User talk:Dataclarifier

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome! God Bless + everyone who accesses this page! --Dataclarifier 12:18, 3 October 2014 (EDT)

Archive 01

For messages from Administrators see User talk:Dataclarifier/Administrator comments

--Dataclarifier (talk) 10:07, 6 May 2020 (EDT)

Messages from Administrators will be immediately copied to 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 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 Administrator comments.

See also 90/10 Rule

--Dataclarifier (talk) 10:51, 7 May 2020 (EDT)

Administrator comments

see comment at Administrator comments: Administrator comments (7 May 2020)
--Dataclarifier (talk) 04:59, 15 May 2020 (EDT)

Administrative guidance

see comment at Administrator comments: Administrative guidance (6 May 2020)
see additional comments at Administrator comments: Administrative guidance (7 May 2020 through 12 May 2020)
--Dataclarifier (talk) 04:59, 15 May 2020 (EDT)

Bonsai trees and partial retirement

At the bottom of Request Andy said, "I hope you don't retire anytime soon." I said I would still be around, even after planning on reducing my involvement with Conservapedia after Spring this year.
It occurred to me to get back to the possibility of developing a new hobby of growing Bonsai (I may do an article on it this winter). Growing and tending miniature trees in pots as works of art wouldn't require as much reading, which will be practical, since floating bloodclots appeared in my eyes this past November which cause a lot of blurring of vision and have made editing here gradually more and more problematic. Still, I will contribute what I can, but now plan to gradually take longer breaks between edits and contributions, and get away from the computer.
Beginning about the end of June or July, I'll confine my activities here at Conservapedia to weekends, at most Fridays through Mondays, and at home do yardwork, maintain "social distancing", and watch NCIS, the News, and my collection of DVDs and listen to audio books of the great classics of literature.
Relevant comments are always welcome. Peace be with you. --Dataclarifier (talk) 09:22, 13 May 2020 (EDT)

Wikignome72 Request of 24 October 2019

At Article request 24 October 2019, Wikignome72 asked me "Could you please create an article entitled Faith and doctors?" and I said that I'm still at work reviewing another major project. I can now reassure you that although I still might come up with something, it now may be July or August before I can get to it. I put it on my Development page in October and did some work on it from time to time in the months that followed. It's still there. Just be patient. If I can do anything to make a reasonable article out of the material you gave me and the sources I found online, I will. --Dataclarifier (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2020 (EDT)

Administrative warning

It has been more than 90 days since Andy Schlalfy has not responded to any of your trolling on his Talk page wherein you named names of specific users with false allegations of violating Conservapedia policies. [1] Please stop your incessant spamming and trolling of user talk pages and article talk pages. Please edit in good faith, and respond to legitimate inquiries about content you add directly without massive amounts of internal and external spam links. Please stop attacks on other users. Your repeated violations of these longstanding Conservapedia policies and guidelines can result in both removal of your spam and trolling postings on talk pages and short term blocks. RobSLive Free or Die 15:00, 15 May 2020 (EDT)

The above comment is a reaction to updated comments on User talk:Aschlafly#Block of RobSmith and VargasMilan regarding RobSmith denial's that he altered my links and pages, and to my answering response with evidentiary proof by providing there the very diffs he demanded. From his previous reactions and his recent responses to my most recent very brief postings as being "spam" I do believe he will say even this brief comment is spamming the page and will be used by him to provide a pretext for him to block me again, as he did a few moments ago when I attempted to respond and found this:
You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:
Your username or IP address has been blocked.
The block was made by RobSmith. The reason given is Spamming his own talk page and trolling a CP Administrator.
  • Start of block: 14:15, 15 May 2020
  • Expiry of block: 14:25, 15 May 2020
  • Intended blockee: Dataclarifier
You can contact RobSmith or another administrator to discuss the block. You cannot use the "email this user" feature unless a valid email address is specified in your account preferences and you have not been blocked from using it. Your current IP address is 75.162.35.23, and the block is #371198. Please include all above details in any inquiries you make.
The meaning and intent of this and all of the preceding extensive discussion thread by RobSmith extending back through to the top of the Administrator comments page and back into my talk page archive 01 is clear and plain evidence to anyone who has read it. The Conservapedia Guidelines clearly state that any user can manage his own talk page (which includes what he calls spamming my own page); and its paragraphs also describe forms of unacceptable persistent harrassment which violate the Guidelines of the 90/10 Rule and plainly set out every detail of Last wordism, which RobSmith has repeatedly demonstrated and exemplified. I am delighted that he has provided such abundant undeniable proof. (The Guidelines also provide and state that Administrators and Sysops can delete and block however and whomever they please.) Another block by only him or VargasMilan, and by no one else, in reaction to this will only serve to present further additional proof that this answer is not spam or a false accusation but fact. If someone else whom I truly respect, who is unprejudiced, like Conservative or Andy himself, makes the next block, then I will believe that I am truly in the wrong in this, and I will most heartily apologize and make what amends I can in reparation. In all sincerity I really do not believe they will, I believe the evidence in my favor is too strong to dismiss. --Dataclarifier (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
  • by only him or VargasMilan
Your grammar is atrocious. Few people have the patience to read through your stumbling bumbling nonsense. RobSLive Free or Die 16:37, 17 May 2020 (EDT)
While spamming your own talk with internal links may technically prevent a sysop from removing the spam or deleting the page, you still can be blocked for spamming your own page when asked by a sysop to stop. Further, forging any users electronic signature to any page in or outside Conservapedia is cause for permanent blocking and banning. RobSLive Free or Die 18:13, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
Dataclarifier, did you copy and paste here the block details that showed up on your screen? After all, now you disclosed your IP address on this talk page... --LiberaltearsJust say no to quid pro joe! | Free Roger Stone! 17:00, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
No. I didn't copy and paste the block details. I hand copied and posted. Transparency. Don't worry. I fully knew what I was doing. I store no vital information or IDs on my computer. I appreciate your concern. Thanks. Now if you were to block my account for the reasons given by RobSmith as valid, that would really mean something. Semper fi. Peace be with you. --Dataclarifier (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
If you store your Conservapedia password on your computer and post your IP, your CP account can be hacked and someone can start posting child pornography in your name. Do you seriously want to continue ignoring advice given for your own benefit? RobSLive Free or Die 00:28, 17 May 2020 (EDT)


