Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, edit, move, protect
30,891
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 860:
Line 860: − − ==Suggestion== − Rather than spamming talk pages, you could [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Infant_baptism&oldid=1590699#Analysis take your essays] and place them in articles such as [[Essay:Analysis]] (or some such tile), place them in [[:Category:Essays]], and even if there is no objection from other editors, provide a link from the main article to the Essay. − − Then, if people wish to debate your Essay, it can be done on that Essay talk page, rather than clogging up the mainspace article talk page. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 14:24, 4 November 2019 (EST) − − :Adapted your suggestion. Created a [[Debate: Infant baptism|Debate page]]. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 18:22, 5 November 2019 (EST) − − ==== [[Debate: Infant baptism]] ==== − ::The rest of the debate has been moved from '''[[Talk:Infant baptism]]''' to '''[[Debate: Infant baptism]]'''. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 18:22, 5 November 2019 (EST) − − ::All comments directly pertaining to the structure of the main article '''[[Infant baptism]]''' and to the sources of information cited in it should be made there on '''[[Talk:Infant baptism]]'''. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 21:49, 5 November 2019 (EST) − :::Note spamming a page with multiple redundant links ([https://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Infant_baptism#Debate:_Infant_baptism such as here] with 4 redundant links to Debate: Infant baptism, lowers you Google ranking. Google will penalize you for redundant links. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 11:08, 6 November 2019 (EST) − − == new articles == − − While casually reviewing Harmony of the Gospel (Conservative Version), from time to time I have looked to see if Conservapedia already had some particular relevant Bible articles and topics. When I find that there were some subjects not treated that would be or should be included, I create a few new articles, basing them on existing material and research. − ===Infant baptism=== − Most recently this was '''[[Infant baptism]]''' which I knew would most probably generate a strong reactive response from some readers who would be very eager to promote one particular view over others, theologically and doctrinally; and for this reason, based on what I had encountered online, I made what is for me an unusual request, that the article be locked, and my request was granted. − − A storm of protest and debate very quickly developed on the article talk page, which substantiated the reason for my proactive request. But it did not meet with any favor at all from those who repudiated anything that presented the Catholic POV even when it was balanced by full inclusion of representative denunciations and repudiating arguments against the argument for pedobaptist regenerative baptism in favor of credobaptist believer's baptism only, which were included in the original article. Some readers protested on the Talk page that the main article should immediately be unlocked. Line 886:
Line 865: − − ==='''P.S.''' on Infant baptism=== − :It appears that the hot debate on [[Talk:Infant baptism]] has cooled off considerably, stopped (at present), and has gone over to [[Debate: Infant baptism]] where I had originally tried to direct it when I first created the general Debate page. ''Semper Fi!'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 00:22, 12 November 2019 (EST) Line 945:
Line 921: − − ==Ridiculous arguments== − If you want to continue ridiculous arguments ''without'' engaging on the Talk page of [[Burning at the stake, Biblical pretext for]], I'll just delete the page as "sarcastic mockery" of God's word. You need to engage other editors directly on Talk when legitimate questions are raised - without spamming blocks of text and redundant links. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 01:57, 4 February 2020 (EST) − :You can earn yourself a temporary block for reverting a Sysop with the rollback key. I;m going to rollback your edits a second time on [[Burning at the stake]]. Meet me on the talk page to discuss changes or enjoy a temporary block for edit warring. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 03:08, 4 February 2020 (EST) − ::See my good faith response at [[Talk:Burning at the stake#Dataclarifier response]] --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 16:13, 4 February 2020 (EST) − :::RobSmith has removed subheading '''Dataclarifier response''' from the link I provided, so you can't access it. Go to [[Talk:Burning at the stake#Rewrite-it]] and scroll down to my now untitled response. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 17:17, 4 February 2020 (EST) − ::::Yes I did remove the subheading you created because you refused to answer my simple question. You spammed the page with a new subheading, rudely refused to engage and answer a simple good faith question. That is called trolling. Learn the simple rules of etiquette with other users. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 14:37, 4 May 2020 (EDT) Line 966:
