Difference between revisions of "User talk:AugustO"

Revision as of 09:34, January 2, 2015

User:PetyrB has been blocked

User:PetyrB has been blocked. He was Markman. It will be much harder for him to give a repeat performance. And if he manages to give a repeat performance, it will be very short lived. Conservative 17:14, 7 July 2014 (EDT)

He blocked everyone except me. I feel left out. PeterKa 22:23, 7 July 2014 (EDT)

I wasn't blocked either. GregG 22:58, 7 July 2014 (EDT)

I notice that he blocked you three times last year. Perhaps he's mellowed. PeterKa 00:09, 8 July 2014 (EDT)

Becoming an editor of good standing may become harder for someone like him, but I fear that it will be next to impossible for an honest newcomer! Without a strong motivation (for me, it is the my outrage about the disservice the CBP does to the Bible - and a bewilderment when reading about physics), you won't have the dedication to overcome the obstacles into which you are running here at Conservapedia: It took me quite an effort to find a way to appeal my first blocks!

It's at Catch-22 situation: If you make errors - as any newbie will do - you get blocked, and most probably just quit. Newcomers who don't make errors are most probably reincarnations who learned the ropes in a couple of earlier lives. --AugustO 17:41, 23 July 2014 (EDT)

Short note

If you ever get banned again, let me know at HERE and I will unblock you. Conservative 13:57, 11 July 2014 (EDT)

If he is blocked he will not be able to notify you. He will have been blocked surely? There really does need to be a better way to contact admins here in the case of parodists like markman blocking people imo. Davidspencer 14:27, 11 July 2014 (EDT)

He can create another user account solely for the purpose of contacting me at another IP address.

Ok, I will remember that in case markman comes back. He previously banned me several times as well Davidspencer 14:41, 11 July 2014 (EDT)

Fine, just be patient. I am not sure how often the mailbox will be checked, but it will definitely be checked from time to time. And you can always contact other admins too. It makes sense to mitigate any damage caused by a rogue blocker whose blocking privileges are short lived. Conservative 14:50, 11 July 2014 (EDT)

From the Conservapedia commandments page: "Administrators have discretion to act on matters not specifically mentioned here, such as vandalism and sockpuppets."[1] Common sense discretion can be exercised by Conservapedia administrators. Conservative 14:39, 11 July 2014 (EDT)

Has hope he will be more amiable should he return

User:Conservative, you blocked me arbitrarily for three days ("needlessly being quarrelsome"), and then you unblocked me, equally arbitrarily. Are you really thinking that this leads to amiability? No, it stirred my curiosity. I reread our exchange at Talk:Generalized linear model and digged a little deeper into the matters discussed:

While you still haven't answer my question about the deletion of the talk-page, I came to the conclusion that my mentioning of the Question evolution! book for middle school students triggered the deletion of the revisions and my block. You seem to be on an Orwellian campaign to erase this book from memory, a campaign which bodes ill for the trustworthiness of Conservapedia. --AugustO 18:42, 27 July 2014 (EDT)

This is too complicated for an outsider to follow. The important point is that AugustO, who earned the respect of many CP editors is back, and I welcome his contributions. I hope that we can all learn to live together in content-creation-harmony. Wschact 19:38, 27 July 2014 (EDT)

Harmony is important, but honesty, too - especially at a trustworthy encyclopedia. --AugustO 19:45, 27 July 2014 (EDT)

Project

Would you like to collaborate with other editors on a wiki project to help Conservapedia be a strong resource for a given topic.

The topic could be decided by the editors participating.

If you are interested, please go to: The collaborative project. Conservative 22:02, 25 December 2014 (EST)

I'm a little surprised by this "project". A wiki should per se be a collaborative project: I tend to jump on subjects which pique my interest (without an additional layer of administration.) Major obstacles for collaboration on Conservapedia's articles are for me:

• Some sysops think they own certain articles, and will keep up their preferred version without engaging in a meaningful discussion on the talk-page (see e.g., E=mc²). Some sysops even prevent editing of their pet articles by locking them - I think that you, User:Conservative, are the main culprit when it comes to this tactic!
• Collaboration prerequisites a certain degree of maturity and honesty. You, User:Conservative, don't have at least one of these characteristics: for example, the "we are many" - charade is just infantile. And how do I know that you won't create new dummy accounts to manipulate discussions? You haven't come clean about User:Historybuff, therefore I don't know whether you will take such crooked steps again.

--AugustO 08:11, 28 December 2014 (EST)

Are you claiming that merely one person is editing using the User: Conservative account? If so, considering your insistence that merely one person is editing using the account, what proof and evidence do you have for this claim? Your little tirade here is not impressive. Also, if you are such a big fan of collaboration, why can't the totality of "User: Conservative"'s edits be a team effort? If "User:Conservative" allows a conservative friend or friends to also use the account, what is that to you? None of the Conservapedia Commandments forbids the sharing of an account.

Next, a very small percentage of my/our articles are locked in terms of editing them.

Furthermore, the Conservapedia wiki article protect tab was created to be used! Conservative 00:12, 31 December 2014 (EST)

It's just common sense:

• If you are many, your manual of style must be epic: your way of writing is quite unique. Furthermore, it is quite inconceivable that there is more than one editor who shows such a consistent inability to use the preview button (it was created to be used).
• In your interactions with your fellow sysops, you are treated as a single person.
• Your medical history: every time you excuse your actions with a lack of sleep, etc., it is the story of a single person.

