User talk:DanH

Heh, welcome to Rationalwiki. 15:55, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Are you the DanH of legend?  ʄĹїþþїɲ ;-) 15:56, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

One and the same. DanH 15:57, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Hail he who used to be Dew of Mountain! I still are CЯacke ®.
 * Yeah, whatever...get to work!--PalMD-yada yada 16:21, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

Curious
Is there anyway, above-board, anyone "outed" here could still work at CP? I am wondering if any affiliation (except for sysops) blackballs one.  ʄĹїþþїɲ ;-) 16:23, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

What exactly do you mean? DanH 16:28, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
 * I mean, without creating socks, could an editor here ever return to CP? I have been blocked infinitely, like 10 times, so I don't expect any favors, but is membership here enough to block over there? -- ʄĹїþþїɲ ;-) 16:40, 21 June 2007 (CDT)


 * I had posted on my page here, Flippin, for several weeks, that Andy has given me permission to restore anyone's membership. You didn't seem at all interested then. Glad to see you are reconsidering! --TK/MyTalk|undefined 19:55, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

I honestly think it depends on the vagaries of the day. I wouldn't say it's impossible, more difficult, yeah. But there are counterexamples. DanH 16:43, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Thanks for the honest answer. I still have a few socks over there and am trying to actually make real pages. We'll see how long they let me continue. I ask because I have had several socks who did things like revert vandalism and was still blocked. It seems to make little difference to the administration. -- ʄĹїþþїɲ ;-) 16:45, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

Using socks of banned users, of course, is instantly bannable. DanH 17:00, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Dan, I think you're waisting your time here. Bohdan 17:01, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Now, don't go scaring folks away...it ain't neighborly. Let him draw his own conclusions.--PalMD-yada yada 17:02, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Its just my opinion. Bohdan 17:02, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Who give you permission to opine????--PalMD-yada yada 17:03, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Colin?. Bohdan 17:04, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
 * It depends on what ones goals are for being here wouldn't it? Tmtoulouse 17:05, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Sorry, boys, i was being fasce, er, fasie...um..sarcastic!--PalMD-yada yada 17:06, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
 * If he is here to mock Jesus, Christians, and Andrew Schlafly, then he is at the right place. Bohdan 17:07, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
 * I consider mocking Ashfly a legitimate purpose...and I don't place him in any category with Jesus.--PalMD-yada yada 17:08, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

No, that is not why I am here... I think most of you know why I'm here. One time use, probably. DanH 17:29, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Well, whether you stay for a day or a month, welcome. Try stopping by some of our less controversial stuff, like  --PalMD-yada yada 17:31, 21 June 2007 (CDT)


 * YOU SUNK MY BATTLESOCK!!!! Oh, well, nice to have you here. ;) On a side note, the articles I wrote on the poets, Gary Soto, Richard Hugo, Ezra Pound and Keith Douglas are factually accurate and could use a little work. Thanks for categorizing them.  ʄĹїþþїɲ ;-) 18:12, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Oh, and thank you for not labeling me a "vandal." I was more properly a sock. I would like to see those articles expanded however. Gods peed!  ʄĹїþþїɲ ;-) 18:15, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

I didn't really like doing it; thoseedits were good. DanH 18:46, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm glad to see you haven't run away yet. See anything here you might want to edit or start?--PalMD-yada yada 18:48, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

If there's any particular reason you're here, I for one don't have a clue what it is, but it's good to see you anyway. Welcome! -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 18:49, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

Thanks everyone... maybe eventually an article on chess. DanH 18:51, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

Seeing as you're unblocking people...
Could you possibly unblock cp:user:Tolerance? You blocked him for being me, and we're both fairly sure he isn't. All the best, 17:16, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Done. DanH 17:21, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Hey, thanks! I'll let him know next time he drops by. 17:21, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Ah I see. Thank you very much for taking up my case Jellyfish and thank you Mr Dan H for responding.

