Difference between revisions of "User talk:JDano"

Revision as of 17:35, June 29, 2017

From your large scale deletion of conservative content that criticizes leftists like Leland Yee and other anti-leftist content I created, I believe you are a reincarnation of the long banned User:Wschact who followed me incessantly deleting content I created. Your M.O. is just like him. If not you are probably one of his troll buddy's from RationalWiki. I will leave it up to User:Conservative and Andy if you should be banned longer. The other indication of your being a troll is that as soon as I reverted your edits, my user page was attacked. TheAmericanRedoubt (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2016 (EDT)

E-mail

Hi JDano! Thanks for catching the loss of the TOR logo... I missed that. It seems some people don't like the category edits I've been making, so perhaps I should stop. Anyway, I have something I'd like to send to you, and was thinking E-mail would be easier than posting it all here. If you are willing and able, would you mind sending an e-mail to david_b4@archnet.us so I can reply it all to you? Thanks! --David B (talk) 09:25, 1 April 2016 (EDT)

Also, I trust you are trying to be helpful, but I notice you've edited some essays. In general, you should probably try to avoid this. The idea of an essay is that it is written by one person, and bears only their point of view. Within an essay, people may state personal opinions as fact, argue something from a single point of view, and do any number of things generally frowned upon in standard articles. If they wish, they can event ramble on saying nothing at all--it's up the the writer. I stretched the rules (though I still wonder if I should have) by just changing the capitalization of categories on a couple essays. Ideally, even this should probably be asked about first in the talk page, but at the time the author was inactive on CP, so I thought I would receive no response. In general, we should both try to avoid making changes to original works like essays, though. An essay is the author's space to do pretty much whatever they wish, within the basic rules of morality. Thanks for all your contributions! --David B (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2016 (EDT)

I agree. However, we got specific permission from Mr. Schlafly to edit them. I am trying to clean up the category structure and the red links to the antisemitic essays. I am not going to rewrite TAR's essays. Thanks, JDano (talk) 10:37, 1 April 2016 (EDT)

re: Anthony Weiner article and also the issue of fighting between User: TheAmericanRedoubt and User: JDano

TO: User: TheAmericanRedoubt and User: JDano

I will admit that the term "gun grabbing" is not encyclopedic. Strong advocate of gun control or similar phraseology would be more appropriate. It is not appropriate to remove all references to his policy on guns.

Second, making a big deal about his Jewish religion in the first 7 words of an article is not appropriate either. However, totally removing all references to his religion is not helpful either. While I am not a fan of Wikipedia, they typically list a politician's religious persuasion (Baptist, Presbyterian, Jewish, Muslim, atheism, etc.). I do think giving this information is helpful to readers.

User: JDano and User: TheAmericanRedoubt need to work more cooperatively.

Due to time constraints, I am asking User: Karajou and the owner of this website to referee if necessary. I sincerely hope this is not necessary. You both seem to be intelligent individuals. Please start behaving more cooperatively. I know you are both capable of doing so. Conservative (talk) 10:52, 1 April 2016 (EDT)

I agree with you, and I have reached out last night and this morning to User:TheAmericanRedoubt without success. I will hold off for a few days, until management negotiates terms with him. My preferred outcome is that he actually spends substantial time cleaning up the categories, the antisemitism and the aryuvedic in medicine and leave me free to write new content. I also suggest that he work with a copyright mentor to stop the unattributed copy-paste and excessive quotes. I welcome the inclusion of religion and views on guns in Weiner's bio or any other bio, but it should not read like name-calling. Preferably, it should have a footnote and be verifiable. I think that management should talk to User:TheAmericanRedoubt and set clear expectations of his role as a Conservapedia editor. I understand the expectations you have stated above, and I will strive to meet them. Thanks, JDano (talk) 11:08, 1 April 2016 (EDT)

I put this post on the talk pages of User: Karajou, TAR and the owner of this website: I will also say that User: Wsacht used to put on a veneer of politeness, but when you did a little more investigation, it became apparent it was merely a veneer. I hope User: JDano is not a sock of User: Wsacht. Conservative (talk) 11:24, 1 April 2016 (EDT)

Categories

I just left a note on DavidB4's talk page, which please see. It is for one of the other of you; I don't remember which. My backlog/notes from my recent "sabbatical" is rather confusing, to say the least. SamHB (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2016 (EDT)

I've looked at the User:JDano/TARlist, and I think it ought to be expanded to a general advice page, with no direct reference to TAR. The hints given apply generally. For example, lighten up on the "Bankster" "Jew" or "Gun Grabber" stuff. But maybe leave in something like "Avoid inflammatory terms such as 'Bankster' or 'Gun Grabber'; they have no place in an encyclopedia." I'd like to move it to a more generally visible place, the way I did with How to put links and footnotes into your articles. We could even put it into the Conservapedia namespace, I think. It would be an adjunct to Conservapedia:Editing_article_and_talk_pages, which is a redirect from the Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style. We would have to check carefully against that, so we are advocating a consistent style.

