User talk:Aschlafly

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Comment here

Archive Index

You archived way too much!

Please restore everything from "Is this article appropriate to cite?" onward. That material, particularly the last few sections, was extremely relevant to ongoing issues, especially discussions that I was involved in and want to comment on further. SamHB (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2017 (EDT)

Time to move on to other issues here, Sam. The world doesn't stop spinning to await resolution of endless debate about something. You can copy the debate from the archive and move it to the talk page for the relevant entry, but I encourage you to let it go and address new issues instead.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:19, 19 August 2017 (EDT)

Thank you for the page move of Eclipse. JDano (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2017 (EDT)

Move requests

Andy, would you please move these two articles and their corresponding talk pages:

--1990'sguy (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2017 (EDT)

Andy, would you please move these articles? --1990'sguy (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2017 (EDT)
Done as requested. Thanks!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2017 (EDT)
Andy, would you please move British Sri Lanakn Tamil to British Sri Lankan Tamil without leaving a redirect to fix a spelling error? --1990'sguy (talk) 09:27, 23 August 2017 (EDT)
Done as requested, thanks again.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 10:59, 23 August 2017 (EDT)

Andy, would you please move The Secure the Fence Act of 2006 to Secure Fence Act of 2006? The first "the" is unnecessary, and the second "the" is not in the law's name (it is a typo). Also, when you move the article, please move the article name on these four articles: [1] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:29, 29 August 2017 (EDT)

Delete request

Andy, would you please delete Category:Solar Power, an unnecessary and empty category? --1990'sguy (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2017 (EDT)

Done.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2017 (EDT)

Would you please delete these two redirect categories:

--1990'sguy (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2017 (EDT)

Andy would you please take care of these requests? --1990'sguy (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2017 (EDT)
Andy, in addition to the above requests, please delete Category:Roman emperors. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2017 (EDT)
Done as requested!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2017 (EDT)

Another fight

Would you please delete Essay:Mainstream media and Donald Trump. This article is just JDano's version of what the Mainstream media and Donald Trump article should be (here is the difference between JDano's version and the actual version, which I think inserts irrelevant information such as polling data and the TIME magazine cover, and all the information altogether inserts a liberal bias into the article). In the essay's intro, JDano attacks me, saying that "Until August 2017, a group of editors worked hard to develop an encyclopedia article on this topic, but then one editor decided unilaterally to delete materials that did not agree with his personal opinions" The information that I deleted, like I said, had a left-wing bias in it, and I was working hard with this article long before 2017 (in fact, I was the main editor of that article, so JDano is effectively praising and attacking me). --1990'sguy (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2017 (EDT)

The Essay does not mention any individual editor, and the article was started by User:Firestarter. I am open to feedback about the essay, but I believe it does a better job of exploring the tension between Donald Trump and the mainstream media. Some of the sources that 1990sguy has deleted were in fact mainstream media sources, but I believe it is necessary to refer to the mainstream media in the process of discussing the relationship between Donald Trump and the mainstream media. Other information was added to the essay to better explore some of the items raised in the current Mainstream media and Donald Trump article, including MS-13 and a false reporting of 2014 rape at the University of Virginia. The problem is that some of the writing in the article is not clear, and 1990sguy has resisted attempts to make the text more closely reflect the sources. I have generally stepped back from editing the current Mainstream media and Donald Trump article, but I believe a more accurate portrait of the current situation can be found in the essay. Perhaps interested readers will consider both. The essay contains 1990sguy's account of Charlottesville rather than what I had originially wrote, but as an essay, I will have the opporunity to revise it over time. The fact that 1990sguy wrote directly to you, rather than discuss the essay with me, shows how he is unwilling to collaborate with other editors. Many thanks, JDano (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2017 (EDT)
1) You did not name names at the top of your essay, but you are obviously criticizing me. You do this often.
2) Yes, Firestarter created the article, but that doesn't take away from the fact that I created most of the content. You are ignoring this and falsely implying that I did not make substantial edits to the article until a week ago.
3) You are unilaterally changing the article's tone and theme, and you are adding irrelevant content that gives the article a liberal pov tilt. I linked your edits, and I will do it again: [2] A some of your changes are meaningless (if it ain't broke, don't fix it), irrelevant (polling data, TIME Magazine cover), and a lot of it accepts the MSM's narrative of certain incidents (the Pheonix rally section). Honestly, I don't see why any good-faith person in their right mind would add the info that you did. Is approval rating data really relevant to the MSM and Trump? --1990'sguy (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2017 (EDT)
I am willing to discuss these three issues with you, but the place for that is on the essay talk page or my talk page. Thank you. JDano (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2017 (EDT)
Your edits are ridiculous. You think that a TIME magazine cover and approval rating data are somehow important to the article. They give the article a left-of-center tilt. Also, I have tried discussing things with you. I did it all the time with you, and I was actually better at going to the talk pages than you. However, many discussions with you (and other editors and you) show that you are unwilling to budge, to reconsider, or to meet in the middle. I have accepted many of your edits, even as I reverted some others (and I am referring to changes in single diffs and articles). Knowing your personality and the contents of your edits, I see no good reason to start an (almost literally) endless discussion with you that wastes over half the time I have to made any edits on CP whatsoever. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2017 (EDT)

