User talk:David R

Willy's edits

If you look at Willy's edits, most of them seem reasonable. I would for example point to the Bill Clinton edit which took out what appears to be a swipe at George Bush and replaced it with reasonable material. The Bush and Democrat edits similarly seem fine to me. (Also, I'm not sure it makes sense to give an indefinite block for the single use of profanity but that's a separate issue). JoshuaZ 23:32, 25 February 2007 (EST)

I did like the changes he made to the democrat page (and I plan to restore that page), in removing the obvious bias, but he cursed in his explanation of the Bush edit - Commandment #3. There is no room in Conservapedia for obscene language like that. --David R 23:36, 25 February 2007 (EST)

So, and insults aren't tolerated on Wikipedia either- so you warn the person not to do it again and block them if they do. While larger Wikis can afford to be more picky about editing, we don't have that luxury yes. Also, if you are that concerned about profanity, I suggest you delete the dif and then make the edit again. JoshuaZ 23:38, 25 February 2007 (EST)

I understand your point of view, but he broke the rules. Profanity calls for immediate deletion. And thank you for the suggestion. I am going to fix that now. --David R 23:40, 25 February 2007 (EST)

David was exactly right to block this user. The profanity was bad and it was placed in a comment for everyone to see. We're not going to cheapen this website with vulgarity and obscenity. The rules say that can result in immediate blocking, and in this case the blocking is precisely what I would have done.

Disagreements are allowed and encouraged. Vulgarity or obscenity results in immediate blocking, particularly when it is in an entry name, revision comment, or user id. This is a consistently applied rule.--Aschlafly 23:42, 25 February 2007 (EST)

Also be aware that Willy on Wheels is the name of a famous vandal on Wikipedia. MountainDew 23:48, 25 February 2007 (EST)

Thank you MountainDew. If I didn't feel justified in blocking him before (which I did), then I do now...--David R 23:52, 25 February 2007 (EST)

You can say that again, David. Thanks much for that insight, MountainDew!--Aschlafly 23:53, 25 February 2007 (EST)

Willy on Wheels' recent edits don't look like vandalism, but vulgarity in an edit remark is not a good sign.

But, for background, Willy on Wheels was indeed a famous vandal on Wikipedia, so much so that the use of such a user name seems very provocative to me. However, Willy on Wheels m.o. was a "move vandal." Dwight D. Eisenhower would become Dwight D. Eisenhower on wheels, Molybdenum would become Molybdenum on wheels, and so forth. He specialized in moving as many article as he could as fast as possible. This is obviously someone different, but he should certainly be asked about his choice of user name. Dpbsmith 05:46, 26 February 2007 (EST)

P. S. JoshuaZ, you and I are used to the Wikipedia environment, in which (although nobody around here believes it) things like protecting pages and blocking users are taken as very serious business, and are done with the context of rather strict rules which sysops (usually!) follow. It makes being a sysop rather laborious, in fact. It's possible that Conservapedia is right to be less formal.

But I would caution about one thing. Since it is still possible for a blocked user to start a new account, as far as I know, when blocking a user you must not think that you've created an impenetrable shield, but that you are trying to get the user to modify his or her behavior by using negative reinforcement (what they call "a timeout" in the parenting books). Blocks might as well be rather short. They should be long enough for the user to realize that they've been blocked, and to be a little shocked by it. A reasonable user who's been blocked will react by being more careful about their edit comments in future, for example.

But any seriously hostile user will just create a new account and start over. (It's always interesting to try to judge whether new users are re-creations of blocked user by observing their editing styles. It's never possible for an ordinary user to do more than guess at this, of course). Dpbsmith 06:06, 26 February 2007 (EST)

P. P. S. Another problem with blocking is that it is reasonably effective on regular editors, who have been around for a while and think of their usernames as a kind of identity. If I were blocked on Wikipedia for a day, I'd wait it out, because I like my user name, there are people who know me under my user name, I'm (foolishly and vainly) proud of having a large number of edits under that name, and of forth. I could create a new account under a new name, but it (sob) just wouldn't be me. This probably applies to most people whose usernames are variants of their real name.

