Difference between revisions of "User talk:Wandering"
(blocked, might not return) |
(bye) |
||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
Accusing a sysop (ironically, without even giving a reason). Ah, the irony. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:11, 28 June 2008 (EDT) | Accusing a sysop (ironically, without even giving a reason). Ah, the irony. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:11, 28 June 2008 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Another block reason== | ||
| + | |||
| + | http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Trajectory&curid=69565&diff=488634&oldid=488632&rcid=531913 accuses me falsely of "blocking them when they want to talk". That's not why I blocked them: they were reverting my changes '''instead''' of having a discussion. | ||
| + | *Either you knew this, and are lying about it (in which case you can't be trusted), | ||
| + | *Or you are oblivious to the social dynamics around here (in which case you're not sophisticated enough to participate) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:08, 8 July 2008 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 21:08, July 8, 2008
Welcome!
Hello, Wandering, and welcome to Conservapedia!
We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.
At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page. Any questions--ask!
Thanks for reading, Wandering!
- User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 01:57, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
Contents
Reversion
"Wandering", please learn the difference between "little" and "none", per the Theory of Relativity. Thanks.--Aschlafly 19:05, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
- Uh, exactly what more recognition is needed than a prize given by the Nobel committee?Wandering 19:15, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
- Wandering, if I see you deleting information again to advance your personal ideology, then I'm blocking your account. Got it? As to Nobel Prizes, I'm not going to waste time explaining this to you, but look up how many have been given for quantum mechanics.--Aschlafly 19:19, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
- I don't have a personal ideology regarding the theory of relativity, but it's rather ridiculous to say that it receives little recognition when a prize was awarded and there's a whole section on the Nobel Prize website about relativity, as linked by that very article. If we're going to say that little recognition is given in comparison to the attention and awards given to other sciences, then that's fine, but saying "little" without context flies in the face of the evidence (which I just stated). Wandering 19:37, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
Warning
"Wandering", you apparently deleted information from professor values beyond a duplicate reference. Unless you have an explanation, your account is progressing towards being blocked. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 07:45, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
Final warning: "Wandering", I'm tiring of reverting your edits. If I have to review and revert more edits by you in the absence of substantive contributions to this project, then I will likely block your account.--Aschlafly 07:51, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
- You don't have to be tired of reverting my edits because there's no need to revert them. You reverted a reference to Obama's support for abstinence education as "liberal bias", which makes no sense. Let me quote directly for you:
| “ | And part of that, I think, should be a strong education component and I think abstinence education is important. I also think that contraception is important; I also think that treatment is important; I also think that we have to do more to make antiviral drugs available to people who are in extreme poverty[1] | ” |
- I'm not sure why you keep removing that, because it is a clear statement by him that he supports abstinence as part of sex education.
- I made three edits to Professor values, none of which removed information. 1 and 2 added in context information (it was an online survey which the polled chose to take, and which I believe they might even have needed to register in order to do so), while in the edit you mentioned, I removed a duplicate reference which seems to have nothing to do with atheism. I have no idea where you got the idea that I deleted information, and frankly I'm a little bewildered. Wandering 10:26, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
- Hello? Wandering 18:33, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
Notice of Blocking
Wandering, your account is on the verge of being blocked for too many reversions.--Aschlafly 13:47, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
- Hi, before you block me, please address my replies to your previous comments about reversions, as well as why you are deleting a good reference to an otherwise uncited fact. Wandering 13:48, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
- You seem like an intelligent guy(?) Without getting blocked myself, I think you've made some valid points. CraigC 00:26, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Improving stubs
Thanks for fixing this stub. --Ed Poor Talk 19:13, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
Block reason
Accusing a sysop (ironically, without even giving a reason). Ah, the irony. --Ed Poor Talk 22:11, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
Another block reason
http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Trajectory&curid=69565&diff=488634&oldid=488632&rcid=531913 accuses me falsely of "blocking them when they want to talk". That's not why I blocked them: they were reverting my changes instead of having a discussion.
- Either you knew this, and are lying about it (in which case you can't be trusted),
- Or you are oblivious to the social dynamics around here (in which case you're not sophisticated enough to participate) --Ed Poor Talk 17:08, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
