Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
5,023
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 7:
Line 7: + + + + + Line 16:
Line 21: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Has hope he will be more amiable should he return
::I wasn't blocked either. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 22:58, 7 July 2014 (EDT)
::I wasn't blocked either. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 22:58, 7 July 2014 (EDT)
:::I notice that he blocked you three times last year. Perhaps he's mellowed. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 00:09, 8 July 2014 (EDT)
:::I notice that he blocked you three times last year. Perhaps he's mellowed. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 00:09, 8 July 2014 (EDT)
Becoming an editor of good standing may become harder for someone like him, but I fear that it will be next to impossible for an honest newcomer! Without a strong motivation (for me, it is the my outrage about the disservice the CBP does to the Bible - and a bewilderment when reading about physics), you won't have the dedication to overcome the obstacles into which you are running here at Conservapedia: It took me quite an effort to find a way to appeal my first blocks!
It's at Catch-22 situation: If you make errors - as any newbie will do - you get blocked, and most probably just quit. Newcomers who don't make errors are most probably reincarnations who learned the ropes in a couple of earlier lives. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:41, 23 July 2014 (EDT)
== Short note ==
== Short note ==
::::Fine, just be patient. I am not sure how often the mailbox will be checked, but it will definitely be checked from time to time. And you can always contact other admins too. It makes sense to mitigate any damage caused by a rogue blocker whose blocking privileges are short lived. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:50, 11 July 2014 (EDT)
::::Fine, just be patient. I am not sure how often the mailbox will be checked, but it will definitely be checked from time to time. And you can always contact other admins too. It makes sense to mitigate any damage caused by a rogue blocker whose blocking privileges are short lived. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:50, 11 July 2014 (EDT)
::From the Conservapedia commandments page: "Administrators have discretion to act on matters not specifically mentioned here, such as vandalism and sockpuppets."[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Commandments] Common sense discretion can be exercised by Conservapedia administrators. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:39, 11 July 2014 (EDT)
::From the Conservapedia commandments page: "Administrators have discretion to act on matters not specifically mentioned here, such as vandalism and sockpuppets."[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Commandments] Common sense discretion can be exercised by Conservapedia administrators. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:39, 11 July 2014 (EDT)
==''Has hope he will be more amiable should he return''==
User:Conservative, you blocked me arbitrarily for three days ("''needlessly being quarrelsome''"), and then you unblocked me, equally arbitrarily. Are you really thinking that this leads to ''amiability''? No, it stirred my curiosity. I reread our exchange at [[Talk:Generalized linear model]] and digged a little deeper into the matters discussed:
<div style="margin: 10px; padding: 10px; background-color: #CCC">
''content created by User:Conservative User:AugustO and subject to Conservapedia's copyright policy''
Why was this page deleted? From my personal files:
:AugustO, I thought you were merely whining. You said you wanted the article improved, yet were unwilling to do the work to improve it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:42, 23 July 2014 (EDT)
::How does your petty insult ("whining") justify the deletion of this talk page? Below I showed my willingness to improve the sorry state of this article by collaborating with you! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 07:46, 24 July 2014 (EDT)
:::I may write articles on [[Correlation and dependence]] and [[Spearman's rank correlation coefficient]] and [[Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient]] in the future. By the way, [[Vox Day]] wrote an interesting article entitled [http://voxday.blogspot.ca/2014/02/statistical-misleadings.html Statistical misleadings]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:51, 24 July 2014 (EDT)
*"I may write articles on [[Correlation and dependence]] and [[Spearman's rank correlation coefficient]] and [[Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient]] in the future." Given your history of announcements (Project 200+, Question Evolution brochure for high-school-pupils, etc.), I'll be very surprised when this happens!
*Regina Nuzzo's [http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-statistical-errors-1.14700 "Scientific method: Statistical errors"] is indeed an interesting article.
*Still no explanation for the deletion.
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:34, 24 July 2014 (EDT)
</div>
While you still haven't answer my question about the deletion of the talk-page, I came to the conclusion that my mentioning of the ''Question evolution! book for middle school students'' triggered the deletion of the revisions and my block. You seem to be on an Orwellian campaign to erase this book from memory, a campaign which bodes ill for the trustworthiness of Conservapedia. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:42, 27 July 2014 (EDT)
This is too complicated for an outsider to follow. The important point is that AugustO, who earned the respect of many CP editors is back, and I welcome his contributions. I hope that we can all learn to live together in content-creation-harmony. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 19:38, 27 July 2014 (EDT)
:Harmony is important, but honesty, too - especially at a ''trustworthy encyclopedia''. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:45, 27 July 2014 (EDT)