User talk:SamHB

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, SamHB!

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards.

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

So, tell us your story - what was deleted? larronsicut fur in nocte 20:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Coming up in a few seconds. Along with everything else. SamHB (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I've uploaded what I got from the one opened tab I left just in case. Your parthian has been preserved at Conservapedia:Parthian shot/SamHB -- Nx / talk 20:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've saved it all, (along with everything else I've ever done) and put it on my user page. I really thought that I was applying enough "honey" instead of "vinegar" that the various sysops who have been sympathetic to me in the past (Andy, JPatt, AddisonDM, JacobB, etc. etc.) would avoid deleting everything. Of course, I knew TK was different. SamHB (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to RationalWiki! Refugeetalk page 21:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to the Dollhouse! We actually aren't as bad as our press agents make us out to be. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Finally! I know you have lots of "war stories" to tell, and it looks as though you have already started. And you should feel free to contribute to the "Conservapedian Mathematics" article, which I sort of owned. Your communications with me were invaluable. I never would have figured out all that topology stuff without your help.

But it looks, from TK's block comment, that you will be welcome to have your account reinstated if you ask. TK even made a new block reason in the dropdown list just for you: "Retired under voluntary circumstances; Admin(s) will reactivate upon request". Are you sure you don't want to go back for another year of abuse?

Gauss (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and congratulations on that analysis of the "gravitational exponent" garbage. That was a pretty impressive computer simulation, and impressive mathematical analysis. And a very impressive bit of sleuthing to find the Simon Newcomb stuff, and show that he got that number from the Mercury data. You actually traced an Andy Schlafly delusion all the way back to its source! I don't think anyone else has ever done that.

Gauss (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The info about Simon Newcomb, that started me on this, was from the book "Was Einstein Right?" by Clifford Will. An excellent book. Andy hates Clifford Will, of course.
The simulation was a real bitch to do. Several days of fussing. I had to do hundreds of tiny perturbations of the exponent and the angular momentum to keep the differential equation solver from going singular. I can sort of sympathize with the two high-school students who had tried it and botched it. I guess they didn't have the mathematical savvy to tell the difference between "the planet falls into the Sun" and "the 2000x2000 matrix that I was inverting was singular; I need a smaller step size". So I guess they won't be getting the "great achievements by teenagers" award any time soon. And there's no category for "best of the public, who were banned by TK".
SamHB (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

JacobB[edit]

is, of course, a parodist. -- Nx / talk 22:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I will have more to say about him. And about several other personalities. It will take a while. SamHB (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Foxtrot[edit]

Foxtrot is not a parodist, he is just an idiot. - π 23:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, how do you explain his "George Boole, father of logical truths" comment, or "Turing machines are useful because they do not suffer from physical limitations such as memory allocation, processor speed, or power usage" comment? Actually, after he blocked me for calling him on the George Boole comment, I think I backed off a little, in some comment to someone (I don't remember just who; I'm suffering from information overload today; please bear with me.) I characterized Foxtrot as making edits for amusement value, or something like that. He was just goofing off. But, as I said to whoever it was, there is no excuse for a sysop ever to do that. SamHB (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
My impression of Foxtrot is that he is writing on subject he is not really familiar with, but would like to believe he is an expert on. He also has some weird hate on for the Axiom of Choice. I know professional mathematicians who reject the use of AC, but they tend to be older and in the minority. - π 23:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think his attitude about the axiom of choice was authentic. He was just toadying up to Andy, and knew that that's a way to score points. He similarly shared Andy's attitude about complex numbers, writing at some length on the subject on the "Critical Thinking in Math" talk page. It's hard to believe that a person could share all of Andy's prejudices like that out of firm conviction. He was just following Andy's lead and sucking up. That's typical behavior for sysops. I saw that again and again. SamHB (talk) 04:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Strictly speaking he is/was not a sysop, he only had block, edit and I think, upload rights. We usually call that "sysop-lite". - π 12:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Email authentication[edit]

Check your spam folder. -- Nx / talk 09:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thanks for the information re: CP on your userpage. Interesting stuff, though not a lot we didn't already know. SJ Debaser 16:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Sysoppery for the liberal parodist[edit]

Congrats! You've been demoted to sysop! Here's your vacuum cleaner!!! Lord Goonie Hooray! I'm helping! 02:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

heya[edit]