Ignoring all the main argument, I also see two other factors. First, this is an "essay," which usually means conflicting points of view can be published. Second, to make this article, JDano copied the work of others into an essay which would presumably have been written solely by him. --David B (TALK) 19:47, 4 September 2017 (EDT)

I think that the headnote makes that clear, but I will add a statement to the talk page giving attribution. Thanks, JDano (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2017 (EDT)
We do not delete essays, no matter how much we disagree with them, unless they are libelous. That's been the rule here for as long as I can remember. The point of an essay is that one can express one's personal point of view, not subject to being reverted or otherwise hounded. The essay category is full of such things.
But I would recommend that JDano request that its name be changed from just the name of another article with "Essay:" in front of it. If I wanted to write yet another essay on the same topic I'd have a difficult time. That's why I named my recently created essay "Essay:Pussy Riot - an Anti-Putin Perspective". SamHB (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2017 (EDT)
In addition to the name of the essay, my problem with his essay is that he attacks me with false claims. I already mentioned this above, but at the top of his essay, JDano writes "Until August 2017, a group of editors worked hard to develop an encyclopedia article on this topic, but then one editor decided unilaterally to delete materials that did not agree with his personal opinions." That statement is bogus -- most of the article is MY WORK, and I edited the article long before August 2017. JDano is blatantly violating Conservapedia Commandment #1, the same commandment he claims to support. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2017 (EDT)
Also, as I said quite a lot today, the reason why I removed the info was that they were terrible edits. They inserted liberal bias because they focused on irrelevant topics such as approval rating polls and TIME magazine covers (along with blindly accepting the MSM's narrative on the Pheonix rally and Charlottesville) rather than focusing on the actual topic. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2017 (EDT)
I am addressing this concerns on the essay talk page where it belongs. 1990sguy has been misusing this page. JDano (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2017 (EDT)
As an encyclopedia, it would inappropriate to criticize other editors, either individually or as a group, in an entry or essay. On a talk page that would be fine, but not in an entry. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2017 (EDT)
I don't think that is what prompted 1990sguy to start this section and request the deletion, but I will reword the headnote. You should be aware that the encyclopedia article was a collaborative effort until 1990sguy started to block users with whom he had disagreements in late August 2017. Thanks, JDano (talk) 08:04, 5 September 2017 (EDT)
Andy, would you please rename the essay so it is not just the actual article's name with the word "essay"? What about Essay:Mainstream media and Donald Trump - JDano's perspective? --1990'sguy (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2017 (EDT)
I would recommend a name that doesn't have JDano's name on it. After all, my "Essay:Pussy Riot - an Anti-Putin Perspective" article doesn't have my name on it. Perhaps use the phrase "an alternative perspective", or "a non-conservative-media perspective", or "a contrarian perspective". I could think of a few edgier names too, but we don't want to get too inflammatory. SamHB (talk) 12:05, 5 September 2017 (EDT)
Andy, would you please make on of these page moves? --1990'sguy (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2017 (EDT)
It appears that 1990sguy is continuing to pick fights. First, I want to make clear that other editors are welcomed to continue adding material to Essay:Mainstream media and Donald Trump, and that the essay represents more than just my personal opinions. It also appears that User:1990sguy has a very unencyclopedic view of Mainstream media and Donald Trump -- rather than explain the difficult relationship between the two, he wants just a list of times that the mainstream media has show bias against or disapproval of Donald Trump or his actions. I don't think that his vision for the article fits with our policy of "Tolerance of opposing ideas means that we're not afraid of describing ideas we don't believe in. If you'll follow our editorial guidelines, then there's no idea off limits. Just write an article which explains what the idea is, who believes in it, and the reasons they give for it." Therefore, I propose a compromise:
This will allow 1990sguy to have a clear label for the list he wants to currate and will allow all interested editors to add content regarding an important topic -- the relationship of Donald Trump and the mainstream media. Many thanks! JDano (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2017 (EDT)
That's not a good "compromise." It's just a way to get your version in the mainspace, and following your suggestion will create two articles with mostly duplicate information. These are the changes that JDano wants to incorporate into the article. Apparently, he thinks it's necessary to discuss negative approval rating data in this article, for example. Andy, please judge those edits for yourself, and please most JDano's essay to a more appropriate name, as I and SamHB said above (and if I and SamHB both agree on something, it shows it's noncontroversial change). --1990'sguy (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2017 (EDT)
Actually, 1990'sguy and me agreeing on something is not all that noteworthy. We would disagree strongly on issues of creationism, for example, if we were ever to get in a conflict over it, but we don't. And his attitude toward Breitbart news seems to me to be appalling, but I haven't looked into the issues enough to want to get involved with that. But these issues of content are, in my opinion, trivial. His positions don't bother me at all. I think we might be able get along just fine.
