Nice work, you really helped Ed Poor here: Ridiculous block
Congratulations, I think this will be what prevents him from getting sysopship at CP.-- AnonCPeditor ( talk) 11:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Absotutely! From
elsewhere,
"15. We do not ban users based on their comments elsewhere, such as on their own blog. Wikipedia will monitor users' blogs and ban them for their exercise of free speech on their own blogs.
You can't even play by your own rules let alone someone else's, no wonder you're supporting Eddy Poor, the busier he is over here banninating folks, the more apparent pwer you have over to CP. (Full disclosure, I voted to support as well but for the lulz-factor.) Pommer 13:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)- Your block of Wisdom89 on Conservapedia was one hell of a bad block. If Conservapedia claims to be about building an encyclopedia, and not about building an ideology, then blocking him there for something he said here is just incomprehensible. You're helping to prove my point that I don't want any Conservapedia-style administration here on Wikipedia. --
Elkman
(Elkspeak)
15:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Anyone who causes trouble at Conservapedia for whatever reason I'm going to remove from the site. That also included you, Pommer, and possibly the anonymous editor above...for false info posted by you, subtle vandalism, picking fights, etc. We do have a history of these engagements. In fact you said it yourself, Pommer: you voted for Ed just for the "lulz factor", which means you can and will do anything to harm this site. Karajou ( talk) 18:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- To all of you: please keep your disputes external to Wikipedia external to Wikipedia. If you must discuss them here then try to keep it civil and avoid personal attacks. Thanks. JoshuaZ ( talk) 18:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Your block of Wisdom89 on Conservapedia was one hell of a bad block. If Conservapedia claims to be about building an encyclopedia, and not about building an ideology, then blocking him there for something he said here is just incomprehensible. You're helping to prove my point that I don't want any Conservapedia-style administration here on Wikipedia. --
Elkman
(Elkspeak)
15:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry Joshua, this will be my last post at WP using this character. Karajou, I honestly think you are confusing criticising CP with criticising the actions of certain sysops at CP. I have been an active (off and on) editor at CP for 9 months and have never had a block, or a major dispute with anyone. Nonetheless I find your actions here deplorable, and I think you and Ed are more interested in power than in helping CP. I agree with (most) of the POV at the site but I think the politics at the site are outrageous. We would be vandalized a lot less if we didn't give them ammunition.-- AnonCPeditor ( talk) 18:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Karajou, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!
JoshuaZ (
talk)
15:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Wow you signed up for an account this time! Ah, I remember you when you were just a little IP posting harassing messages on my user talk page and getting banned. By the way the mounties never showed up and for some reason all those "letters" you wrote to my university fell on death ears. Now go be yourself over at CP your the only joke we have had in days. Tmtoulouse ( talk) 15:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- No, Trent, you're the only joke. Your site is a joke; it's information is worthless to the scientific community; it's nothing more than a rubbish heap, exactly as described by O'Leary. You and your little friends were thrown out of Conservapedia for a reason: we're fed up with your cyber-terrorism, your bullying, your threats, and your lies. And the beauty of it is you made it that way. Do have a wonderful day!
Karajou (
talk)
18:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Cyberterrorism, now that's a laugh. Apparantly suggesting that vaccination works, shaking babies is a bad idea, and that breast cancer has nothing to do with abortion is cyberterrorism. Now, I'll readily admit that RW is basically a group of flies laughing over the pile of crap that is CP, but we're well aware of that. We're not puffed-up self-important impotent former potato peelers who relish the abuse of such a tiny amount of power. That's the real reason none of the CPers use WP. You can't stand it when someone disagrees with you and only on CP can you use that as a reason to ban someone. It's pathetic, really. What really goes beyond the pale is that either you don't care that you're the laughing stock of the internet, or you're so deluded that you don't even realize it. Being ridiculous prompts ridicule, and ridicule is not cyberterrorism under any definition.
