User:Diebot/User talk:RobSmith

This is a backup of the currently deleted revision 900208 at Conservapedia
title:	User talk:RobSmith
timestamp:	2011-08-13T02:28:34Z
user:	Jcw
comment:	/* Polite request */ Removed pot-stirring by troll
page-id:	11675
rev-id:	900208

ARCHIVES

Archive 1 (warning: > 90k) | Archive 2 (warning: > 58k)

Archive 3 (warning: > 92k) | Archive 4 (warning: > 136k) | Archive 5 (warning: > 79k)

User:RobSmith/Workspace1

---

Request

Is there a means of emailing you at all? I noticed the option was not available on the sidebar and I have an issue I wish to raise that would best be dealt with in such a manner WilliamB1 21:50, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

<nobs03@gmail.com> Rob Smith 21:52, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

Barack Obama

Here is the subpage we discussed: Talk:Barack Hussein Obama/update. I figure for now we can use it as a sandbox for really any ideas - and we don't have to worry about it being the actual article until later.--IDuan 19:59, 2 May 2011 (EDT)

I've made a few edits to the update article - I'm gonna leave it as is for a little to give you a chance to look over them and add some info yourself.--IDuan 13:07, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

Update: I used two sections from the original article (the current edition - so really your work) for the Economic section (which I had to update due to expired links), the campaign section and a section on Jeremiah Wright (who I think was certainly significant enough to warrant his own section). I also wrote relatively complete sections on Popular Bills, Libya, Don't Ask Don't Tell and his career in the Illinois State Senate, and started stubs on many other sections.

I'd like to move the update to the mainspace in about a week. Obviously it's no where near a finished product - images haven't been transferred over and there are even blank sections (and to be clear: I don't think it should be moved until at the very least the sections of Afghanistan, Iraq and Healthcare are at least partly written), but I think it's important to get the updated information (the new information, really, on subjects like Libya) out to the main article, and I think having the update in the mainspace will inspire more editors to contribute.

For now my focus is on trimming down some of the sections (already the article is looking a little too long - although it'll be much shorter than the current edition) and writing others I'll give you another update soon. Let me know what you think--IDuan 04:04, 7 May 2011 (EDT)

I hope to get a few hours in on it this weekend. Rob Smith 10:52, 7 May 2011 (EDT)

Awesome. I actually think we can go ahead and move the timetable forward a bit. Once we have a bit more on early life, the gulf oil spill and guantanamo bay - potentially by sunday night, I'd like to go ahead and move it in and open it up unless you have an objection.--IDuan 17:08, 7 May 2011 (EDT)

We got a good start; I have to find somewhere for most of the older material we're rotating out. Are you proposing get most of the b ackground information in now, and by Sunday night open up the more current presidency to open editing, albeit with the structures we're working out now? Rob Smith 17:34, 7 May 2011 (EDT)

I'm proposing that Sunday night we literally copy-paste switch the articles - I'd like for the current edition to stay around as a subpage since there's definitely more information we want to get from that and going to the history every time will be a hassle. But yeah before we do that I'd like to get more background information in. The Early life section - while perhaps being a bit too long in the current edition - definitely needs expansion since we don't have an article dedicated to that (whereas it's okay that the election sections are rather skimpy for now, because we have an entire article dedicated to the election)--IDuan 17:40, 7 May 2011 (EDT)

Ok good. I created Early life and career of Barack Hussein Obama as a place to park most of the older detailed information, rather than half a dozen separate articles. We'll probbly end up having two or three redirects to this article and its subheadings. Rob Smith 17:51, 7 May 2011 (EDT)

Excellent - let's be sure to main article that from the early life section. Just so you know I removed a few of the shorter sections that you added (mostly because I think - keeping in mind this article is really a summary article - that two sentence sections just disrupt the narrative), but also because I did take issue with a few points. Ultimately though I just trimmed it out. I explained my reasoning - and that I'm open to putting them back in if you insist - on the talk page.--IDuan 20:13, 7 May 2011 (EDT)

Okay! I made the switch - the unupdated version is where the updated version used to be and vice versa. Let's see how more editors respond to this - hopefully they can help it grow. You've done a great job forking some of the old worthwhile content and making new articles, by the way; I really think that is the best solution (cause otherwise my - and i'm sure others' - browser crashes!) Here we go!--IDuan 23:37, 7 May 2011 (EDT)

I'll let the other sysops know; we've had great success with Google so they might express some concern. We'll see what happens. Rob Smith 23:40, 7 May 2011 (EDT)

Ahh understandable. Ultimately I think what you and I did was knock of 100kb while still managing to broaden the scope in areas that it need to be broadened too, so hopefully we have even more success with Google going forward.--IDuan 23:48, 7 May 2011 (EDT)