We also disagree on one matter of policy—whether he should have absolute power to block me any time he wants. But Andy has decided that issue in his favor, so there's nothing I can do about it. In fact, I stopped editing CP for a week when I decided it was no longer safe for me to be here. But JDano came back and survived, so maybe 1990'sguy intends not to exercise arbitrary and absolute power, which I think is a good sign.
But there are several issues of policy that 1990'sguy and I seem to agree on, based on what he said about creating an "essay" page for JDano's writing about MSM and DT:
  • Non-libelous material is never removed from any talk pages, user pages or otherwise, nor are such pages ever deleted.
  • Non-libelous material is never removed from any user pages, nor are such pages ever deleted.
  • Essays are never subject to edit-warring. As much as one may disagree with the content of an essay, it's an essay. One can complain on the talk page, but, ultimately, the author(s) control the content.
Now I think it's unseemly for the content of the MSM+DT main page and JDano's essay to involve complaints about the writing quality of the other. By the way, I'm not going to get involved in that issue. I would need to study both pages in detail, which I don't have time for, and, in any case, it's outside of my area of expertise. However much 1990'sguy and JDano may despise each other's writing, they should each concentrate on making their own article the best it can be. And refrain from attacking each other. Except possibly in talk pages, if you must.
One thing JDano should do is pick an appropriate title for his essay, that appropriately describes its role as a "reply" or "rebuttal" to the main article. Then the essay can be restored and set to that name. Moving pages is a difficult operation, so it would be good to have to move it only once.
SamHB (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2017 (EDT)
(edit conflict) The problem is that if a topic is an encyclopedia article - it must be written in an encyclopedic tone explaining all sides. We are trying to write an encyclopedia article and you keep taking out relevant material claiming that it is not pro-Trump. The relationship between the President and the media is a very important topic. If a reader looks at both he will come away with a better understanding from Essay:Mainstream media and Donald Trump than from the bias fragments that have been slapped together in Mainstream media and Donald Trump, so I do not agree with your proposal to rename and I think that my suggested renaming is a better fit to Conservapedia's policies. If the essay is renamed, I will delete the italic headnote. Thanks, JDano (talk) 19:08, 5 September 2017 (EDT)
Passing off what the MSM says as fact does not give a reader a better understanding on this topic. Nor does including polling data. I notice that, for some reason, all the information that you add related to Trump is negative -- please show me a diff where you added information that portrayed Trump in a positive light; I found quite a lot of the opposite as I showed with the diffs I linked here and elsewhere. This article accurately shows the relationship between Trump and the media as it is, and let me remind you that we are a conservative encyclopedia -- we don't blindly accept the MSM's narrative of various topics as you did. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2017 (EDT)
(edit conflict) I agree that we should not pass off what the MSM says as fact, but we can cite to the MSM coverage when a critic claims that the MSM failed to cover something. We should discuss this on the essay talk page, and not change the subject again. Thanks, JDano (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2017 (EDT)
By the way, the relationship between the MSM and Trump is that the former strongly opposes the latter. Trump is not criticizing the MSM because he really wants to -- he's doing it in response to their bias against him. Trump is a New Yorker who once was a more liberal Democrat. If he's now the MSM's #1 opponent, that says something about their reporting.
JDano's favored article unduly favors the MSM's reporting. The diff I linked above shows this, along with this edit, where he delegitimizes the conservative media's critique of the MSM. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2017 (EDT)
You are free to raise these concerns on the essay's talk page, this is not the proper place. The phrase "conservative media" is hard to define. Some of it like Fox News is mainstream media. If you want to start a Conservative media and Donald Trump article, we can discuss that complicated relationship as well. We are not here to legitimate or condemn anyone. We just make the article follow the sources without exaggeeration. That is true whether the source agrees with the CP editor or not. Where in the current Mainstream media and Donald Trump do you explain how Trump's strategy has brought things to the current state and whether his media strategy is successful? JDano (talk) 19:08, 5 September 2017 (EDT)
First off, as my previous experiences discussing with you proved worthless as you would consistently refuse to budge, I don't have much interest discussing with you -- it will just lead to an endless discussion. In the past, I was actually more consistent in going to the talk page than you were -- look at the talk pages, including your own. Remember the "female genital mutilation" dispute? It only ended after you were blocked, and you accused me ridiculous and terrible things just because I took the same position that every other editor eventually took along with me. Also, I didn't come here to discuss with you -- I came here to ask Andy to take care of your essay, in which you personally attacked me and made blatantly false claims. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2017 (EDT)
(edit conflict) There are established procedures for proposing a page move that allow other people to comment on it. It is done on the essay talk page. There are procedures to discuss content concerns. Again, go to the essay talk page. If you disagree with an editor, you should try to work things out. From the last comment above, you appear to be emotionally involved and upset, so you should not block people with whom you have such feelings. Being a good Christian neighbor, I thought that by creating two different pages, I am trying to avoid future conflicts. Yet, by repeatedly running to Andy's talk page, you are trying to engender and escalate differences. Thanks, JDano (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2017 (EDT)