But a vandal, who just created the account a few days ago, isn't going to care that much.

Think "conversion, not coercion." Dpbsmith 06:12, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Actually, Dpbsmith, the user's IP address is blocked from entering the website at all. Believe me, I already got blocked once :). The only way for the user to get back in would be for him to change his IP address, which I believe is possible. But it takes some knowledge and persistence. --David R 09:59, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Actually, it is pretty trivial to change one's IP address. For example, if one is using AOL then the IP address changes almost constantly. Similarly, for almost any dial-up service all you need to do to change IP addresses is hang up and redial. Blocking an IP address does very little. JoshuaZ 23:19, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Oh. I'm sorry. I'm not too familiar with AOL(except for all those trial CD's they send) or dial-up. I do know that with IE and some other browsers, you must go to the IP Configuration screen at computer start-up. --David R 23:14, 27 February 2007 (EST)

Blocks

Good block, David. Thanks.--Aschlafly 21:56, 1 March 2007 (EST)

No problem. Two weeks enough? I don't know if he'll be back to help or hurt. I can always increase it. --<<-David R->> 21:59, 1 March 2007 (EST)

Two weeks sounds good in borderline cases, as in that case. I often put in an infinite block if the person is directly harmful to the site.--Aschlafly 23:20, 1 March 2007 (EST)

Bonobos

I was in the process of expanding and cleaning the language of that up. I'd appreciate if you would undelete it for me to work on. Thanks. JoshuaZ 20:37, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Yeah, no problem. Just can't leave that kind of stuff up for too long. Good looking out, Joshua. --<<-David R->> 20:38, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Thanks, I've cleaned it up, expanded it and taken out the more blunt language. Let me know how it is.

Its definitely a cleaner article. Thank you very much. --<<-David R->> 21:03, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Could you remove the pluralization on the word female in that article? My computer is going crazy with "forbidden words". --<<-David R->> 21:08, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Actually, I changed it in a slightly different fashion to just "females" since I think it is clear what types of females one is talking about. JoshuaZ 21:09, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Ok, that makes sense. --<<-David R->> 21:11, 5 March 2007 (EST)

And you are fine with how I hanlded the sexuality issue? (I have to say, I don't know why the original editor put in the details other than to be annoying or test our limits). JoshuaZ 21:19, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Yes, it was improved dramatically. Thank you. --<<-David R->> 21:34, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Image resizing

In reference to my new image file on musical notes: Please resize it if you can. When I tried to upload a downsized version of the image, the software blew up--and when I put an internal link into the article, telling it to scale the image down, I can't seem to specify a pixel size in the article, as I'm used to doing in CreationWiki. When I do, the software blows up, saying that "no such file or directory" exists. All I wanted was something 290 pixels wide, and in the upper right-hand corner. Please do what you can, and then show me how for future reference.--TerryH 22:25, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Bill Clinton

What happened is Dprbsmith moved the Clinton page back to where it was originally. Geo. 23:50, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Back to Bill Clinton? I was unaware that it had ever been there before. Thank you. --<<-David R->> 16:46, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Great work!

Great effort, David, with your entry on Alvin York!!!! --Aschlafly 00:11, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Oh thanks. I had to write an informational essay about him in another history class and I thought it would be good to put it on the site. --<<-David R->> 16:40, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Tehran

Regarding this? Would you like to argue that Mahmoud was not the former mayor of Tehran, and is not the current president of Iran? It's not misinformation. Ask for a source, I'd be glad to give it to you. --Hojimachong 23:35, 6 March 2007 (EST)

No, I was mistaken. I did not see that you had edited it correctly. --<<-David R->> 23:42, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I got the source anyways, it's on there now, feel free to critique. I'm new to Conservapedia, and am still figuring out the fine differences between it and Wikipedia. --Hojimachong 23:38, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Delete and block

