Changes

::Again, there is no personal "ownership" of articles.  On a wiki, we need both editors to originate materials and editors to copy edit and cite check the materials.  So, when Conservapedia has two different articles covering exactly the same thing, it makes more work for multiple people. It opens the possibility of "edit wars" over whether a sentence should be in one article or both articles or neither article.

::Again, there is no personal "ownership" of articles.  On a wiki, we need both editors to originate materials and editors to copy edit and cite check the materials.  So, when Conservapedia has two different articles covering exactly the same thing, it makes more work for multiple people. It opens the possibility of "edit wars" over whether a sentence should be in one article or both articles or neither article.

::As for the reader, it is unfair and confusing to ask a reader to read the same length presentation in twice because you don't warn him that it is almost the same thing and that he has to read it twice because you decided to migrate the 2017 material early in the year.  I don't understand your reasoning about why you must start an article early in 2017, have it drift into something different, and then at the end of 2017 try to merge the two different 2017 materials as a part of an archiving action.  When I saw that you were starting the [[Opposition to Donald Trump]] article based on the section from this article, I thought it was like your move of the [[Donald Trump achievements: 2016 election and transition]] section.  The article is getting too long to edit at 280,458 bytes, and I agree that [[Opposition to Donald Trump]] is the next logical piece to move to a sub-article.  If you don't want a clean break, then a summary paragraph is logical to leave behind.  If you did not think that my summary paragraph was optimal, write your own and we can edit it. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 06:45, 23 June 2017 (EDT)

::As for the reader, it is unfair and confusing to ask a reader to read the same length presentation in twice because you don't warn him that it is almost the same thing and that he has to read it twice because you decided to migrate the 2017 material early in the year.  I don't understand your reasoning about why you must start an article early in 2017, have it drift into something different, and then at the end of 2017 try to merge the two different 2017 materials as a part of an archiving action.  When I saw that you were starting the [[Opposition to Donald Trump]] article based on the section from this article, I thought it was like your move of the [[Donald Trump achievements: 2016 election and transition]] section.  The article is getting too long to edit at 280,458 bytes, and I agree that [[Opposition to Donald Trump]] is the next logical piece to move to a sub-article.  If you don't want a clean break, then a summary paragraph is logical to leave behind.  If you did not think that my summary paragraph was optimal, write your own and we can edit it. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 06:45, 23 June 2017 (EDT)