Stile4aly (
talk)
19:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Karajou, you and TK call people at work and send threatening letters to their universities, and yet you call posting about science on an open wiki bullying? Buddy, you wrote the book on bullying.-
AmesG (
talk)
02:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- User is blocked, can't really respond. Better to just leave him to drift back into obscurity at CP. Where we need him to get to work and make us laugh. CP is really boring these days. For future reference Karajou, quoting O'Leary in a positive light means you instantly have lost credibility. Tmtoulouse ( talk) 02:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Karajou, you and TK call people at work and send threatening letters to their universities, and yet you call posting about science on an open wiki bullying? Buddy, you wrote the book on bullying.-
AmesG (
talk)
02:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Cyberterrorism, now that's a laugh. Apparantly suggesting that vaccination works, shaking babies is a bad idea, and that breast cancer has nothing to do with abortion is cyberterrorism. Now, I'll readily admit that RW is basically a group of flies laughing over the pile of crap that is CP, but we're well aware of that. We're not puffed-up self-important impotent former potato peelers who relish the abuse of such a tiny amount of power. That's the real reason none of the CPers use WP. You can't stand it when someone disagrees with you and only on CP can you use that as a reason to ban someone. It's pathetic, really. What really goes beyond the pale is that either you don't care that you're the laughing stock of the internet, or you're so deluded that you don't even realize it. Being ridiculous prompts ridicule, and ridicule is not cyberterrorism under any definition.
Stile4aly (
talk)
19:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I can respond. As to Stile4aly comment on cyberterrorism, or denial, try this posting: [1]
- There are many good examples of vandalism, you might see Rationalwiki’s entries on CP articles for some interesting moments. The community over there began as somewhat friendly when I joined a few months ago. They would allow you to disagree, but if things got too heated they would block a user until it cooled down. I noticed after a few days, that they see dissent as a kind of liberal fallacy. The obvious outcome was that users would begin to form sub-groups of more moderate conservatives and even liberals. After a few more weeks, these liberals began to self-identify. As we did so, one editor, tmtoulouse, would go to user pages and invite people one at a time to join him for a discussion about CP. The site he led us to was Rationalwiki. At first we just complained about CP, their policies, petty actions, etc. Then we began a process that was very similar some cyber-terror tactics (although much less sexy, frankly.) Basically, we wanted to cause CP editors/sysops to waste time dealing with us. This would not really bring the site down, but it would tie things in knots. It was very manipulative."
That was back on June 12, 2007, part of user Flippin's letter to Stephanie Simon of the Los Angeles Times; it was referenced as material in Wikipedia's article on Conservapedia as evidence of Rationalwiki people engaging in such behavior, and there was a clear attempt to hide that fact by Trent as evidenced here: [2] [3].
In short, all of you have been engaged in this sort of behavior against Conservapedia since the week it was founded. You couldn't tolerate the thought of an online encylopedia with conservatism at its core, so you set to work trying your worst to shut us down. We have a clear history of your behavior against us in Conservapedia, Rationalwiki, here in Wikipedia, and other sites, and all of it is accessable by anyone who wishes to take a look. You people had another choice, and that choice was to leave us alone, but you refused to do even that. You're off the site; you have been of the site for some time now. Live with it. Karajou ( talk) 04:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- What makes you think I am not "living with it"? I am quiet content with the way things are going, Conservapedia has ground to a halt and has lost any chance of ever having any credibility anywhere. RationalWiki has played and continues to play an important part in that. Our user base is continuing to increase and we are doing all sorts of fun little projects. It will, of course, be a struggle when CP is gone to chart a path but I think we will continue on as a community well past your fascist, racist, homophobic, internet laughing stock encyclopedia closes its doors. Time will of course tell. As far as your accusations of "terrorism" it is pure hyperbole and cheapens your cause many fold, none of your actions against us have had any effect. You have proven yourself to be impotent. I am thrilled to know that the opposition in the culture war is so stunted. It has given me hope that society can grow and improve for the better. Now run back to your little internet haven and dance for us, we are bored.
Tmtoulouse (
talk)
04:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- And P.S. this is really not an appropriate forum for any of this, I will refrain from posting to this user on Wikipedia from now on. He knows where to find us if he has anything important to say.
Tmtoulouse (
talk)
04:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- The "hyperbole" as you put it, comes directly from your site. And still you whine like a little baby, upset that you caused your own blocking. Tell me your home address so I can mail you a box of Pampers...maybe your diapers need changing.