I actually have something of a disagreement with the "don't put anything in two categories that have a subcategory relationship with each other" doctrine. I need to formulate my thoughts on that a little more. It arose from something in the topology category that I think should also be in the plain mathematics category. I'll work on that.

But the first question is: what should it be named? Renaming something requires a laborious process of requesting sysop action, so we should get it right the first time. But we don't want to be too close to existing administrative pages, such as Conservapedia:Writing_a_Good_Article (which really has a different thrust.) Something like "How to write high-quality content"? I solicit suggestions.

SamHB (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2016 (EDT)

How about "How to review the Conservapedia editing of others" Much of the advice was TAR-specific because I saw his repeated errors.

Suppose an article discusses topics A, B, C, D, E and F. A, B, and C are safely within category X, but not the last three which fit into category Y. X is a subcat of Y. It is ok to use both X and Y at the bottom of the page. JDano (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2016 (EDT)

While 99% of the things that need improvement are from TAR (and TAR provided 100% of the impetus for this project), I'd like it not to be about improving other people's writing—that sounds elitist.

I looked up the category examples. It came from my browsing around in the mathematics category. Two things obviously belong there—Open set and Converge. (Closed set does too, but let's not get carried away.) They are in the Topology category but not in Mathematics. Topology is a subcategory of Mathematics.

A major purpose of a category is for someone to browse through and find interesting things to look at. Convergence, and open sets, are very obvious things that a person might want to find while browsing in mathematics. No such luck. They could click on the Topology subcategory at the top, but they shouldn't need to. They might feel the Topology is too specialized for them to be interested in, and they could be right. These pages should be in both categories.

Another example, though we don't have those categories. Cation is in the Chemistry category. If we had subcategories for organic and inorganic chemistry, it would belong in inorganic—cations do not form in organic molecules. But it would belong in both. Hmmm. I just noticed, Chemistry is not in the Science category. It's in Natural sciences. That's gotta get fixed.

Sorry to go off the deep end with math and chemistry, but my point is that the one-category-only rule, while good in general, needs to have exceptions. And your A/B/C/D/E/F example is another example of an exception.

By the way, the "one-category-only rule" rule was presented, complete with a picture, in Conservapedia:Editing_article_and_talk_pages#Categories, which, IIRC, arose from an earlier dsicussion of TAR's misuse of categories.

SamHB (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2016 (EDT)

Sometimes it can certainly be tough to call, but I agree that sometimes more than one category is appropriate--SamHB makes some valid points. I've sometimes made the same mistake of using too many, but at times it is appropriate. This should be a tree, but branches occasionally cross. However, with enough imagination almost any category can fit. At times it can become subjective, but we can at least work on the absolutes.

In general, I also agree with SamHB that your guide could be expanded for general organization and cleanup. Also, great work with the cleanup so far! --David B (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2016 (EDT)

The basic idea is that if an article is to be placed on a category tree, put it on the most specific branch of the limb. If an article belongs on two different trunks of the category tree, put it on the smallest branch of each trunk that you can find. So Category:Conservative Podcasts could go on Category:Conservatism and Category:Podcasts but not on Category:Internet or Category:Politics. JDano (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2016 (EDT)

I agree with that example, and most cases are of that type. If something belongs in two categories that are at disparate locations in the tree, put them in both categories, at the lowest (most specific) point in each case. The situation I was bringing up is the much less common situation, in which something might be suitable for two categories that are very close. In fact, one (topology) might be just below the other (mathematics). The "lowest point" doctrine is usually correct, but there could be situations in which something could rightly belong in both categories. And the guidelines that we publish should allow for that situation rather than always demanding the "lowest point".

In fact, an example can be seen in the graph in Conservapedia:Editing_article_and_talk_pages#Categories. You want to look up Hamlet, and you only know that it's a play. The "Stage Plays" category lists Shakespeare, George Bernard Shaw, etc. Having slept through English class, you don't know who wrote it. You shouldn't have to go groveling through all the playwrights. Just list Hamlet under Stage Plays, AND Shakespeare, AND Tragedies. SamHB (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2016 (EDT)

I disagree. Of course, in the example, the category is called "Shakespearian Tragedies". If TAR has slept through English class and can't tell the big limb from the small branch, he would do that. But the tree structure is designed to help the user. If you put Hamlet in Shakespearian Tragedies, then the reader will be taken to the most relevant other articles -- other tragedies. The reader will see a category link at the bottom of the Category:Shakespearian Tragedies page that will take him up the branch to all of the Shakespeare articles. Alternatively, if you are looking for an interesting play, you can follow the tree by looking at all of the articles listed on a Category:Plays page, followed by picking the most interesting subcategory listed on that page. Most people come to Conservapedia after using Wikipedia, so we will disappoint the users if we don't keep the tree structure.

Following TAR's approach, you would list as categories on the Hamlet page everything between Tragedies and the root Everything. So, please don't do that. People, including me, will make mistakes, but we should not encourage the TAR approach as our mutually accepted goal or norm. Instead, our instructions should also say, "Feel free to ask for help."