Line 935: − − ==See Talk:Salvation== − [[Talk:Salvation]]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 15:15, 17 February 2020 (EST) − − My apologies, but the consensus among editors was to revert some of your latest contributions. My recommendation is, that if you want to go on an anti-Protestant rant, do it in Essay space. It would also help if you would engage properly on discussion pages and seek the assistance and collaboration of other editors. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 16:40, 17 February 2020 (EST) − − :I have just received the alert to your note and am immediately responding with an ''apologia'' to explain. I sincerely regret that the documented historical fact of gnostic influences in ''some'' (not all) of North American Protestantism as detailed in Philip Lee's book, favorably reviewed, fully verified and competently sourced was perceived as a rant, regretting especially that it is perceived as anti-Protestant. That was not my intention. I have not gone and checked where the material I contributed on the subject researched by Phillip Lee and reviewed and summarized by a respected Protestant pastor, Christian apologist and author was deleted or retained. I am not responsible for the research of others, only for my desire for balanced articles offering a spectrum of views. As long as the summarized material re Philip Lee's book containing historical fact established by his research is retained in some or at least one or two of the most relevant articles, I have no objection. I really do not doubt that you can exercise reasonable judgment as to which articles it is most appropriate. I was only attempting to be as thorough as possible in relating the documentation to as many articles as seemed to me to be relevant, especially those on the recent resurgence of Neo-Gnostic influences, for the sake of informing our readers, who may not read all articles on heresies, Christianity, Protestantism and apostasy, so that at least at those particular relevant articles that they do access they can be more informed. Again, I feel no need to "check" what articles the particular "''Gnostic Protestant''" sections were removed from. I do not believe you attempted any "historical revisionist cover-up" in removing some, or even most of the postings of the material regarding the warning of Gnostic influences in modern liberalist Protestant doctrine in North America. I hope this makes sense. Best regards. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 19:26, 17 February 2020 (EST) − :: Philip Lee is one man's opinion (regardless of how many letters he has after his name). Philip Lee is not the Word of God. When discussing biblical subjects, we should cite the Word of God. Your contribution seems to question whether God spoke through the Apostle Paul. That sort of speculation probably should be confined to Essay space. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 19:34, 17 February 2020 (EST) − :::Actually, Lee is not alone, he is representative of many who perceive neo-gnostic influences in Protestantism, opposing authority of Church and State, opposing Catholicism, rejection of the good of material creation and marital relations as being a snare to the soul, lack of preaching on the bodily resurrection, the idea that moral behavior is optional. These are not part of biblical Christianity, only of those elements tending toward heresy. Do an online search on "Gnostic influences in the Protestant Reformers". That should explain why I included the material. I didn't really think that more than one representative source reflecting a summary of many others who also found the same influences was necessary. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 19:48, 17 February 2020 (EST) − − == Unjustified block == − − The block of your account was unjustified. I'm granting you blocking/unblocking privileges so you can correct future issues like that. Hope to see you back soon!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 12:31, 25 February 2020 (EST) − − :Ah, I see you've had blocking/unblocking privileges for some time. Please feel free to use them. Thank you!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 12:33, 25 February 2020 (EST) − − ::Thank you, Andy. I do and I will. <br> I had mistakenly thought that you had received a formal petition and had personally approved the block of my account by VargasMilan 21 Feb to 1 May for all the reasons given in that block summary. <br> From 21 Feb to 23 Feb I checked back several times and found no change. So I was unaware of your action on my behalf. <br> When the blocking restriction specified by VargasMilan was to expire 1 May I returned. I was grateful for your action note above. I felt that you had vindicated my integrity and trustworthiness demonstrated consistently over the past 7 years, but for the time being I did nothing. I had to do some thinking about what to do. <br> You expressed complete confidence in my judgment regarding use of blocking/unblocking privileges: "Please feel free to use them". After very careful consideration and soul-searching prayerful discernment I have determined to block both RobSmith and VargasMilan indefinitely. I do not take this measure lightly. I confidently believe, given the evidence I will present, that this action is fully justified, and not for my sake alone. The substantial causes for this drastic action are detailed in the entry below. I do this as my part in support of the general policy of integrity of Conservapedia consistent with the [[Conservapedia Commandments]] and [[Conservapedia Guidelines]]. A kind of "housecleaning". <br> As always, I defer to your honest judgment, as to whether the block of these two accounts should be lifted now or eventually or ever. − − ::Peace be with you. