Difference between revisions of "User talk:Iduan"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Blocking policy improvement panel member - please give your feedback here: new section)
(Welcome back and your account has been promoted!)
Line 103: Line 103:
Your assistance would be much appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:06, 16 November 2011 (EST)
Your assistance would be much appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:06, 16 November 2011 (EST)
== Account promoted ==
Welcome back and your account has been promoted!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:46, 22 November 2012 (EST)

Revision as of 13:46, 22 November 2012

Welcome to my talk page!
Please feel free to ask a question I'll be happy to respond as soon as possible
leave a comment
Some things to keep in mind:

  • Please sign your name using ~~~~
  • I'll typically respond on my talk page unless otherwise requested
  • I archive whenever a convo is done






#1 on Google

Barack Hussein Obama, since the recent upgrade, has leap frogged ahead of Wikipedia's article, and Mr. Barack Obama's very own website to occupy the #1 position on Google. Thank you, it was a brilliant idea, and very well executed. It is someting you need to be very proud, and we all appreciate your excellent work.

If I can be of any futher assistance, please don't hesitate to let me know. Rob Smith 22:25, 5 June 2011 (EDT)

Rob I couldn't have done it without you - I almost feel as though I should've posted this on your page first! I am very proud of the work we did, and the work that's been done since; thank you so much for your kind words.--IDuan 17:58, 6 June 2011 (EDT)


Greetings. I was about to do another round of the revert war with ELWisty on the ham sandwich stuff, and then saw that you had already done it. I don't know what to do about him. This "revert willful ignorance" stuff is pretty outrageous. A year ago he would have been banned so fast his head would spin, but in this new era of a "kinder gentler Conservapedia" I want to show caution and forbearance first, and the door second. But, make no mistake about it, he is either a parodist or so ignorant that he doesn't know the difference. Next, I have to confront him on "willful ignorance" in the "Gabriel's horn" article. Spider-sense is tingling strongly.

But we all have more important things to work on. I want to get into the issue of objectifying block reasons, which is a big project lately, but I've been awfully busy. SamHB 13:05, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

Holy sh*t. He's in full-scale revert war. I've got better things to do than deal with people like this! I want to help contribute to the ongoing project to make this a nicer place. But I guess part of being a better place is having articles get written with good judgment. Sigh. Asbestos suit--check. Flamethrower--check. Machine gun--check. Air cover--check. ..... SamHB 00:50, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
Sorry for not responding for so long; I was all over the place but I assure you I read your comments and payed attention to what was going on, hence my recent block of the user. I must admit I'm out of my depth when it comes to the topic at hand, I've never heard of it before. But I'm hesitant to believe that the user is editing in bad-faith, I think perhaps he misunderstands encyclopedic style and can be overly curt and aggressive. hopefully the short block will change things.--IDuan 15:42, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

Sorry about the Madonna stuff

I've been editing the article a bit, and Legolas has chirped in to revert on a couple of occassions and his comments have all been directed toward EdPoor (and a bit over-the-top). It's been annoying. I think I've only commented about it in 2 places: 1) on Legolas's talk page and 2) on JamesWilson's talk page after he became involved and then commented on my talk page. I'll cease, though. Have a great day! SharonW 16:18, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

I apologize as well, and feel bad I got in this in the first place. I'm done too.--JamesWilson 16:21, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
It's no problem! You're both editing in good faith - that's super awesome. I felt it was getting over the top (with multiple messages to Ed and Andy), hence my comment, but no one's done anything wrong. Happy editing--IDuan 16:24, 17 July 2011 (EDT)


[block this guy please. NickP 17:35, 23 July 2011 (EDT)

Never mind I see Andy took care of him. NickP 17:37, 23 July 2011 (EDT)

RobS/Conservative comments

I take your point (about the general tone of the RobS/Conservative argument), but of course I daren't redact comments made by sysops. I've been rather appalled, however, by all the users who really have no say in these matters shooting their mouths off. I think it hurts the site in a lot of ways, so I've been trying to clean it up. However, I'm sure you're right; I'll back off and leave it to the sysops. Jcw 10:13, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