No, no, no. I would never list the categories all the way to the top, or anywhere near the top. Anyone who wants to find out about Hamlet, but doesn't know whether it's a play or a genus of insect is beyond any help we can give. I'm just saying that a person might reasonably know that it's a play, but not know whether it's a tragedy or a comedy, or might not know who wrote it. (Speaking of which, I would guess that TAR read Soldier of Fortune magazine during English class.) So we might list it a little way up, like up to "Shakespearian plays", or maybe up to "Stage plays", but no higher.

This isn't about TAR. I know he messed up categories in some horrible way, that was discussed at length somewhere. I didn't follow that discussion. I was too busy being appalled by all the "see also" and "contrast with" blocks, including saying that my home state is treasonous, among many other things.

I want us to come up with a guidelines page that will serve us well as we move forward. And I definitely want to keep the tree structure. SamHB (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2016 (EDT)

I'd really like to move forward with choosing a name for this. Then we can continue the discussion on that article's talk page. I nominate Conservapedia:How to create high-quality articles. Unless I hear objections/alternatives in the next few days, I will go ahead with that, and copy the existing content from User:JDano/TARlist. OK? SamHB (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2016 (EDT)

I'd be okay with that name I guess, but it seems to me this is more like a set of guidelines for cleanup primarily, and article creation secondarily. Therefore, I would more readily support a name like Conservapedia:How to create and maintain high-quality articles or even Conservapedia:How to maintain high-quality articles. What do you think?--David B (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2016 (EDT)

I'm fine with either of those. SamHB (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2016 (EDT)

The page has been moved.

The page formerly known as the "TARlist" has been moved to its new home Conservapedia:How to create and maintain high-quality articles, thinks to administrative intervention by JPatt. SamHB (talk) 00:36, 18 April 2016 (EDT)

Conservapedia's web traffic is up

Conservapedia is one of the top 100,000 websites in the world as far as web traffic according to the web traffic tracking company Alexa,[1]

Thank you for all your contributions.

Conservapedia continues to receive millions of page views per month.Conservative (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2016 (EDT)

Thank you for sharing that. We have to keep up our quality as well as put a good face on for the search engine spiders. So, we need to moderate our links to meet the "sweet spot" of their algorithm. JDano (talk) 18:55, 19 April 2016 (EDT)

I agree that quality is important and excess internal linking is not user friendly. Thanks for adding content and fixing the TAR problems. Conservative (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2016 (EDT)

re: your request

Template:Main is now unlocked. Conservative (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2016 (EDT)

Done. Please lock.JDano (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2016 (EDT)

Congratulations

Congratulations! Your account has been promoted to overnight editing and blocking privileges.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:02, 4 May 2016 (EDT)

Many thanks! JDano (talk) 05:18, 5 May 2016 (EDT)

Somehow I missed your promotion, and didn't realize that until you blocked a trio of people today. Very belated congratulations! --David B ^(TALK) 19:05, 18 July 2016 (EDT)

re: User:JayHarper

re: User:JayHarper

He was a parodist. I deleted a few of his articles. If you have time, please go through some of his past edits. Conservative (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2016 (EDT)

I checked a dozen edits where he was the last editor. Most were style corrections which are correct. JDano (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2016 (EDT)

Thanks from Dataclarifier

Really appreciate your watching my "six" by reverting the vandalism. Semper Fi ! --Dataclarifier (talk) 10:24, 26 July 2016 (EDT)

Recent vandalism

Nice work fighting that wave of vandalism. It's always a good sign when they start throwing ad hominem attacks using your name. :) --David B ^(TALK) 00:25, 5 December 2016 (EST)

Merry Christmas

Thank you for all your contributions to Conservaoedia as far your web article content.

Merry Christmas! And have a happy New Year's Day. Conservative (talk) 16:46, 24 December 2016 (EST)

You are welcome. Thank you for your hard work as well. JDano (talk) 10:09, 25 December 2016 (EST)

The year has changed

It is now, of course, 2017. For the question "What is the next year?", the answer required is currently 2017. Obviously, it should be updated to 2018.--Amorrow (talk) 08:20, 3 January 2017 (EST)

Fixed it. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2017 (EST)

Downtime blurb?

Do you guys have a page or paragraph about the nightly downtime? Someone might have pointed it out before, but I forget.--Amorrow (talk) 08:29, 3 January 2017 (EST)

Wikipedia

@ Wikipedia JusticeOfJustice (talk) 10:53, 11 January 2017 (EST)

Donald Trump achievements

JDano, thank you very much for your edit at Donald Trump achievements. When you add info, please remember to cite at least one source for future reference for that article. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2017 (EST)

Thanks!

You helped make THIS happen.

I have never seen a non-profit website go from below 100,000 rank to nearly a 50,000 Alexa ranking in about a year. And Andy payed zero dollars for internet marketing services during this period.

And there is no sign of a nearing web traffic plateau. My guess is that Trump supporters/Trump era and the resulting political waves significantly explains the boost in traffic.

