User talk:ConservapediaEditor

Welcome to the  of the internet. 16:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh noes!
In honour of your booting from that place over there and the fact that in the two weeks you've been here nobody has resorted to carving a voodoo doll in your likeness, you have been demoted to janitor. Please report to the cupboard under the stairs to collect your bucket and mop. -- Psygremlin  20:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Your username
I like it. 'Nuff said. And no, ConservapediaEditor is *not* a sock of mine. Editor at CPmały książe 13:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"paroled I need to get out more often."
"17:41, 3 December 2009 TheoryOfPractice (Talk | contribs | block) renamed User:Duncan hunter rapes boys to "I need to get out more often" ‎ (0 edits. Reason: I feel like it.)" Any reason why a guy who picks a user name that plays on paedophilia should not be in the bin? 03:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Duncan Hunter is a former Republican California representative who ran for President in 2008. Extremely crass humor, sure, but it elicited a bit of a chuckle, in the same light as calling Glen Beck a rapist.  Quite honestly, I thought this was a stunt that was being played by some regulars here on RW, because it's not your typical RW vandal.  ConservapediaEditor 03:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Rape is never funny. Paedophilia is never funny. Accusing people of rape and/or paedophilia is never funny. TheoryOfPractice 04:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I aint laughing. Aceof Spades 04:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally, I am a lot more tolerant of extremely offensive humor, but only when it's applied to adult public figures. Personally, I do not see any actual harm. But I do realize that this type of humor is offensive to some, so I doubt I'll be able to change minds by debating this.  ConservapediaEditor 05:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Your blocking
We do not do range blocks and we most certainly do not do infinite blocks, could you please reverse your blocks? 03:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. I only did it to prevent that spate of vandalism. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess it's already been undone. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandal bin range blocks
You might be a ConservapediaEditor, but you're not on CP now. Most of those IPs appear never to have posted. Please undo all that nonsense now. 00:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine! However, we were only talking about 16 addresses here where there was evidence of MC posting from. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine. Let him post. Premeptive blocks are a definite case of Feeding the Troll. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 01:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for paroling them. Vandal binning an IP address is only necessary if somebody is editing maliciously from the same IP at a rate of more than one edit per half hour.  If they've only edited once or twice from that IP, there's no point, & vandal binning a block of IPs because of an odd one or two edits from that location is really not a RationalWiki thing to do.  These IPs are owned by Trinity College & could very well be shared ones in a library, computer lab or wireless hotspot rather than private connections.   01:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey buddy
Did you know that it's unlawful to falsely state that someone's a pedophile? And that it's not funny? 01:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not unlawful, and there's ample evidence to suggest that Ed Poor has a creepy affixation with little girls. I would love to bring this up in a court of law! ConservapediaEditor (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would not love for you to bring it up in a court of law based on defamatory statements made on this website. A "creepy affixation with little girls" doesn't justify what you said and is itself unacceptable. If you want to privately discuss why what you seem to not be able to stop yourself from saying is unlawful I would be happy to help you understand. Please refrain form making any similar statements on RW in the future. 22:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I recently finished reading Lolita. Ed Poor reminds me of a less articulate Humbert. MarcusCicero (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, since I reside in Ireland I presume I can make any accusation I like. For example, Andy Schlafly is almost certainly in league with Hugo Chavez. MarcusCicero (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Economics edit war
If you're wondering why your edits keep getting rolled back, its because you're not using the talk page.-- 00:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody else involved is either. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 00:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Sysop again.
Whatever. P-Foster (talk) 00:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Who was the little coward that desysopped me in the first place?
The user rights log is concealing that person, but I would like to bring that person before the Chicken Coop. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 01:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You missed the biggest HCM in history. Everyone lost all user rights. ТyUser_talk:Ty 02:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Twas fun!--Colonel Sanders (talk) 02:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The user tables were deleted as part of the "reforms". -  π    02:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Moved.
If it's not related to Conservapedia, it doesn't go on WIGO:CP's talk page. You were not censored, you were transferred.-- 19:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Bullshit, it was related to a CP:WIGO that was the most illogical piece I've seen. Some here want RationalWiki to be the liberal form of Conservapedia, and that will make this site just as laughable as CP.  (Though I guess it's naive to think that all user contributed wikis with a political bent would not go that way.) ConservapediaEditor (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As much as it pains me to say it, Brx is correct. The little rant in question would have to have been more about CP's take on the issue, and not about the issue itself, to warrant staying on that page. And it's still around and open for discussion. No harm, no foul. P-FosterCan't we talk about this, baby? 18:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That WIGO was premised upon what I would contend is an extremely incorrect view of the 14th amendment, and as much as it pains me to say it here, CP is right here. That being said, I would argue most of the other unlawful acts are grasping at straws, but back to the move, retitling discussion topics is a very Andy/Ken Doll move and in my opinion kind of a piece of shit move.  I probably would be OK with the move if it is not for that snarky retitling that answers none of the legitimate points related to the debt ceiling proposal. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Sweetheart. I knew you'd come around. P-FosterCan't we talk about this, baby? 18:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't hang out on CP, so don't know what ken does or does not due, but moving something is NOT censorship, and is not a big deal. I get why the title might have bugged you, Editor, but really it's not some big slight to you, your comments, or your ideas.  I'm kinda surprised how sensitive you are about moving something to a better space so it fits the org system.  NOthing was deleted or added.--[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]En attendant Godot  18:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

