User talk:98.232.27.135

Aww, did RJJensen block you? Poor diddums. 01:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Maaaaaaaaybe. Eh, it is frustrating. But if he wants to rid Conservapedia of good editors, fine. My track record on conservapedia is that of a good editor, whose mistake should have been viewed as an innocent error of judgment. The edit he claims ruined my credibility was a simple error of judgment. Nothing more, nothing less. Vandalism is a purposeful intent to disrupt or delete article's, which is exactly what (in perfect irony) RJJensen did. 98.232.27.135 02:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So complain about it there if it was an honest mistake. And as far as RJ erasing everything you've done; while I'd hate to agree with RJJensen on anything, he is correct, in my opinion, that your apparent vandalism undermined your other edits, as well.  02:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How so? Are you arguing that one honest mistake verifies the deletion of not just one, two, three, or four major article edits, but five quality edits? Your argument assumes that humans cannot make a mistake. And it has no basis to justify five deletions (vandalism) of other articles that were deleted by RJJensen. 98.232.27.135 02:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct, humans do make mistakes. But, RJJensen deleted those edits because they were made by you and, because you appeared to have vandalized the site, your edits no longer could be trusted.  RJ's logic for what call "his vandalism" is concrete, in my opinion.  Your credibility there was undermined.  Now whether or not you vandalized the site or made a mistake isn't really any of my business or, to be even more blunt, "since it's not my wiki, it's not my concern." 02:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That makes sense to me now, after considering his point of view and the logic he must have used to determine that ALL of my edits now vandalism. Which is too bad. Though the logic makes sense, it's flawed because it doesn't take into account quality or context of the edits. It just mashes them all into one pile called, according to RJ, "nasty work." The funny part is, he deleted some very important discussions I had started that involved improving Conservapedia's SEO practices. He also deleted the entire Jim Cramer page I created, which took me a long time to research and write (it looks almost nothing like Wikipedia's horrible biography about him).


 * Things are deteriorating at CP. Andy once blocked me for 1 month for vandalism because I had such a good track record of edit the helped the wiki. Unfortunately for them, I spent most of the month here and when my block expired I didn't feel like going back. I think I made two edits and then gave up. 02:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... well, what's the difference between the two Wiki spaces? You have me intrigued. :-) 98.232.27.135 02:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ?   02:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Dude, why not take out a fuckin' account? One of Us Now! One of Us Now! One of Us Now! RaoulDuke 02:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, now that you've felt the icy cold feeling of a permaban. 03:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Deal. :-) Creating an account right now... 98.232.27.135 03:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually this revert, assuming that it was done purely on grounds of "he's a vandal so I'll revert everything he's done", was pretty stupid. The childish language: "Pablo Picasso (1881-1973) was a Spanish artist who did both painting and sculpting." reverted to; is abysmal. 14:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)