JDano, if you want the keep Essay:Mainstream media and Donald Trump from being deleted, you are going to have to make it 80% different from Mainstream media and Donald Trump in terms of its wording, content and pictures. You have 4 weeks to do this or it will be deleted.

19990sguy, I would focus now on either making the article better or making related articles such as Donald Trump and Fox News or Donald Trump and CNN or Donald Trump and conservative news media or Donald Trump and Breitbart or Donald Trump and Jim Acosta or Donald Trump and Twitter. Conservative (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2017 (EDT)

I believe that there is now an 80% difference between the two pages. I have been working on it all day. I no longer am able to upload pictures. Thanks, JDano (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2017 (EDT)
I have access to a tool which says your essay is "78% percentage similar to" the other page. So you are not even close to doing a proper revision according to this tool (and no I am going to share with you more information about this tool. I will share this tool with 1990sguy though so he can evaluate your efforts in an objective way). Please use different sources, wording and pictures. Website visitors don't very similar content and that is why your essay will be deleted unless you do a very substantial revision. Conservative (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2017 (EDT)
The whole idea is to take the same sources and put them into context. Please read both right now. You can judge as to which version treats the sources fairly. To my knowledge, there has never been a requirement that essays and articles use different pictures or sources. I want other editors (including 1990sguy) to feel free to contribute additional points to the essay or to both the essay and the article (and they should not have to worry about how different their contribution makes the two). May I suggest that you move the Essay back until we can decide what is the best way forward? Many thanks, JDano (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2017 (EDT)
I think Conservative's idea is good. You added information that I think is bad to add to a mainspace article on this topic, so you can keep that in your essay. However, the articles should be different, and an essay is not to supplement -- not replace -- mainspace articles. Until that is achieved, it is appropriate for the essay to be a sub-page of your account. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2017 (EDT)

JDano, in the past, I wasted time trying to reason with you on talk pages. I am not going to do that anymore. I deleted your essay.

I did have a confidential talk with 1990sguy about things he could do to improve as an editor. But no matter what improvements he makes, I think that ultimately he will have trouble with you if you persist in pushing an anti-Trump agenda in areas where Trump is being reasonable. Trump is obviously not infallible though and all presidents make mistakes.Conservative (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2017 (EDT)

P.S. This wiki isn't nor is it Conservative (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2017 (EDT)
I don't view this as anything to do with Trump. I think it has to do with a failure to read the sources and to present the sources in a balanced way. I don't care whether the underlying fact makes Trump look bad or good, everyone must avoid stretching sources to support what we hope they say rather than what they actually say. I am a conservative first and foremost, but I am also a dedicated encyclopedia writer. I was active here before Trump rose to his leadership position, and I plan to be here after he is gone. In some cases, I pick a topic and write an article, in other cases like the TAR cleanup effort, you ask me to do the work. Cons, you properly decided the Conservapedia should have a Mainstream media and Donald Trump article (rather than Mainstream media's war on Trump), and I tried to fill out topic based upon how the sources informed me. I had hoped that creating a separate essay would end the problem, but 1990sguy loves to run here to stir up unnecessary drama. If Andy wants to preserve the right of editors to write essays, he knows where this essay is located (as a deleted user subpage). Many thanks, JDano (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2017 (EDT)
Readers don't want substantially duplicate content from other websites posted at Conservapedia nor do they want substantially duplicate articles at Conservapedia. I have zero regrets about deleting that essay. Conservative (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2017 (EDT)
I agree that Conservapedia does not need two articles, but what is there now is a mess with no flow and footnotes that do not support the text. The article says that the Mainstream media failed to report this or that, and yet there are plenty of MSM sources showing the coverage. Cons, as a skilled researcher, perhaps you could clean it up. Thanks, JDano (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2017 (EDT)
An opportunity opened up for me to pursue. I am not going to investigate your claims and I doubt anyone else will either. One or more of your past edit comments and other matters has created a situation where you have few allies. Conservative (talk) 02:58, 6 September 2017 (EDT)
It is not a question of allies. It is a question of Conservapedia's standards and reliability. I can understand if two people have a sincere difference of opinion (for example Editor A supports Trump for the Republican nomination and Editor B supports Ted Cruz). Both editors should respect each others views, but make sure that articles are not slanted for one candidate or the other. I also understand a live and let live attitude toward people curating lists, like Donald Trump achievements if there is clear criteria for what belongs on that list. I don't understand how a topic sentence like "The relationship between the Mainstream media and Donald Trump has been problematic." has drawn so much ire and edit warring. I challenge anyone here to write a better sentence that uses the phrase Mainstream media and Donald Trump that is encyclopedic and accurate and to put it in as the first sentence of the article. We all agree on the facts (that there is bad chemistry between President Trump and the media), we can't agree on how to apply Conservapedia's standards to produce an article. Further, with Cons' unfortunate action late last night, we no longer agree that editors can write essays or have subpages on their user page. JDano (talk) 08:29, 6 September 2017 (EDT)
Your edits in this case (like so many others) were bad. Yes, they did give the article a left-of-center (or RINO) tilt, and they relied exclusively on the MSM, but in this case, they also were irrelevant to the article. Polling numbers in response to the Charlottesville incident are irrelevant to Trump and the media. It is true that sometimes you catch errors in things I write (I have made this very clear in my previous comments, and I often change a lot of my info due to your criticisms). However, you always do more than catch errors -- you insert biased information as well. I revert the bias while keeping the improvements, but you want it to be all or nothing (for all the articles, D.T. achievements, fake news, travel ban, constitutional carry, etc.). I have no regrets that your essay was deleted -- you were given the chance to make it different from the mainspace article, and you still protested anyway. --1990'sguy (talk) 08:46, 6 September 2017 (EDT)
Dear 1990sguy, you have the chronology wrong. The essay was deleted and moved to a user subpage after I spent all day making it different from the article and before I was offered 4 weeks to make it further different. Some people have expressed doubt about this "objective tool" which measures the differences between pages. Could you please shed some light on what is it and what criteria that it applies? Many thanks! JDano (talk) 09:22, 6 September 2017 (EDT)
Conservative moved the essay after checking your article and finding that it was still 78% the same, as the talk page comments attest. Seeing your edits to the essay before it was deleted, this is a reasonable number, as there were many sections that you didn't even touch. I will not reveal something that he does not want me to reveal, but I will assure that it is real and accurate and that I would use it honestly and objectively if given the chance. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:33, 6 September 2017 (EDT)

I restored User:JDano/Essay:Mainstream media and Donald Trump.

