When you see an article with a bad title, creating a new page and making the old page a redirect is not how you should do it. If you do that, you essentially wipe out the old page's history, which is important, and you probably hurt the page's location on search engines since the new page starts at zero views again while the old page (which would now be a redirect that nobody visits) has several thousand.
There is a tool that only certain editors have that allows one to change an article's title without having to create a new article and thus mess up the page history. When you see a page with a bad title, please ask one of those editors. I recommend User:DavidB4 or User:Aschlafly. Thanks! --1990'sguy (talk) 15:15, 21 January 2018 (EST)
May I ask why you are changing articles into redirects without preserving the content on those pages? (i.e. Bankruptcy petition, Bankruptcy law, Bankruptcy trustee, Bankruptcy judge, Bankruptcy estate, etc.) Redirects might be suitable, but shouldn't the page content be saved, perhaps on the page you are redirecting to? Thanks! --David B (TALK) 18:21, 2 March 2018 (EST)
- Next time, please first post on the talk pages of various articles proposing actions like this, or at least let other editors know that you will do it. Turning multiple 11-year-old pages into redirects is a big deal, and doing it unilaterally is not constructive. I don't see anything wrong with your edits (though I've seen that you didn't save everything from the old pages), but you really should go to the talk page first for this. Thanks. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2018 (EST)
Hello Quidam65, I see that you occasionally bold various words and phrases on articles you edit. CP does not outright ban bolding important words and phrases, but we limit them to only the subject of the article in the introduction sentence and other occasional important sentences which are the exception rather than the norm (such as the Homosexual Agenda intro section). Most of the phrases you bolded did not have to be bolded and were better italicized or wiki-linked. Regardless, thanks for your edits. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2018 (EST)
- What to do and what not to is a little bit of a learned art, since the rules are deliberately loose in certain aspects. You'll learn it over time, but if you really want to make sure you do it right, the other (probably better) option is to at least skim through the manual of style. That should better tell you our standards and uniformity policies. --David B (TALK) 16:27, 5 March 2018 (EST)
Hopefully, you saw my and DavidB4's responses on my talk page to both of your comments. In the meantime, I have one more question: why are all your edits marked as "minor"? Thanks. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:19, 7 March 2018 (EST)
- So, instead of answering my very simple question, you go to some random essay and rant on its talk page on how horrible CP's leadership is because we're not giving you absolute free reign (even though we support your changes and did not undo them)? Why do you ignore our responses to your comments?
- Honestly, I have been lenient toward you -- I was tempted for a while to message you to ask you to adhere to Commandment #2 of Conservapedia:Commandments, but I decided not to. Most editors politely take what we message them about and improve -- eventually, we see no reason to message them because their editing improves as a result of our constructive criticisms. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2018 (EST)
- Thank you for your latest suggestion regarding the "Internet crime" page. I can't actually resolve the issue myself, but I'm asked Andy to help. We should be able to get that done soon.
- I am glad to see that you are finding things to do here! I would like to note, however, that you should make an effort to work with others better. Conservapedia is designed to provide "best of the public" content, which is created by all of us working to make it the best it can be. As a result, people edit what others have written, in a effort to make it as good as possible. Reverting the work of others is not desirable, but is sometimes necessary if the majority of the contributors think that a change is not beneficial. We also talk with each other, either on the wiki or by email, to offer suggestions and advice, or ask the opinions of others.
- The point is, we all need to collaborate in order to offer great articles to our readers. We welcome your suggestions and advice, and do encourage you to offer it in a good-faith, cordial way. However, we also ask that you listen to the suggestions and requests of others, who wish you well, but see things differently due to their experience or knowledge of Conservapedia. There are many issues which are subjective and matters of judgement. However, issues relating to CP's rules and guidelines are really non-negotiable. Please accept constructive criticism in the way it is intended--not accusatory, but an effort to help you improve, so you can help Conservapedia improve and serve its readers. Thank you again! --David B (TALK) 16:04, 10 March 2018 (EST)
Hello Quidam65, please read Conservapedia:Guidelines#Teamwork.
Your edits have been constructive (including your turning certain pages into redirects, as we have said many times already), but your attitude needs improvement. We kindly asked you to warn us first when choosing to merge so many long-standing pages together. We also gave you other tips for improvement, like we do for every new editor here. However, you (unlike the most of the other editors we have messaged) appear to have taken these tips as personal attacks. You even made at least (false) personal attack solely against me. As admins and assistant admins, we're doing our jobs by looking over other people's edits and giving tips for improvement, for the sake of CP.
Also, you need to become more communicative. I asked you what I think are simple questions, which I am asking because I want your response, with no malevolent intentions. For example, as I asked above, I was curious as to why >95% of your edits were marked as "minor" (something which is very unusual, but by no means damning). However, right after I asked, you posted this, which does nothing to help in any way. I didn't even ask you to give your explanation of the DoD server (which probably has a simple and satisfactory answer, but which still puzzles us).
We all appreciate your work here, and contrary to what you've claimed, we're acting reasonably when we scrutinize them and massage you. However, you should read Conservapedia:Guidelines#Teamwork and improve your attitude on this site. Thanks. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:58, 12 March 2018 (EDT)
Please back up your recent edits
Hi, not to distract from the comment above, but please also try to either save a copy of your recent edits, or just refrain from editing for the next 24 hours or so. Conservapedia is changing web servers, and there is a risk that pages might be exported before you make the change, meaning your change will be lost. I assure you that this is a very rare occurrence, but due to some hosting problems, it is necessary. Thanks for understanding! --David B (TALK) 17:55, 12 March 2018 (EDT)
Thank you for your recent work here updating and expanding articles! I would just like to make a couple friendly observations. We all have our quirks, and tend to forget things, and I've noticed a few things you might want to work on improving. I know you are not new here, but I hope I can help a little. (If you notice ways I can improve, I welcome any such suggestions!)
I have noticed that you add good content, but you tend not to include references. It can be a nuisance including references, I know, but it would be great if you could work on using more. Any time a fact or claim is made which is not common knowledge, it should ideally be cited (Conservapedia's "commandment" #2 talks about this). This helps people to see that our articles are good quality, and can be verified at any time. These citations really don't need to be anything fancy, just a web address or a book's name, author, and page will do.
As one other thing, it would be appreciated if you would keep in mind Conservapedia's style guidelines. You can read through it all here if you want, but in short, the page's title should be bolded (using three apostrophes on each side) in the introduction paragraph the first time it is used.
Again, thanks for all you are doing! Please let me know if you need anything, or have any questions! --David B (TALK) 20:36, 27 June 2018 (EDT)