User talk:DavidB4

From Conservapedia
(Redirected from User talk:DavidB4-bot)
Jump to: navigation, search
Post a new message

Archives: 1, 2, 3
Last change made by DavidB4 on 03/3/2019
Feel free to post any questions or comments here. If you don't hear back from me, try e-mailing me also.

Move request

Hallo. I need your help to move two pages as I made errors in their titles.

One of them is "Sarah Brown Liberal Democrat". It has been suggested I change this to "Sarah Brown (UK Politician)" as most readers are American. I just need to figure out how to do this.

The second is "Jane Samantha Fae alias John Ozimek" which should read Jane Francesca Fae. I would be very grateful if you could please shift those for me. GraceDalrymple

Yes, I saw the discussion. I have moved those two pages, as requested. Moving pages is restricted to administrators and SysOps, so it is not your fault, as if you just can't figure out how to move pages...the wiki will not let you. No need to feel bad about it!
I am happy to help, so just let me know if/when you need further assistance. It's no trouble! --David B (TALK) 14:41, 27 September 2018 (EDT)

Would you please move Qanon to QAnon? --1990'sguy (talk) 09:37, 3 November 2018 (EDT)

In addition to the above, would you please move Category:Christian social reformers for capitalization. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2018 (EST)
Both done --David B (TALK) 18:00, 6 November 2018 (EST)

Another move request: would you please fix the spelling error in this image title (the word "official" specifically)? File:Enrique Peña Nieto oficial pic.jpg --1990'sguy (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2018 (EST)

I think that actually may be deliberate (see:ña-Nieto-Oficial-1708563375863631). I don't mind moving it if you still think that is needed, but it is protected so someone will need to unlock it first. --David B (TALK) 17:28, 1 December 2018 (EST)
Good point -- it's probably Spanish. However, we are an English-language encyclopedia, so it might still be good to change it. --1990'sguy (talk) 08:38, 3 December 2018 (EST)
My Spanish is very rusty, but that was my assumption. I'm fine with moving it though. Want me to ask Andy to unlock it? --David B (TALK) 22:30, 3 December 2018 (EST)
I would appreciate that. Thanks! --1990'sguy (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2018 (EST)
Done! File:Enrique Peña Nieto oficial pic.jpg --David B (TALK) 22:05, 4 December 2018 (EST)
Would you please move this page to capitalize the "M": Javier milei? Also, please watch your email. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2018 (EST)
Moved. I just thinking about email... --David B (TALK) 17:05, 6 December 2018 (EST)
Would you please move Ilana mercer to Ilana Mercer and delete the new redirect? --1990'sguy (talk) 08:48, 11 December 2018 (EST)

Done. I have been sometimes leaving the redirects (for a while) so that new editors who don't know how to use RC can still find their pages. However, that may be unnecessary, and since I see you usually delete the redirect anyway, I will plan on just deleting the redirect in the future. --David B (TALK) 17:29, 11 December 2018 (EST)

Thanks! Regarding redirects, I guess it depends on the specific article. I'm fine deciding case-by-case, since redirects might be more necessary for some articles over others. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2018 (EST)
Hello DavidB4, would you please move Eastern Empires vs Western Empires to be an essay? I would rather delete it, but it just seems like a low-quality opinion article that could just be reformatted as such. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2018 (EST)
Done. I was tempted to delete it also, especially considering that it seems to have been made by a disposable account. However, I was waiting to see what others thought. --David B (TALK) 17:02, 20 December 2018 (EST)

While I'm reluctant to rename my "Donald Trump achievements" articles so long after creation, it probably would be a good idea to move Donald Trump achievements: Immigration, illegal immigration, and border security to Donald Trump achievements: Immigration and border security. If you agree this is a good idea, would you please do it, and would you then delete the redirect and change every link where I (or someone else) has linked it? Then, I will begin doing the 2-3 article splits I told you about. --1990'sguy (talk) 08:35, 31 December 2018 (EST)

I agree--that is a repetitive name, so a move makes sense. I have moved the page, and clean up most of the links to the old name. However, I have a little bit of a time crunch right now, so I'm going to need to leave one thing undone: Donald Trump needs to be unlocked so the link can be updated. I can ask for the unlock later, or you can if you get there first. --David B (TALK) 17:02, 31 December 2018 (EST)


hi and thank you for move sugguestion to sting. Massaq25 (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2018 (EDT)