But I am absolutely not going to wrangle with you about the necessity of you making the essay 80% different from the aforementioned article.Conservative (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2017 (EDT)

Conservative, why did you restore the essay? --1990'sguy (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2017 (EDT)
Cons, many thanks, JDano (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2017 (EDT)
Conservative, why did you restore it? Does the criteria to make it 80% different still apply? --1990'sguy (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2017 (EDT)
I think it's pretty obvious. He had made an ill-considered decision to delete something, in violation of Conservapedia customs, and he reconsidered. People rethink their decisions, and correct bad decisions, all the time. Cons has done this before—he once deleted my user and talk pages. SamHB (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2017 (EDT)

It is in his userspace. If he doesn't make it 80% different in 30 days, it will be deleted. I restored it to give him a chance at making it 80% different. He is going to have radically change the text, sources/footnoting and pictures for him to make it under the 80% different threshold for his essay.Conservative (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2017 (EDT)

Thank you. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2017 (EDT)
Again, this discussion does not belong on this page. 1990sguy, why do you conduct all of your communications here instead of relevant talk pages? JDano (talk) 10:56, 7 September 2017 (EDT)
Why are you doing nothing to move the discussion somewhere else? You are posting here, SamHB is posting here, Conservative is posting here (and I just replied to Conservative's comment that he restored the essay), but you only focus on me. If your behavior persists, I may have to take action against you again. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:11, 7 September 2017 (EDT)
Because the page where it naturally belongs was, for a while, deleted. People need to know that the pages on which they are discussing things won't suddenly disappear. I feel sorry for Andy having to have this on his personal talk page, but, until this issue gets straightened out, it needs to be here.
@1990's guy: Your last sentence above sounds like a threat. Contributors to web sites that are trying to appear professional, and that have "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" in their masthead, shouldn't do that.
@JDano: It's obvious that things you have written in your essay anger 1990'sguy a great deal. While he needs to deal with his anger, please do what you can to keep your essay from saying things that would anger reasonable people.
@1990's guy: Many things here at CP anger me greatly: the Conservative Bible Project, the Counterexamples to Relativity, the Counterexamples to an Old Earth, the Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge page, to name just a few. We have to deal with those things. We respect diverse opinions, as a wiki like this should. But I agree that personal attacks should not be present in any pages anywhere.
@Cons: If you really think that some kind of objective technical "tool" to compare pages would be a useful thing, why don't you send it to all of us? You know my email, of course. There are actually a few things I would like to analyze objectively with such a tool.
@Cons: To show your patience, why don't you increase the 30 day limit to 66 days? With the added detail that they must be 66 consecutive days that you keep your promise not to edit Conservapedia, as described at the bottom of my talk page? The clock starts now, or, more precisely, at 10:49, 7 September.
SamHB (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2017 (EDT)
Of course there are things I don't like, but I wish JDano would act in a manner similar to you or DavidB4. He should know by now that his POV is not conservative (or, if you insist, like the conservatism supported by CP, a conservative encyclopedia) and would accordingly be more cautious in his edits. However, he continues making sneaky edits (making canned edit summaries that don't say what he is actually doing) inserting liberal bias and/or favoring the MSM over the conservative media, like on the Barack Obama article,[3][4] Constitutional Carry (calling it a "propaganda term", etc.), D.T. achievements, fake news (taking away blame of the MSM), gun control, etc. He then gets into edit fights over the content (before I started coming here, I was actually better than him at going to either his talk page or the article talk page, and sometimes he would not respond to my comments). Sometimes, he makes ridiculous personal attacks[5] (apparently, thinking that FGM is a predominantly Muslim practice either makes you a parodist or someone trying to legalize the practice -- CP's other editors disagree). If you want to know why I'm angry at JDano, I hope this helps. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2017 (EDT)

SamHB, I will follow your suggestions regarding the 66 days. JDano has 66 days now.

Please remember that the 66 day period is a period during which you do not edit Conservapedia. The clock starts when you stop. As of now, that means that the clock started at 08:42 on 9 September.
After today, I am going to refrain from writing anything that will tempt Cons to edit here. Further communication will be by email, where we can discuss things freely, without either of us being tempted to engage in "grandstanding". But first, I need you to send me the "objective comparison tool" that you referred to above, and for which you provided a screen shot below. So please bear with me for a little bit longer while I argue with you publicly, below. SamHB (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2017 (EDT)

Second, THIS ARTICLE convinced me that Europe very stubborn and very much engaging in denialism as far as Islam. If this continues, within 2-4 generations Islamic/evangelical creationism could easily kill off evolutionism in Britain, France and Germany. In 4-6 generations, creationists could kill off evolutionism in Europe. On top of this, evangelical Christianity is growing by leaps and bounds in China. You know you can't satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists. Its time you stop clinging to your lost causes of evolutionism and old earthism. Conservative (talk)