Karajou (
talk)
04:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- "In short, all of you have been engaged in this sort of behavior against Conservapedia since the week it was founded" Yawn, not true, wrong forum, boring. As far a "not forum", this is Wikipedia, where Wikipedia business is done. If you want to talk to us, you are welcome on RationalWiki, whether or not we are so on Conservapedia. PS, I am a CP editor, with, I must say, a sterling record of positive contributions (I am so embarassed to admit that!). Karajou, your ability to edit here right now is not to enable you to argue with people you don't like, but to make a case for being unblocked on Wikipedia. Pampers??? Ignoring this silliness from now on, I am Huw Powell ( talk) 07:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- The "hyperbole" as you put it, comes directly from your site. And still you whine like a little baby, upset that you caused your own blocking. Tell me your home address so I can mail you a box of Pampers...maybe your diapers need changing.
Karajou (
talk)
04:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- And P.S. this is really not an appropriate forum for any of this, I will refrain from posting to this user on Wikipedia from now on. He knows where to find us if he has anything important to say.
Tmtoulouse (
talk)
04:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Following Huw's sentiments, Karajou, if you reply to this without stating a reason for an unblock then I will permanently protect your userpage so only admins can write here. And before you say: "This is more evidence of Liberals doing [whatever made up thing you concoct]" - this will be my reply: "Us 'Liberals' simply don't care about your POV. Go back to your playground, sweety." - And to any other people using this as a forum: Please take it elsewhere. Thank you. Scarian Call me Pat! 21:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I have indefinitely blocked your for being an WP:SPA. If you wish to contest this block, please use the {{unblock}} template. Thanks. Scarian Call me Pat! 20:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I think that might be a bit harsh. He hasn't really done anything yet. Give him a chance. The irony, of course, is that Captain Pugwash would never give anyone the same courtesy on CP. Stile4aly ( talk) 21:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- If he wishes to return he can ask for an unblock, or, in 24 hours, he can make a new account. If other contributors disagree with the block then I will remove it. But he was canvassed to vote on Ed's RfA which shows an obvious disregard for our WP:CANVASS policy. He might not even be the real Karajou! Scarian Call me Pat! 22:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- I just wanted to second Stile4aly, this editor didn't really cause any harm. (Did all of the (few) people who signed up to discuss Ed Poor's RfA get blocked as well? Just curious) I was going to be more strenuous in arguing against the block, but I see there is a process that can function without my getting in the way.
Huw Powell (
talk)
23:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Grieves me greatly but I think it was OTT to block him.
TheresaWilson (
talk)
00:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- I must ask... what is "OTT"?
- Anyway, I also wanted to say that Karajou has contributed before (either as an IP or with another account which he forgot), perhaps he can be given another chance?
LightFlare (
talk)
03:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- I contributed under user:Carajou until early in 2007; I ended it when I began editing in Conservapedia and saw first-hand the devastation being wrought against the site by the above users and others. Admitedly, I went after them here, which resulted in a block for "legal threats". But when users come into the site and level threats such as this
[4], then at some point law enforcement has to be notified, and was in this case.
Karajou (
talk)
04:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- If you're going to make that point, why don't you at least link to something halfway menacing? If I didn't know better I would've thought it was a transcription of a bunch of kids playing war with snowballs. I can probably find something more illegal-sounding if I tried, but that still doesn't say much. LightFlare ( talk) 05:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- I contributed under user:Carajou until early in 2007; I ended it when I began editing in Conservapedia and saw first-hand the devastation being wrought against the site by the above users and others. Admitedly, I went after them here, which resulted in a block for "legal threats". But when users come into the site and level threats such as this
[4], then at some point law enforcement has to be notified, and was in this case.
Karajou (
talk)
04:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Grieves me greatly but I think it was OTT to block him.
TheresaWilson (
talk)
00:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- I just wanted to second Stile4aly, this editor didn't really cause any harm. (Did all of the (few) people who signed up to discuss Ed Poor's RfA get blocked as well? Just curious) I was going to be more strenuous in arguing against the block, but I see there is a process that can function without my getting in the way.