Hello, and you're welcome! Do you agree? I'm open to other suggestions, I just don't think that "sting" is a sufficiently descriptive title. --David B (TALK) 18:27, 29 September 2018 (EDT)
DavidB4, I would appreciate it if you would move the page now. No need for a move tag (nobody's going to comment there anyway). --1990'sguy (talk) 23:29, 29 September 2018 (EDT)
Moved to Steve Borden with a redirect from "Sting (wrestler)" --David B (TALK) 01:09, 30 September 2018 (EDT)


Those quotes weren't my own, you should know that, they're from actual people. Also, if it's debatable, then please by all means...refute me. --Makuta Makaveli (talk) 02:48, 1 December 2018 (EST)

I'm obviously not DavidB4, but I will still point out that a simple Google search shows it's very debatable: 1,2,3,4 -- the info you added was undue weight, considering the overall size of the article, and it falsely implied that abstinence is a bad thing for your health. It appears that it is only when you really want to have sex and you don't. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:58, 1 December 2018 (EST)
Yes, it was a very one-sided argument, which is factually questionable. Without getting unnecessarily descriptive, the body does have ways of dealing with some of the stated issues. Research is sketchy if even existent on several of the things you mentioned. Additionally, the first paragraph was written as your own, mot a quote, even though is was a direct copy-and-paste from another source. (That is by definition plagiarism--taking credit for someone else's work.) --David B (TALK) 13:03, 1 December 2018 (EST)
So what are the health benefits of sex, besides relieving stress and helping you fall asleep? Studies have shown that regular sex has a protective effect on the heart, lowering the risk of heart attack in men. For both men and women, “It increases blood flow to the genitals and probably helps the immune system,” Herbenick says. “All things being equal, it’s also fun when things are going well [in your relationship.]”

So abstaining – especially long-term – can carry some physical consequences. In women, it can cause the atrophying of underused vaginal or hip muscles, Lindau says. Vaginismus is a common condition characterized by hypersensitivity of the muscles around the opening of the vagina, she adds. Those muscles – along with the pelvic floor muscles – are important for controlling penetration, and they need to be in a relaxed state during sexual intercourse. If they are hyper-contracted – not necessarily from abstinence itself, but accumulated fear or anticipation of the first sexual experience – sex can be very painful. “They say it feels like he’s hit a wall,” Lindausays, adding that vaginismus can be treated.

I said refute me, but instead you give me extra arguments. Thank you so much. --Makuta Makaveli (talk) 14:20, 1 December 2018 (EST)

Neither of us are arguing that sex is bad or harmful -- all of the articles I cited said that sex can be good, but abstinence can also be good. You're committing a fallacy by assuming that just because sex is good means that abstinence is bad.
Unless you get STDs or anything like that from sex, it is just as good as abstinence. The articles made it clear that abstinence does not have harmful side-effects. You need to read the cited articles better. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2018 (EST)
I guess the only real way to settle this is to get actual data from the field. Makuta Makaveli (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2018 (EST)
Makuta, are you pushing sex outside of marriage between husband and wife in this website? Karajou (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2018 (EST)
No, I'm pushing for knowledge of the dangers of lifelong abstinence. But even if I was, then there's nothing you can do about it so why are you asking? --Makuta Makaveli (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2018 (EST)
"dangers of lifelong abstinence" -- That's ridiculous, and choosing not to have sex (especially outside of heterosexual marriage) is normal, and sex outside of marriage can actually be dangerous (if there are STDs involved). Many people have been abstinent and turned out just fine. You're distorting the facts to make it seem like it's a necessity to have sex in order to be healthy, and if you don't there's a medical problem, when in reality neither option is inherently harmful.
"But even if I was, then there's nothing you can do about it" If I'm understanding you correctly, as admins, we can do something about it. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2018 (EST)
"If I'm understanding you correctly, as admins, we can do something about it."
Haha! Can... --Makuta Makaveli (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2018 (EST)
Want me to turn it into a "Will"? --1990'sguy (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2018 (EST)
Action without cause. To pardon is true power but you have nothing to pardon, I'm giving you no trouble. --Makuta Makaveli (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2018 (EST)

Makuta Makaveli either has an agenda, or gets his/her information from people who have an agenda to promote casual sex by making abstinence look like a "health hazard." The Atheist YouTuber "MrRepzion" also claimed that one needed to have "trial sex" to see if the two are "sexually compatible." It would help CP if the articles had information debunking these claims Shobson20 (talk) 12:08, 2 December 2018 (EST)

Most people argue that there is "no harm" in casual sex--that has become a common claim (although some say is is risky due to STDs). Because of this, there are plentiful materials arguing that claim. However, it is much harder to find support for this claim that is is actually unhealthy to abstain by choice. I've seen a few unscientific blog posts, etc. about it, but nothing verifiable. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist (there is always someone willing to write a paper on some fringe belief which people want to hear--just look at chocolate, for example, where they like to disregard the health costs of sugar and just look at the pure chocolate, which by the way tastes pretty bad on its own) but I'm not finding proof.
Shobson20, the "try it before you buy it" idea is certainly nothing new in personal relationships. I suspect you are correct in linking these two, as people who would like to engage in this practice would like to have something like this to point to as a defense for their actions. --David B (TALK) 00:54, 3 December 2018 (EST)

Why did I get blocked by "Minuteman?"