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 15:49, 3 May 2020 (EDT) − == Blocked (past tense): RobSmith and VargasMilan == − − ;Reasons for action taken. − Substantial violation of key Conservapedia ethical and moral principles: To wit: − − [[Conservapedia Commandments]]: number 3. − − [[Conservapedia Guidelines#Duties]]: − ::Blocking for ideological reasons<br>Name Calling and Insults<br>Using Article Talk pages as Debate Forums for unresolved historical ideological and theological controversies<br>Unjustified threat of blocking and of massive deletion of all previous contributions (see below) − [[Conservapedia Guidelines#Civility]]: − ::Violation of Civility<br>Attacking for beliefs − [[Conservapedia Guidelines#Teamwork]] − ::number 2. − [[Conservapedia Guidelines#90/10 Rule]] − ::The sheer bulk of antagonistic responses of opinionated prejudicial point-of-view compared to the verifiable content of substantiated articles wrongly rejected as wrong and biased, refusal to accept reasonable replies with courtesy and respect, and refusal to let the matter rest. − − [[Conservapedia:Topic bans]]: evidence of promoting a personal agenda as against well-founded research − − [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]: numbers 12. and 15. − − [[Bias#Encyclopedias]]: clear evidence of slanted bias in unjustified activities against multiple Conservapedia users − − [[Trolling]]: evidence of, in exhibits below − − ;Exhibits follow: − − A. Unjustified threat of blocking acted on and threat of obtaining a cooperative partner in plan to exercise massive deletion of all previous contributions − ::[[Talk/Dataclarifier/Archive 01#Suggestion]] "enjoy a block" unless a response is forthcoming − *<big>'''"[https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADataclarifier&diff=1619663&oldid=1619630 enjoy a temporary block for edit warring]". Learn to read. I get no pleasure out of calling people liars.'''</big> [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 00:02, 6 May 2020 (EDT) − − ::[[Talk:Salvation#Wow]] threat to get an administrator to "nuke all your contributions from day one" − *<big>'''Let's begin right here: Go back and answer my question. Your refusal to engage properly is uncooperative, incivil, and trolling.'''</big> [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 18:27, 4 May 2020 (EDT) − − ::[[Talk/Dataclarifier/Archive 01#Unjustified block]] − *'''You're spamming your own userpage with redundant internal links, which is irritating to some readers. Furthermore, I'm not that stupid to not know how to follow the discussion on Andy's talk page. Your cut n' pastes of responses (below) to spam your own Talk page becomes irritating to other users.''' [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 00:12, 6 May 2020 (EDT) − − '''[Note: There is no Item B. The original complaint skips from A. to C., and does not appear to be an actual removal of relevant material by any other user than Dataclarifier. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 02:15, 6 May 2020 (EDT)] − − '''Item B is below between Item E and Item F'''. I found it after looking for it. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 07:40, 7 May 2020 (EDT) − − C. [[Talk:Infant baptism#Comment on page]] − ::[[Talk:Infant baptism]]: general tone of sheer bulk of numerous repetitive arguments and attacks with more of the same in an extensive archive of the page − :::*'''The classic illustration of spamming a discussion page with redundant material to avoid answering simple inquiries. Furthermore, you vandalized the discussion page several times, removing other editors comments.''' [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 00:17, 6 May 2020 (EDT) − − − D. [[Talk:Helpless babies and sinners]]: attack on an established doctrinal belief − :*'''Explain how the lone comment on the internal link you provide is "an attack on an established doctrinal belief" and I personally will nominate you for the Nobel Prize in Literature. − {{quotebox|this article apparently sets a division between people without faith whom Jesus died for, and another group of people with faith whom Jesus did not die for. − − It's basically, again, a doctrine of works. That people with faith don't need Christ's atoning sacrifice. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 19:17, 6 November 2019 (EST)}} − : [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 02:03, 6 May 2020 (EDT) − − E. [[Talk/Dataclarifier/Archive 01#Infant baptism]] − *<big>'''Spam; an internal link to an unsigned comment, presumably yourself on your own userpage. This is trolling.'''