Trump supporters seem very loyal so the traffic boost could be long lasting. It also seems like there is a reawakening of right-wing politics/nationalism that will be long lasting. And right-wing populism and "best of the public" go together like peanut butter and jelly. :) Conservative (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2017 (EST)

Thank you for sharing this news, and thank you and the rest of the team for achieving it. JDano (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2017 (EST)

I want to look very deeply into peoples minds

I have been away from my computer, and I don't have specific insights into this particular problem. Forgive the delayed response. JDano (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2017 (EST)'

Move

If Mr. Schlafly does not respond to your request, I recommend asking DavidB4 of Karajou to do your move requests for you. Both of them have been quite helpful in my experience. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:03, 23 February 2017 (EST)

Special characters

Thanks you for fixing the sphere page; I only used m because of the special characters:symbols menu. Could you tell me how to make the superscript 2's and 3's? --Abcqwe (talk) 08:21, 2 March 2017 (EST)

Account promoted

Congratulations, your account has been promoted again, this time to include uploading privileges. Please be sure to give attribution to the author of the image pursuant to CC or other licensing guidelines. Thank you!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:42, 5 March 2017 (EST)

Congrats! You seem to know the upload process well--as a reminder, please just remember to include:

1. Source
2. Licence type
3. License owner, if applicable
4. Categories (Category "Image" and other relevant categories)

Thanks, and enjoy! --David B ^(TALK) 18:05, 5 March 2017 (EST)

Move requests

JDano, when you get a chance, could you link here to the pending move requests? I'd like to review them first, because there are sometimes good reasons for not moving something. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2017 (EST)

Most of them involve capitalization errors in the article name or accidental misspellings. Please visit: Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany.JDano (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2017 (EST)

Some of those moves require deletion first--The target page has edit history, so it cannot be overwritten. Others I am uncertain about, or disagree with. For example, ".50 Action Express" follows the pattern of every other caliber entry here. A period is not the best thing to start a name with, but it is .50 caliber, not 50 caliber. Without the decimal point, 50 caliber would imply that the bullet/rifle has an interior diameter of 50 inches! I would welcome a second opinion--all the moves I am able to perform, I don't feel confident should be completed.--David B ^(TALK) 11:38, 7 March 2017 (EST)

I did not endorse all of them, just the ones that I proposed. We have a move backlog, and I am willing to avoid adding to it. If you or I find a barrier to doing a proposed move, it should be explained on the list and escallated to a full admin. Thanks, JDano (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2017 (EST)

I've requested deletions before, but I also mentioned some of them on the article talk pages just now. I don't see a full list of move requests on Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany, though it may exist. I've been going off of Category:Move requests. As for refraining from adding more requests, I would say feel free to add more. Sysops may readily agree with your future proposals, so they may get taken care of quickly. Besides, if you compare move requests to the 100 (exactly) delete requests (listed under Category:Deletion candidates, Category:Speedy deletion candidates, and Category:Articles proposed for deletion) this list of 14 is nothing. --David B ^(TALK) 22:34, 7 March 2017 (EST)

Make that 15--I just added a move proposal (which I'll complete, if no one objects) --David B ^(TALK) 23:54, 7 March 2017 (EST)

We need a more consistent set of documentation/internal editor instructions to assist editors as to the appropriate way to handle move requests, deletion requests, etc. I am willing to help if Mr. Schafly will trust me with the move button. Thanks, JDano (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2017 (EST)

Re: JohnZ

Fair enough, but he's going to have to watch his step from here on out. Northwest (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2017 (EDT)

Obamagate timeline

#5 on Google after 15 days. I can't get a read on total results. RobS^{CIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2} 18:34, 25 March 2017 (EDT)

• But only 16,000 ghits, so the term is not widely adopted. JDano (talk) 00:27, 26 March 2017 (EDT)

Well, I got a jump on all the competition. Mine is by far the most exhaustive and complete. Looks like its going to be around for awhile. All the imitators will be borrowing from it. This is by far bigger than Watergate. RobS^{CIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2} 01:52, 26 March 2017 (EDT)

According to the results I can muster, #2 on Google, #2 on Bing out of 1,000,000, and #1 on Yahoo. RobS^{CIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2} 15:20, 29 March 2017 (EDT)

Donald Trump achievements

Hello JDano, some things I would like to mention to you. First, if you disagree with certain edits I made, please do not blindly revert all my changes. In this edit, you reverted a whole bunch of things that you did not appear to have any objections to. Please just manually change the things you disagree with. What you did is very disruptive.

Also, when repeatedly changing the size of Trump's image at the top of the article, at least use a better edit summary than "fix image." It is really annoying when I write a long edit summary explaning why I disagree and then you revert with "fix image" multiple times. Seriously, that is something a vandal would stereotypically do (I'm not calling you a vandal, but the action is similar).