Did you get my gmail chat message last night? YourEnemy? (talk) 03:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, though I don't know how to use chat. So I just saw a quick popup, and had to go searching around in GMail to find out how to read chat messages. I will respond, to that, and the later email, next.
BTW, it's clear from the chat and the note you left just above, that you intended to leave me incontrovertible proof that you are (or are connected with) the account "YourEnemy?". I've also been looking around at the recent pages about you and TK, and the "ZB" stuff, and I must say I am even more appalled than I had been.
SamHB (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

On Complex Numbers and Light Bulbs[edit]

These few lines may be the clearest, most concise treatment I've seen on the subject. Small things light up my world; I'm truly impressed.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 15:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate that. SamHB (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

So what were you trying to do, why did you keep going back, and would you go back yet again?[edit]

BmcP, the astronomy guy, asks:

I am curious SamHB, if you still had an opportunity, given what just happened to you, would you go back and if so, why?

Good questions. I seem to have kept going back for more abuse even after repeated blocks. And I have broken previous pledges to stop, as when I said (at User:Gauss#Simeon) that "Simeon finally pulled the plug on my Conservapedia career at 03:13 UTC, 2 Aug 2010."

I really, really, really do not expect to be allowed back this time, and I knew that when I made my last "suicide by sysop" edits. CP really has hunkered down to the point where they clearly aren't interested in anything, from those outside of the fab four or whatever, other than sycophantic echo-chamber edits on their favorite topics of politics, religion, and sexuality. During the period of the multivariable calculus project, and earlier, Andy seemed to sincerely want mathematical and scientific contributions. Though they had to be on his terms, of course—no axiom of choice, no relativity, everything had to prove the literal correctness of the Bible, etc. Of course, Andy had no idea how to run a wiki so as to get the legitimate math and science contributions that he wanted.

I believe that Andy really has no further use for me—I don't contribute anything that he wants, and I clearly annoy and embarrass the hell out of Ed Poor.

Whenever I made a provocative series of edits, I did it as though it would be my last. I very carefully planned what I wanted to accomplish (typically embarrassing Ed, occasionally trying to goad sysops into saying stupid things, which of course wasn't hard, and of course, writing actual technical material that I could be proud of), and wrote out all the edits as though they would be my final, irrefutable epitaph. I wanted to be satisfied that I had done the right thing, and had left no details unattended to, if I got banned. Provocative things usually came in a quick series of edits, written out in advance, and planned to form a coherent, and devastatingly comprehensive, statement. The edits were made in rapid-fire succession, to avoid being banned before I could finish, and were of course immediately screen-capped.

The edit sets were generally designed to make Ed actually say something intelligent, or look even more foolish than before. The latter was always the result, of course. The series of 8 Oct, 13 Nov, 28 Nov, 6 Dec, and 18 Dec were basically just increasingly pointed jabs at Ed, backing him farther and farther into a corner. The 6 Dec series was actually quite pointed, and, when I saw a chance to further embarrass him over the utter ineptness of his "drag and drop" and "docking", I let loose with a serious personal criticism on 18 Dec, after demonstrating how an intelligent person, willing to do 5 minutes' Google research, would write the stuff. I had been aware of the "algore" scandal for quite some time, and decided that, since this would likely be my last chance to use it, I'd better do it right then.

So why wasn't I satisfied, and willing to retire, after multivariable calculus and JacobB? Why wasn't I satisfied after Simeon? Why did I keep coming back?

The Simeon series occurred because the Counterexamples to Relativity issue heated up again, complete with Phyllis getting into it. I saw another opportunity to embarrass Andy, and even explain something to his daughter, that she would appreciate. (I had a lot of fun writing that explanation of vector fields.) She did seem to appreciate what I wrote. It went totally over Andy's head.

I don't expect any opportunities like these to happen ever again. Math is dead. Physics is dead. Chemistry is dead. It is unlikely that anyone will ever again come by and try to contribute. (I tried to get JamesWilson to jump into the math fray, but he was probably just someone here at RW.) Even creating an account is nearly impossible.

Why did I put so much effort into writing articles for something that I knew was doomed? I put a lot of effort into many of the articles. They were first drafts of things that I wanted to keep around and submit elsewhere. (I'm very much interested in high-school-level pedagogy in math and science.) That elsewhere is Wikiversity. Other articles were trivial throw-away things. The "drag and drop" and "docking" articles were examples. They took only a few minutes to write. I liked the idea that I could, in a few minutes, write something that was vastly better than what "Professor" Ed Poor could do. And I finally decided to let him know that in no uncertain terms. BTW, I will have more to say about Ed on my user page soon. SamHB (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Removal of red links[edit]

Dear SamHB,

I am on a crusade to remove all red links from RationalWiki, and I would like to address those on several of your user pages such as User:SamHB/old talk page. If you would like I could send them to Conservapedia (cp:), remove them, "nowiki" them, or convert them to linkless red ({{r|) for you.