Huw Powell (
talk)
23:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Im mirroring Conservapedia now, at here, because such a ridiculous page deserves to be laughed at, even after it has died. 142.35.235.73 ( talk) 18:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I've started a legal thrat judgement against you, see you in court Brian, for sold my ip adress to justice without good reason which is privacy violation at Conservapedia. MrJonasdePonas ( talk) 14:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Nice work, you really helped Ed Poor here: Ridiculous block
Congratulations, I think this will be what prevents him from getting sysopship at CP.-- AnonCPeditor ( talk) 11:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Absotutely! From
elsewhere,
"15. We do not ban users based on their comments elsewhere, such as on their own blog. Wikipedia will monitor users' blogs and ban them for their exercise of free speech on their own blogs.
You can't even play by your own rules let alone someone else's, no wonder you're supporting Eddy Poor, the busier he is over here banninating folks, the more apparent pwer you have over to CP. (Full disclosure, I voted to support as well but for the lulz-factor.) Pommer 13:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)- Your block of Wisdom89 on Conservapedia was one hell of a bad block. If Conservapedia claims to be about building an encyclopedia, and not about building an ideology, then blocking him there for something he said here is just incomprehensible. You're helping to prove my point that I don't want any Conservapedia-style administration here on Wikipedia. --
Elkman
(Elkspeak)
15:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Anyone who causes trouble at Conservapedia for whatever reason I'm going to remove from the site. That also included you, Pommer, and possibly the anonymous editor above...for false info posted by you, subtle vandalism, picking fights, etc. We do have a history of these engagements. In fact you said it yourself, Pommer: you voted for Ed just for the "lulz factor", which means you can and will do anything to harm this site. Karajou ( talk) 18:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- To all of you: please keep your disputes external to Wikipedia external to Wikipedia. If you must discuss them here then try to keep it civil and avoid personal attacks. Thanks. JoshuaZ ( talk) 18:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Your block of Wisdom89 on Conservapedia was one hell of a bad block. If Conservapedia claims to be about building an encyclopedia, and not about building an ideology, then blocking him there for something he said here is just incomprehensible. You're helping to prove my point that I don't want any Conservapedia-style administration here on Wikipedia. --
Elkman
(Elkspeak)
15:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry Joshua, this will be my last post at WP using this character. Karajou, I honestly think you are confusing criticising CP with criticising the actions of certain sysops at CP. I have been an active (off and on) editor at CP for 9 months and have never had a block, or a major dispute with anyone. Nonetheless I find your actions here deplorable, and I think you and Ed are more interested in power than in helping CP. I agree with (most) of the POV at the site but I think the politics at the site are outrageous. We would be vandalized a lot less if we didn't give them ammunition.-- AnonCPeditor ( talk) 18:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Karajou, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!
JoshuaZ (
talk)
15:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Wow you signed up for an account this time! Ah, I remember you when you were just a little IP posting harassing messages on my user talk page and getting banned. By the way the mounties never showed up and for some reason all those "letters" you wrote to my university fell on death ears. Now go be yourself over at CP your the only joke we have had in days. Tmtoulouse ( talk) 15:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- No, Trent, you're the only joke. Your site is a joke; it's information is worthless to the scientific community; it's nothing more than a rubbish heap, exactly as described by O'Leary. You and your little friends were thrown out of Conservapedia for a reason: we're fed up with your cyber-terrorism, your bullying, your threats, and your lies. And the beauty of it is you made it that way. Do have a wonderful day!
Karajou (
talk)
18:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Cyberterrorism, now that's a laugh. Apparantly suggesting that vaccination works, shaking babies is a bad idea, and that breast cancer has nothing to do with abortion is cyberterrorism. Now, I'll readily admit that RW is basically a group of flies laughing over the pile of crap that is CP, but we're well aware of that. We're not puffed-up self-important impotent former potato peelers who relish the abuse of such a tiny amount of power. That's the real reason none of the CPers use WP. You can't stand it when someone disagrees with you and only on CP can you use that as a reason to ban someone. It's pathetic, really. What really goes beyond the pale is that either you don't care that you're the laughing stock of the internet, or you're so deluded that you don't even realize it. Being ridiculous prompts ridicule, and ridicule is not cyberterrorism under any definition.