No I absolutely agree that the general tone of the debate is terrible (and the newer users instantly jumping it is also unsettling to me, so I share your resentment towards that kind of trolling). I've been trying to clean it up as well - and I applaud your effort; it's just that I have been, on occasion, been using Template:personal remark removed or reverting sysops, and I can't in good conscience say that TracyS's comment - while, again, I completely disagree from it - wasn't far more civil than content from higher-ups on both sides that I haven't reverted, but you're doing a great job.--IDuan 10:21, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
Thanks, I quite understand the position now. Jcw 10:24, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

Another suggestion as far as being on a faster track of becoming a Sysop

Another suggestion as far as being on a faster track of becoming a Sysop:

If you want to create a more collaborative spirit and increase the esprit de corps of Conservapedia, my suggestion at the present time is for a group of Conservapedians to pick a topic and then have editors create as many quality articles relating to that topic that are at least 500 words long. I would suggest that the articles not be stubs because that is not going to enhance the reputation of Conservapedia nor give it a sense of accomplishment. I created this project for a couple of editors who seemed interested in this topic: Conservapedia:Atheism Project I suggest creating a project with more widespread appeal because atheism is not on most people's radar in terms of the public at large - especially in the United States. Conservative 09:54, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

more math

Well, I've been distracted, as have we all, by you-know-what lately, and it's time to pick up a few loose ends. This will mostly involve talk pages; I hope I'm not running close to 90/10 territory.

I need to answer ELWisty rather than leave him hanging. I think all he needs is a little guidance. He now seems to understand how to behave.

Also, there's this guy "JimJast" or whatever, posting stuff that is setting off my crackpot alarms. I've got to sound him out. He may need serious refutation. There is just so much about what he writes that is, well, wrong.

SamHB 22:46, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

some input

Please see: User talk:Iduan/Blocking Review Panel Ideas Conservative 19:22, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

The blocking policy refinement panel is convening on 8/17/11

The blocking policy refinement panel is beginning its proceedings on 8/17/11 here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Blocking_policy_refinement_panel_proceedings You can ignore my email asking you to invite people as I already did it. Conservative 02:20, 15 August 2011 (EDT)


Hi Iduan. I understand why you've changed RobS's block back and I have no intention of arguing over it - you have a lot more standing around here, so I'm sure you've done the right thing. However, I don't want you to think I was acting without reason. As I've said elsewhere, I don't want to drag the details out in public, but since his demotion and blocking RobS has been on a spree, insulting CP's sysops in the basest fashion on the vandal wiki. If you say that doesn't warrant an infinite block I'll accept that, I just wanted you to know what my reasoning was. To be perfectly frank, I was - and am - somewhat angry at RobS's behavior. Jcw 19:12, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

I understand the anger. To be clear, while I agreed with a good percentage of Rob's ideas - as many users did (as evidenced by Conservative's current effort to change blocking policy) - I think that he contributed to a spirit of incivility that plagued every user on the site. You don't have to travel to see this - inflammatory comments by him can be found in the archives of pages on Conservapedia (but I would also point out that he was not the only guilty one). Still, pending evidence to the contrary, I firmly believe that Rob is a good faith editor - who has made many real contributions to this site; if and until Andy or another sysop makes the decision that he should leave permanently, I will obviously respect that, but for now Andy's decision appears to be that Rob should take a short break. And as far as my "standing" goes - I see you as an equal and I respect you as a user, so please don't take any of this personally.--IDuan 19:21, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
I think that's a very reasonable position, in light of which I won't say any more on the subject. I certainly don't take any of it personally. Jcw 19:33, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

The panel proceeding have begun here

The panel proceeding have begun here: Conservapedia:Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings You can start making your edits to the page should you wish to do so. Conservative 12:56, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

Blocking policy improvement panel member - please give your feedback here

Blocking policy improvement panel member - please give your feedback HERE

Your assistance would be much appreciated. Conservative 15:06, 16 November 2011 (EST)

Account promoted

Welcome back and your account has been promoted!--Andy Schlafly 13:46, 22 November 2012 (EST)