Plus he can enjoy another 10 minute block for spamming and trolling. Dataclarifier: you realize everytime you cut and paste my signature you are forging my signature? RobSLive Free or Die 17:18, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
No. --Dataclarifier (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2020 (EDT)

18 incidents of forgery

There are no less than 18 incidents of forgery of my signature on User talk:Dataclarifier/Sandbox. There are other incidents of Dataclarifier forging signatures of CP editors on other pages in Conservapedia. No, you are not free to spam, forge, and troll CP sysops at will. RobSLive Free or Die 17:40, 15 May 2020 (EDT)

In your doing the same with my link on other sites including Andy's talk page I was unaware that this was forging and therefore assumed that your practice of doing so (and other Administrators as well in multiple discussion threads) as an example demonstrated the practice as acceptable and legitimate. I verily believe you have come up with another pretext to block. --Dataclarifier (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
Stop spamming my page with your redundant edits which add nothing new but only reiterate and underline your own hostility and bullying prejudice. You will only establish as true what I have said. --Dataclarifier (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
It is obvious that if I go ahead and copy to the Administrator comments subpage verbatim all of the recent comments above that were made today to preserve them as an integral part of the current discussion thread you will charge me with forgery. It is clear that that very handily defeats the possibility of incidental preservation of the very clear evidence of your own ongoing and incessant spamming hostility and prejudice. You just won't quit having the Last Word. You have demonstrated that again and again. You have an evidently pathologically compulsive need to do so. My own long-established expertise in mental health demonstrates this to me very clearly. I do believe that you will never let up until you have built up as a specious pretext what you consider a compelling case for permanently blocking me as Pharisaical cover for your own prejudicial hatred of the honest historical statements and articles I have made grounded on firmly verifiable facts and established sources of documented research. I fully expect outraged wrath on your part because I tell you the truth. If you can get Andy or Conservative to block me, I will believe you have a clearly established case of malicious editing against me. If you can't you fail, and that should prove I am innocent of your allegations, and that you have been wasting my time and energy in a futile effort to be honest. Yes, you can do as you please with the authority you have here. But that doesn't prove you are in the right, or that what you have asserted has any ground in facts corresponding to reality. Let's see what happens. Will you prove me right about you? Your call. --Dataclarifier (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
Twice edit conflict occurred when I attempted to post the above, no doubt because RobSmith's two edits below preempted it. --Dataclarifier (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
The two edits below by RobSmith were not posted in response to the above. --Dataclarifier (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
When you perform your wholesale cut's n pastes, as you did with adding a category, you capture another user's signature making it look to an outside observer that the user had indeed edited that page you paste it to. I have for months asked you to stop spamming. You typically respond by spamming, including forgery, unwarranted categories, redundant links and passages that any wiki editor can access themselves without your redundant spam.
I have been extraordinarily patient with your rookie errors, and am being extraordinarily patient right now explaining how you routinely violate site policy which would get you permanently banned on any wiki project.
Please, beginning now, when offered advice or instruction, do not respond with spam. RobSLive Free or Die 18:39, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
Back when you recommended that I go to the edit box and scroll down to see "Send page", I went to edit mode and never located "Send page". Where is it located in the edit box? --Dataclarifier (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
Send page is the upload key, the button you press to post a comment or add content. It's right before "Show preview" and "Show changes".
P.S. Don't be discouraged. I'm just as hard-headed as you and I had to learn the rules of wikiettiquitte the same way from a few patient Admins willing to engage with me, versus the hordes of biased and intolerant Admins and Moderators. Here at CP most editors who contribute share the same goals. We all value your constructive contributions. By nature, you and I both seem to be drawn to controversy, and are willing to take on some of the most difficult subjects and pages - which indeed takes courage. Keep in mind neither of us likely will have the final say or definitive exposition of a subject, and the best we can hope for is a convincing and persuasive presentation of whatever point of view we're writing on. RobSLive Free or Die 19:22, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