I was fixing the damage that "My password is green" was doing. I sometimes notice vandals before CP's admins do, and sometimes I try to help. Shobson20 (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2018 (EST)

I replied to your email. You did nothing wrong. Thank you for your vigilance, and I apologize for this! --David B (TALK) 19:30, 15 December 2018 (EST)
What are the qualifications for becoming a sysop on this site? I would like to be able to help by stopping the trolls and vandals who frequently attack this site. Shobson20 (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2018 (EST)
As best I can tell, there is no official criteria. However, this page might be useful to answer some basic questions: Conservapedia:User_rights. Typically, SysOp rights are given to users who have been editing for some time, and proven themselves trustworthy. I don't think there is a specific checklist that you can do, to get these rights. However, the one responsible for promotions is User:Aschlafly, so you might be able to get a better idea from him as to what he specifically looks for. --David B (TALK) 20:59, 15 December 2018 (EST)

I too have just been blocked by Minuteman (talk contribs count). I copied over the WP article for anarcho-conservatism, which the WP zealots are about to delete. The text there is mine, though most of the article is still in quotes from references, as more text is needed (hence why I brought it here). — WisdomTooth3 (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2019 (EST)

You were blocked for one hour so we could review what you were doing, because you were importing a page from WP which looked a bit like plagiarism. Since it is your own writing, then you may recreate that page, but it could use some improvements. Namely, the quotes themselves can use work, as they do not provide context. If you intend to make further improvements to the page, then we welcome our efforts! --David B (TALK) 16:29, 1 January 2019 (EST)
Per 1990'sguy's suggestion, recreated it here. Not sure when I'll be able to improve it. Please feel free to chip in. — WisdomTooth3 (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2019 (EST)
Thank you! I am not a subject matter expert on that topic, so I don't know how much help I can be, but I will look it over later. --David B (TALK) 18:32, 2 January 2019 (EST)
By the way, it is probably not helpful for the article to link to itself. Unless they point to a specific part of the page, they should probably be removed. --David B (TALK) 18:42, 2 January 2019 (EST)

Merge proposal

What do you think about this merge request: Talk:Carbon cycle (astronomy)? I am inclined to support it, but it's probably a good idea to get more than one opinion on it. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:32, 29 December 2018 (EST)

I've never really studies that specific topic, but the proposal sounds fine to me. I looked up "carbon cycle" and found a great deal of information, but on the wrong topic. From my limited understanding, a merge sounds like a good idea.
--David B (TALK) 14:30, 29 December 2018 (EST)

tag at bottom of pages "quotation templates"

Many of the content pages I create use quotes of other web content. At the bottom of the articles I created using quotes, there is a tag at the bottom of the pages indicating "quotation templates". This is a new and unwanted development.

For example, please look at the bottom of this web page: Atheism and mental illness.

Can we get the "quotation templates" tag to not be there. Before they never used to be there. Conservative (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2018 (EST)

I made a small mistake, but cannot fix it until template:cquote is unlocked again. I'm sorry about that--I should have noticed sooner. Someone needs to add the "noinclude" tags to the category link. If someone unlocks the page, I will fix the issue. Again, sorry about that! --David B (TALK) 23:23, 29 December 2018 (EST)
I unlocked the page.Conservative (talk) 23:25, 29 December 2018 (EST)
Thanks, I believe I fixed it. You can lock it again. --David B (TALK) 23:36, 29 December 2018 (EST)
Thanks for fixing the issue. I appreciate it.Conservative (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2018 (EST)
Any time! Thanks for pointing it out! --David B (TALK) 23:46, 29 December 2018 (EST)


Would you please check Alejandro Garcia Padilla for originality? It could be, but many of the refs are formatted like on Wikipedia. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2018 (EST)

