Creating new articles
You have been creating multiple new articles that already exist, including the last five articles you entered into Conservapedia. While occasional mistakes are understood, you have many more oversights than should normally occur. Please do your homework first. Thank you Learn together 14:44, 17 December 2007 (EST)
- I actually did send a message (to the blocking sysop), but it was more along the lines "Yeah, whatever, if you just opened your eyes... etc.", so I'm not too surprised it wasn't reacted to.
- And until recently, I really wasn't in any major mood to edit (guess why), so I didn't really feel like appealing.
- Thing is... block times seem to really depend on the sysop's mood. I've seen hours, days, weeks, months, and years, all for relatively similar incidents, so I guess that I got away lightly. Still, maybe a good time to consider some sort of... guideline for sysops to align block times to one pattern. Then you could differ between slaps on the wrist (like for me - I had a really productive day and ended it with one silly edit) and actual punishment.
- Oh well. Hakuna matata, I guess. :) Or, as a wise fictional character once said: "You've got to leave your behind in the past" ;) --Jenkins 14:02, 12 January 2008 (EST)
Hey, so the draft will not actually finish until Sunday, but the contest will still start tonight at 12a.m., so all that means is some of you will be getting points without knowing what team you're on. Remember to keep track of your points well, at a page like User:Jenkins/Contest4.--IDuan 21:08, 12 January 2008 (EST)
- Ohhh, mysterious... --Jenkins 21:23, 12 January 2008 (EST)
You've undone a reversion, and required a repeat reversion. Your account will be blocked if you persist. Ideologically motivated "citation needed" tags for something that has support are not allowed here. Go to Wikipedia for that. Plenty more examples for that citation in Pulitzer Prize are available and add those cites if you feel they are needed.--Aschlafly 09:29, 25 January 2008 (EST)
- Yeah, yeah, whatever. I'll leave the article alone. --Jenkins 09:37, 25 January 2008 (EST)
- Your account is also on the verge of being blocked for far too much talk compared to substantive edits. We're building an encyclopedia here. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 10:33, 25 January 2008 (EST)
- Look, Andy. If it makes you feel better, go ahead and ban me. I'm getting really tired of the growing hostility I'm subjected to simply because I point out the incredibly large holes in your "arguments". So stop the silly threats and just get it over with already.
- Fact is that I contribute to this site, and my contribs are usually well-received. I don't edit here 24/7 (or 12/7, given how I haven't earned the "right" to edit 24/7) but when I do, it's usually good quality. That Periodic Table of Elements (which you completely overlooked during the contest, even though you had been my Captain and I had asked you to grade it) for example had received praise from a sysop (who had been on the opposing team, even), and God knows it had been lots of work. And yet, things like that apparently aren't enough to avoid getting banned here. Fascinating.
- You claim that this is a meritocracy, but with all the hostility and implied 90/10 threats, it feels more like a forced labor camp, where people have to make many, many super-high-quality edits to earn the right to voice criticism (and of course, you get to decide what it a quality edit and what is not).
- I came back even after many pointless and overly long blocks (1 month for my one silly edit after a long history of good ones for example) because I wanted to believe that I could help improving this site. However, it's becoming clear now that facts and fairness take a back seat to ideology and cheap shots. You exploit the victims of crimes to push your gun control agenda, you belittle famous authors to rant about liberals and homosexuality, you use tragic deaths to claim moral high ground over all of Hollywood. And when people point out that your arguments are all based on your warped perception of reality, you shout "liberal denial" and try to drag the discussion away into tangents. Not even to mention that you (and you alone) constantly get to decide who counts as a conservative and who is just a liberal in denial. How are we supposed to build an encyclopedia when you alone get to decide what is true and factual? This isn't Conservapedia, it's the SchlaflyBlog, nothing more.
- It's a real pity that this site claims to "educate" when in reality, it simply tries to vilify whoever you oppose and to present your own opinions as indisputable fact.
- Go ahead. Ban me if you feel like it. Then people will at least know that I don't silently endorse your agenda. --Jenkins 15:06, 25 January 2008 (EST)
I haven't seen any hostility directed toward you, but then again I mainly scan contributions of non-admins. If you feel you've been the victim of a personal attack, you should not respond in kind. You can ask for help.
Criticism can always be voiced - provided it is less than 90% of what you contribute here. But if you are only building an argument to condemn the entire project, and are not here to improve any articles, then a ban would better than keeping you around. You decide. --Ed Poor Talk 19:38, 26 January 2008 (EST)
- "Your account is also on the verge of being blocked for far too much talk compared to substantive edits." Such an assertion could be, perhaps, misinterpreted as veiled hostility. In any case, I might suggest his contributions to Conservapedia be recompared in this respect. Feebasfactor 21:25, 26 January 2008 (EST)
Well, by now it's a bit too late - but really as long as it's in A category, then it's fine - and since all the other one's are already in the cat that delete puts them into - then in order for a sysop to most easily access all of them, it's best to keep using delete.--IDuan 16:05, 26 January 2008 (EST)