Uh-huh. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Past consistent performance tells. I have no illusions about you however pleasant you attempt to present yourself. For my part I will be honest and truthful and when challenged will back up and support what I say with solid evidence providing unimpeachable substance. Semper fi --Dataclarifier (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
"Send page" ? The three posting buttons at the bottom of the edit mode page are
[Save page][Show preview][Show changes].
There is no "Send page" there right before "Show preview" and "Show changes". You obviously don't know what you're talking about. --Dataclarifier (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
Sorry. "Save page" is correct (when you "save page", you are doing an electronic transmission like "send" on a telephone). RobSLive Free or Die 19:50, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
The postings to this page are already preserved in the histories and user contribs. I don't feel like hunting through my contribs in the future to prove that some comment or edit made somewhere was indeed forged and not posted by me. Your laxness with the rules and common editing courtesies makes you a prime suspect for nefarious conduct. It's best not to give even a shadow of illusion that you are an uncooperative or problematic editor.
Personally, I get no joy for out of blocking anybody, or advocating a good faith user's permanent banning. Blocking is intended to modify behavior, and not really as a punitive strike (although most Admins on most wikis are probably guilty of such behavior). You may dispute what I'm about to say, but when I give a short term block to a good faith editor, it is intended to make a better editor of them.
History is indeed my subject and what I went to school for. My contributions to Wikipedia's Historiography article and Historical method have survived the test of time. I've been dedicated to accurate historical reporting (what you call "honest historical statements and articles") is at least a half century old. I admire very much your research and knowledge of church history and Roman Church history. Church history however, is not the Word of God; but that is a discussion for another time and place. RobSLive Free or Die 19:50, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
"God is truth". This includes factual, historical truth, true history, factual Church history, the history of Christianity. Firmly established historical truth is based on reality. Reality is rooted in truth, and is based on truth. All that is true is authored by God. The orderly functions of the universe, the manifest physical laws of existence, the accurate recording of actual events by human historians without prejudice who seek above all to be truthful. Rejection of truth is rejection of God. Factual, documented Church history, like all other factual, documented history, being true, is part of the Word of God. Romans 1:18-20. Rejection of any of the established historical facts of Church history is rejection of the truth. Confirmation bias rejects the truth. Cafeteria Christianity rejects the truth. Hypocrites reject the truth. Truth is of God, and God is Truth. Research and articles which distort the truth of actual history reject God. --Dataclarifier (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
All of the above comments are copied to the Administrator comments page, whole and entire, verbatim, without alteration, without change, without forgery. All comments accompanied by links to their contributors are the actual contributions of the user. No user link will be appended to anything not authored by the user. All including this message and the message immediately below will be displayed here until 23 May 2020. From that date they will all be retained on the Administrator comments page, and on this page will be replaced with the message "See messages at Administrator comments" where they will be readily accessible. --Dataclarifier (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
RobSmith you have made your position abundantly clear. You have had your say. I know where you stand. Nothing new has been added. All that you have submitted to me to this date and time will be retained unchanged.
You have dominated my pages to an extent I have not seen displayed elsewhere on Conservapedia. You have also dominated other talk pages of articles I have contributed with which you strongly disagreed and demanded continued response.
In complete accordance with Conservapedia Commandments and Conservapedia Guidelines, in particular the 90/10 Rule and Last wordism, I am exercising my right as a User having Administrator privileges previously granted to me by Andy, and the general rights of Conservapedia users, to manage my own talk page, subpages, and Archive.
No more responses. All other administrators' messages and comments are welcome. They will be posted, displayed and also copied to the Administrator comments subpage.
All future messages from you on this page will be deleted immediately. You are not welcome here. --Dataclarifier (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
There is no word "ettiquitte". You don't even know how to spell "etiquette". --Dataclarifier (talk) 02:29, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
Thank you. That was very gracious of you. I'm a better person for it with your assistance. RobSLive Free or Die 06:07, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

You have been unblocked

Time served. RobSLive Free or Die 18:13, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

Factual, documented Church history, like all other factual, documented history, being true, is part of the Word of God.