I presume you will want to delete Cretinism and warn or block the user who made it. JoshuaZ 00:11, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Wow...yeah I was just about to delete the redirect. But I don't this blocking the user for the entry is justifiable in this case. His entry was a thoughtful redirect for the incompetent speller :). --<<-David R->> 00:13, 7 March 2007 (EST)

You may want to look up what cretinism means. JoshuaZ 00:20, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Yeah...I guess I should have. Blocking was definitely the right choice. Sorry about that. --<<-David R->> 00:22, 7 March 2007 (EST)

On my talk page

Explain what you believe is not factual when accusing someone of not adding factual information. Sulgran

What is factual about what was posted PhilipB 22:19, 7 March 2007 (EST)

==Democratic Party+

At least please do some serious work yourself on the Democratic Party entry. This site is so embarrassingly uneducated. Why not produce something you can be proud of? genespleen

While the article could use some work - articles always need work; they are never perfect - it did not need the "work" you suggested. As for this site, it is not uneducated nor embarrassing. In fact, I am positive that this project will look great on my college transcript.

From genespleen: seriously, it depends on what you intend to do after college. Do think seriously and ask for good advice from a *range* of people about what your having participated in this site's effort may signal to others.

Actually, the mere fact that I participated in making this site is enough. My involvement has nothing to do with the material or the stance of this site. How many students have you heard of making an online encyclopedia? --<<-David R->> 14:10, 10 March 2007 (EST)

I am very proud of this site. I did not think it would turn out as great as it has. As for contributing any more material to the article, I am afraid I can't - need to be up early for my SATs tomorrow! --<<-David R->> 21:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)

P.S. Sign your posts please. It makes it so much easier to respond.

Please also explain your objections to my edits on the Democratic Party entry. What constituted "vandalism" in my edits?

Thanks in advance for your explanation. genespleen

You inserted your own biased comments and advertized a site that provided nothing to the article. There you go - my explanation. Enjoy. --<<-David R->> 14:10, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Work on expletiveSaddams edits please. I have my hands full. I will permanently ban him

Work on expletiveSaddams edits please. I have my hands full. I will permanently ban him. Conservative 22:31, 10 March 2007 (EST)conservative

I told you, I can't. Sorry, but there's nothing I can do. Christian Concern's edits may have been troublesome, but expletiveSaddams were directly harmful to the site. They should be the first priority. --<<-David R->> 22:33, 10 March 2007 (EST)

expletivesaddaam question

Where are expletiveSaddaams edits? I need to look at his edits and then decide if to ban him. Conservative 22:34, 10 March 2007 (EST)conservative

His name is the problem. Please assume your duties as a Sysop and block him. Do that first. Then revert his edits. --<<-David R->> 22:35, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Why are you asking me to ban someone and then....

Why are you asking me to ban someone and then not giving me the information I need in order to ban him. Unless you tell me an article he edited I cannot find him to ban him. 22:38, 10 March 2007 (EST)conservative

Are you so dense??? His name contains a curse word! He needs to be blocked. But this user sounds like he regrets using the name, so block him but uncheck the box underneath to allow account recreation. --<<-David R->> 22:40, 10 March 2007 (EST)

PS go to Full Metal Jackets talk page, look at history, proceed from there

I permanently banned the vandal FSaddam but please

I permanently banned the vandal FSaddam but please next time give me an article the person edited so I can find the person. Conservative 22:43, 10 March 2007 (EST)conservative

If you told me that at the beginning, I would have gladly given you the information. His edit was on the recent edits page... --<<-David R->> 22:44, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Why did...

Why did you erase my edits and remove some characters from the Talk:Main_Page page? Please explain...? GofG 23:16, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Oh, because they did have any value as the page issue had been taken care of. Plus they just added the unneeded vulgarity where it could not "be lost in the recent history". It was nothing personal at all. Most of your edits have been very valuable. --<<-David R->> 23:20, 10 March 2007 (EST)