Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, edit, move, protect
30,891
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1,083:
Line 1,083: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
User talk:Dataclarifier/Archive 01 (view source)
Revision as of 13:21, May 9, 2020
, 13:21, May 9, 2020copied subsequent comments made after Archiving the talk page as being an integral part of the discussion thread
::::::::::Why would an innocent person support a complex claim by acknowledging in a complete sentence only the single part of it to which it pleases him to respond? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 03:30, 6 May 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::Why would an innocent person support a complex claim by acknowledging in a complete sentence only the single part of it to which it pleases him to respond? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 03:30, 6 May 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::Here's the [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ADataclarifier block log]. Two days later Vargas had compassion and relented. You should be humbled and grateful, not vindictive and accusatory. IMO, You create these misunderstandings by ignoring other users objections and suggestions with your relentless spamming and evasions. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 03:47, 6 May 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::Here's the [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ADataclarifier block log]. Two days later Vargas had compassion and relented. You should be humbled and grateful, not vindictive and accusatory. IMO, You create these misunderstandings by ignoring other users objections and suggestions with your relentless spamming and evasions. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 03:47, 6 May 2020 (EDT)
== Administrator comments ==
[Copy of subsequent comments made after Archiving the talk page included here as being an integral part of the discussion thread continuing the above]
For messages from Administrators see [[User talk:Dataclarifier/Administrator comments]]
--[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:07, 6 May 2020 (EDT)
Messages from Administrators will be immediately copied to [[User talk:Dataclarifier/Administrator comments|Administrator comments]] and at the same time remain displayed here for about 1 week. Then the original heading of the comment originally posted here will be retained here and the text of the comment originally posted here will then be replaced with a notation to see comment at [[User talk:Dataclarifier/Administrator comments|Administrator comments]]. Comments appended to the original will also be immediately copied to Administrator comments, and their texts will also be replaced at the same time with the original as part of the complete thread of discussion when the original comment is replaced with the linking note at the end of about 1 week. A notation in each of those instances will simply state "see additional comment at [[User talk:Dataclarifier/Administrator comments|Administrator comments]]".
--[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:51, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
:Huh? I'm sorry, I can't quite comprehend what you've posted here, nor the logic or purpose behind it. Hypothetically if I were to inquire for example:
:*''Good morning. How are your?''
:and you were to respond with a dozen external links, a few internal links including links to the same page, a bloc of text with 5,000 words cut and pasted from another discussion page, and create a new subheading, wouldn't it be easier to simply respond,
:*''I'm fine. How are you?''
:Secondly, How should other editors avoid the conclusion that you are being evasive? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 13:19, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
==Administrative guidance==
Typically, a discussion thread can be archived 14-30 days after the last comment to allow editors input on an ongoing discussion. Prematurely archiving ongoing discussions may be interpreted by some users as covering up embarrassing information, evidence of bad faith, or simply rude and incivil during an active conversation.
Remember, I'm here to help you enjoy your editing experience. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 14:06, 6 May 2020 (EDT)
:See [[User talk:Dataclarifier/Archive 01#Blocked (past tense): RobSmith and VargasMilan]] --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 07:43, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
:"''archived 14-30 days after the last comment to allow editors input on an ongoing discussion''"<br>I have carefully read the Commandments and the Guidelines and find no such guideline or rule such as you have cited here re the User Archiving his/her own talk page. The word does not even appear in any form direct or indirect. Below is an exact copy of both of them accessed this day and time. 5/7/2020 2:46 pm Central Time.
{{quotation|<small>'''CONSERVAPEDIA COMMANDMENTS'''
'''Editing on Conservapedia is open to the [[best of the public]] -- and that includes you'''. Here are our simple guidelines:
# Everything you post must be true and verifiable. Do not copy from [[Wikipedia]]<ref>It is appropriate to quote or cite Wikipedia to illustrate the liberal view of an issue. For example, one could cite the Wikipedia [[atheism]] or [[evolution]] articles to illustrate a liberal view in regards to atheism or the evolutionary [[paradigm]].</ref> or elsewhere unless it was your original work.<ref>See [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Copying from other sources|here]] for more information on copying.</ref>
# Always cite<ref>[[Conservapedia]]'s [[Conservapedia:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] assists new [[wiki]] users on [[Conservapedia:Footnotes - technical help|how to put footnotes]] in an article. In addition, Conservapedia's Manual of Style shows new Conservapedia wiki users [[Conservapedia:Manual of Style|how to flag an article or section of an article which is uncited]].</ref> and give credit to your sources,<ref>Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others. No sources advocating or supporting unlawful activity of any kind are allowed.</ref> even if in the [[public domain]].<ref>When the source is a US State or Federal Government, or the source waives attribution, citing may be unnecessary.</ref> When making citations from books, users are encouraged to find additional online sources that provide easy verification. Please check Google Books to see if this particular source is available in online form. If you are unfamiliar on how to place footnotes in a wiki, please see: [[Conservapedia:Footnotes - technical help]]
# Any content you create or change (including edits, new pages, images and links) must be informative, family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language.