Of course! It definitely originated from WP. Slightly edited, but still copied. See:ía_Padilla --David B (TALK) 20:12, 30 December 2018 (EST)
You beat me to it. Obvious copy from WP, with slight alterations. You don't need to check reference format; just check the text. SamHB (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2018 (EST)
Would you please delete all the portions that are copied? --1990'sguy (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2018 (EST)
I'll take another look, but I think the whole thing needs to go. Also, this is not the first time. See: User_talk:HectorCruz66#Originality --David B (TALK) 20:45, 30 December 2018 (EST)
Oh, and I didn't mean to ignore you, Sam. Thanks for checking also! You're right--just looking at the pages shows all you need to know. --David B (TALK) 20:54, 30 December 2018 (EST)
Deleting it, then, is the best option. Would you please do that? --1990'sguy (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2018 (EST)
Sure. I'm still looking at it, but sure, I'll delete it unless I find a reason not to. --David B (TALK) 21:37, 30 December 2018 (EST)

Would you please check the page James Ritchey to see if there's anything problematic (in general, not just originality, since it's two sentences long)? If there's nothing, I guess we can keep it. --1990'sguy (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2019 (EST)

Well, he exists. It seems he's a small-time actor who has been in a few movies I've never heard of, and is barely active on YouTube. This does seem to be relatively original text...all two sentences of it.
So on to the negative, I firstly find the wording "internet celebrity" rather questionable. I don't see anything suggesting that title. I could be missing something, but from what I'm seeing, he looks more like a wannabe celebrity. Each of his youtube videos has between 1K and 7K views. Assuming those views were not farmed, that still seems a ways away from the numbers a celebrity would have. He second most viewed video seems to be review of a water bottle....I didn't watch it to find out if it is sponsored.
I suspect he is trying to make a name for himself, which slots this "article" into a suspicious category anyway.
Bottom line, there is nothing blatantly wrong, but I see why you were questioning it. This smells fishy. I'd be included to nuke it for a lack of notability, but I'm okay with keeping it. --David B (TALK) 18:31, 17 January 2019 (EST)
Oh, and a couple search engines (at least Yahoo and Yandex [and therefore DuckDuckGo]) have already crawled this page, and added it to the first page of results from searching his name. I used a clean OS and browser, so no user history bias there. --David B (TALK) 18:44, 17 January 2019 (EST)
If you think that page is an advertisement (which is very likely), then I am perfectly fine deleting it. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2019 (EST)
Ok, I think I'll delete it then. Too many suspicious factors. --David B (TALK) 22:44, 17 January 2019 (EST)

Assuming we should keep this essay (I shouldn't jump to conclusions), it should be moved so we have a colon: Essay History of racism and the Democrats. Unrelated, there's no mention of how Reconstruction Democrats passed gun control laws to prevent black people from engaging in self-defense. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2019 (EST)

I hadn't gotten the chance to review it yet. I'm moved the page, but I think it might be helpful to keep the redirect for the moment. This seems like a reasonably good essay, so I'm find with keeping it. I will send you an email shortly. --David B (TALK) 18:29, 19 January 2019 (EST)

Hello DavidB4, I am wondering if any of these images would be acceptable for me to upload (regarding licensing): [1][2][3] Also, I am wondering if you know of any free images of the Trump Administration deployment of troops along the border with Mexico late last year? --1990'sguy (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2019 (EST)

Hi, Twitter is always a little iffy, but these are probably okay. Firstly, images made by an employee of the U.S. government as a part of their duties are automatically in the Public Domain. Secondly, a number of other users here republish twitter images under "Fair use." The first one is ideal, so if this is the case as it looks, use one or more of them for this reason.
I do not know of any images of troops at the border, and couldn't find any good ones after a quick check. I will look a little more later. --David B (TALK) 17:06, 20 January 2019 (EST)
Thanks! Would you please look over this image to make sure there aren't any problems? File:Donald Trump Angel Families.jpg --1990'sguy (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2019 (EST)
Any time! I do find it a little questionable that Pence took that photo. However, if it was one of his aids, it is still PD. However, if it was taken by the press, it is probably not. I don't know if there is a way to find out who actually took it, since this is a Twitter post. --David B (TALK) 15:05, 21 January 2019 (EST)
I don't know where to find who took the picture. I'm assuming it's his office, since I don't see why his office would rely on the media for such a picture.
Also, I don't know where else to find a picture of this specific event. I checked the White House's Flickr page, among other pages, but couldn't find anything. If you are able to find a better image, I would appreciate it (you don't have to, though). --1990'sguy (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2019 (EST)
I'm not having much luck either. Let's just go with what you have. --David B (TALK) 15:50, 21 January 2019 (EST)
OK. I wish it were easier to find a free picture of this event, but oh well. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2019 (EST)
Considering all of the cameras in that room, it does seem surprising. --David B (TALK) 16:05, 21 January 2019 (EST)
Oh, second person to the left of Trump is Pence, so he definitely was not holding the camera :) --David B (TALK) 16:08, 21 January 2019 (EST)