Ummmm, I was puzzled at first that you were inserting material about evangelical creationism right here in the middle of the dispute between 1990'sguy and Jdano over an essay relating to Donald Trump. But then I realized that it was another swipe at me and my acceptance of evolution, bizarrely placed in the middle of this discussion. With a reference to a "15 questions" item on a creationist web site.
Cons, we've been through this many many times before. I do not accept articles from creationist/fundamentalist religious sources as being authoritative about scientific discussions. But I figured I'd humor you and at least look at the page this one time. The page says, right at the top, that "The General Theory of Evolution, as acknowledged by prominent evolutionists, includes the origin of life." No, that is not true. Prominent scientists (or even those that are not prominent) do not acknowledge any such idea. I stopped reading right there. SamHB (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2017 (EDT)
1990sguy, JDano is liberal on some issues. Liberals always double down. People who are liberal on certain issues often double down on those issues. Sooner or later you are going to have to block JDano for longer and longer periods. He is not going to change otherwise. Conservative (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2017 (EDT)
Dear Cons, I am conservative on most issues, and libertarian on others. The reason why you do not understand my personal political opinions is that I take my work at Conservapedia very seriously as an obligation to the high-school level readers that we are trying to serve. Conservapedia commandment #5 is "Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry." So I do not, and I also delete it when I see that others have posted opinions -- whether I agree or disagree with it. Let's move this discussion to the proper talk page please. JDano (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2017 (EDT)
Whether you're conservative or not, your edits strongly suggest otherwise. Also, if you're going to accuse me of posting personal opinion, I cite everything, oftentimes with multiple references -- it's not my personal opinion. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2017 (EDT)
I don't know where you get the idea that there are skeptics about the existence of this tool, or the idea that it is mysterious. The only mystery is why you haven't mailed it, or a download URL, to me. Now it's true that JDano wrote, above, that "Some people have expressed doubt about this "objective tool" which measures the differences between pages." I don't know who he thinks those "some people" are. I haven't seen any doubt expressed anywhere at Conservapedia.
As I'm sure you know, comparing files is tricky. The theoretical research ("Hamming distance", for example) is useless here. Textual comparison tools are an important part of software Integrated Development Environments (IDE's), or even environments that aren't integrated, as in the Emacs "three-way-merge" operation. The wikimedia software that is used to compare versions of files in the file history here at CP (which is how we got into this fight in the first place) is surprisingly quirky, even though the problem it is trying to solve is much easier. As an example, compare the 10:38, 9 September 2017 and 10:44, 9 September 2017 versions of the Equifax article. Did it really consider the files to be different in just 5 pairs of wikilink brackets, or in 4 pairs plus a complete paragraph? It makes a big difference—that paragraph is the bulk of the article.
So I'd really like to get this tool and try it out on various files, both here at CP and elsewhere. I might even add it to my set of software development utilities. So please send it to me by email. Then I will stop tempting you to get involved in this discussion and thereby breaking your promise. SamHB (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2017 (EDT)
OK, I found it. Google the quoted phrase "secret magic tool to measure the degree to which articles are different", and you will see an expression of skepticism about the existence of this tool, apparently expressed 3 days ago. On everyone's favorite web site. SamHB (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2017 (EDT)

JDano, if you want the keep User:JDano/Essay:Mainstream media and Donald Trump from being deleted and have it be made into an essay, you are going to have to make it 80% different from Mainstream media and Donald Trump. I suggests making changes in terms of its wording, footnotes/sources and pictures.Conservative (talk) 04:38, 9 September 2017 (EDT)

IP blocking for "servers allowing spam"

I have some lists of "servers allowing spam" (I'll refrain from using the proper name for these servers for the sake of those who may not know) from some other off-site administration duties. I see some other Admins and Assistant SysOps have been blocking such IPs, but I wasn't sure if as an assistant SysOp, I have the authority to do that. Would you like me to implement such blocks, or shall I refrain, or perhaps just send you the lists for you to check before blocking? Thanks! --David B (TALK) 21:04, 22 August 2017 (EDT)

Perhaps it would be best if you sent me the list first. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:16, 22 August 2017 (EDT)
Okay, I'll need to sort it first, but will try to send you some of them soon. At this point what I have is "dirty data" so maybe I will clean up some of them (a "sample") and send those, and if you want more afterwards, I'll keep going. Cheers! --David B (TALK) 23:22, 22 August 2017 (EDT)
I've sent a partial list. I'll put a hold on further extraction pending you reply. I literally have hundreds, and probably thousands, most of which do not seem to be blocked on CP. However, for better or worse there are no IP ranges, only specific addresses. --David B (TALK) 00:19, 23 August 2017 (EDT)
Do you happen to know if any specific countries' addresses are used against us more than others?
As I'm sure you have seen, I have started blocking the addresses I have. This really is just the tip of the iceberg, though--I have many thousands more. I feel funny blocking so many, but most are overseas anyway, so I suppose there is no harm. --David B (TALK) 16:13, 24 August 2017 (EDT)
You're doing great work. As to which countries, China and Singapore might be a bit worse than most. But that's just a guess.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2017 (EDT)
Thank you! I may pay a little more attention to those locations then, but if you don't know of any specific trends, I won't make a special effort to focus on any. It sounds like you don't mind, so I'll keep going. Do I assume correctly there is no method here to block multiple addresses at once? I'm starting to figure out the scope of how long processing all of these addresses will be. I just "scraped" addresses from one service alone, and got about 49,000 addresses in all. I can't deal with that kind of quantity manually, even if I do run out of addresses of my own. If not, that's okay--I'll just do some of what I have, and stop with that. --David B (TALK) 00:27, 25 August 2017 (EDT)
That's great, David. Thank you!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 13:26, 25 August 2017 (EDT)

Explicit rescinding of longstanding policy

The material that is being discussed here is archived and available in this section and the sections that follow.