And for whenever you have time I shot you an email :) --IDuan 00:33, 8 May 2011 (EDT)

Obama portrait

Why did you apply a gray tone to the official Obama portrait? It seems like the only rason was to make the photo less appealing to people. Aaabbb 16:37, 12 May 2011 (EDT)

This might sound odd, but I actually think the photo looks more realistic in the edited version - it's just toned down. Obama's skin - due to artificial lighting - looks orange in the original. Also - look at how much the flag pops in the original - isn't the new version more similar to portraits of other presidents'? (Compare that the flag doesn't pop at all in :File:George w bush.jpeg.)--IDuan 17:57, 12 May 2011 (EDT)

thank you

I'll try and stay out of trouble--CamilleT 18:12, 31 May 2011 (EDT)

congrats

Great work on Barack Hussein Obama's page. Please give me some pointers to get Palin's ranking higher than 84 on Google. --Jpatt 07:03, 6 June 2011 (EDT)

It was Iduan's idea; we just scaled it down to meet the recommended 32kb size for faster page loads. It ended up being about 20% in size from the original, both in kb's & number of external links. It's a matter of getting relevent, current content. Spin off the older stuff into side articles w/links. Also, Google does like fresher content versus older stuff that sits there for years. Rob Smith 16:19, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

email notification

Do you have server access? If you do, could you please enable e-mail notification for user preferences? I like getting an email when someone leaves a message on my talk page, and it seems odd that this option is disabled. Thank you.--CamilleT 20:21, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

I just noticed that the other day; I'll look into it (can't promise quick results). Rob Smith 21:35, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

thx--CamilleT 21:38, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

Any progress on this? Thank you once more

Also, if I could make a suggestion: adding </div> to the end of the fifth line of your user page's source, it would resolve the tiny tabs problem you seem to be having.--CamilleT 16:08, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

Yes, we're gonna need some technical help to fix it. Let me inquire. Rob Smith 16:53, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

I find that if I switch from Conserv "default" in Preferences--> Appearance--> to Cologne Blue or Classic, I have access to the email function. --Jpatt 17:28, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

Thank you, JPatt, I tried that, but to no avail. It's alright, though. I'll survive without email notification :) --CamilleT 18:01, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

Me too. Didn't work. But I'd like to get email notifications working again. Is it in the MediaWiki ware or what? Rob Smith 21:14, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

Someone with server access would have to do it. Can Ed Poor do it?

Also, here is the corrected source code for your user page. Simply take this and replace it with your user page and it'll be completely normal. The lack of a </div> tag caused it to go all screwy.--CamilleT 21:27, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

I think it's fixed. Thanks! been screwed up forever, bestin I recollect. Rob Smith 21:32, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

No problem. You should probably delete the page I created, unless you want to keep it to experiment or something--CamilleT 21:34, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

I muse

Would writing a satirical essay titled Is Conservapedia funded by George Soros? be a bannable offense? Do essay space edits count against me for the 90/10 rule? What about debate edits? Thank you--CamilleT 19:55, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

I see no reason it would be. Sounds kinda funny. I look forward to seeing it. Rob Smith 21:29, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

re: your recent request of me

You recently suggested in a cordial manner for me to open my talk page for editing again. I complied with your request and set some reasonable guidelines for those who wish to post to my talk page. Best wishes on your new initiative. conservative 01:44, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

Good. I've been speaking with several editors and reminded them their interaction with other users should be based on how they themselves wish to be treated. To get respect you show respect. Let's hope it works. Rob Smith 23:58, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

As per your request. I will be glad to contact

As per your request, I will be glad to contact you. Judging from our last communication, I am sure we can come to some mutual agreement. conservative 19:46, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

Enjoyed communicating with you today. You made some good points. Best wishes with your new initiative. conservative 22:08, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

templates/infobox's

could you, or another admin who knows how to, create conservapedia versions of wikipedia's game series and video game infoboxes. danke in advance, sorry if if i should have put this somewhere else. --SeanS 18:21, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

Sorry, this is beyond my limited capacities and technical skills. I haven't the vaguest idea what any of it is. Rob Smith 19:39, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

Ah, ok. I just wanted to ask.--SeanS 19:49, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

quick note about talk page protection being removed from comedy/satires

I decided to unlock the talk page of the comedy/satire pages and you can read why here: Conservapedia:Community Portal Best wishes on your new initiative. I also decided to not participate in the community portal anymore and you can read about one of the reasons why here: Conservapedia:Community Portal I think it provided helpful feedback but I have some other things I want to pursue at this time. Again, best wishes on your new initiative. conservative 07:15, 7 July 2011 (EDT)

