If you're here in order to talk to me about my actions on Conservapedia I would advise you not to waste your time. I'm not going to reply to your comments. I will only respond to talk addressing my conduct on RW.
Why the "unwelcome" tag? Because I have strong doubts that you're here to contribute usefully to our project, and are instead here to just cheer for the stupid extra-curricular activities. Kind of like the die-hard fans of a college football team who've never set foot in a classroom. You're just a troll. Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 15:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Ref this edit I suspect none here gives a flying shit why you have registered and it is highly unlikely anyone will block you. That's not the way RW operates unlike people at CP and in particular you. You will sit here like the lonely twat at a party that everyone hates. Now run off back to cp and block some minor editor for not matching your high standard of parody. That david spencer bloke told you the truth, shouldn't you have blocked him by now for daring to tell you as it is? Oldusgitus (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I did not remove info because "I didn't like it". Muhammed clearly was not a feminist, he married a 6 year old and beat his women, go fuck yourself Karen Armstrong --22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you can't delete anything from your talk page. You are allowed to archive material, but not remove it. This is a longstanding convention meant to preserve the integrity of the record and conversations.--talk 20:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Understood. I'll just put the message I posted before on the top of my talk page. - ConservapediaMarkman (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
... that the Powers That Be take a dim view of your posting here, right? You should ask Karajou about the lovely little story he sent a young lady about how her posting here, whilst active on CP, was just like having a stalker in her house, while she was relaxing in the bath. --PsyGremlinSprich! 13:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- Eh. It's just a very short matter of time before Karajou pulls the plug. Markman isn't even doing good parody. It's just openly flailing about asking to be blocked for sabotage. 13:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- Brenden not only posts here but you have also given him blocking rights, and yet he seems to be doing just fine on Conservapedia. The common view of Conservapedia here, as a wiki in which users are blocked for ideological disagreements, has very little basis in reality, as can be seen the variety of different views among editors with blocking rights (AugustO, Brenden, DamianJohn, AlanE). One of my aims in becoming an editor here is to dispel this image of Conservapedia, by showing that nothing bad will happen to me there even after I became a contributor here on RW. Can I just ask Psygremlin what was the purpose in reverting my recent Israel related edits? Was it just a knee jerk reaction to seeing edits by a Conservapedia user? - ConservapediaMarkman (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
My father was the shogun's decapitator
Voting for you
- I want to vote for you Markman, mostly because you are a true 'Merican and I think we need a man (not a woman) with honest, decent, old-time values to moderate here. However, I am concerned that you are a troll - can you allay these fears?
- Yours faithfully Tielec01 (talk) 01:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
[[RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Campaigning#ConservapediaMarkman|Vote Markman for a better tomorrow!]] (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- We should form an electoral pact. The anti-establishment league. Sometimes the far left and far right unite to combat a common enemy, perhaps now is one of those times. MarcusCicero (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Are you serious
Are you really saying that Conservapedia's top hatchet man/parodist/fundie/wanker, whichever you are should be considered for RW management? Is that not like a Tea Party member bidding to be the leader of a trade union? If this is the case I may just vote for you, one thing you are not is dull--Patmac (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC) I will think about it, I don't like you but I don't like David Cameron either and I voted for him--Patmac (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Paradoxically, you can stand even if you are not allowed to vote. That's the way things are round here. ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 20:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- No problem, was tongue in cheek anyway--Patmac (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Tell me, if you were a devout Christian, church going etc, only to have it suggested on many occasions that members of my church are likely to be kiddie fiddlers, like to have sex with animals, going to burn in hell, need I go on, would you take that sitting down?--Patmac (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- There is large amounts of evidence that clergymen from both the Anglican and Catholic churches are much more likely to take part in devious sex acts such as child sex or bestiality than those of other faiths. Can't argue with the facts mate, might be time to find a better religion. Ghost (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- where's you fucking proof Ghost.--Patmac (talk) 13:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, look at the man's user page. All about a dead man, a man who was unpleasant in life but still does not deserve his proverbial grave to be walked over. You know, you may be a wanker but you are probably the closest thing to an ally I have on RW. I throw an olive branch vaguely in your direction.--Patmac (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