Please let me know how I can help. Thank you.

zieber (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Blogging[edit]

If you would like to blog CP's (or Andy's) insanity - you're welcome to join myself and Pi here. --PsyGremlin講話 16:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Uh, thanks! It didn't occur to me that I could get invited to contribute to WCMTU! I'll think about doing a nice article on relativity. Meanwhile, a lot of what I want to talk about at the moment is related to me personally (I want to ream Ed Poor a new one) and not really of general interest. But I'll keep it in mind for "general interest" stuff.
There's just so much to say about all this insanity! And, you know what? We couldn't make it up! SamHB (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Always willing to have more victims minions contributors on board, to keep the wheels ticking over when the others have writer's block :) Drop us your e-mail when you're ready and I'll set up your profile on the site. You'll just need to register an account on WordPress so I can add it. --PsyGremlinTala! 20:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Quote[edit]

I am trying to use my position to make [positive] changes, but at the same time I am required at times to pull on the jackboots and stomp around.

Who said that to you? Sounds like something I Jessica would have said. --PsyGremlinFale! 14:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Bingo! SamHB (talk) 04:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Re-sysoppery[edit]

Congrats!--Colonel Sanders (talk) 13:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Your good deed for today[edit]

Interested to bring the last pre-crash version of cp:Talk:Main page back to Conservapedia? It can be found here User:LArron/cp-main-page.

larronsicut fur in nocte 16:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


Pioneer anomaly[edit]

Have you seen this recent paper about the Pioneer anomaly? feel free to delete this once you've read it.CS Miller (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that article. Interesting reading, especially for one who has been burned by computer data that is difficult to recover. (That picture of a box of old tapes could easily have been taken in a corner of my living room!)
The present "rebuttal to counterexamples" page at CP explains the business about the thermal radiation bouncing off the back of the antenna dish, which is also mentioned in your article as an important contributor to the anomaly. SamHB (talk) 02:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Realwiki[edit]