</big> [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 02:09, 6 May 2020 (EDT) − − B. [[Debate: Infant baptism]]: repetitive attacks on beliefs and contentious arguing lacking civility − :*'''[https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Infant_baptism&diff=prev&oldid=1591795#Debate:_Infant_baptism You simply cannot do this] - move other editors comments to another page. I still have no confidence the original discussion page reflects accurately the substance of that discussion after you vandalized it (which could have earned you a block). So any complaints you have are moot, since you tampered with the evidence.''' [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 00:36, 6 May 2020 (EDT) − − F. [[Talk/Dataclarifier/Archive 01#Ridiculous arguments]] − − G. [[Talk/Dataclarifier/Archive 01#See Talk:Salvation]] − − Exhibit A above suggests that RobSmith may have indeed elicited the cooperative agreement of VargasMilan to effect the intended [21 Feb to 1 May] unjustified block removed 25 Feb by AndyS. Further evidence from the comments made by VargasMilan on the linked talk and debate pages of the other exhibits strongly suggests a similar shared hostility and antipathy toward the fundamental key principles of Conservapedia which gradually becomes more evident from the reactions of other users in later postings on both their talk pages. − *<big>'''You don't even have this right. Vargas unblocked you after two days. Let me offer you some guidance: get your facts straight before you start accusing other people of wrongdoing and whining to the boss, and start building good will, good faith, and a cooperative spirit with fellow users. It is not too late. We all make mistakes.'''</big> [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 00:41, 6 May 2020 (EDT) − − − H. [[User talk:VargasMilan]] − − I. [[User talk:RobSmith]] − − Copies to Aschlafly, RobSmith, VargasMilan − − --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 15:49, 3 May 2020 (EDT) − − :Did you really need to block RobSmith for an expiry time of ''infinite''? While I don't exactly understand the dispute, I really think it's a bad idea to indefinitely block [[Conservapedia]]'s most hard-working editor who cracks in over 2,500 edits a month and is constantly updating important pages. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]'''''</sup> 16:02, 3 May 2020 (EDT) − − ::I appreciate your sincerity. Did you read the evidence above? That's the best answer I can give. I wish you well. Stay safe. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 16:25, 3 May 2020 (EDT) − ::::Yes, I read it. It is incomprehensible. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 14:26, 4 May 2020 (EDT) − :::Yeah, I do kind of get the idea that RobSmith can adopt a somewhat bossy attitude rather quickly on certain things he disagrees with, and I definitely do think that his threats to nuke your contributions aren't fair, though I don't think this calls for blocking for an expiry time of ''infinite''. After all, who else is going to update [[United States presidential election, 2020|this page]] all the time, not to mention all the other important current pages RobSmith works on? I may be okay on creating and editing certain pages, such as with [[United States Senate elections, 2020|this]] and [[United States Senate election in Arizona, 2020|this]], though I'm that much of an expert. And besides, since RobSmith is a sysop, he can just immediately unblock himself, unless that tag gets revoked. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]'''''</sup> 16:42, 3 May 2020 (EDT) − − − ::::More specifically, RobSmith is an administrator. You definitely don't have the authority to block him. VargasMilan is an assistant administrator/Sysop, and you also don't have the authority to block him. You (Dataclarifier) and I are roughly equals, along with VargasMilan. RobSmith is our superior. We are not allowed to block our equals or superiors. If you have a problem with such a person, you must address that issue with an [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&group=sysop administrator]. For the record, though, RobSmith has the authority to block you (or VargasMilan, or me) any time he wants. − ::::It seems to me that there is fault on multiple sides here (although some more that others), but just outright blocking them is not the answer...it only makes things worse. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 22:15, 3 May 2020 (EDT) − ::::::Ok, let me weigh in. I felt the 10 day block was too long and unwarranted. Dataclarifier has a habit of spamming talk page with multiple links and incomprehensible arguments. I've tried to encourage Dataclarifier to engage with other editors civilly. He typically responds with spam and nonsense. Consequently, when he received his 10 day block, he built up no good will with me to waste any more of my valuable time to intervene on his behalf and undo the actions of editor with blocking power. While Vargas may have been heavy-handed, Dataclarifier's habit of evasion to answer a simple question about mainspace content with blocks of text and cut n' paste spam on discussion pages is rude and incivil. Furthermore, he has a habit of responding to friendly advice on how to be an effective editor in the same manner. − ::::::Dataclarifier: I am not the enemy. You have mistakenly created some sort of personal vendetta cause I didn't undo the work of an editor with more user rights than you have. Welcome back. Learn the rules and engage civilly, which means quit spamming talk pages with 5000 bytes of text with internal and external links when a simple 'yes' or 'no' or sentence or two will suffice. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 14:16, 4 May 2020 (EDT) − :::::::Well said. he's the one who has been "promoting a personal agenda as against well-founded research" by zealously pushing his Catholic views over all other viewpoints on this site with his attempts to erase anything with a Protestant point of view. He has been provoking most of the backlash against him. There are other Catholics on this site such as Northwest who don't engage in this behavior. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 14:57, 4 May 2020 (EDT) − ::::::::We welcome divergent views. In talk page discussions, spamming the page with cut n' paste links and text from other sites to answer a reasonable question from CP editors, is trolling. No one is obligated to read 5,000 words of text and waste 10 minutes of their life to hear an answer to a simple question that could take 30 seconds (and in most cases I've experienced, his rambling cut n' pastes don't address the questions asked). I hope Dataclarifier can learn the rules of etiquette of interacting with other users. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 18:12, 4 May 2020 (EDT) − − :::::::::I posted the following on Andy's talk page:{{quotation|Andy, RobSmith says welcome back on my talk page. I am content with having made a strong statement with my own action of blocking. (I was not so naïve as to actually believe an infinite block of him and VargasMilan would last very long.) <br><br>He now continues to threaten me on my talk page with the same tone of domination unchanged. If I refuse to respond to him re contentious topics, he may decide again to slap another block on my account. He gives me no reason to believe otherwise.<br><br>You have expressed both here on your talk page and on my own talk page the freedom of contributors on Conservapedia to make the prudential choice of exercising a decisive refusal to engage in contentious continuing debates with other editors and administrators. <br> However, shortly after you gave me that advice (assurance to know that I do not have to respond to any comments) and subsequently after I chose to exercise that option with RobSmith and said on a couple of talk pages that I would no longer respond, and that I had said all I could say, he kept demanding additional response, and finally inflicted a short term block for my refusing to get ensnared again. What is to prevent this again if I choose not to respond? Especially since both our positions have been more than adequately expressed, and I might say "redundantly". All I could do was reiterate what I had already said, and back it up with substantial documentation. He insists that my completely substantiated responses are "incomprehensible" and "say nothing".<br><br>Now that I have found that you removed the more extensive unjustified intentional [21 Feb to 1 May] block by VargasMilan on 25 Feb, I simply ask you for the standard Conservapedia freedom enjoyed by others here to legitimately refuse to further respond to RobSmith or others like him without a threat of blocking for exercising that fully available option. Without such assurance, I see no real possibility of continued involvement in contributing to Conservapedia, even though you expressed hope that I would continue, because I could be blocked again for exercising legitimate refusal to respond, for "who knows how long?". Please answer. Either here or on my talk page. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 19:57, 5 May 2020 (EDT)}}<br>--[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 19:57, 5 May 2020 (EDT) − ::::::::::[https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=TLDR TLDR]; you're spamming again. Go back and read this page: [[Conservapedia:Administrator's Guide]], now that you have enhanced powers. Particularly this section '''Working with others''': ''Some new users might simply misunderstand our policies and need some guidance. Not all initial efforts which violate policy are done out of opposition or indifference to project goals. A sysops responsibility is to help users by providing guidance....'', which is my job. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 20:16, 5 May 2020 (EDT) − :::::::::Dataclarifier: "Now that I have found that you removed the more extensive unjustified intentional [21 Feb to 1 May] block by VargasMilan on 25 Feb." − ::::::::Dataclarifier, how do you "find" something for which there is no evidence? Is it because the alternative is detrimental to your effort to place yourself as just as wronged against as to the degree you tried to cause Rob to be wronged when you were caught constructing a man-trap in which for him to fall? Maybe you can't "find" the basic facts, even after your descriptions are corrected for you by RobS himself, to grasp, for the same reason a thief can't "find" a police officer! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 01:38, 6 May 2020 (EDT) − :::::::::21 Feb When I found I suddenly could not edit Show preview, the block notice that appeared stated the block was until May 1 with your name. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 03:06, 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) − − == 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) − :::::::::Let me direct your attention to the 90/10 rule: − :::::::::*''authorizes the blocking of accounts that engage in excessive article talk page,[2] bickering, last wordism, '''and other unproductive activity'''''... − :::::::::''other unproductive activity'' is, for example, spamming a talk page with large blocs of text and cut n' paste material, or redundant postings from other talk pages. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 12:52, 9 May 2020 (EDT) − ::::::::::The above comment omits the [[90/10 Rule|90/10]] original link to [[Last wordism]]. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:17, 12 May 2020 (EDT) − :::::::::::Yah it omits it, cause it's [[spam]]ming, <big><u>'''Exactly what you are doing right now and have been repeatedly warned to cease.'''