Well, thank you. And we'll keep them locked. Muzzle not th ox, and you've certainly been the workhorse trampling out the grain here. Rob Smith 16:06, 7 July 2011 (EDT)

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservative Personalities article

Hi! I noticed that the point in Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservative Personalities regarding flattering vs. unflattering photos uses the example of Sally Kern, but the CP article doesn't have a single photo of her. Would you please upload one and add it to the article? It would help make the point in the Bias article. Thanks! SharonW 09:41, 8 July 2011 (EDT)

I would suggest asking ASchafly for pic uploading rights. I don't think there would be a problem for you to get the right to do this - especially since you want to create bio pages and geography related articles. Conservative 11:29, 8 July 2011 (EDT)

User:TK

I believe we have the intention to preserve "User:TK" as he left it as a "Memorial". --Joaquín Martínez 17:05, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

I understand, but because of the CP Sysop template he was coming up as an active Administrator in :Category:Conservapedia Administrators which creates some confusion. We'd have to create a new or separate category for template for former or inactive sysops which seems to me a lotta work. Somebody else might wish to do it. Rob Smith 17:23, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

Thanks for archiving

Thanks for archiving!--Andy Schlafly 23:32, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

re: my talk page

RobS, if you removed the protection of my talk page, please do not remove the protection of my user talk page again. According to Conservapedia's civility guidelines, a talk page is a person's castle: http://conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Guidelines#Civility I really do not want to pestered by childish members of a wiki vandal website who are known to engage in wiki vandalism and other childish and underhanded tactics. My apologies if you did not remove the protection. Thank you. Conservative 23:19, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

Please stop deleting other peoples user pages. Everyone - regardless if they are an atheist or RW editor - should be treated with the same basic courtesies and respect you yourself wish to be treated. Thank you. Rob Smith 16:50, 12 July 2011 (EDT)

From the figures in the Bible who are there to serve as an example, I see the principle of treating people not with a cookie cutter approach but depending on how they act, etc. etc. I really don't have a cookie cutter approach as far as how I deal with members of different groups, members of various websites, etc. Each case is different. Second, there are biblical injunctions to treat a fool as his folly deserves yet there are also biblical injuctions to show esteem towards individuals. There are also biblical examples of people being ignored in some instances. At the same, I do realize that wikis are cooperative efforts and every effort should be made to get along. The Apostle Paul said: "If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men." Given my recent private email to you what was explained to you, I have no further comment to say on this matter at this time. Conservative 19:17, 12 July 2011 (EDT)

• Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you...

I'm not certain Proverbs says anything about treating a fool as fool, it says go from the presence of the fool. The NT (Jesus, that is) says "Whoever says 'Thou Raca' is in danger of hellfire". You seem to be saying what I hear all the time at RW from atheists, that is, you're confused what the bible says because of (in your perception) contradictions. So you do as you please. If you're unsure what God says, or means, then perhaps you should be careful invoking his name, i.e. taking it in vain.

For my money, I think it's simple enough for a child to understand, and it wouldn't make sense for God to do it any other way. Who are you arguing with when you argue with atheists? the demons believe, and tremble (James 2:19). You could be a demon, for all I know.

But this dime-store psychotherapy is off the point. Conservapedia needs Sysop accountability, and we'll only get it from and among other Sysops. This wiki has been severely harmed by a lack of sysop acountability for several years, and now is the time to change. I hope you would seriously consider working with me and helping craft some policies and guidelines for CP Sysops. We have a tremendous opportunity to fix that right now. Rob Smith 20:25, 12 July 2011 (EDT)

I don't think the Bible has contradictions and careful Bible exegesis is needed concerning claims that it is. The Bible does say atheists are fools. Second, the Bible has different advice on dealing with fools and does not offer a cookie cutter approach. Psalm 14:1-3 Here are examples: 1)Here are two verses: "Like snow in summer and like rain in harvest, So honor is not fitting for a fool." Proverbs 26:1 "Answer a fool as his folly deserves, That he not be wise in his own eyes." Proverbs 26:5. 2) This verse would seem to indicate that coming across a fool is not a good thing: "Let a man meet a bear robbed of her cubs, Rather than a fool in his folly." Proverbs 17:12 You could argue from this verse to ignore fools in some cases and just walk in another direction. Lastly, I am not against Sysop accountability and I am guessing that some additional effort will be made in this area although I don't see layers and layers of rules that are often ignored like Wikipedia. Given what I wrote to you in my private email and the adequate clarification I just provided, I am going to refrain from talking about this matter further at this point. Perhaps, we will discuss this matter more fully at a future point but my guess is that this will not be necessary. Conservative 20:59, 12 July 2011 (EDT)

a request

RobS, I sent you a cordial email. If you could be so kind to honor my request, it would be appreciated.Conservative 02:46, 12 July 2011 (EDT)