I'm thinking about another go on Realwiki given George's official beheading- the world needs a true alternative to SamCoulter's German nationalism in a conservative encyclopedia. I'm going to recruit George and Ronald as well, so that we can have a credible conservative encyclopedia. This is enough of Germany and Taylor Swift. That RINO and his imbecile sidekick will cower in fear if you ditch that popsicle stand and join realwiki. Regards, --Elvis is King (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Huh? What's realwiki? I can't find it, either in Google or in wikiindex. Am I just being obtuse? Is this a new wiki that you are going to form? Do you have that name reserved in the ICANN (or whatever it is) listing? And who is the "imbecile sidekick"? I could be considered SamCoulter's sidekick. Do you mean Colonel Sanders? El Chapulin? SharonW? Presumably not Taylor Switft :-) Tell me more about this, and your goals for it. Can you point to a sample of your (non-Elvis) writing, here or at Conservapedia? SamHB (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that the wiki of which you speak was, for a while, "http://conservatism.wikidot.com", and has now become "http://ameriwiki.wikkii.com", which was, of course, the original location of Ameriwiki. Given that I, along with most of the leadership of Ameriwiki, have been blocked, and that you and George seem to be taking some of the very worst aspects of Conservapedia as foundational principles of the new wiki, I assume that the invitation has been withdrawn. I will attempt to communicate to George my desire that all of my contributions to ameriwiki.wikkii.com be deleted. Being blocked, I will have to find some other way to communicate that. SamHB (talk) 02:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Realwiki is located at this location. Conservatism wiki is a separate project I am doing with George and Ronald. You are still welcome, but I blocked your temporary account on that site. When we find another wiki farm, you are welcome to create another account and contribute. It's just systematic that the accounts on Wikkii be blocked so SamCoulter doesn't screw anything up, being the devious fellow he is. As for SamC's "imbecile sidekick", I should have been more specific: the Taylor Swift loving imbecile sidekick (thank God he's going away for a while!) who is apparently into cheap Chinese junk and would never woo Taylor anyway. I'm not too worried about El Chapulin or Sharon: they don't have much real influence. But, you're welcome when we find a new home, where the content you guys want deleted will not be carried over. As for samples of my non-Elvis writing, please see these entries on CP I either solely authored or contributed heavily to. I have also contributed to articles such as Colbert and O'Reilly. --Elvis is King (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see you've settled on a webite---the http://conservatism.referata.com one. I'm not going to join it. That should come as no surprise; if you thought for one minute that I would join you in any of your stuff, you just haven't been doing your homework. That is, looking at my contributions at CP, RW, and AW. Oh, and I'm quite familiar with your writings, Elvis and otherwise. I didn't really need your list above, except to see whether you would answer me.
I could write some really nasty stuff here about your behavior, such as whether you think that making accounts for Sam Coulter and Colonel Sanders just for the purpose of blocking them makes a good conservative encyclopedia. (I don't know Colonel Sanders' real name, but it isn't "chicken boy", and you just show yourself to be a childish and churlish fool by referring to him as "chicken boy" or the "Taylor Swift loving imbecile sidekick".)
Or whether you think that giving so much attention to the health problems associated with bacon is something that makes a good conservative encyclopedia.
Or whether you think that making a Taylor Swift article just to delete and protect it is something that makes a good conservative encyclopedia. What is it with you and Taylor Swift anyway? We have an decent article on her at AW. I would think that someone as dedicated to Elvis as you clearly are would just leave her alone.
Or whether adding "Rectal-cranial inversion", "Lack of machismo", or "Bimbo" as block reasons makes a good impression for your conservative encyclopedia.
But I won't waste your time with that, or waste my time discussing those sorts of things with you. But I do have a couple of serious questions. I mean this completely in earnest:
What is it about Conservapedia that you found unsatisfying? Why are you creating another wiki? I'm sure you know that escaping from Ken DeMyers' bleatings about "bestiality and lamb chops" was the stated motivation for people to leave and form AW. But you seem to be creating the same sort of things at referata. And you are many thousands of articles behind what CP has created since November 2006. And you are an administrator, and totally in the good graces of Andy and the other admins. Why do you have a problem with CP? Why do you need to make a new wiki? What are you going to put into it that makes it a better place than CP? Is it a problem with Ken? Brian? Andy? Young-Earth creationism? Evolution? Religion? Relativity? Rick Santorum? Sarah Palin? Barack Obama and Islam? Andy's insanity about the geometric growth of "conservative words"?
Really. What? Or are you just going to give another nonsensical answer?
SamHB (talk) 03:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I actually am quite happy as an admin at CP, and as an admin at George's new wiki. Both projects suit my needs well, the latter more so. I have much direct control at George's wiki in policy and otherwise. It's a shame you won't join us, because George and I have contributed much to the subject of conservative intellectualism already. As for the other points you raise, "Coulter" is an imposter who is this fellow as George found out. Taylor Swift is an anti-intellectual hallmark at AW which Chicken Boy posted to make the site less credible, and posted on the main page just because he happens to be an idiot Taylor Swift lover. His politics are also way on the crazy edge of libertarianism, opposing American soverignty and the efforts of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I blocked them preemptively for the sake of the site. The block reasons are there because they are there. No further explanation needed. I hope you understand that banning George was one of the most idiotic moves you guys made and saying he is "worse than Andy". What is wrong with either of them? They both are very good to me. --Elvis is King (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