If the image of Trump is causing so much problems for you, why don't you send me a screenshot of your screen? I want to know what it looks for you. I don't like a small image. It makes the page look worse than with the larger image. I'm not willing to change the image just so one person will enjoy the top of the article more. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

Are you even listening to me? You still reverted three changes with zero explanation or justification. I don't know why you are doing this, but my patience is quickly decreasing. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:48, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

Thanks for your edit. This one is acceptable and one that I agree with. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

IRC

Hello,
After some discussion (on my talk page and Andy's) it has been decided that I start an Internet Relay Chat channel for Conservapedia, since our old one has been dead since 2009. It is now registered and somewhat set up. I don't know if you use IRC or are interested in doing so, but anyone with block privileges on Conservapedia can also get block privileges on the new IRC channel. Unfortunately, IRC accounts are deleted after 30 days of being unused, so unless you plan on using the IRC at least once a month, there is probably not much point in registering. In any case, feel free to try it out--if you account gets deleted, we can always make another one later. If you are interested, please let me know!
The IRC channel is: #conservapedia @irc.accessIRC.net
Let me know if you have any questions or need anything else, also! --David B ^(TALK) 15:33, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

PizzaGate

I noticed you insist on adding 'alledged' about a half dozen times. You do know that a conspiracy theory is not a proven fact? I think the readers get it.--Jpatt 20:43, 12 April 2017 (EDT)

Your wording is wrong. It's not claim he sent disturbing photos of children. He did.--Jpatt 23:33, 21 April 2017 (EDT)

Keith Schiller

I checked the Wikipedia version of your article Keith Schiller to gain more information but found that, for the most part, both articles say the same thing. Did you originally write the Wikipedia article? --1990'sguy (talk) 10:33, 12 May 2017 (EDT)

We never make statements that would compromise the identity of CP editors, but I am confident that CP will not be sued for plagarism. Thanks, JDano (talk) 12:57, 12 May 2017 (EDT)

If you added info to WP that you later added to CP, Template:Copied from should be used. See Wikipedia copyright. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:06, 12 May 2017 (EDT)

Donald Trump achievements

Thanks for your edits to the article, but please do not remove any references (you removed the entirely appropriate Breitbart reference), and please keep the wording in the past tense. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:33, 14 June 2017 (EDT)

The Breitbart reference was removed because it got the facts wrong. I replaced it with two better references that more accurately and authoritatively described the Justice Department's action. Fighting FGM is generally more a liberal cause with Amnesty International and the Democratic Party taking vocal stances on it. The federal (and some state) laws have been on the books for years. The Justice Dept has not announced a nation-wide policy giving this priority. This was a criminal case launched by one US Attorney with a press release issued by his office. If you have a reference to a nation-wide change in Justice Department policy, I will be happy to change the bullet and change the set of footnotes to include Breitbart again. I think that the Breitbart author's ego got in the way of the facts -- he wanted to brag that he had a scoop that was ignored by mainstream media. I can't find the big nationwide policy change that everyone else ignored, even when I look at the primary sources. Thanks, JDano (talk) 09:47, 14 June 2017 (EDT)

The reference may not be perfect, I'll admit that, but it should stay. I am finding new references stating that this prosecution was the first such prosecution under the federal law. I will add these shortly. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:55, 14 June 2017 (EDT)

I disagree because it mis-states the facts and we are not relying upon it to support what the CP text says. Even if you can find new references, and I encourage your further research, we can only say that there was a new DOJ policy if in fact there was a new DOJ policy. The Breitbart author claims that the Trump Administration adopted a policy that would be embraced by the liberals and the MSM ignored it. So, either Breitbart is wrong or all of the liberals who are paid to follow this issue and the MSM is wrong. CP does not spread rumors based on misinformation. Thanks, JDano (talk) 10:13, 14 June 2017 (EDT)

I have added two additional sources that back up the Breitbart article, and yet, you continue to blindly revert my edits. Not only are you removing the Breitbart article, but you are editing as if I never wrote to you here. I asked you also to stop writing in the present tense on the article, but you did it again. The two sources I added back up the Breitbart article, and even if you don't like the Breitbart article, the other articles I added (including one from NBC) back it up. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:03, 14 June 2017 (EDT)

The NBC News article contradicts the Breitbart article, because it shows MSM coverage of the case which Breitbart claims was ignored by the MSM. None of the sources, include the Department of Justice website and whitehouse.gov suggest that there is a major policy change in this area. So, Conservapedia should not cite the Brietbart article. I will change this to the past tense. Thanks, JDano (talk) 11:08, 14 June 2017 (EDT)

The point of the Breitbart article is not that the MSM is not covering the case, but that it is not properly covering the case. FGM is an Islamic practice, and, as the Breitbart article points out, the MSM is not noting this fact. Try finding the words "Muslim" or "Islamic" in the NBC article -- you will not succeed because the words are not mentioned. The Breitbart article is relevant and correct. Please do not remove it.

Also, I strongly oppose your wording of the event, as it downplays the achievement. You wrote "even though Congress had outlawed the practice years earlier." However, this downplays the fact that for four years the DOJ did not do anything about FGM and the fact that this was the first prosecution of the practice. Please do not change my wording. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:30, 14 June 2017 (EDT)

The Obama Administration was anti-FGM and Obama signed the 2013 amendment to the law. It also supported UN anti-FGM efforts and sought to curb "FGM tourism" to foreign countries. This case is unusual because the two under-18 girls lived in Minnesota, so they were covered by the federal laws, including taking a minor across a state line for a sex crime purpose. Michigan is now considering a FGM law because of the incident.Detroit Free Press You are mis-describing the April 19 Breitbart article. Perhaps your limited knowledge of this issue should cause you to stop edit-warring on this. JDano (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2017 (EDT)

Regardless of what the Obama Administration did, the fact remains that this was the first DOJ prosecution of the practice since Congress prohibited the practice, as the numerous sources noted.