Stile4aly (
talk)
19:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Karajou, you and TK call people at work and send threatening letters to their universities, and yet you call posting about science on an open wiki bullying? Buddy, you wrote the book on bullying.-
AmesG (
talk)
02:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- User is blocked, can't really respond. Better to just leave him to drift back into obscurity at CP. Where we need him to get to work and make us laugh. CP is really boring these days. For future reference Karajou, quoting O'Leary in a positive light means you instantly have lost credibility. Tmtoulouse ( talk) 02:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Karajou, you and TK call people at work and send threatening letters to their universities, and yet you call posting about science on an open wiki bullying? Buddy, you wrote the book on bullying.-
AmesG (
talk)
02:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Cyberterrorism, now that's a laugh. Apparantly suggesting that vaccination works, shaking babies is a bad idea, and that breast cancer has nothing to do with abortion is cyberterrorism. Now, I'll readily admit that RW is basically a group of flies laughing over the pile of crap that is CP, but we're well aware of that. We're not puffed-up self-important impotent former potato peelers who relish the abuse of such a tiny amount of power. That's the real reason none of the CPers use WP. You can't stand it when someone disagrees with you and only on CP can you use that as a reason to ban someone. It's pathetic, really. What really goes beyond the pale is that either you don't care that you're the laughing stock of the internet, or you're so deluded that you don't even realize it. Being ridiculous prompts ridicule, and ridicule is not cyberterrorism under any definition.
Stile4aly (
talk)
19:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I can respond. As to Stile4aly comment on cyberterrorism, or denial, try this posting: [1]
- There are many good examples of vandalism, you might see Rationalwiki’s entries on CP articles for some interesting moments. The community over there began as somewhat friendly when I joined a few months ago. They would allow you to disagree, but if things got too heated they would block a user until it cooled down. I noticed after a few days, that they see dissent as a kind of liberal fallacy. The obvious outcome was that users would begin to form sub-groups of more moderate conservatives and even liberals. After a few more weeks, these liberals began to self-identify. As we did so, one editor, tmtoulouse, would go to user pages and invite people one at a time to join him for a discussion about CP. The site he led us to was Rationalwiki. At first we just complained about CP, their policies, petty actions, etc. Then we began a process that was very similar some cyber-terror tactics (although much less sexy, frankly.) Basically, we wanted to cause CP editors/sysops to waste time dealing with us. This would not really bring the site down, but it would tie things in knots. It was very manipulative."
That was back on June 12, 2007, part of user Flippin's letter to Stephanie Simon of the Los Angeles Times; it was referenced as material in Wikipedia's article on Conservapedia as evidence of Rationalwiki people engaging in such behavior, and there was a clear attempt to hide that fact by Trent as evidenced here: [2] [3].
In short, all of you have been engaged in this sort of behavior against Conservapedia since the week it was founded. You couldn't tolerate the thought of an online encylopedia with conservatism at its core, so you set to work trying your worst to shut us down. We have a clear history of your behavior against us in Conservapedia, Rationalwiki, here in Wikipedia, and other sites, and all of it is accessable by anyone who wishes to take a look. You people had another choice, and that choice was to leave us alone, but you refused to do even that. You're off the site; you have been of the site for some time now. Live with it. Karajou ( talk) 04:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- What makes you think I am not "living with it"? I am quiet content with the way things are going, Conservapedia has ground to a halt and has lost any chance of ever having any credibility anywhere. RationalWiki has played and continues to play an important part in that. Our user base is continuing to increase and we are doing all sorts of fun little projects. It will, of course, be a struggle when CP is gone to chart a path but I think we will continue on as a community well past your fascist, racist, homophobic, internet laughing stock encyclopedia closes its doors. Time will of course tell. As far as your accusations of "terrorism" it is pure hyperbole and cheapens your cause many fold, none of your actions against us have had any effect. You have proven yourself to be impotent. I am thrilled to know that the opposition in the culture war is so stunted. It has given me hope that society can grow and improve for the better. Now run back to your little internet haven and dance for us, we are bored.
Tmtoulouse (
talk)
04:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- And P.S. this is really not an appropriate forum for any of this, I will refrain from posting to this user on Wikipedia from now on. He knows where to find us if he has anything important to say.
Tmtoulouse (
talk)
04:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- The "hyperbole" as you put it, comes directly from your site. And still you whine like a little baby, upset that you caused your own blocking. Tell me your home address so I can mail you a box of Pampers...maybe your diapers need changing.
