SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 906:
Line 906: − − ==References== − {{reflist}} Line 933:
Line 930: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
multiple personalities
::Yes, please do that. You probably have more worthy endeavors than vaping your own edits to other people's talk pages. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 01:26, 3 February 2019 (EST)
::Yes, please do that. You probably have more worthy endeavors than vaping your own edits to other people's talk pages. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 01:26, 3 February 2019 (EST)
== You should face reality and accept there is more than one editor who uses the User: Conservative account ==
== You should face reality and accept there is more than one editor who uses the User: Conservative account ==
Please address both the writing and footnoting styles of the three articles. Also, address any quote box differences. In addition, address any differences in points of view.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 02:01, 11 April 2019 (EDT)
Please address both the writing and footnoting styles of the three articles. Also, address any quote box differences. In addition, address any differences in points of view.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 02:01, 11 April 2019 (EDT)
===Multiple personalities, part 1===
You have, for years, been claiming that the senior admins here know about your multiple personalities, and accept this behavior. (I know it's been going on for a couple of years; I can't be bothered to look it up just now, but I will if necessary.) I'd like you to prove it.
You recently said, in [https://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#A_digression_on_muliple_personality_disorders], that "Most, if not all, the active Conservapedia admins know there is more than one User: Conservative editor. So does the owner of the website." Thats good to hear. If it's true. But I have my doubts. Why don't you have those admins (including Andy) put short posts here assuring all of us that what you say is true. Or, if you or they prefer, tell me so in private email—I happen to have, from time to time, had email conversations with a number of admins and we trust each other. So have them reassure us of their acceptance of this situation.
Another thing would be for you to post or forward any emails from these senior admins, indicating that they know about and accept this. If you (quite understandably) don't want to post those emails here in public, forward them to me at the email that we use for our extensive correspondence: sam4557@gmail.com. You know that I can be trusted with our confidential conversations.
===Multiple personalities, part 2===
You also said, in the same place, "On one or more occasions, I have received an email from one of the fellow admins saying, 'Why did you do such and such?' I then explain it was one of the other editors of the User: Conservative account. And then I either reverse that co-editor of the User: Conservative account's decision or I explain his/her (I say his or her to keep the veil of mystery thicker) decision to my fellow admins." So this is the excuse you hide behind when the other admins overrule your actions? Wouldn't it be more straightforward simply to accept that what you had written was inappropriate? Also, can you post or forward some of the emails in which the other admins take you to task, and the emails in which you explain his/her decision?
===Multiple personalities, part 3===
Another thing you have been doing for years, in support of this multiple personality fantasy, is claiming that it is proved by inconsistent footnoting style in your articles. This, too, is discussed at some length in [https://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#A_digression_on_muliple_personality_disorders]. So let me get this straight: You are intentionally using inconsistent footnoting style for the purpose of "proving" that you are multiple people? You are using '''your own writing''' as evidence in this case? Writing that you can, of course manipulate any way you wish, to make any point you wish? And you expect the rest of us to believe that? In the real world that would be called "fabricating evidence". Wouldn't it be more straightforward just to fix the inconsistent styles?
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 21:28, 13 April 2019 (EDT)
==References==
{{reflist}}