What is the rationale?
What is the rationale behind CP's censoring any mention of Rationalwiki, all the while allowing Conservative & co.'s references to "A Certain Other Website"? Is it just to help establish a clear demarcation between the "Cool Kids" and everyone else, or is it more like the Berlin Wall's avowed purpose of stopping West Germans from sneaking into the Socialist Paradise of East Berlin? --Gulik 17:27, 27 May 2008 (EDT)


 * This might be easier to address off of a publicly accessible mainspace. And I don't authoritatively speak for the site or anything, but I think a portion of it may well deal with the presence of many young people on the site. DanH 18:09, 27 May 2008 (EDT)


 * It can't be discussed in public? Whacky. --Gulik 15:19, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

Pragmatics, understand? DanH 16:05, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

"We don't block for ideology"
...You said. One of our stated differences from Wikipedia is that we do not block for ideology. DanH 17:07, 27 May 2008 (EDT) The stench of hypocrisy wafting over CP gets a little thicker every time one of you says something like that. To be perfectly fair, CP doesn't _exactly_ "block for ideology". You just block people for posting VERIFIABLE FACTS that might conflict with your ideology. You're perfectly happy to have the occasional liberal, atheist, or insufficiently gay-hating conservative post on CP, as long as they never, ever disagree with the Party Line. But seriously--quit pretending you're not the Ministry of Truth, because the only people you're fooling are yourselves. --Gulik 17:45, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
 * I will only speak for myself in how I apply the stated rules. Also, that statement was as much directed toward Ken as it was anyone else. DanH 17:58, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

You seem like a reasonable person
So I wonder if I could make a point to you? I would make it at CP but I'm a bit concerned that it might get me in trouble again. It goes like this. My opinions here are rather at variance with the general consensus. However I can make my points on talk pages and get responses. To be honest it would be a waste of time editing as it is unlikely that my edits 'would survive but making points on talk pages is just as valid. At CP my views are also at variance with the general consensus - but the CP editing rules 'oblige' me to edit article pages and then get in trouble. If one follows the rules then one must edit articles before raising questions about the validity of the edits one is proposing. Now, you might say the editing rules are only occasionally enforced - but that makes it seem as though it's a method or simply removing troublesome authors. I'm sure that's not the case, but I'm assume you can see how one might get that impression. Do you have any thoughts on this? If I posted this question on CP would I get blocked?Tolerance 18:03, 29 May 2008 (EDT)


 * I'm a little confused about what you're specifically asking, although I understand your frustration, as there seems to be no one strategy for how to enforce such things among sysops. I am not a big fan of the 90/10 rule being applied to anyone trying to make useful edits - I think it's understandable that it exists because Andy isn't paying for the bandwidth of the site for endless debates with the same people, but I think that we need to assume good faith with people who are actually trying to improve articles. And I don't mean anyone who is trying to just put in liberal talking points (just like how it often seems artificial to put conservative talking points into articles or pages.) What, specifically, are you talking about in this case? If you provide more specifics I might be able to answer in more detail. I know you're an old earth believer. As a believer in theistic evolution I do try to stay clear of related articles, because to me, it's just not a battle worth picking. I'm on Conservapedia because I love to learn and I learn by teaching, and I like the idea of a family friendly encyclopedia that is not hostile to Christianity, even if I don't agree with each individual point on it. DanH 03:51, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

You've been deputised
Congratulations, you are now officially a sysop. You may wish to read the Sysop Guide, or just make it up as you go along like the rest of us do. -- 01:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Heh, thanks. I'll go with the latter. I like to improvise things. 02:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

DanH, in the flesh?
Could you sign my sleeve? I'm collecting the autographs of all the Golden Age Conservapedians. Also, if you give me two I could probably trade the spare for Ymmotrojam. Me, The First (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Golden Age? When it at least could seem semi-mainstream and had tried to at least have an appearance of integrity? I wonder what happened to Ymmotrojam. He fell out of favor when I pointed out to Andy all the anti-Catholic stuff he'd been posting. DanH (talk) 02:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The Golden Age! When people talked openly about stuff! When block reasons sort of meant something! When AmesG walked the earth! But in all seriousness, it's good to see some of the level-headed Conservapedians around every now and then. Feel free to drop by and chat whenever you like. Me, The First (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Welcome
Dan, it's nice to see you around. You were one of the few sysops who was actually sensible; you were probably young enough to have some integrity left rather than the middle-aged, angry, bitter bigots that Andy thinks are helping him. 10:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)