User talk:JacobB

For older discussions, see User talk:JacobB/Archive 1.

Blocking

Please be aware of our Guidelines regarding blocking. Non-Administrators should not be blocking for reasons of policy, or subjective reasons such as user name, unless such name is blatantly obscene. Communications from blocked users should be passed on to one of the Admins as well. Thanks. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 20:51, 28 November 2009 (EST)

Relativity and MemeShock

Jacob:

"You continue to address the same points over and over in your objections to Conservapedia's content on relativity,"

Well the debate has gone back over several points. I tried to explain that this was begging the question, and move the discussion forwards, but for some reason the same points are brought up again and again.

"just to bait other editors into responding to you - a classic internet troll."

No, I'm having a debate with Andy. You can read my posts they are not rude. I am merely trying to explain to him why the stuff he has there is wrong. Let me show you something. The page contradicts itself:

In one section it argues that relativity lacks evidence:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Relativity#Lack_of_evidence_for_Relativity

In the very next section it gives evidence for relativity!:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Relativity#Time_dilation

You can't tell me this is unreasonable debate.

P.S. And I have not suggested any changes to the page and/or tried to change the page after you lifted the block.

"and, by your own admission, try to use Conservapedia to push your agenda and your preferred vocabulary."

Yes, that was meant to be a contribution to Conservapedia. Here, I've greatly contributed to your new conservative words page and created stubs for many of these: http://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words

Look at the links above in about MemeShock in the talk section on my page. I think you'll like what I have to offer.

"Please contribute constructively and stop violating 90/10 on the relativity pages."

I'm sorry I got distracted with the relativity page. I originally came here to add to the conservative lexicon -which I figured would be appreciated. I got sidetracked with the relativity page because I happen to be a physics major and couldn't help but object to what I was seeing.

I intend to produce a number of pages on different topics and edit pages in a way you would find constructive. Don't I'm not a troll.

P.S. Tell me what you think of the MemeShock program on facebook. I hope you will find that useful.

Johanan Raatz

If you came here to contribute, contribute. Stop putting walls of text on talk pages and make new articles or improve existing ones. Plenty of people have objected to relativity on here before, and rest assured, plenty will in the future. The fact of the matter is, unless you have some new bombshell up your sleave, you're not adding anything new to the conversation. Stop talking about relativity, stop arguing about minor details in pages you disagree with, and contribute usefully. JacobB 23:53, 28 November 2009 (EST)

Block

In checking, I think the block was justified, and not the product of someone hijacking the account. I base this on my earlier editing concerns with the user, Jacob. Good job! --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 17:09, 30 November 2009 (EST)

Promotion

Now you don't have to be burdened by Captcha! Thanks for your superb edits and blocks.--Andy Schlafly 21:26, 10 December 2009 (EST)

Thank you! This will make vandalism reversion that much faster. JacobB 21:31, 10 December 2009 (EST)

I answered your question on my user talk page

I answered your question on my user talk page. conservative 04:11, 11 December 2009 (EST)

Thanks for your Herculean efforts!

Jacob, thanks for your Herculean efforts the past few days! You may have set a new individual record for blocking ... and correcting a few blocks. Well done!--Andy Schlafly 18:41, 11 December 2009 (EST)

Rude emails

You've experienced this too? I've been getting far more emails of that sort in the last week than before. DouglasA 19:10, 13 December 2009 (EST)

Yes, I've had quite a few. JacobB 20:33, 13 December 2009 (EST)

Stubs

Can I just enquire as to why you are removing a number of articles from the stub category? Most do indeed appear to be very short, even on sentence, and surely the point of that category is to make it obvious to contributors which articles need improvement. DWiggins 17:13, 14 December 2009 (EST)

The stub template has been deleted. JacobB 17:13, 14 December 2009 (EST)

Why? I think the stub template is a good thing, for the same reasons as User:DWiggins. I'd prefer to restore the template. --EvanW 17:15, 14 December 2009 (EST)