"...I have contributed much to the subject of conservative intellectualism already."
Oh my, thanks for the laugh. Conservative? - you've named yourself after a man who liked to chase after girls who were significantly younger than himself (Priscilla was 14, he was 24 - I noticed you ignored that tidbit in your articles about Elvis), who committed adultery numerous times, and who died of a drug overdose. Intellectualism? - many of your edits to various articles border on plagiarism (there is some very similar wording from the citations added by you to your McDonalds and Elvis Presley articles - those are just the ones I've bothered to check). Of course, that's only when you can be bothered to find citations. Again, thanks for making me smile. SharonW (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm also a closet gay, Miss Sharon, and that's what makes me a true convervative. I hope the guy who calls me King can meet up with me some time for...a jam session--Elvis (talk) 23:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, I challenged you to give a serious, as opposed to nonsensical, answer to my questions. You gave both.
You're "quite happy as an admin at CP [and referata]." You "have much direct control at George's wiki." OK, fine. That presumably means that you have a free hand at trying to surpass CP's 5 year lead as a serious conservative encyclopedia. (And you won't have Ed Poor bitching at you every step of the way!) And you say that both Andy and George "are very good to me". Fine. I can't speak for George, but Andy has been very nice to me in private. Batshit crazy, but polite and constructive.
But the rest of your writing is nonsensical. No explanation needed for the block reasons? Did it ever occur to you that people coming to your website will, sooner or later, see those, and conclude that the admins of referata are insane? Did it ever occur to you that people coming to your website will, sooner or later, see the pages that you created just for the purpose of deleting and locking them? Or will see the user accounts that you created just for the purpose of blocking them? And those people will look around (they always do) and see your sordid history at CP, RW, and AW? Do you think that newcomers will be favorably impressed? Now perhaps all this will not interfere too much with your endeavors, as long as you keep it off the front page. But you didn't. I see that, in addition to an article full of Andy-esque insanity about evolution being "pseudo scientific" (not to mention many errors of grammar), you have plastered on the front page a picture that would make Ken DeMyer proud, along with some bullshit that would make Andy, Brian, John P, and Terry H all proud. Not even Donald Trump believes that Joseph Stalin (d. 1953) loves Taylor Swift (b. 1989). What kind of audience are you trying to attract? Or are you just doing all this to piss us off at AW?
And I don't care whether you are a "closet gay", though I don't think that makes you a conservative in particular, and I'm puzzled about someone outing himself on the internet as closeted. People do read this stuff, you know.
SamHB (talk) 03:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not a closet gay, User:Elvis said that. Stalin loved Taylor Swift. 'Nuff said. Conservatism Wiki will attract conservative intellectuals. --Elvis is King (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, right. That was User:Elvis. Rationalwiki has really wacky usernames. Sorry. In any case, thanks for clarifying that Stalin loved Taylor Swift. Good luck attracting "conservative intellectuals" to your web site. You might try recruiting Ken DeMyer or Brian McDonald. 'Nuff said. Also, you stated above that Sam Coulter is known to be Fergus Mason. Can you cite your source for this wisdom? Is it the same source that claimed he was the YouTube personality "VoiceOfTruth2006"? Do you stand by those claims? SamHB (talk) 02:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply. I've been out of town, etc. I do stand by those claims. A certain friend of George's talked to the server that hosts Ameriwiki before George's passing. They found no papers with the name "Sam Coulter" on them. They instead said "Fergus Mason" on them. George forwarded this email to Ronald and myself. There is a User:Fergus Mason on RatWiki. It's either this guy's paying for the site or "Sam" is Fergus. Which seems more likely? And Sam...watch out. Your little site's going to the graveyard soon. I'll be back....just watch me. And it's so sad: even Chicken Boy won't pop his ass in there and write drivel on the love of his life...the liberal Taylor Swift. He's even abandoned that popsicle stand. So sad.... --Elvis is King (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
The "certain friend of George's" was of course Brian McDonald, AKA Karajou, and he's lying. Do you really think that web hosting companies just hand out the personal details of site owners to anyone who asks? Yes Jimmy, site owners. Ameriwiki.org is my site. It was never George's, so how could I steal it from him? You really are a fool. --SamCoulter (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Interesting, Elvis. Here George, you and Ronald were claiming that George owned the site, which was the justification used for the site-wide bannings that were attempted. Now you state the site wasn't actually paid for by George, but by someone else. And quite honestly, I don't care if SamCoulter is Fergus Mason, since he's dealt with me more honestly than George ever did. SharonW (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
"Sharon", you're not a part of this discussion. You're a liberal bacon eating Swift loving Kool-Aid drinker with your buddy Fergus.--Elvis is King (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Ooh, I must have touched a nerve there. You didn't like me pointing out your lying, did you, James? It's funny how you resort to name-calling when you can't come up with a winning argument. SharonW (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
