User talk:Adambro

From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of User talk:Adambro as edited by Joaquín Martínez (Talk | contribs) at 23:27, January 18, 2012. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Useful links


Hello, Adambro, and welcome to Conservapedia!

We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.

At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page. Any questions--ask!

Thanks for reading, Adambro!

If you did not already know, please do not edit war, as you did with user:RedGoliath. Thank you.SusanP 12:48, 10 January 2012 (EST)

This is your second warning for troublesome editing in 8 hours. Either contribute to the project in a constructive way or face possible blocking. This is your final warning, and I will be watching your activity. TonyPark 19:18, 10 January 2012 (EST)

I'm confused as to exactly what you are warning me about. In your edit summary you say "2nd edit war warning in 8 hours" but I fail to see how any of my recent edits could be described as edit warring. When I saw my change to Age of the Earth had been removed again with not much in the way of an explanation, instead of engaging in an edit war and reinstating it again I raised the issue on the talk page as I assumed would be the right course of action though in hindsight I would accept my tone wasn't probably that helpful.
Looking through your edits around the time you posted this warning, I note you've gone and undone a couple of my edits. In the first case reinstating the word liberal in the Gun article to describe those involved in the recent riots in England as a liberal riot mob. I still don't understand how exactly those involved could be described as liberal. However, that still isn't an example of edit warring even if you disagree with my view about whether the word is appropriate.
I also note you've undone to some degree my edit to Liberal Democrats regarding the largest donor to the party, suggesting a "Liberal loophole". I again don't understand your use of the term liberal in that context. Is "liberal" just being used as a generic insult for people or things you dislike? The "loophole" is simply the main element of the law relating to political donations, that the donor is someone allowed by law to give money to a political party. That's not simply a "technicality in the rules" that the Liberal Democrats have "exploited". Anyway, I shan't undo your edit since that would actually be edit warring. If I'm so inclined I'll raise it on the talk page for discussion.
I'd therefore be grateful if you could explain exactly what "troublesome editing" or apparent edit warring you are referring to that I should discontinue. Adambro 07:59, 11 January 2012 (EST)

I believe he meant talking back, and questioning our goal. In either case, here is the helpful links again.
Useful links

Advisory Warning

Hello, Adambro,

We're glad you are here to learn and possibly edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you do.

Your chosen user name and/or initial edits don't inspire a great deal of confidence, however.
If you are here to argue, show us why we are wrong, introduce a liberal POV into articles, engage in time wasting talk, talk, talk, you have indeed come to the wrong place. We value conciseness, civility and productivity here.
Please consider opening your mind...the truth will set you free!

At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page.

Thanks for reading, Adambro!

JonM 12:55, 11 January 2012 (EST)

Well I have those links just above so that isn't too helpful. Perhaps you could advise what the correct way of resolving disagreements regarding content is then if it isn't to discuss those issues? I'd also be grateful if you could point out any examples where I've been "questioning our goal". Adambro 13:09, 11 January 2012 (EST)
A quick look at your contributions list shows that the entirety of your activities on this site have been small edits adding liberal POV to articles you don't agree with, punctuated with reverting a bunch of vandalism by what looks like the same vandal/sockpuppet. Tell me, Adam, why is it that every time a vandal shows up with a name like BU99ERY or something similar, you're there to revert the vandalism only a minute later? I've gone through your contribution logs and the pattern is obvious. You're trying to raise your edit count by making minor edits to articles without adding content, and you either are or are cooperating with a vandal who is repeatedly vandalizing this site, only for you to swoop in a minute later to "save" us. You are an obvious fraud and I will not allow you to compromise this project. TonyPark 16:19, 11 January 2012 (EST)
Correlation is not causation... But seriously, it isn't too hard to spot vandalism using Special:RecentChanges. It's even easier when the vandal involved edits my own talk page resulting in me seeing the "you have new messages" thing. I'll admit though that as, like you, I haven't been here very long, dealing with vandalism is an easy and obvious way to help out. Learning the ropes as to actually writing and editing articles is harder and I fully expect to make some mistakes along the way. I do hope that we can deal with any of what may be those mistakes in a sensible manner however. Adambro 18:12, 11 January 2012 (EST)


I unblocked you but I believe your contributions will be monitored so try to be careful !--PhilipN 16:38, 11 January 2012 (EST)

Blocking Rights

Congrats on your promotion. I think I was rashful in my judgement, please accept my apologies.JonM 21:00, 11 January 2012 (EST)