# When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of [[Jesus]], give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis. ''See'' [[CE]].
# Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on [[Debate topics|debate]] or [[Discussion Topics|discussion]] pages. Advertisements are prohibited.
# The operation of unauthorized wiki-bots is prohibited.<ref>Search engine and read only bots are exempt from this Commandment. To get authorization please post a note on [[User_talk:Aschlafly]], stating what the bot will do, what username it will be under, and whether you have a working prototype. Bot owners are responsible for their bots' actions.</ref>
#Unproductive activity, such as 90% talk page edits and only 10% quality edits to Conservapedia articles, may result in blocking of the account.<ref>'''The senseless changing of American to British spellings may result in blocking.'''</ref> See the [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#90/10 rule|Guidelines]] for more detail.
Edits which violate these rules will be deleted. Users who violate the rules repeatedly will be blocked. [[Conservapedia:User rights#Administrator rights|Administrators]] have discretion to act on matters not specifically mentioned here, such as vandalism and [[sockpuppets]].
;Comments
This page and the pages listed below are the only rule pages on '''[[Conservapedia]]'''. These guidelines are kept simple in order to avoid the arbitrary and biased enforcement that is rampant on Wikipedia. If you would like to propose an amendment to the Conservapedia Commandments click [[Talk:The_Conservapedia_Commandments|here]]. Read how our rules differ from Wikipedia [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia|here]].
Minors under 16 years old use this site. Posting of obscenity here is punishable by up to 10 years in jail under 18 USC § 1470. Vandalism is punishable up to 10 years in jail per 18 USC § 1030. Harassment is punishable by 2 years in jail per 47 USC § 223. '''The IP addresses of vandals will be reported to authorities'''. That includes your employer and your local prosecutor.
;The Following Links Also Guide [[Conservapedia]]
*[[Conservapedia:Guidelines|Guidelines]]
*[[Conservapedia:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]]
*[[Conservapedia:Copyright]]
*[[Copyright]]
*[[Public Domain]]
*[[Fair use]]
*[[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]
*[[Conservapedia:Tolerance]]
*[[Conservapedia:Videos on how to edit a wiki]]
;Notes
{{reflist|2}}
</small>
}}
<blockquote><small>'''These guidelines form an adjunct to the Conservapedia:Commandments.'''
;Administrators
'''The Administrators of Conservapedia have the ability to protect/unprotected pages, edit protected pages, move pages, block/unblock users, mediate and resolve disputes.'''
;Duties
*[[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia|Unlike Wikipedia, we do not block for ideological reasons]]. Warnings are appropriate, not for obscenity, [[Conservapedia:Vandalism|vandalism or parody]] ''(Which are block-able offenses without warning.),'' but for silliness and other problems. In rare cases, our approach to repeated ideological conflict is to lock the page, and then allow the Administrator Group to make changes on a manual basis based upon submitted suggestions on the Talk page.
*Revert wars and [[troll]]ing a discussion page on points contrary to the Conservapedia philosophy, a pattern of continued use of vulgar or sexually based words, all are cause for blocking a user. Name calling and insults are disruptive to the site and most likely will result in a block as well.
*Administrators and Bureaucrats can be consulted on questions of policy and procedures. Concerns about the validity of an interpretation should be directed to a senior administrator or bureaucrat, who is directly involved in the creation and application of policy.
*Editors with blocking rights must be careful in the issuance of a [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy|block]]. A block is to be respected both by the recipient and by others with blocking privileges. When an error occurs, it's best for the blocking editor to undo so as to limit confusion. However, this is not always possible.