JDano, once again (and you do this over and over and over again), you attempt to refute one part of an edit I make and then revert the entire edit. I notice that you did not try to refute the Breitbart article again. The fact that the article author cites MSM sources shows that your claim is invalid. He is not saying the MSM did not cover the story, but rather that it chose not to describe the practice as Islamic. And you removed all mentions of "Islamic" from the story's mention in the D.T. achievement article.

Several articles are cited, and there is nothing wrong with the Breitbart article. You continue to insert left-wing POV into the article by removing mentions of FGM being an Islamic practice. Please stop. I am being extremely patient with you, and I have accommodated much of what you have stated. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:18, 14 June 2017 (EDT)

Seriously, my patience with you is rapidly decreasing. You don't like Breitbart, fine. But stop removing it. Is citing six other articles on this not enough for you? Do we HAVE to delete the Breitbart ref? This is ridiculous. The article reveals the fact that the MSM is not admitting FGM to be an Islamic practice, and you are (apparently) buying into the bias. I am not writing any brief in this case. I am simply noting the practice to be Islamic.

I changed the wording of this incident's mention, we corrected errors, and we added many more sources. We did good work, but I am tired of you obsessively removing a certain source and changing wording that buys into MSM bias. Please, call it a day. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2017 (EDT)

This seems to have devolved into a dispute of whether to cite the Breitbart article or not. I like the article and you don't. You added several other articles to cite. Why not cite both the Breitbart article and the several others? I will not tolerate removal of the Breitbart article. You have your favored articles cited and I have mine. Let's keep it at that. I do apologize for my inflammatory edit summaries. I am very irritated. Please, let's keep the article as it is. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:02, 14 June 2017 (EDT)

You are either a liberal parodist or a fool who is working very hard to see that people who butcher little girls go unpunished. What is motivating your edit war? The White House, the Department of Justice and the mainstream media all say that this has nothing to do with religion. Please think about your actions and just stop. JDano (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2017 (EDT)

I am neither, and I don't think these edits will influence any court case that results. Besides, just because a practice is practiced primarily by a certain religion does not necessarily make it legal. There is a law prohibiting FGM, by the way. Your comment that I am "working very hard to see that people who butcher little girls go unpunished" is ridiculous. Keeping a Breitbart article, a conservative news outlet, will have zero effect on this. It is you who should think not only about your actions, but also about your words. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2017 (EDT)

Besides, any competent person will realize that these three men did what they did because of their Islamic religious sect (I acknowledge that this practice is common only in certain sects or geographical regions of Islam). We know their religion and even their sect (the Dawoodi Bohra sect). It is you who are ignoring the facts. You also said "the White House, the Department of Justice and the mainstream media all say that this has nothing to do with religion." First, do you have a source for the White House? Second, you are ignoring the conservative media, which is not politically correct on issues regarding Islam. Name calling (like what you did above) will not solve this dispute. Besides, why are you so concerned about a single Breitbart article? --1990'sguy (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2017 (EDT)

Wikipedia has a policy called "no synthesis" which means that you should not tie unrelated things together. I have read a lot of sources on this case and read the indictment. I have seen pictures of the families. The statute of Justice wears a blindfold because our system of justice treats everyone equally regardless of race, religion, color or creed. This bullet deals with a "butchering little girl ban" and not a "Muslim ban." You should not write religion into this any more than you should write "Russian conspiracy" into each bullet of Rob's Obamagate timeline. Some Christians practice FGM, and FGM is illegal and should be prosecuted regardless of religion. Do not actively work to promote the defendant's possible future arguments in this case, until they are made and adjudicated. Adding religion into this bullet is just spreading gossip and speculation. Thank you. JDano (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2017 (EDT)

There is no "gossip or speculation" on the religion of those indicted. Also, we know a lot more about FGM than you appear to admit. The sources I added (and two of them are not Breitbart sources) show that some sects of Islam practice and actively promote the practice. Also, you seem more concerned about a Breitbart article (which I added to document the achievement, and which I still want in the article) than with the three separate sources documenting the religion most commonly associated with FGM.

