Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, Check users, delete, edit, move, oversight, protect, rollback, Administrators
51,035
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 168:
Line 168: − + +
→1990sguy
::In addition, JDano, you frequently mention on issue in your edit summaries, when you actually make numerous changes. When I revert you, giving a reason, you revert me back without explaining why I was wrong. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Constitutional_carry&diff=1361030&oldid=1361029 This edit] was made well into the edit war, but you did not explain why you supported these edits, even though I made myself clear in previous edits that I opposed these changes. In [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Constitutional_carry&diff=1361039&oldid=1361035 this edit], you write as your edit summary "moved a bit on the capitalization", but you make the same edits I opposed. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Constitutional_carry&diff=1361032&oldid=1361031 Here], you stated that because I strongly opposed your edits, I should not edit the article. I have seen similar behavior from you in multiple other articles ([[fake news]], [[travel ban]], [[Donald Trump achievements]]). I want to work with you, but how can I with this behavior? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:30, 14 July 2017 (EDT
::In addition, JDano, you frequently mention on issue in your edit summaries, when you actually make numerous changes. When I revert you, giving a reason, you revert me back without explaining why I was wrong. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Constitutional_carry&diff=1361030&oldid=1361029 This edit] was made well into the edit war, but you did not explain why you supported these edits, even though I made myself clear in previous edits that I opposed these changes. In [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Constitutional_carry&diff=1361039&oldid=1361035 this edit], you write as your edit summary "moved a bit on the capitalization", but you make the same edits I opposed. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Constitutional_carry&diff=1361032&oldid=1361031 Here], you stated that because I strongly opposed your edits, I should not edit the article. I have seen similar behavior from you in multiple other articles ([[fake news]], [[travel ban]], [[Donald Trump achievements]]). I want to work with you, but how can I with this behavior? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:30, 14 July 2017 (EDT
:::By my definition, you are stalking / hounding me. I go to a page and start editing it. Each time I go back to make the next batch of changes, I find that you mindlessly have reverted the edits that I have made so far. If you find yourself having strong feelings or your ego has become engaged while working on Conservapedia, go take a break or work on something else. I am not "adding liberal bias" to articles. Sometimes less is more. We are here to write an encyclopedia that is free of the liberal bias found on Wikipedia. We are not hear to grind any political axe. If I finish revising an article and then someone comes along with a different viewpoint in terms of how the article is to be presented, I will discuss it calmly on the talk page. There is no point in going to the talk page in the middle of the editing. I also note that you did not leave any talk page comments today. Again, I would ask my long-time colleague JPatt to read the diffs from today. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 11:37, 14 July 2017 (EDT)
:::By my definition, you are stalking / hounding me. I go to a page and start editing it. Each time I go back to make the next batch of changes, I find that you mindlessly have reverted the edits that I have made so far. If you find yourself having strong feelings or your ego has become engaged while working on Conservapedia, go take a break or work on something else. I am not "adding liberal bias" to articles. Sometimes less is more. We are here to write an encyclopedia that is free of the liberal bias found on Wikipedia. We are not hear to grind any political axe. If I finish revising an article and then someone comes along with a different viewpoint in terms of how the article is to be presented, I will discuss it calmly on the talk page. There is no point in going to the talk page in the middle of the editing. I also note that you did not leave any talk page comments today. Again, I would ask my long-time colleague JPatt to read the diffs from today. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 11:37, 14 July 2017 (EDT)
::::So, calling constitutional carry a "propaganda" term, deleting a factual explanation of its legal basis and putting a statement stating it causes "confusion", and arbitrarily labeling Breitbart articles opinion sources is not adding liberal bias? And contrary to what you stated, me reverting your edits has '''nothing''' to do with myself or my "ego". I legitimately think your edits are bad, and relateively few people edit CP, if someone is going to correct those edits, it has to be me. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:41, 14 July 2017 (EDT)
::::So, calling constitutional carry a "propaganda" term, deleting a factual explanation of its legal basis and putting a statement stating it causes "confusion", and arbitrarily labeling Breitbart articles opinion sources is not adding liberal bias? And contrary to what you stated, me reverting your edits has '''nothing''' to do with myself or my "ego". I legitimately think your edits are bad, and because relatively few people edit CP, if someone is going to correct those edits, it has to be me. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:41, 14 July 2017 (EDT)
Maybe it appears that I am taking sides. But I watched you on multiple occasions messing with 1990sguy edits. So yes he is doing the same back I suppose. I just don't want to see the project abandoned by petty back and forth edits and reverts. Encourage edit, not discourage edits. Talk page and dispute resolutions with the input of others is favored to the constant revert warring. The pattern needs to change now. --Jpatt 12:19, 14 July 2017 (EDT)
Maybe it appears that I am taking sides. But I watched you on multiple occasions messing with 1990sguy edits. So yes he is doing the same back I suppose. I just don't want to see the project abandoned by petty back and forth edits and reverts. Encourage edit, not discourage edits. Talk page and dispute resolutions with the input of others is favored to the constant revert warring. The pattern needs to change now. --Jpatt 12:19, 14 July 2017 (EDT)
:One problem I have with JDano is that I have found, through interacting with him, he is not willing to make concessions. At all. I remember the dispute I had with him on the Donald Trump achievements article over the Breitbart source. I gave in to him on changing the wording and adding several other references. However, he continued demanding the removal of the Breitbart reference and would not stop until essentially every other editor sided against him. I have made concessions to him on the other articles, including this one. I am not "mindlessly" reverting everything he does, and JDano has been helpful in some ways. The problem is that it seems that he takes an all or nothing approach (or close to that approach) to his edits. It makes resolving these issues very difficult. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:29, 14 July 2017 (EDT)