What, specifically is wrong with that conversation?
Why did you delete it? Why should I not restore it? TeenageWasteland (talk) 02:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't want internal discussions of behavior in :re lawsuits being aired out in the public domain. It's the only area on here I feel should be censored. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Harper Lee.
Where did you get that from? Where you just referring to the novel, or are you saying she's made statements to that effect? Father Vivian O&#39;Blivion (talk) 02:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the novel. Sorry, I don't log in here often. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: "Vandal bin is more appropriate"
I'm not so sure that's right. The vandal bin is to prevent edit flooding from IPs uninterested in discussion. That's not what this new user was doing. Either they're threatening to sue, which is probably a good reason to permaban them for litigiousness, or they're an idiot, and a shorter ban for individual infringement seems more appropriate. Nuking their talk page in conjunction with vandal binning seems like an odd choice. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * CPED, leave this alone please. Thanks. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I 0RR on admin actions, even though that is a Wikipedia rule. Cheers. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * One side comment I will make is for us to change our accepted policy on banning in light of nonsensical incredible trolling, I think, lets the trolls win. the legal threats made were not only ludricrious, I didn't even believe they could or would be acted out. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

What's with the blatant racism?
That ain't usually your style, here. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * it's not, except when I'm trying to prove a point. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 04:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Or drinking, and being an asshole. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 04:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "In vino veritas." In other words, how you act when you drink is really how you are. "Obongo." You are a racist, or, at best, you are a guy who uses racist slurs, which puts you in the same field. How does that taste? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. Yes, that I am racially/politically provocative.  No, that I'm racially discriminatory.  The post just made was not a racist slur, and if you would have clicked the synopsis  was an accurate parody of a legitimate news article.  So nice try spinning. Currently, I'm not intoxicated, BTW.  ConservapediaEditor (talk) 04:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, you must a white elitist if you think a person of color's last name is actually racist. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 04:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Eh, I would dispute the "drunk you" = "real you". If a person pretends to be an asshole while sober, that person isn't pretending, even if they turn nice when sloshed.  So it kind of has to cut both ways; if they are nice sober and an asshole drunk, they aren't necessarily bad.  Arguably they are a "better" person, in the sense that they are "bad by nature" but actively trying to improve themselves.  Still, getting them drunk is a good way to see what they are by nature rather than what they are trying to be... CorruptUser (talk) 05:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)