And James - if and when SamHB requests that I leave, I will, since this is his talk page. You don't have any say about the matter. SharonW (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Fine. Also, I find your implicit accusations of statuatory rape against Elvis interesting. Colonel Chicken Ass and Fergus put that in your head too? Liberal classlessness at work. --Elvis is King (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
No, I didn't need ColonelSanders and SamCoulter to remind me of Elvis's questionable behavior toward Priscilla (and other young girls as well.) I've known about that for a long, long time - my mother warned me about guys like him, and actually used him as an example. She didn't have much respect for his behavior. I do find it interesting that you defend Presley about this subject. What, do you like young girls too? SharonW (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Of course not...I'm a fifty-five year old man! That would be repulsive. Chicken Ass obviously likes the young girls i.e. liberal Swift, and probably Fergus does too. But, Elvis was a different story. What you don't understand is that there was a different mentality with him. He was the King...he could have anything he wanted. Burgers, donuts, other junk food, drugs, women, he was the King! No one would refuse him! Not that it was healthy. The drugs and unhealthy eating habits eventually led to his untimely demise. He obviously did not value fidelity toward Priscilla or any other woman he dated. But he was a different story, and you and I could not be handed everything we wanted like that. We couldn't rent a donut shop after hours and gorge ourselves. We couldn't have all the pills we wanted. But I'm sure Elvis would have not been on Chris Hansen and Dateline NBC. I can even do some additional research if you like. --Elvis is King (talk) 11:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
First of all, Taylor Swift is a 22 year old woman. That's a lot different than a 14 year old girl. And getting everything you want, no matter the cost to other, is very rarely a good thing. Excusing his behavior because of who he was, and whitewashing the truth isn't good either. Elvis was a good singer and performer, but it's his failures as well as his successes that made him who he was. They shouldn't be covered up to make him seem different. And James, seriously, lay off the hooey about Swift and ColonelSanders and SamCoulter. You have the ability to be a good editor, but your antics at Ameriwiki were just not on. I lost a lot of respect for you during those episodes, and that's too bad. You and I had worked together rather well at CP. SharonW (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we worked rather well at CP. But Fergus and Chicken Ass weren't there to ruin it. I can't give up my "hooey" on them because I must avenge Fergus' evil sideshow tactics in stealing AW and George's death. My "antics" on AW were just trying to make it conservative. Elvis is King, remember that. Taylor is a liberal Kool Aid drinker Chicken Ass has admitted to love, so checkmate "Sharon". --Elvis is King (talk) 12:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Your goal was never to make AW more conservative - it was to cause trouble from the get-go. But I'll grant you your victory if it makes you feel better - you may think you won, but ultimately, you've lost. Have a nice life, "James". SharonW (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
So, you think so? Hot diggety dawg! I was there to make it more conservative, but Fergus censored my articles on Iran and the Mahdi, Solyndra, Obama, contraception and the ACA, etc. because they were too conservative for his liberal worldview. He then stated I was trying to ruin the site, but even George approved of me, if that tells you anything...that I was making the site conservative, but those liberals permabanned me. Instead, they allow plagiarism, hooey on Chicken Ass's love (which you can't deny that he loves her; don't whitewash that: I have references.), etc. They crapped on Rob's Cold War material naming them "hatchet pieces"...who's the conservative one here, hmm?--Elvis is King (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
You were never there to make the site more conservative. I remember being pleased to see that you were going to edit on AW, and then confused by your tone. Your edits were designed to get a rise out of someone, and it worked. Then you went around demanding that ColonelSanders be demoted and banned because you didn't like him. Even George banned you several times, supposedly for an infinite timespan. (I did always wonder what you said to him. Tell me, Grima?) So no, you never had any good intentions about AW, no matter whom you have managed to convince otherwise. SharonW (talk) 00:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I was indeed there to make it more conservative. I still pop in to make it more conservative. I see the imbecile's finally back and has decided to plaster a photo of his love on his userpage. How much more fucking proof do you need that Chicken Ass loves her? I demanded he be demoted because I fucking hate his liberaltarian guts. My "tone" was conservatism. George banned me before I sweettalked him. I told him, straight from the email: "George, Mr. Fitzgerald. We're both conservatives. We're both Americans. I don't know why you promoted Colonel Sanders, but he doesn't have the site's interest at heart. He's a libertarian kook, like Ayn Rand. He probably cowrote Atlas Shrugged. I apolgize for that behavior earlier, but I believe he's not beneficial for this site. He also obviously fancies Taylor Swift. We don't need his sorry ass on this site. As for Sammy, he won't let you demote him. He's taking control of the site from you. We need you to take control of the site. You were duped in letting him pay for the site. He pretty much took over. Rename me 'ElvisFan' and let me back in. 'ElvisFan'" George replied: "James, you make a compelling case. I am losing my site to atheist and evolutionist values. I don't really know much about Swift, but I assume she's liberal like Madonna at this rate. I'll let you back in, but beware Sam may ban you if you try to edit polemic articles. Don't harass Colonel Sanders, at least on site. We don't want more on-site drama. Keep it elsewhere. I like you, you got gusto and passion for conservatism. Good luck, and I'll let Ronald in on this. George". See, George liked me, if that says anything about my true intentions. But look at the fucking image! --Elvis is King (talk) 23:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