That policy is, of course, that "assistant sysops" are not permitted to block users over content disputes, only for obvious vandalism. I have brought this up a number of times; I won't repeat it here.

Andy has explicitly, on four occasions, given 1990'sguy permission to block people over content. And 1990's guy has wielded that power twice.

1990'sguy seemed reluctant to do this, since JDano also (at that time) had blocking authority. As though he will only take action against weaker parties.
I called him out on that here.
I objected here.
  • Andy threatens a block over content, but does not delegate that authority to 1990'sguy here.
  • 1990'sguy acknowledges his power here.
  • A fourth time here.

And then 1990's guy suddenly wants to archive the whole thing, putting it out of sight. Which Andy did. This strikes me as suspicious.

This policy makes it impossible for me to work here. Another assistant has already improperly wielded block authority against me because of my contention, in the Pussy Riot article, that one does not need to be an "elitist" or "leftist" to oppose murderous thug Vladimir Putin.

SamHB (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2017 (EDT)

Once again, SamHB, you conveniently ignore that you were blocked for attempting to impose a liberal POV on that article and for edit warring (both in violation of Conservapedia policy) and for trying to provoke fights, as you're doing even now with your thinly-veiled shot at me. You brought that, and your other previous blocks, down on yourself through your history of behavior here, and trying to claim "improper" use of block authority to excuse and dismiss your behavior here does not make your case. Follow the rules of the site instead of fighting them (and those who actually follow them) and you'll be a lot better off for it. Northwest (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2017 (EDT)
SamHB, there is nothing "suspicious" about me wanting to archive everything -- the talk page had nearly 300,000 bytes, and it took very long to scroll down to the bottom. Also, I did not specify which discussions to archive -- I would not have argued if Andy kept the disputes with JDano (but now their archived, so you're just duplicating the discussions by re-adding them here, Sam).
Sam, JDano's editing style is the one that makes it impossible to work here, not to mention the fact that many of his edits have inserted left-of-center POV (such as calling constitutional carry a "propaganda term", etc.). I have been extremely reluctant to use any blocking authority on him regardless -- SamHB, if there were misconduct on my part, it wouldn't be because I am acting the way I do now. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:31, 26 August 2017 (EDT)
(edit conflict) The problem is that our rules about blocking cannot depend on whether the content is thought to be liberal or conservative. All an angry person with blocking authority needs to do is to define "conservative" as content I prefer and "liberal" as content the other person prefers. If two people have an editing dispute, they should try to work it out. If one or both of the people have blocking authority, they should not use it because they are too emotionally involved. In the long term, we need to build a colleagial working environment, and blocking the person with whom you disagree destroys that environment. Thanks, JDano (talk) 09:29, 26 August 2017 (EDT)
"I would not have argued if Andy kept the disputes with JDano"? Really? You would have been OK with those disputes staying? And yet, when I put them back you deleted them? And you would like me to believe that Andy's archiving the page was his own idea, though he archived it 38 minutes after you requested it? And you claim (in an edit comment) that "SamHB, you explicitly refused to comment on them at first."? I commented on these issues all along. SamHB (talk) 10:06, 26 August 2017 (EDT)
Sam, you're duplicating discussions. They are now in the archives and on this talk page. They should be only on one or the other. Archiving the talk page obviously was not Andy's idea, as I suggested it. However, Andy was the one who did it -- he obviously thought it was a good idea. I did not tell him to archive everything, just that the vast majority could be archived. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:09, 26 August 2017 (EDT)
You're right. The material has plenty of links into it in the paragraphs above. What you requested was that Andy "archive the discussions on your talk page", without suggesting any limit. If you would have been OK with his archiving only older material, you wouldn't have objected to my "correcting" things, would you? SamHB (talk) 10:56, 26 August 2017 (EDT)
Only if you don't duplicate the discussions -- frankly, it is sloppy editing to do otherwise. At the same time, I do have to say, that the discussions are over. There is no more dispute for any of them, and I don't want to be forced back into wasting 50% of my available time arguing over stuff that I thought were resolved weeks/months ago. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:03, 26 August 2017 (EDT)
Besides, Sam, why are you now so concerned about having this information back on the actual talk page? You explicitly refused to comment on the disputes earlier: [6] --1990'sguy (talk) 10:11, 26 August 2017 (EDT)
I withdrew my offer to contribute when you made it clear, as you have done on a number of occasions, to me and others, that you view people's contributions as "acceptable" or "unacceptable", placing yourself as the arbiter of what can be said on this wiki. SamHB (talk) 10:56, 26 August 2017 (EDT)

Deletion of GinnyS's user and talk page

Please restore the talk page of user GinnyS. (I don't specifically care about her user page.) She was recently blocked for objectionable behavior, and, much as I wish that hadn't happened, it did. But her talk page had quite a bit of advice from me to her as a new user. I advised her against precisely the things that she did. Her talk page should stay up as an example of how to behave and how not to behave. It could be useful to future people. In any case, it is never necessary to delete user pages of people who have left.

