Difference between revisions of "User talk:RonaldB"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Your block of User:Anglican: new section)
(re)
Line 19: Line 19:
  
 
I see that it was only for two hours, but it was still undue. He only removed the delete notice at the top of an article, after he stated on the deletion page that he believed the page should remain. It is more appropriate to simply message him and tell him that he should not have deleted the notice. The reason is that Anglican is an established and good faith editor, and when an editor is blocked, that block goes on their permanent record. Only block when absolutely necessary, such as if he continued to remove the delete notice without any discussion. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:21, 12 July 2017 (EDT)
 
I see that it was only for two hours, but it was still undue. He only removed the delete notice at the top of an article, after he stated on the deletion page that he believed the page should remain. It is more appropriate to simply message him and tell him that he should not have deleted the notice. The reason is that Anglican is an established and good faith editor, and when an editor is blocked, that block goes on their permanent record. Only block when absolutely necessary, such as if he continued to remove the delete notice without any discussion. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:21, 12 July 2017 (EDT)
 +
 +
:I Agree with User:1990sguy on this matter. Block vandals only.--Jpatt 20:25, 12 July 2017 (EDT)

Revision as of 19:25, 12 July 2017

User talk:RonaldB/Archive

Blocking

You seem to be doing a good job, but bear in mind that the authority of an administrative assistant is limited. See Conservapedia:Administrators, and pay special attention to the subsection for assistants. Wishing you many blessings, DMorris (talk) 00:26, 4 July 2017 (EDT)

Shalom, DMorris. I assume you're referring to my blocks of those with the frivolous usernames. I thought it was acceptable to block those with frivolous but not vulgar usernames so long as the option to create another account to comply with the username policy was available. Although, to be honest, most of the new accounts in the past two days have been the "page blanker guy" and JamesWilson socks. In any case, I suppose I'll heed your advice. --Ronald (talk) 09:02, 4 July 2017 (EDT)
I have checkuser, and I see things that you don't. Several of the accounts were from entirely different ranges than the page blanker. It's okay though, lesson learned on your part. I thought the same thing a long time ago, and Andy pointed out the error in my way at the time. Also, I replied to your comment on my talk page. DMorris (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2017 (EDT)

Tips

Hello RonaldB, I saw your recent page creations on several Michigan towns and counties. When creating a town please add the category, in the case of Michigan, Category:Michigan Cities and Towns (categories like this exist for all 50 states and for most countries). When creating an article on a county, please use Category:Counties in addition to the category of the state.

Also, I hope you saw my reply to your latest comment on my talk page. It is very important to add sources to every article you create, and every one of your articles that I recall does not have any sources. In the specific case of the Michigan cities and counties, I recommend at least adding the website of the town in the external links section, but it is also good to cite other facts, such as, for example, that Oakland County, Michigan is now Democrat. Your religion articles would also do well with sources. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2017 (EDT)

I see. As for the case of Oakland County, I lived there for over forty years and saw the change. I can try to find references though, I suppose. These are mainly observations that I've witnessed having been in these areas. --Ronald (talk) 09:36, 10 July 2017 (EDT)
OK. I completely believe what you say regarding Oakland County, but people like me who do not live there know don't know about this. If absolutely necessary, I recommend making a note in the article (within the ref tags) stating that this is an observation by you. That way, people can know where the information came from. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:52, 10 July 2017 (EDT)
I may just have to do that if there isn't an acceptable online source saying so. Thanks. --Ronald (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2017 (EDT)

Your block of User:Anglican

I see that it was only for two hours, but it was still undue. He only removed the delete notice at the top of an article, after he stated on the deletion page that he believed the page should remain. It is more appropriate to simply message him and tell him that he should not have deleted the notice. The reason is that Anglican is an established and good faith editor, and when an editor is blocked, that block goes on their permanent record. Only block when absolutely necessary, such as if he continued to remove the delete notice without any discussion. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2017 (EDT)

I Agree with User:1990sguy on this matter. Block vandals only.--Jpatt 20:25, 12 July 2017 (EDT)