User talk:MelH

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Brenden (Talk | contribs) at 14:44, 4 March 2013. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search
Useful links


Hello, MelH, 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, MelH!


I just noticed that out the twenty edits you have made since joining our encyclopedia, only three have been to actual articles, with all the rest being talk page edits. This is in contravention to our 90/10 rule which we have enacted in order to combat talk pollution. I'm forbidding you from making any further edits to talk pages until you meet the demand of our rules. Failure to comply will result in a two week ban. You have been warned. - Markman 13:35, 3 March 2013 (EST)

As far as I understand the site's laws, what is being counted are individual talk edits made by the user rather than the number of debates he participates. The rule is meant to maximize actual article editing and this one of the reasons I like this encyclopedia over other internet encyclopedias.
Regarding my use of sheep over lamb, I prefer it because I think that when one engages in translation he should be as literal as possible. The word which was translated by me into sheep (and to lamb by the KJV) was "keves" (כבש). Keves does not denote any age and can refer to all sheep regardless of whether or not they're mature. Since those verses didn't use the Hebrew word for lamb ("tale" טלה) I decided to translate it into sheep. When choosing between lamb or sheep one must consult the original text. For example, when young sheep are mentioned in 1 Samuel, they should be referred to as lamb in the translation, since Samuel does use the word "tale". Sorry for not replying to it earlier, I didn't even see that you asked me about it at any point. - Markman 17:25, 3 March 2013 (EST)
All your contributions seem to be fine, the problem with 90/10 is it doesn't take into account useful suggestions on talkpages or fixing up minor errors. I normally find it best to completely ignore talkpage edits under about 100 bytes as they are always just spelling, unfortunately it seems markman has not learned this yet. Dvergne 17:52, 3 March 2013 (EST)
Up until I approached him only three of his edits were to articles and you're telling me everything is cool? While it's somewhat challenging to decide when the 90/10 is broken, he was clearly in violation of it. - Markman 12:34, 4 March 2013 (EST)
So in general, if a user asks valuable questions on a talkpage which result in a more balanced article, he can still be blocked for violating the 90/10 rule? To my mind that is entirely against the spirit of this rule, which was only meant to stop users from engaging in endless blather. A user who contributes to a discussion making useful edits should never end up being blocked. Onestone 12:56, 4 March 2013 (EST)
"So in general, if a user asks valuable questions on a talkpage which result in a more balanced article, he can still be blocked for violating the 90/10 rule?" If the vast majority of his edits are to talk page then he will be blocked, no matter how "useful" his edits are. Why do you think it's called 90/10? - Markman 12:58, 4 March 2013 (EST)
I am certain when Mr. Schlafly created the rule, he intended it to be followed in spirit, not to use it as a tool to bully others into shutting up. brenden 13:44, 4 March 2013 (EST)