;Promotion
Conservapedia is a [[meritocracy]]. Administrators are selected as needed from the best of the best contributors, there is no popularity contest to determine promotion, and nominations not accepted. By your own work shall you be known.
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3AListusers&username=&group=sysop&limit=100 List of Administrators]
;Assistants
The block function has been devolved to select users who have shown an ability to be trusted. Many of the current Administrators started as one of these Assistants and this status can be considered a way to evaluate users for promotion. '''As "emergency Sysops", the authority of these users is limited to warning users of policy violations and blocking for blatant vandalism and harassment requiring an immediate response.'''
;Post original content
Conservapedia wants original content on its website. Please do not post articles/essays from other websites to Conservapedia.
While exceptions are made for longstanding editors to copy some of their work on other websites to Conservapedia, this is an exception and not the rule.
;Member Accounts
:''See also: [[Conservapedia:User rights]]''
As a sign of [[good faith]] and accountability it is recommended that editors select a user name based on a permutation of their real name. Whenever this would cause confusion, a name based upon a hobby or characteristic would also be acceptable. Obscene or offensive usernames will be blocked on sight. In addition to blocking, junk accounts are subject to deletion at any time as a housekeeping measure. Also,
*Conservapedia does not allow "[[Conservapedia:Sockpuppet|sockpuppet]]" accounts or unaccountable anonymous proxy use.
*Conservapedia is a politically conservative, Christian encyclopedia project. We welcome opposing views, but are not interested in users who come here only to change articles to their ideology, or disrupt by constantly arguing on the article talk pages that we are "wrong". Trolling comments, incivility and personal attacks can be removed from discussion pages.
*We are not a debate forum, but a project. If you contribute, where you can, by adding substantive content, abiding by our Guidelines, we welcome you. If not, remember it is a big Internet, and you should go where you can support the goals of that project.
*Pick a secure/good password for your Conservapedia user account. Some suggestions about picking a secure/good password for your Conservapedia account are located [http://hawkid.uiowa.edu/about/goodpassword.htm HERE].
'''See "Civility" below.'''
*<small>Blocked users who feel their block is contrary to these policies, are encouraged to email the Administrator blocking them, stating their reasons and giving any explanation(s) for their action(s). The blocking Administrator will consider their explanation/request, and respond with due diligence. If your ability to email has been revoked, look at the blocking Administrator's user page for alternate contact information, or simply email webmaster@conservapedia.com asking it be forwarded to the blocking Admin. Make sure you use the subject "Blocked". You should also copy and paste into the email the message and information you see when getting the block message. </small>
;Style
Use plain English, preferably [[American English]]. Do not surprise the reader with strange or unusual meanings. Do not pull punches or sugar coat things, with a few exceptions.
*Do not, for example, say "is controversial" when you mean "is criticized" - criticism is one side (negative), while controversy is two contending sides.
Avoid [[jargon]], i.e., words which only experts in a field can understand. So, don't say femur when you can say Thigh bone. When explaining advanced concepts in mathematics or science, begin with an introduction which any [[high school]] student can understand. If you can't explain it in simple words to a 10-year-old, you probably don't understand it very well yourself.
Articles on complex topics need an introduction which assumes little or no previous knowledge.
;Attribution
There's a difference between '''stating flatly that''' "the earth is 6,000 years old" and '''reporting that''' "Young Earth creationists say that the earth is 6,000 years old." Likewise, there's a difference between saying "All living species of animals evolved from earlier species" and saying "Most [[atheism|atheist]] biologists believe that all living species of animals evolved from earlier species".
English teachers call that [[attribution]].
Here's another example:
*It was raining on Tuesday. (unattributed)
*John said it was raining on Tuesday. (attributed)
Newspaper report on a murder trial:
*Smith killed Jones.
*Judge Robinson found Smith guilty of killing Jones.
Simply by attributing a statement to the person who said it, we can turn bias into fact. That is, we convert a statement about something from a [[biased assertion]] into an [[attribution]]. We don't say "X". We say that "A said X."
Notice that at no point do these statements endorse any of the views. The sample text provided merely states what each view is, without saying whether any of them is correct or incorrect.
Thus, a good article "describes" - it does not "prescribe".
In regards to attribution, always cite and give credit to your sources,<ref>Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others. No sources advocating or supporting unlawful activity of any kind are allowed.</ref> even if in the [[public domain]]. Conservapedia's [[Conservapedia:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] assists new [[wiki]] users on [[Conservapedia:Footnotes - technical help|how to put footnotes]] in an article.