You ran a strong campaign, but in the end your actions off-wiki might have scuppered you. There is a glimmer of hope with the election of Marcus. Maintain the fire, and next year we will have another tilt! Tielec01 (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
You have been very quiet Markman, have you given up or do you want to tell the truth now? This is why I think you are a parodist, on RW you are a half decent person but on CP you are, well the W word. Also do you really support someone who posts a picture of a bear about to be hit by a car, where there is a good chance the occupants of the car were killed or seriously injured?--Patmac (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC) my email(secondary, I don't care who knows it)email@example.com
The crap you can get away with
I've much enjoyed how much you've fucked up the ConservaBible lately. I guess it's a symptom of how much they don't care about the wiki that you can get away with the stuff you write. I particularly enjoyed the planting of grain in the threshing floor part. It's almost as if it was written by a real moron who didn't understand what he was reading. Inspired! If you could lay of the being a complete dick to everyone else part of your act, that would be good though. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 02:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you, but I wonder if you could avoid edit-warring back and forth. I know that the user was pretty much made only to make that stupid troll comment, and that it was a stupid troll comment, but you probably shouldn't delete it and you definitely shouldn't edit-war. After all, while it might be really emotionally satisfying and a little fun to try to force your way, in the end it just ties up the page for a moment - which can be annoying for such a high-traffic page (plus, a lot of people navigate via Recent Changes).
You are right, by the way. We feel very comfortable banning vulgar or outright trolls that spam crap, so he probably won't be around very long, anyway.--talk 03:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Adding any suffix to a wikilink in the code appends that suffix to the link text when displayed. So instead of a full piped link - [[Psychopath|psychopaths]], you can just use [[psychopath]]s for the same result (psychopaths). This keeps the code more readable.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry about not responding to it recently. I was in Paris with my aunt and cousin, and did not check the account I had set up for corresponding with you. I hope you are well,
You have been cooped
As you can see, several editors feel like you are obviously and openly trolling CP. I don't know enough about the matter to have an opinion, unfortunately, but the truth of the matter is irrelevant, since you could hardly admit it or alter your behavior in accordance with the accusation. However, since you have always been both pleasant and very agreeable, I thought maybe we could figure something out without confrontation.
I don't know if you are trolling CP or if you are behaving seriously there; there is ample precedent for either case. Many editors here have, in times past, gleefully posted about their exploits in trolling and trashing CP, while others have been prominent CP editors and sysops whose uprightness was beyond question. So I can't see my way to just banning you for either thing. But at the same time, we are trying to continue to reform RW from its beginnings into a more ambitious stronghold of skepticism and empiricism, moving away from our origins as an offshoot of CP. I hope you can appreciate that. I apologize that this is necessary, but it does indeed seem to be a problem if RW tries to move beyond CP while at the same time being entangled up in CP at such a level.
So I was thinking that perhaps you might agree to take a general hiatus from RW for a while, rather than being active on both sites. That seems like it would set a good precedent without being unfair to you or others. And if in the future you decided you no longer wanted to be such a prominent editor on CP, you could start up again here.
This is just a suggestion, of course. I'm trying to find a way to help RW move forward towards its goals, while at the same time being fair to you. Are you amenable to this idea at all, or do you have another idea?--talk 18:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I guess you are welcome to come back now. If you are so inclined, it might be worth thinking about changing your name. Any of the mods would be happy to do so I am sure. Or are you a sock of an established user already? DamoHi 10:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
"I recently looked at your chart of active users on Conservapedia. It says that I have made zero edits on August 2013, and yet a look at my user contributions on CP will show that this clearly not the case. You can look it up yourself, I would have given you a link to prove my claims but as always I'm having troubles accessing CP. Can you explain the discrepancy?"
That can be easily explained: when I updated the data, I forgot to change the headers in the table, so the column for September 2013 was headed "August 2013". I now have corrected this oversight, see Conservapedia:Active_users.