any attempts to block him will be reverted by myself or my so-called "liberal allies", that include pretty much everyone but you. brenden 05:44, 29 June 2013 (EDT)

The block log is getting ridiculous; anytime someone with blocking rights wants to stick his neck out for a user and unblock him you should generally allow it to happen. Let Brenden be responsible for Rafael.--IDuan 14:02, 1 July 2013 (EDT)

You're blocking people too much for frivolous or non-existent reasons, as well as engaging in blocking wars with other users. Several individuals you blocked I unblocked, due to no evidence to support your reasons. In the future, please block only those people who have actually committed vandalism or trolling; do not block for 90/10 if the conversation taking place is meant for the improvement of the article in question, or if the participants are engaged in friendly talk. Karajou 01:37, 3 July 2013 (EDT)

View the original article here

Delaying the Employer Health Mandate: Easy on the Champagne

2013-11-26T00:30:00.000-08:00

America’s business leaders — those with 50 or more employees — may be excused for breaking out the champagne and raising a celebratory glass of cheer. Please, just one toast will do, thank you very much.

The Obama administration’s announcement that it will delay the January 1, 2014, imposition of its employer health mandate and tax penalty (up to $3,000 per worker) is temporary good news, just like any reprieve.

Valerie Jarrett, senior White House adviser, says the delay would “reduce red tape” and give employers a chance to “adjust” to their new responsibilities to comply with Washington. In the wake of issuing more than 20,000 pages of rules, regulations, and guidelines in the name of Obamacare, this is classic “boob bait.” Like the previous delays of the HHS mandate on institutions to fund abortifacients, sterilization, and contraception, nothing has really changed. The employer mandate — and all of the other coercive paraphernalia that makes up the thing called Obamacare — is the law of the land. Period.

Last night’s decision reveals two things.

First, facing the January 1, 2014, deadline, they see disaster in imposing the employer mandate in an election year. The White House is not politically stupid. While government actuaries predicted a modest dumping of workers out of job-based coverage, independent analysts predicted major disruptions in employer-based coverage. That, by the way, may happen anyway. If the taxpayers must subsidize health costs for millions in the exchanges in 2014, what’s to stop employers from offloading their workers and their costs?

Second, Obama’s team knows they need more time to get their heavy regulatory machinery greased and ready to carry out their coercive mission. Obviously, more than three years of central planning is not enough time.

The administration’s action raises more questions than it answers. If they delay the employer mandate for one year, then why not delay the even more unpopular individual mandate? Maybe that’s next. If they delay the individual mandate, won’t they also have to delay insurance rules (like community rating) that could actually increase the numbers of uninsured and set off instability in the insurance exchanges? Maybe so. Because the Obamacare benefit mandates on insurance companies go into effect in 2014, now what are the coverage options and legal liabilities of employers? And, by the way, since the date for the mandate is set for January 1, 2014, in statute, where does the regulatory authority to nullify that date come from? Yes, this is a mess.

Put the champagne back until this monster is fully repealed or at least defunded.

— Robert Moffit is a senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Policy Innovation.

View the original article here

User talk:Aschlafly

2013-11-25T21:06:00.000-08:00