;Civility
:''See also [[Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks]]
* You must be civil. No bullying. Incivility and personal attacks should be replaced with the {{[[Template:personal remark removed|personal remark removed]]}} template. Conservapedia Administrators as well need to interact with others according to the same standards of civility we ask of editors.
* Your user page/discussion pages, are indeed your castle, from which you can agree, disagree and discuss issues as you will. However you cannot use them to bully, ridicule (make fun of) or attack (denigrate) Conservapedia or other users, and their opinions. Users are free to remove comments from their own user talk pages.
* There is a difference between intellectual discourse, and attacking someone for what they believe. Wikipedia condones bullying and mob rule, we don’t.
* Violators of the CP Guidelines will be blocked.
;Article level
Articles should be written ''as much as possible'' to be understandable at a high school (ages 14 to 18) level, in order to ensure they will be accessible and educational to students. If more complex information is necessary, as in advanced math entries, then it should be explained as simply as possible in the introduction, and a full explanation should follow in the body of the article.
;Article length
Please endeavor to make your articles informative. Create articles that provide value to your readers and which will prompt them to refer those articles to others.
Avoid creating articles so short that they could not easily be put in other encyclopedias.
Conservapedia is an [[encyclopedia]]. It is not a dictionary.
;Reliability
A few suggestions about reliability.
#Reliability is the quality that makes people want to rely on you.
#It's like trust: you have to earn it.
#People test you, and you must pass their test, or they won't trust you or rely on you.
#A major difference between Liberalism and Conservatism is how much each group is willing to have its pronouncements checked, its actions reviewed and evaluated
#Science is reliable when enough scientists make enough effort to check each other's work.
#*The watchwords of science are [[falsifiability]] and [[reproducible results]].
#[[Bias]] gets in the way of reliability.
#Neutrality may not be an antidote to bias.
#Be careful about the [[credibility]] of your edits; may be you could incorporate information that enhance the credibility of an article or a page.
#Avoid exaggeration, extreme positions or radical points of view.
#Be [[objective]].
;Teamwork
A few suggestions about teamwork:
#Let others boss you around.
#*Yes, take assignments from your fellow editors. If someone asks you for an article on a topic you know about, or are interested enough to bone up on, please do.
#*Conform to formats, styles, and emerging patterns of article organization.
#Be nice to the other editors.
#*Sarcasm seems witty when you're typing, but will the reader really get the point you are trying to make?
#*Hurt feelings reduce cooperative spirit and ultimately work against teamwork.
#Be helpful.
#*Can you find quotes and facts quickly by googling?
#*Are you good at spellchecking, grammar, copy-editing?
#*Do you know how to design a template or format a table?
#Let others know what you are doing, and respond quickly to queries.
#*Use talk pages, especially [[user talk page]]s.
#*Allow others to contact you via email or [[instant messaging]]
#*For really difficult issues, consider speaking by telephone
# If necessary use: [[Conservapedia:Image upload requests]]
;Templates
*Templates should only be created with specific sysop approval, and then '''immediately''' protected.
*Conservapedia does not allow templates to be used as signatures, because of the potential they create for wide-scale vandalism, which could even be done by someone other than the person to whom the signature belongs.
*All templates should be submitted [[Conservapedia:Template Submission|'''here''']] for approval.
*[[Help:Templates]]
;Copying From Other Sources
Copying from other sources is only permitted in specific circumstances, as explained below. Note that this is an expansion of [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandment 1]].
;Permitted
'''Copying from other sources can only be done in the following circumstances:'''
* You are copying from a public domain source. In this case, put a notice on the page to indicate this. An example notice is {{tl|Copyright Details (US Government)}}. Note that [[Wikipedia]] and Wikipedia mirrors ''are not in the public domain''.
* You are copying something that you wrote, on Wikipedia or elsewhere. In this case, put a {{tl|copied from}} notice on the talk page of the article. Note that it must be all your own work, and not include contributions made by other editors.
* You are copying something that someone else wrote, with their explicit permission. This must also be noted on the article or talk page, and the original author should also note, for example on his user page on the original site, that he has provided such permission.
;Not Permitted
The following is '''not''' permitted (unless it fits the criteria above).