Hello DavidB4, would you please check the newly-created article Athanasio Celia for originality, and to make quality improvements if you have the time? --1990'sguy (talk) 09:10, 9 February 2019 (EST)

Hello, it looks like this is a (perhaps slightly revised) copy of an old version of the WP page on the subject. I did not dig through WP, but I'm seeing matches to here: [4] which is an Amazon page quoting WP, and here: [5] which is probably plagiarism as well. This was not a complete match anywhere my tools saw--more like a 30% match or so. --David B (TALK) 17:40, 9 February 2019 (EST)
Do you think it should be deleted? Either way, the page has formatting/copyedit issues. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2019 (EST)
It looks like WP deleted it, but "" saved a copy. It looks like we should delete it unless we can verify that the original author was the one to post it here. It is worth finding that out first, as it is not uncommon for us to get rescued paged from WP editors. --David B (TALK) 17:49, 9 February 2019 (EST)
While we're waiting for the above page to get sorted out, would you please move the page Indian struggle to The Indian Struggle? Also, there should probably be a Indian Struggle page. This whole thing is a mess right now. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2019 (EST)
Also, if you would take a look at this page, I would appreciate it: Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose --1990'sguy (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2019 (EST)
I am very busy right now, but have moved that page as requested. I will deal with the other issues soon. If I don't do so within a week, feel free to remind me. --David B (TALK) 21:38, 11 February 2019 (EST)
Oh dear....Okay, some of that page might be original, but at least some parts, including the fact list are definitely not original. That list is all over the internet. This page: [6] is one possible place this may have come from, but if you take a look at a web search of the any one "fact," you will see that that it is all over the place. It's going to be hard to nail down where it actually came from. In any case, we should challenge it. --David B (TALK) 14:05, 12 February 2019 (EST)

Page improvement

Hello DavidB4, it might be worth taking a look at and moving this article: Template:Examples of Liberal Bias

I think it should probably be moved to a mainspace article or at least have its formatting improved. For example, the template is transcluded in the Liberal bias article, and if you look at the table of contents, starting at the first "See also" section and below, the template transclusion messes things up. Of course, whether we move this article to mainspace or simply do some formatting fixes, it's going to take some work to get this done. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2019 (EST)

I see what you mean; it is as if someone wanted this to both be a template and a standalone page. It must be one or the other. If it was unlocked, I think I could fix it to work properly as a template, but it would not be a good standalone page. --David B (TALK) 01:50, 29 January 2019 (EST)
It looks better to me. What do you think...Have I missed any issues? --David B (TALK) 15:27, 29 January 2019 (EST)
Looks good to me! The only issue is the double space below the template, as you can see at the Liberal bias article -- this isn't a big deal, though. It seems to me that the "See also" link on the template is kind of useless (unless someone directly accesses the template, and considering the Examples of Liberal Bias redirect, that might happen). --1990'sguy (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2019 (EST)
Good point, I'd missed that spacing issue, but I think I've fixed it now. That see also link is not included when the page is transcluded, but only shows on the template page itself. I figured that was a reasonable compromise. --David B (TALK) 18:36, 29 January 2019 (EST)
I think it is a reasonable compromise -- thanks! --1990'sguy (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2019 (EST)

Article move request

It might be worth considering moving Jane Samantha Fae to Jane Francesca Fae alias John Ozimek -- that's what User:GraceDalrymple did, but how she did it was very poor, simply blanking one page and creating the other one, and she didn't make the first page a proper redirect. For the record, this page appears to be of someone born a male and who now identifies as a woman, so the current female name title may not be appropriate. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2019 (EST)

I'm willing to make the move, but this name makes it sound like "John Ozimek" is the alias, while "Jane Francesca Fae" is the real name. Jane should be first in such a page name, though, since that's probably what someone is going to search for. If I was making the page, I would probably just call it "Jane Francesca" or else put something parenthetical afterwards, like "Jane Francesca Fae (John Ozimek)". If you think "Jane Francesca Fae alias John Ozimek" is best, though, I'll do it. --David B (TALK) 17:40, 2 March 2019 (EST)
I'm thinking it should simply be moved to his real name, John Ozimek, just like the Bradley Manning and Bruce Jenner articles were done. Northwest (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2019 (EST)
Tempting, as we all know that's he still is. However, his legal name is now "Jane," so I'm not sure if we should leave that out altogether. We could. --David B (TALK) 01:58, 3 March 2019 (EST)
How about this: John Ozimek (Jane Samantha Fae)? --David B (TALK) 20:48, 3 March 2019 (EST)