Besides, do you seriously think that what we write here will influence the defendants' arguments? This is one article of one website. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2017 (EDT)

Yes. If courts have taken judicial notice of Wikipedia articles, I could see a court offering a Conservapedia article for judicial notice, just as they have offered President Trump's tweets in the court cases reviewing the "Travel ban." We claim to be the conservative alternative to Wikipedia. JDano (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2017 (EDT)

That may be fair, but I seriously don't see how a single Breitbart article, which is more concerned about MSM bias, will be such a big deal. I think I will remove -- and am willing to do so -- the sources arguing it is primarily Islamic, as long as it is added to the FGM article, but I will keep the Breitbart article, which is more concerned about the actual achievement by the DOJ in prosecuting FGM. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2017 (EDT)

I have trouble with that Breitbart article. The other stories covered the Justice Dept. correctly -- the was no disclosure of the victims' religion or of the defendants' religion. The indictment and press release avoided that. The story quotes someone else as saying the other journalists “are guilty of aiding and abetting violence against women out of a politically correct fueled fear of offending Muslims.” That is just not true. If the Justice Dept doesn't go into the religion angle, neither should the journalists. We should not paint them with "anti-Muslim" motives, when they are just trying to protect little girls. When President Trump tweeted that the "travel ban" was intended to target Muslims, the MSM corrected covered that. Here, the government, including the White House, has more message discipline and has not said that, and the MSM correctly does not add that to the story. They are not engaging in synthesis. Breitbart does not have a source to show that "political correctness" or "fear of offending Muslims" are involved. If there is a "religious defense" for FGM, the defense team has not yet raised it, so we should not go there now. JDano (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2017 (EDT)

But there are good reasons on keeping the Breitbart source, such as documenting the achievement. Other sources are cited, but that doesn't mean we don't need the Breitbart source. It is good to have a good mix of MSM and conservative sources (at least at times -- many times we can do without the MSM) to show the diverse views on the news. The Breitbart article does that. Besides, the Religion News Service article I linked to you above not only describes the defendents' religion, but also their specific sect. This is not just something the conservative media is saying. Besides, the official reasons and statements provided by the government may be helpful, but we shouldn't rely on them. The government does have its own agendas in what is says and discloses. The official government reason for Benghazi was a video.

As I stated, I am willing to remove the mention of FGM as primarily Islamic and those three sources proving it (as long as the info stays in the FGM article), but I will not tolerate the removal of the Breitbart source. It reflects a diversity of viewpoints, and removing the source would shield the reader from knowing what a significant proportion of people (with good reason) believe about this. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2017 (EDT)

Rather than reply to me, you just go on any delete the Breitbart article. And you change the wording to something undermining this fact as an achievement (I already went into detail above -- I'm not going to delete it). Are you seriously unable to accept that someone thinks the article is appropriate? Please, let it stay. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2017 (EDT)

OK, I am so sick of this dispute that I brought it to Conservapedia:Community Portal for other editors to discuss and comment on. Please do not revert my edits on the Donald Trump achievements article until we have a clear consensus on the community portal. Thanks. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2017 (EDT)

I also asked Andy what he thinks. Please do not revert until we have an answer. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2017 (EDT)

Your block

Believe me, I have been very patient with you. I waited a long time, and I tolerated dozens of reversions, but your editing behavior on Donald Trump achievements is intolerable. Not only do you have some motivation to make the article much more negative (with an apparently liberal POV) than it must, but you are almost impossible to work with. I'm always the one who goes to the talk pages. I was forced to block you for three days. Please change your behavior when your block ends.

I am very stressed for multiple reasons right now, and you are adding to that stress. Please, change your behavior. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:57, 15 June 2017 (EDT)

Coolguy's talk page

Coolguy is no longer an active editor. I am going to keep his talk page deleted for administrative purposes unless you are able to reverse his block though discussion with Karajou and/or Aschlafly. Feel free to use the community forum at Conservapedia:Community Portal for any discussion on the matter.

I don't have the time and/or inclination to referee a dispute between you and Karajou right now due to competing priorities. Conservative (talk) 10:49, 19 June 2017 (EDT)

Opposition to D.T.

I reverted your trimming on the Donald Trump achievements article because I think it should not be trimmed. All this information that you trimmed I will add to a "2017" sub-article of the D.T. achievements series at the end of the year. Once I do that, then I (or you) can/will trim the main article. I know that the information is largely duplicated in the "Opposition to Donald Trump" article, but in time that won't be the case anymore (for example, you added polling data to the second article, and I will add "opposition" sections to many if not all of the "D.T. achievements" articles. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:37, 22 June 2017 (EDT)

This discussion belongs on the talk page of the article. JDano (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2017 (EDT)

Key project

There is a key project that Andy Schlafly wants me to work on. It is an important project. It is one of the most important projects in Conservapedia's history. If you would like to get involved in the project, please contact me at: markjones13571113@gmail.com

If possible, I would like to see the project launch this weekend or at the latest, this month.Conservative (talk) 07:36, 23 June 2017 (EDT)

You are not allowed to edit the travel ban article anymore

You are not allowed to edit the travel ban article anymore. I am imposing a Conservapedia:Topic ban on you for this article.

By the way, Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in terms of Muslim population. The travel ban of the Trump administration does not include Indonesia. Conservative (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

You are not allowed to edit the fake news article

The fake news article was locked/protected. It seems as if the root cause of the page being locked was an edit war involving yourself.