Karajou (
talk)
04:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- "In short, all of you have been engaged in this sort of behavior against Conservapedia since the week it was founded" Yawn, not true, wrong forum, boring. As far a "not forum", this is Wikipedia, where Wikipedia business is done. If you want to talk to us, you are welcome on RationalWiki, whether or not we are so on Conservapedia. PS, I am a CP editor, with, I must say, a sterling record of positive contributions (I am so embarassed to admit that!). Karajou, your ability to edit here right now is not to enable you to argue with people you don't like, but to make a case for being unblocked on Wikipedia. Pampers??? Ignoring this silliness from now on, I am Huw Powell ( talk) 07:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- The "hyperbole" as you put it, comes directly from your site. And still you whine like a little baby, upset that you caused your own blocking. Tell me your home address so I can mail you a box of Pampers...maybe your diapers need changing.
Karajou (
talk)
04:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- And P.S. this is really not an appropriate forum for any of this, I will refrain from posting to this user on Wikipedia from now on. He knows where to find us if he has anything important to say.
Tmtoulouse (
talk)
04:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Following Huw's sentiments, Karajou, if you reply to this without stating a reason for an unblock then I will permanently protect your userpage so only admins can write here. And before you say: "This is more evidence of Liberals doing [whatever made up thing you concoct]" - this will be my reply: "Us 'Liberals' simply don't care about your POV. Go back to your playground, sweety." - And to any other people using this as a forum: Please take it elsewhere. Thank you. Scarian Call me Pat! 21:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I have indefinitely blocked your for being an WP:SPA. If you wish to contest this block, please use the {{unblock}} template. Thanks. Scarian Call me Pat! 20:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I think that might be a bit harsh. He hasn't really done anything yet. Give him a chance. The irony, of course, is that Captain Pugwash would never give anyone the same courtesy on CP. Stile4aly ( talk) 21:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- If he wishes to return he can ask for an unblock, or, in 24 hours, he can make a new account. If other contributors disagree with the block then I will remove it. But he was canvassed to vote on Ed's RfA which shows an obvious disregard for our WP:CANVASS policy. He might not even be the real Karajou! Scarian Call me Pat! 22:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- I just wanted to second Stile4aly, this editor didn't really cause any harm. (Did all of the (few) people who signed up to discuss Ed Poor's RfA get blocked as well? Just curious) I was going to be more strenuous in arguing against the block, but I see there is a process that can function without my getting in the way.
Huw Powell (
talk)
23:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Grieves me greatly but I think it was OTT to block him.
TheresaWilson (
talk)
00:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- I must ask... what is "OTT"?
- Anyway, I also wanted to say that Karajou has contributed before (either as an IP or with another account which he forgot), perhaps he can be given another chance?
LightFlare (
talk)
03:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- I contributed under user:Carajou until early in 2007; I ended it when I began editing in Conservapedia and saw first-hand the devastation being wrought against the site by the above users and others. Admitedly, I went after them here, which resulted in a block for "legal threats". But when users come into the site and level threats such as this
[4], then at some point law enforcement has to be notified, and was in this case.
Karajou (
talk)
04:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- If you're going to make that point, why don't you at least link to something halfway menacing? If I didn't know better I would've thought it was a transcription of a bunch of kids playing war with snowballs. I can probably find something more illegal-sounding if I tried, but that still doesn't say much. LightFlare ( talk) 05:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- I contributed under user:Carajou until early in 2007; I ended it when I began editing in Conservapedia and saw first-hand the devastation being wrought against the site by the above users and others. Admitedly, I went after them here, which resulted in a block for "legal threats". But when users come into the site and level threats such as this
[4], then at some point law enforcement has to be notified, and was in this case.
Karajou (
talk)
04:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Grieves me greatly but I think it was OTT to block him.
TheresaWilson (
talk)
00:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- I just wanted to second Stile4aly, this editor didn't really cause any harm. (Did all of the (few) people who signed up to discuss Ed Poor's RfA get blocked as well? Just curious) I was going to be more strenuous in arguing against the block, but I see there is a process that can function without my getting in the way.
Huw Powell (
talk)
23:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Im mirroring Conservapedia now, at here, because such a ridiculous page deserves to be laughed at, even after it has died. 142.35.235.73 ( talk) 18:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I've started a legal thrat judgement against you, see you in court Brian, for sold my ip adress to justice without good reason which is privacy violation at Conservapedia. MrJonasdePonas ( talk) 14:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)