I have been trying to encourage Cons to refrain from useless activity on CP (see my talk page), and he admits that he has a problem in this area. I think it would be useful to show that actions such as his deletion of Ginny's page are not productive. SamHB (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2017 (EDT)

The issue of legal trademark reuse continues to confuse me. I recently created an article on Kaspersky Lab following the buzz about their potential connections to the Kremlin. I was looking into whether it would be permitted to use their logo on that page, and cannot find a definitive answer. As usual, Wikipedia (and Wikimenda commons) says that while a trademark, the logs are not copyrightable and therefore can be used basically in any way they wish. I can't find much on the matter on Kaspersky's own website, but just two official "blog" posts with their logo in two different sizes, clearly for reuse. [7] (older one here: [8]). I would also be fine with just the "K" logo: [9]
What do you think? Would it be alright for us to use one such logo on the page about them? Thanks! --David B (TALK) 13:42, 31 August 2017 (EDT)

David, good question. It would be "fair use" to use their logo as part of an entry about them. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:47, 5 September 2017 (EDT)
Thanks! I've added a low-resolution version of it to the article. --David B (TALK) 09:52, 5 September 2017 (EDT)


User:1990sguy is again following me around and acting in a hostile and intimidating manner. He falsely claimed that I copied material from an article he wrote, which I denied "swearing on a Bible", and he called me a liar. He is being unnecessarily disruptive to my effort to write a full comprehensive and unbiased article on Donald Trump and social media. I would appreciate your help on this matter. Many thanks, JDano (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2017 (EDT)

One: Since when was removing liberal/establishment/MSM bias a bad thing? You're the one who is adding the bias and denying reality: contrary to your edits, the establishment IS a real, commonly-used, and objective term (and it has its own CP article), John McCain and Linsey Graham ARE RINOs (just look at their positions and voting records), and the WH staffers who oppose Trump's tweeting ARE on the moderate wing. Stop denying reality and giving articles MSM spin (the MSM makes Graham and McCain appear to be conservative, for example).
Two: Please read Donald Trump achievements: Media and political correctness#Trump's establishment of a massive direct line to the public via social media. JDano clearly copied a lot of that section into the other article. You can tell because he uses a lot of the same wording, uses the same references, and he even formats the references MY way, which is a lot different than how he usually formats them as he uses the "cite web" ref template. BTW, I never said that it was a bad thing to copy from that article -- I just noted that it happened. I don't disapprove of his copying in this case, as it did not violate any copyright. JDano, if you really did not copy from that article, please prove to me that you did not. Everything in that action of the D.T. achievements sub-article is very-similar-to-identical to the Donald Trump and social media article where you transferred it.
Three: Wow, JDano, you constantly criticize me for going to Andy's talk page, and now you're doing the same thing. You are not following your own ethical standards. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2017 (EDT)
As I previously disclosed on the article talk page, it was copied from Donald Trump, and I have not read the article that you mentioned above. You continue to insult and harrass me for no good purpose. You call me a liar without any basis. This is all very toxic. JDano (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2017 (EDT)
Please show me in which sections of the Donald Trump article you took the info. I already gave the specific link, Donald Trump achievements: Media and political correctness#Trump's establishment of a massive direct line to the public via social media, where the info is essentially the same. Where in the Donald Trump article is info duplicated? I see no evidence that you took the info from the Donald Trump article, so I would appreciate it if you would show where you got it.
In all honesty, your behavior in the 9 months has also played a large role in the toxicness. If you think that I'm only the one to blame, you're wrong, by a lot. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2017 (EDT)


Andy, would you please add Category:Breitbart to the protected image, File:Breitbartlogo.jpg? --1990'sguy (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2017 (EDT)

Done. Conservative (talk)

MainPageRight request

Andy, would you please add the 99% drop in illegal immigration in Hungary since building its border fence to Template:Mainpageright? --1990'sguy (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2017 (EDT)

Excellent suggestion! Posting now ....--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2017 (EDT)
Thanks for adding. Would you please add a link to "border fence"? --1990'sguy (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2017 (EDT)
Great suggestion. Done!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2017 (EDT)

Camelid Category change

I've been holding off from this project because it requires some protected page edits. However, I decided to go ahead and try to get it done. Category:Camelid should not exist, since it is the singular rather than plural. Would you please do the following?

  1. Change the category on Template:Nb_zl_camelids to Category:Camelids
  2. Unlock Camelid
  3. Delete Category:Camelid to prevent future confusion

Thank you! --David B (TALK) 20:24, 18 September 2017 (EDT)

Also, would you please delete Bill of Attainder since I completed the merge with Bill of attainder, and that first page is not needed? Thanks! --David B (TALK) 21:14, 18 September 2017 (EDT)

Vandalism delete request

Please delete the article "Dildo", which was created by a vandal (unless someone else does it first). I cannot add the speedy deletion tag to it because my university's server is not letting me access the page due to the inappropriate title. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:18, 19 September 2017 (EDT)

I tend to find excessive locking a significany inconvenience, but I highly doubt there will be any legitimate need to create an article under that name. Should we just lock it? This is the third creation of a page under that name by vandals. --David B (TALK) 00:57, 20 September 2017 (EDT)