You are no longer allowed to edit the fake news article. I am imposing a Conservapedia topic ban on you for this article. See: Conservapedia:Topic ban

I hope additional topic bans are not imposed on you by people with block rights. Conservative (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

re: Donald Trump, Lindsey Graham and the topic bans

I know you are a fan of Lindsey Graham.

This article was just published: The damndest thing:' How Lindsey Graham became an ally of Donald Trump

The reason I put the topic bans on you for Fake news and Travel ban is that you seem to have a bit of "Never Trump". It's causing unnecessary conflict. The unnecessary conflict needs to end.

If Lindsey Graham was able to make peace with Trump and become an ally of his, you should be able to have peaceful relations with Conservapedians who are pro-Trump. Conservative (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

Just thought I'd add my two cents. I think this so-called "travel ban" is useless in part because it doesn't include known terrorist state Saudi Arabia, probably because Trump has so many business dealings there. Nonetheless, such "edit wars" are not going to yield positive results for anyone in the end and will cause unnecessary headaches. I'm an old earth creationist personally, but I know that I would face something similar if I tried edit warring over old versus young earth creationism. The administration of this site understandably has control over the editorial direction of the site, and unlike Wikipedia this site doesn't have pretend neutrality, which is a good thing. --Anglican (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

My first loyality is to Conservapedia and its readers. I believe we can do a better job than Wikipedia in producing a high-quality encyclopedia. I am not "never-Trump" or "always Graham" or "always Rubio". I vote and follow politics, but none of us are here to push any politician's agenda. If you believe I am going too far in one politician's direction, tell me, but don't revert me when I spot someone else going too far in a biased direction. Thanks, JDano (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

I don't know much about Graham other than he locked horns with Trump during the campaign and that he is probably a hawk when it comes to defense.

I do have good reason to believe that the fake news article was locked due to your edit warring. It should have never come to that. That is why I imposed the topical bans. They are a shot across your bow. I told 1990sguy about the topic bans and I told other admins about the topic bans.Conservative (talk) 00:59, 29 June 2017 (EDT)

JDano, are you saying that we should never revert your edits? The reason why I revert many of your edits is that I think they insert liberal bias into CP. You are correct: we should put any politician's agenda. However, we should push the policies advocated by a politician. If you read the Conservative article, I think it is clear that the Trump Administration is adhering more closely to it than a Romney, Graham, McCain, or any Bush Administration ever even could. Thus, attacking Trump for petty things like a "Comey tapes" (he did not even definitively say that tapes existed) does not advance conservative views (we can note this on appropriate articles, like White Hous tapes, but not in the fake news article where it simply does not belong). Have you ever added information that portrayed Trump in a positive, rather than negative light? my problem with your edits is much more than just Trump. It is with citing Breitbart articles, the definition of fake news, and your editing behaviors in general. You need to go to the talk page, or at least explain your edit summaries every change you are making, rather than (over and over again) make deceptive edit summaries along the lines of "trimming" or "improving" or "add ref" when you are really just reverting the same changes that I reverted due to liberal bias. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:03, 29 June 2017 (EDT)

1990sguy does not understand the typical edit summary explanations. He has too much ego invested in his edits and tries to exert "ownership" over pages, including pages where he has not even generated most of the content, or comes in very late in the page's development. This makes collaboration with him very difficult, and it has to change. JDano (talk) 07:06, 29 June 2017 (EDT)

You asked me to stop "false personal attacks on other editors", and now you're doing the same? Is this edit summary accurate? Or this? (which does more than "reword") Or this? These edit summaries are bad, not only because they are not accurate, but also because you made these edits when it was clear there was an edit war. It seems you prefer trying to sneak in information that, at best, there is no support for, rather than going to the talk page to argue for your changes. Many editors make edits on articles that I watch, and I don't mind. Many of your edits I think are bad, and the vast majority of editors agree with me. It has zero to do with "page ownership" but rather making sure the articles meet CP policy rather than becoming like Wikipedia. Your behaviors have made working together very difficult, and many of your views, regardless of their validity, diverge from the rest of CP's editors. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:11, 29 June 2017 (EDT)

Personal attacks

JDano, just yesterday, you asked me to "please stop writing inflammatory edit summaries" (I had reason to write them, but I apologized anyway) and you called for everyone to "stop putting words into each other's mouths". However, now it is you who are throwing personal attacks at me. Please stop.

You falsely accused me of not understanding how exit summaries work (I think it is you who is not using them correctly) and falsely attacked me for my "ego" and "page ownership."

In another comment, you again attacked me for "poor showing" of "page ownership".

You even questioned my competance (I was the only person to edit the material you commented on).

JDano, you are making this personal, and I don't want to even go near there. If you think I have something against you personally, you are flat-out wrong. I reverted your edits and used inflammatory edit summaries because of what I legitimately believe to be inserting liberal bias in various articles, continuing to revert, edit war, and add content with no support from other editors (that again has liberal bias), using deceptive edit summaries even in the middle of edit wars, and your lack of interest of going to the talk page when your edits are reverted.

If you continue attacking my character, I will report you to CP's administrators and ask them to take action against you because of it. Stop. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:17, 29 June 2017 (EDT)