* Copying slabs of text from multiple other sources. Just because you copy from several sources does not make it your own work.
* Copying from one or more other sources and changing some words. Someone else's work changed around a bit is still copying their work; it does not constitute your own work. If it is still recognisable as another work altered, it constitutes copying.
;If You See A Copied Article
If you notice someone copying from another source, please bring it to the attention of an administrator. Either he or you (see below) should put a {{tl|WP no copying}} notice on the user's talk page and delete the article. That notice explains what is allowed and not allowed, and advises that the deleted article can be undeleted if the copy is permitted as explained above. (A non-administrator can post the notice, although if the article name is included, it is worded as though an administrator posted it.)
;90/10 Rule
:''See also [[Trolling]]''
The '''90/10 rule''', unique to [[Conservapedia]], ''authorizes'' the blocking of accounts that engage in excessive article talk page,<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly&action=historysubmit&diff=884284&oldid=884283</ref> bickering, [[last wordism]], and other unproductive activity. Specifically, as has been stated in the [[Conservapedia:Commandments]] since soon after the formation of Conservapedia:
"Unproductive activity, such as 90% talk page edits and only 10% quality edits to Conservapedia articles, ''may result'' in blocking of the account."</blockquote>
*The 90/10 Rule applies to people who talk, talk, talk without redeeming value in the way of substantive contributions. Nothing could be simpler. Inordinate amount of talk is a time-waster. Different viewpoints, if logical, are welcome here. Incessant talk, as can be seen on countless other sites, is not. The talkers can rant elsewhere. We're here to learn.
*Users can talk all they want, as long as they contribute substance at the same time. It's easy to contribute substance. It's the reason we're here. But no project can succeed if the participants do nothing but talk.
*The '''90/10 Rule''' is remarkably adept at discouraging and eliminating the [[mobocracy]] or [[talk pollution]] that runs rampant on other sites, such as [[Wikipedia]]. Implementation is simple and application is swift.
;Essays
Conservapedia has essay space. To create an essay at Conservapedia please put the prefix "Essay:" in the title of the Conservapedia web page. In addition, please use the category tag "Essays" along with any other appropriate category tags.
Essays must be original content and not largely copies of other web pages on the internet. In addition, essays should follow the [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Conservapedia commandments]], Conservapedia's [[Conservapedia:Editing article and talk pages|Manual of Style]] and the aforementioned guidelines.
;Topic bans and main page talk bans
If an editor has a problem with the quality edits in a particular area(s), he may incur a topic ban. Please see: [[Conservapedia:Topic bans]].
;See also
* [[Conservapedia:Commandments|'''Commandments''']]
* [[Conservapedia:Manual of Style|'''Manual of Style''']]
;Notes
{{reflist}}
</small>
</blockquote>
Please note in the above guidelines that "Users are free to remove comments from their own user talk pages."
--[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 16:00, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
:Thank you. You remind me that Conservapedia needs its own [[Conservapedia:Ettiquitte]] page, which I've been meaning to do for more than 10 years. Most editors here are experienced wiki editors and know common rules of etiquette. Somehow I mistakenly assumed you were an experienced Wikipedia editor. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 16:09, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
:You're spamming lots of copied and pasted text again. RobSmith has told you repeatedly how that is so ineffective at communicating because it's TL;DR. You still don't get it. That last statement is all you really need to say. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 16:12, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
::Notwithstanding what you have said: Many readers appreciate substantiating evidence or immediately accessible proof backing assertions made in response to challenges put forth to be answered. That is not spamming. They can see then for themselves the facts which provide a basis for intelligent evaluation of any debate from both sides. Would you deny them that opportunity to exercise their own opinion of whether or not the assertions of either side of a debate have merit? I question why anyone would remove such material from the reader's view. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 16:34, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
'''Dataclarifier: You have now added an unwarranted Category to your User Talk and User Talk subpages 6 times. You warned not to after the 4th effort. You have earned a 10 minute block for editwarring with a Sysop. The next block will be one hour in length. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 17:16, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
'''<big>I didn't add the Category tag. I finally found it and removed it. It turned out to be part of what I copied and posted here.</big> --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 17:51, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
:Scroll down when the Edit box is open. See the button that says "Send page"? When you click that button, YOU uploaded it.