@Sam,i recommend the use of the trolltop and bottom templatesil'Dictator Mikal 17:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Encouraging petty censorship? What is wrong with you, boy? --Elvis is King (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I actively encourage the censorship of trolls.il'Dictator Mikal 18:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Kim Jong-un a role model for ya?--Elvis is King (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
<3.il'Dictator Mikal 18:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Thought so. Ever considered moving to Pyongyang? --Elvis is King (talk) 18:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind visiting north korea once before it experiences regime change, no. Always wanted to see oceania in practice--il'Dictator Mikal 18:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
You'd fit in well with the folks there. Poverty, oppression, y'know. --Elvis is King (talk) 18:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not poor though :D il'Dictator Mikal 18:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
You could try though. --Elvis is King (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The problems accessing CP, discussed on ASchlafly's talk page[edit]

This is the "Problems viewing CP" section, accessed 1530 EDT 2 Aug 2013. Rather than a screencap, this is the copied text.

I'm having troubles accessing CP for several days. It seems like it won't allow me to access from my home IP (I'm currently editing from a proxy IP, I know it's not exactly Kosher but I have no other option). Do you know what causing this problem? - Markman 14:58, 23 July 2013 (EDT)

I second that. All 4 of the IP locations from which I have been able to view Conservapedia have died, one after another, over the last week or so. It even took two proxies to make this edit. SamHB 20:48, 24 July 2013 (EDT)

Having the same problem here... Haven't been able to access it through my home for over a week now. Not much fun reading this on my phone and editing is near impossible. Fnarrow 23:04, 24 July 2013 (EDT)
Hi, I too am having problems viewing Conservapedia without having to use a proxy ( I am using something called Tunnel Bear, which is some sort of proxy my Son set me up with, apparently if you select a country other than our great country (USA for all you foreigners) then Obama can't spy on you with is PRISM contraption). Do you know when this issue will be sorted out ? In Christ PennyS 10:15, 25 July 2013 (EDT)
I can view the site normally now. Thank you Mr. Shafley or whomever fixed this. Fnarrow 20:17, 27 July 2013 (EDT)
Well, it was up for a few minutes from my main IP, but now it's dead again from there, so I'm still using a proxy. Sorry. Whatever you did, it needs more work. Thanks for attending to this. SamHB 01:37, 28 July 2013 (EDT)
Hi, Mr. Schlafly, I'm having trouble accessing CP from my home ISP (Telus corp). I have to use a proxy to even recieve any response from the servers here. Could you please rectify that? Thanks, brenden 02:24, 1 August 2013 (EDT)
Access should work for you now. Thanks for your patience.--Andy Schlafly 20:28, 1 August 2013 (EDT)

Brenden, a helpful rule offered in a spirit of helpfulness: i before e except after c. You misspelled the word "receive". Don't feel bad. I just wrote a Christian webmaster because their website misspells the word on various pages of their website. By the way, I won 4th place in a spelling bee in the past. :) Conservative 06:49, 1 August 2013 (EDT)

The visibility of the site has been going up and down repeatedly, in different ways from different IP addresses. It looks to me as though there is some attempt to have the firewall block certain IP's semi-automatically, perhaps on the basis of a referrer indicator showing ritionalwaki. Though it's not that simple. If it is such a policy, the software attempting to enforce it is behaving ineptly, and is causing collateral damage to innocent viewers.

You might want to turn that policy off. It's not helping Conservapedia. It's just making it invisible to a lot of innocent people who can't see the site. Also, keep in mind that anyone who reads RW knows how to get around the problem; the rest of the world doesn't. (For example, I'm blocked at my 4 primary locations.) You are only harming the site. Here is my analysis of the last 500 items in "recent changes", taken at 11:45 on August 1. This covers almost 5 days, which is telling in itself.

  • user creation events -- 74
  • deletion events -- 39
  • block/revert/protect events -- 97
  • edits to main talk -- 66
  • upload picture, etc -- 5
  • edits (by admins of course) to Mainpage left/right -- 43
  • edits to this talk page -- 7
  • Cons's playpens -- 118
  • edits by admins -- 20
  • edits by "elite" members (those with blocking privileges, that is, editors of long standing) -- 13
  • edits by ordinary people -- 18, or just 3.6%

P.S. For anyone who likes to show off his/her spelling prowess: In addition to the two other challenges that I issued to that person, that he/she declined, here's a third: The page Conservapedia:Commonly misspelled words has a glaring, egregious, notorious misspelling in it. It's been there for years. Can he/she find it?