Show me in the bible where this is true. RobSLive Free or Die 06:10, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

Romans 1:18-20 18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Doesn't say a thing about church history being added to the Word of God. RobSLive Free or Die 06:14, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

This statement is so absurd it stands as a model of the difference between the Word of God and words of men. Grammatically it says "like all other factual, documented history" is part of the Word of God. It says all documented history is God-breathed, or the Word of God. Hitler ordered destruction of the Jews, a documented fact; Stalin ordered destruction of the kulaks, a documented fact; Mao ordered destruction of rightists and landlords, a documented fact; Bill Clinton lied under oath, a documented fact; Obama aided and supplied the Islamic State, a documented fact. Since all this factual, documented history, is true - and Satanic in nature - you are espousing an absurd position that historians and other writers add to the Word of God on a daily basis.
By virtue of this absurdity, you are espousing the position that the Koran is the Word of God, since it too is "factual, documented history, being true." RobSLive Free or Die 17:44, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
What about Das Kapital and Mein Kampf? That too, is factual, documented history, being true. Are Das Kapital and Mein Kampf part of the Word of God? RobSLive Free or Die 19:05, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
What about Wikipedia? in 50 or a 100 years time, Wikipedia will be "factual, documented history, being true." Is Wikipedia the Word of God? RobSLive Free or Die 21:18, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

Continuing the absurdity

  • All that is true is authored by God. The orderly functions of the universe, the manifest physical laws of existence, the accurate recording of actual events by human historians without prejudice who seek above all to be truthful. Rejection of truth is rejection of God. Factual, documented Church history, like all other factual, documented history, being true, is part of the Word of God.

So, on this page, THE SIGNING OF THE KATYN MASSACRE (MARCH 5, 1940), we have the signatures of Joseph Stalin and Lavrenty Beria ordering the murder of 25,700 Poles. All that is true is authored by God. Dataclarifier, are you going to deny that (a) Stalin and Beria signed this document? (b) that Stalin and Beria ordered mass murder? (c) that the Katyn Massacre took place?

All that is true is authored by God. So Dataclarifier alleges God (i.e. the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) authored the mass murder of Poles through his agents, Stalin and Beria. Dataclarifier, you are either incredibly naïve or have gone completely crazy. RobSLive Free or Die 17:03, 17 May 2020 (EDT)

Perhaps I've been too hard on you. This clip uploaded today brought everything into focus: We choose truth over fact. RobSLive Free or Die 18:38, 18 May 2020 (EDT)

On whether Baptism regenerates or is to be understood as merely symbolic

Hi DataClarifier. Hope you are well. If you have time, please look through this page. It is a non-polemical exploration of the question of whether baptism justifies or is meant to be understood as symbolic: https://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_Does_Baptism_regenerate_or_is_it_symbolic%3F I would like to compile and collate 10 texts in all - and currently have mentioned 5 - so please let me know if any Scriptural passages skipped my mind. Opposing views are welcome as well, so we can all arrive at a deeper understanding of the Word. God Bless.

IndependentSkeptic user account

Hi Dataclarifier, I'm just curious, did you create the IndependentSkeptic account after having been temporarily blocked? --LiberaltearsJust say no to quid pro joe! | Free Roger Stone! 01:26, 20 May 2020 (EDT)

Looks like it according to CheckUser. RobSLive Free or Die 19:39, 21 May 2020 (EDT)
Dataclaifier has a habit of cutting n' pasting the Bible and CP rules without ever reading them (the letter killeth, but the spirit gives life - please note spirit gives life, not water). So in addition to spam and trolling, we now may have Conservapedia:Sockpuppetry to avoid a block. RobSLive Free or Die 19:44, 21 May 2020 (EDT)
Ah, I see. Maybe I was right about Dataclarifier's favorite meat being Spam. --LiberaltearsJust say no to quid pro joe! | Free Roger Stone! 21:52, 21 May 2020 (EDT)
You know, if he focused on straight forward historical reporting, he'd be a valuable editor. Unfortunately, his mainspace and talk page edits are always tinged with "if you disagree with me you are a child of Satan and headed to hell, per church authority". Condemnation. Salvation, the free gift of God (not "water" or "baptism") is the opposite of condemnation. When asked about this, he doubles down with more condemnation rather than explain what the Gospel of the Goodnews of the grace of God and salvation is. He cannot tell what it means to be saved. He cannot explain the grace and forebearance of God. He can only preach wrath. He doesn't know the difference between law and grace. He thinks law mandates baptism - which totally contradicts the entirety of the Word of God. RobSLive Free or Die 22:51, 21 May 2020 (EDT)