:Simple solution to your problem: stop cut n' paste spamming, particularly when asked to do so. Typically however, you respond with more spam. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 18:42, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
;Administrator deletion of content from a User's Own Talk page in violation of Conservapedia Guidelines
Andy see [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Dataclarifier&action=history Revision history of "User talk:Dataclarifier"]. Without cause RobSmith has unjustifiably vandalized my own talk page, deleted material from it and sabotaged the pages I set up as stated in the posting above by changing them and deleting material there. He is violating the Guidelines. I also found that I was unable to restore the lost material from older copies of the pages. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 16:55, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
:What does that prove? That you added a category to your talk page 3 times and [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Dataclarifier/Sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=1644772 on 4th one] you got a warning? Look below. Even Andy's talk page is not included in any Categories. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 17:06, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
::I didn't add the category. Until I saw your messages, I was unaware of it's presence on the page. You didn't even give me a chance to respond before you blocked me. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 17:28, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
:::I told you to quit spamming. How did you respond? You spammed your user page. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 17:30, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
::::It just occurred to me that the category appeared with my copying of the Commandments and Guidelines pages. It was not intentional. According to their content I have the freedom and right to include all decent material I choose to post. Also to remove any unwanted comments. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 17:34, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
:::::You also have the freedom and right ''to not'' edit war, troll or spam a Sysop. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 17:41, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
::::::The following was posted on my talk page{{quotation|'''Dataclarifier: You have now added an unwarranted Category to your User Talk and User Talk subpages 6 times. You warned not to after the 4th effort. You have earned a 10 minute block for editwarring with a Sysop. The next block will be one hour in length. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 17:16, 7 May 2020 (EDT)<br><br>'''<big>I didn't add the Category tag. I finally found it and removed it. It turned out to be part of what I copied and posted here.</big> --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 17:51, 7 May 2020 (EDT)}}I have never spammed a sysop. I have not been on your talk page. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 17:59, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
:::::::You're spamming right now. What you posted above is spam. You spammed at least two Sysops, Andy and myself.
::::Dataclarifier: I'll make a deal; Any time you commit a violation of policy, rules, or guidelines worthy of a block and I have to clean up a mess you made but I overlook the block, I'll make a notation in the editor summary Strike # with cause. Then, when you do get a block and want to come here and dispute it, we can debate it on the merits. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 17:50, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
:::::Every time you blocked me I have been unable to respond because you have blocked all ability to edit. So when I do get a block and want to come here and dispute it you make it impossible. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 18:01, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
::::::Go to the block tool and scroll down. The first is 10 Minutes. The 2nd 1 hour. The 3rd 2 hours and so on. Lifetime you have received 3 blocks from me, two 10 minute and one 1 hour. I wiped the slate clean and started over at 10 minutes. The next block will be one hour. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 18:11, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
:::::::This controversy bids fair to continue interminably. I wanted to quit it long ago, but you coerced a continuation by threat of block. You've gone through with your threat by actual follow-up action numerous times, and you claimed that you were not threatening to block. It is now abundantly evident that you ''personally'' do not want me on Conservapedia. Andy does. See edits above and also on my Archive 01 page. In a week I will purge my current talk page of all your future comments. I will not get further embroiled in your time-wasting edit warring against me. I will not respond to you, from this moment on. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 18:16, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
::::::::Here's the [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Dataclarifier/Sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=1644772 block log.] I am one of the least likely Admins to issue a block, ask anybody. Any block you ever received was for a violation of site policy, and in every case it was for undoing the actions of Sysop. In every case you were warned not to. In every case, if you responded, you responded with spam. The combination of spamming and edit warring = trolling. It's a habit you've developed that I'm trying to help you overcome. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 18:27, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::Notwithstanding what you have said: Many readers appreciate substantiating evidence or immediately accessible proof backing assertions made in response to challenges put forth to be answered. That is not spamming. They can see then for themselves the facts which provide a basis for intelligent evaluation of any debate from both sides. Would you deny them that opportunity to exercise their own opinion of whether or not the assertions of either side of a debate have merit? I question why anyone would remove such material from the reader's view. '''No more response. I'll just tend to my talk page and contribute what I can to the content of Conservapedia.''' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 18:59, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::In a discussion page regarding mainspace content, your primary responsibility is to address the point under discussion with other participants in that discussion, not playing to an audience of readers. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 23:03, 7 May 2020 (EDT)