Hey, it is the internet: You could be a group of medically enhanced Rottweilers, and until your account is closed by your local dog-catcher, we cannot be sure... But for me, you failed the Turing test on multi-personality.

All of the above is not very important: what counts is that you (and your friends/sysops) know how many you are. You know whether you wish to try to deceive your fellow editors.

It is the same as with your dummy account of User:Historybuff: you know whether you acted immorally. For me, it just seems so - and in the internet, appearance is quite important, as we are not able to prove much.

--AugustO 02:40, 31 December 2014 (EST)

AugustO, as far as the inconceivability of User: Conservative being multiple editors, your lack of imagination and germanic stubbornness is not a serious objection.

Second, how would you know if one person or persons using the User: Conservative was using the preview button? Have you done an analysis of the edits concerning this matter? How would you know if persons using the User: Conservative do not use the preview account? How would you know the reason or reasons why "User: Conservativedom" sometimes does not use the preview button?

"User: Conservative" has edited during the day and night. And the illness affecting one of the editors of the User: Conservative account has largely been conquered. For example, a full eight hours of sleep occurred today for the person affected.

Do you believe that one person largely wrote the homosexuality and the Atheist actions against homosexuals article (the title of the article was originally Atheist persecution against homosexuals" if memory serves, but one editor within "User: Conservativedom" objected to this title) and that one person wrote both articles. The article Atheist actions against homosexuals was a shock to those obsessed with the User: Conservative account and the footnoting style is different than the homosexuality article as well. What are your thoughts on this matter?

Have you read C.S. Lewis's article entitled Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism? It should give you pause on psychologically analyzing a writer/writers and his/her/their intentions, etc. etc.

Why don't you ask User: Karajou if User: Conservative is merely one editor? We can guarantee you that User: Karajou will not claim that User: Conservative is merely one editor. Why? Because User: Karajou was informed that more than one person has edited using the User: Conservative account. And User: Karajou has checkuser and could certainly verify this matter.

In addition, we know you were successfully rebuffed about the "historybuff" matter and that you most certainly do not have the moral high ground. You did not prove the identity/identities of the mysterious historybuff. And you acknowledged (after you shown to be acting in an unbecoming manner) that no Conservapedia rule was broken if a person using the historybuff account was an Conservapedia admin (Of course, the same would apply if persons using the account were admins) so you failed again!

Furthermore, has the User: Conservative account edited the Sun Tzu article? If so, then at least one editor with User: Conservativedom understands the strategy/tactic of stealth and keeping the opposition guessing (User: Conservativedom does not agree with all of Sun Tzu's actions/writings by the way). And we know that the left/liberals such as Alinsky use the tactic of attacking individuals before attacking institutions/groups (Rule #12 of Alinsky's rules for radicals). But, User: Conservative is more than one editor! Conservative 15:04, 31 December 2014 (EST)

By the way, German evolutionists did not think that American creationists would land on the beaches of Normandy. But that is exactly what happened!!! (And Dwight D. Eisenhower appears to have been a creationist [2]).

"We can guarantee you that User: Karajou will not claim that User: Conservative is merely one editor. Why? Because User: Karajou was informed that more than one person has edited using the User: Conservative account."

When did this happen? In the first months of your membership? I doubt it, as it seems unlikely that Andy would bestow such extensive rights as "checkuser" and "administrator" on a communal account.

Even when I started editing in 2011, you hadn't come out as a multitude, that happened during the last one or two years. So, assuming that there is more than one user at your account, he/she/them were invited to do so somewhat after 2011. Am I right?

This is quite troubling: your weren't even able to lobby for upload-rights for User:TheAmericanRedoubt until now, but you gave some person access to "checkuser", "administrator" and "oversight" rights! Either this person never had an account here at Conservapedia, or it had an account before, but wasn't seen worthy to get these rights which you decided to share.

I would call this nepotism, and it is impossible to square it with Conservapedia's claim of being a meritocracy:

Conservapedia is a meritocracy. Administrators are selected as needed from the best of the best contributors, there is no popularity contest to determine promotion, and nominations not accepted. By your own work shall you be known.

But that is just a guideline - and you are not so awfully keen of them, like:

Conservapedia does not allow "sockpuppet" accounts or unaccountable anonymous proxy use.

In addition, we know you were successfully rebuffed about the "historybuff" matter and that you most certainly do not have the moral high ground. You did not prove the identity/identities of the mysterious historybuff. And you acknowledged (after you shown to be acting in an unbecoming manner) that no Conservapedia rule was broken if a person using the historybuff account was an Conservapedia admin (Of course, the same would apply if persons using the account were admins) so you failed again!

You were User:Historybuff. The little incident of your intermingled comments at the main talk page made this obvious. User:Karajou could prove it. Thereby you broke a rule (or do you claim that it is just a guideline and doesn't apply to you?)

--AugustO 03:39, 2 January 2015 (EST)

Why are you assuming that User: Conservative may be merely two persons? Why not more?

The User: Conservative account will continue to be shrouded in mystery to you - a black box of conservatism!

As far as the meritocracy issue, the User: Conservative account produces articles that are useful and of interest to the public, well-researched, accurate and scrupulously footnoted. The articles are some of the most popular articles at Conservapedia. Conservative 04:27, 2 January 2015 (EST)

Happy New Year

The editors of the User: Conservative account wish you a happy new year. Conservative 01:06, 2 January 2015 (EST)