</u></big> [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 13:32, 12 May 2020 (EDT) − − 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 within a week 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]]. − See also [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#90/10 Rule|90/10 Rule]] − − --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:51, 7 May 2020 (EDT) − − − ---- − − == Final Note on material moved from Talk page to this Archive 6/24/2020 == − '''At the request of Dataclarifier I moved the following material from the Talk page to this Archive this date 6/24/2020 as final edit.''' <br> − − Note: the links here appearing in red on this page no longer exist. (I had already read them a short time before, during the brief interval before they were unexpectedly deleted: predominantly harsh and sarcastic comments by RobSmith, and Dataclarifier responses, headed with a note comment added at the top of the page that RobSmith had changed the title of the page from "Administrator comments" to a trivializing "Sandbox" page.) The linked pages with all content were completely removed by RobSmith so that they no longer exist according to his own statement on Andy's Talk page: User talk:Aschlafly. <br> --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 12:41, 24 June 2020 (EDT) − − '''The moved material follows:''' − − === Administrator comments (15 May 2020) === − − :see comment at [[User talk:Dataclarifier/Administrator comments|Administrator comments: Administrator comments (7 May 2020)]] − :--[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 04:59, 15 May 2020 (EDT) − − === Administrative guidance (15 May 2020) === − − :see comment at [[User talk:Dataclarifier/Sandbox#Administrative guidance|Administrator comments: Administrative guidance (6 May 2020)]] − :see additional comments at [[User talk:Dataclarifier/Sandbox#Administrative guidance|Administrator comments: Administrative guidance (7 May 2020 through 12 May 2020)]] − :--[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 04:59, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
User talk:Dataclarifier/Archive 01 (view source)
Revision as of 21:25, August 2, 2020
, 21:25, August 2, 2020following through on lead by Conservative to clean out contentious or acrimonious debate/exchange material more properly belonging on debate pages
:I'm still at work reviewing another major project. It may be May or June of 2020 before I can get to it. Just be patient. If I can do anything, I will, at that time. I wish you well. Thank you. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 00:34, 12 November 2019 (EST)
:I'm still at work reviewing another major project. It may be May or June of 2020 before I can get to it. Just be patient. If I can do anything, I will, at that time. I wish you well. Thank you. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 00:34, 12 November 2019 (EST)
===Scribes (Bible)===
===Scribes (Bible)===
Peace be with you all. I wish you well. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:16, 11 November 2019 (EST)
Peace be with you all. I wish you well. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:16, 11 November 2019 (EST)
== Development page ==
== Development page ==
It is an honor to be able to contribute to Conservapedia. God bless you all, y'all. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:41, 3 February 2020 (EST)
It is an honor to be able to contribute to Conservapedia. God bless you all, y'all. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:41, 3 February 2020 (EST)
== 2 additional small articles and note on retiring from Conservapedia this spring ==
== 2 additional small articles and note on retiring from Conservapedia this spring ==
I almost forgot, I also created [[Historical-grammatical method (Literal hermeneutic)]], and did the short article [[Praxis]] last week. May your own Christian praxis lead you closer to God and to deeper knowledge of his heart of love. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 03:46, 12 February 2020 (EST)
I almost forgot, I also created [[Historical-grammatical method (Literal hermeneutic)]], and did the short article [[Praxis]] last week. May your own Christian praxis lead you closer to God and to deeper knowledge of his heart of love. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 03:46, 12 February 2020 (EST)
:::I would encourage you to read this page, [[Conservapedia:Administrator's Guide]], as well. On a personal level, I admire the thoroughness with which you approach your work. If I raise a question on a talk page, I'm thinking more in terms of how readers view our work product and not so much of my own views and opinions. That essentially is the goal of good, effective and persuasive writing - the more an author can hide his own bias the better. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 07:31, 5 May 2020 (EDT)
:::I would encourage you to read this page, [[Conservapedia:Administrator's Guide]], as well. On a personal level, I admire the thoroughness with which you approach your work. If I raise a question on a talk page, I'm thinking more in terms of how readers view our work product and not so much of my own views and opinions. That essentially is the goal of good, effective and persuasive writing - the more an author can hide his own bias the better. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 07:31, 5 May 2020 (EDT)
=== Bonsai trees and partial retirement (13 May 2020)===
=== Bonsai trees and partial retirement (13 May 2020)===