SamHB 19:50, 1 August 2013 (EDT)

I'm having the same problem again and I'm currently editing CP with a proxy because I can't access the website from my actual IP. Could you please fix this? - Markman 08:37, 3 August 2013 (EDT)

Please email me at conservapedia@zoho.com with respect to any access problems, including mention of the specific IP address, and the problem should be quickly resolved. Thanks for your patience.--Andy Schlafly 10:41, 3 August 2013 (EDT)

Emails[edit]

First of, while I do have a unique email address for RW and CP related correspondence it's not "markmanbanhammer" so whatever message sent from that address is not mine's. Anyway regarding the rest of your request... I'm willing to send Andy an email although I'm not sure as to which account exactly. Is it the zoho one? Because if it is I think it will be a waste of time. After the massive blocks of IP address (before I was personally blocked) I sent that account an email asking Andy to unblock my IP, and as you can guess nothing came out it.

I'm willing to do as you say if that's what you wish but honestly I don't think it will do any good. I think it will be more effective for you to contact one the editors at Ameriwiki who has blocking rights on CP (i.e AlanE or SharonW) and they can handle this problem quicker. Alternatively, I can approach Brenden and ask him to revoke your block. I can you the email address he set up for corresponding me but I'm not sure if he'll like that (although he did post that address publicly on CP). Ultimately it's your choice though and I'll do as you ask. - ConservapediaMarkman (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I believe that the unblock should be done by Andy or some other high-ranking admin. Alan already offered to intercede for me. That was before you were blocked, so it would have been suicidal for him just to unblock me. I suppose he, or Brenden or Sharon, could do it now, but it would still be weird. They shouldn't have to do it. Andy should do it.
That the zoho address is so clogged with IP fix requests that it's unusable isn't surprising. I've always communicated with Andy through his personal email, and he's always (well, almost always) been attentive and polite. You have that email, right? That's what I'm planning to use, and is what I'd recommend for you.
By the way, what's all the animosity toward AW about? Are you one of the people who believe the site was "stolen"? The old site is still up and running. It's just that no one goes there. And James Wilson blocked me and the others, so we couldn't help out in any case. SamHB (talk) 18:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Check the inbox of the address you use for this wiki, I sent you an email with my address. In regards to Andy's personal email, I don't know why do you think that I have it, me and Andy were never that close as people on this wiki assume we were. If you want to you can send me his personal address and I promise not to leak it to anyone. - ConservapediaMarkman (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The actual emails[edit]

This is the email that I sent to Andy, blind copied to Markman

From: Sam Becker <sam4557@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 5:23 PM
Subject: Markman, and my (SamHB) account
To: <aschlafly's email>, Sam Becker <sam4557@gmail.com>
Andy:
I realize that the fallout from the Markman incident is taking a lot of your time, but I'd like you to unblock my account. The following was drafted about a week ago, before Markman's demise. I apologize for the tone of this, but, as you can imagine, I was quite angry.
=======================================================
User Markman's block of me was totally inappropriate and uncalled-for, and I'd like you to rescind it.
A comment by Markman, on your talk page "I would just like to tell Sam [me, obviously] that he should be ashamed of himself for slandering Mr. Schlafly and suggesting that the current technical problems CP is experiencing are due to incompetence by Mr. Schlafly or deliberate malice on his part." That was presumably a reference to a comment by me at 19:50 on 1 Aug, earlier on the same page, "the software attempting to enforce it [apparent IP firewalling policy] is behaving ineptly, and is causing collateral damage to innocent viewers." I never accused you of ineptness, only the software.
Markman went on to disparage a website that must be Ameriwki: "No, I'm not talking about RW, I'm talking about the other one in which you participate, the name of which is not even worthy of being mentioned here. That's right, I know all about your trashing of CP there. You should be ashamed of yourself. Instead of thinking that Mr. Schlafly is somehow to blame for the technical difficulties CP is suffering, it is much more likely that they are caused by anti-CP hackers, probably coming from Sam's liberal wiki (again, not RW but the other one)"
A check of my contributions to Ameriwiki will show that I have not been "trashing" Conservapedia.
The accusation that participants at Ameriwiki are causing Conservapedia's internet accessibility problems is utterly preposterous. And the fact that Markman blocked me one minute after making the above accusation is a classic example of cowardice.

And this is the copy that Markman provided to me of the message he sent to Andy. Or said that he intended to send; I have no reason to believe that he didn't send it.

Good day Mr. Schlafly,
I would like to tell you that the block I have given to SamHB was completely frivolous. It was done solely for my own amusement, and now I have been exposed for the parodist that I am Sam's block should undone. Contrary to the block reason I have provided, at no point did Sam bore false witness against any CP editor, and his appraisal of my intentions on RW which preceded his block was quite accurate. Please unblock him and allow him to continue to participate in CP.
-Thanks, the editor you once knew as Markman