Duude

Bro, I think anti-life is a better term for pro-abortion. That's basically what those damn hippies are, they hate human life. Please don't revert. {{unsigned|Broham}}

User:Adultery

You shortened my block of User:Adultery. Now I understand the concept of forgiveness and assuming a possibility of future good-faith efforts, but not only was the user's actions malicious, but the name is a username violation. Do we want someone editing under the name "adultery," which is a sin? Are our policies any more harsh than Wikipedia's? Take a look at this block log. Blatant trolls are blocked indefinitely at Wikipedia. Is Wikipedia a successful, well-known, often-used project? Do we want to be a conservative version of Wikipedia, a high traffic website, or do we want to be a conservative version of a little-known online rat cage? DMorris 17:26, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

All infinite blocks are currently under review, and there's litally tens ofthouands of them. No sense adding to the workload at the moment. Perhaps you'd care to participate in helping to craft a clearer, more coherent blocking policy at Conservapedia:Community_Portal#Proposal_1.3B_re:blocking. Thanks. Rob Smith 17:49, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

Okay, now I understand. DMorris 18:32, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

Political Cards

Need any help with them? I've had many debates with liberals and I have been able to isolate their flawed debate tactics. NickP 00:33, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

Yah, we need to get it done. Rob Smith 00:45, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

How are these that I added? NickP 00:49, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

Look good. We may have to shuffle em down the deck a ways. Rob Smith 00:51, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

Sorry about the poor order. Should we arrange them alphabetically? NickP 00:52, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

Probably not; Thus far I grouped them according to general themes for impact, readability and flow. When they're completed we can look at them again and decide on an order. Rob Smith 15:21, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

since your active

user: DavidGilmou1 is a vandal--SeanS 18:49, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

User:Legendman3

He appears to be a parodist/troll, based on this post. I recommend a look into it. In Christ,--JamesWilson 15:43, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

Some non-urgent housekeeping

Hey (and thanks also here for the unblock)!

Minor bit of housekeeping: Could you move Community portal/archive1 to Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive1?

Not quite so minor bit of housekeeping: Special:DoubleRedirects and Special:BrokenRedirects contain a number of redirects that should be fixed/deleted, but I couldn't fix/tag them since they're locked.

Like I said, all very non-urgent, but stuff I noticed while I was doing an initial once-over while moving back in. :) --Sid 3050 15:07, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

Will do. Found you're Glossary last night, Categorized it and linked to the Conservapedia:New sysop training page. That's good stuff. I'm using :Category:Conservapedia Administration to collect these orphaned pages for the time being. Rob Smith 15:22, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

Funny thing - while going through my watchlist for the first time in four years, I actually saw that article listed (though didn't click it). Totally forgot that I ever edited it! It'll take me days just to get back to my feet here. XD --Sid 3050 15:26, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

Hi

I just wanted to thank you for all the work you've been putting in here. While I might not understand all of it, I know much of it is greatly needed. SharonW 20:54, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

Well thank you. There's a backlog of maintenence to do, so if we could get editors alittle more organized and motivated to participate in various projects, like the Conservapedia:Featured articles committee, it might just make the whole experience a whole lot more interesting and fun for everyone. Rob Smith 21:00, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

Why?

Why did you revert my edits? The links were broken. --MiloK 23:47, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

I got the youtube video when I clicked on it. Rob Smith 23:50, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

Debt Ceiling

Thank you for the help on the Debt Ceiling article. The article looks much better than it did before. Unfortunately I don't have as much time to contribute as I would like, but if you have any pages that you want help with if you ask me I'll get to them as soon as I can. --MRellek 21:11, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

Right now, there's nothing pressing in your specialty (Chem & Math) I know of. But Libyan War 2011 would look nicer for Main Page Feature status presentation if the footnotes were tidied up and made presentable rather than just bare links. And it needs proofreading, etc. Rob Smith 21:51, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

That sounds good. I'll look into it and see if there is anything that I can do. --MRellek 21:52, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

Move request

Hi RobSmith, I saw you moving a Libya page and wondering if you could look at this request? Thanks, MaxFletcher 22:57, 19 July 2011 (EDT) Thanks you RobSmith. MaxFletcher 23:25, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

Name blocking stuff

Sorry about that!--JamesWilson 22:35, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

No problem. I left you a note on another matter. Rob Smith 22:38, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

I disagree with the edit, but unblocked the user. I will have to be much more careful on non-blatant vandalism.--JamesWilson 22:47, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

Well thank you. It's just a matter of engaging a new editor in good faith. This editor is probably making the point Buddha didn't beleive in Jehovah God of the Judea-Christian bible, which may be a valid point. The question remains whether believers in multiple gods, or false idols, are athiests or not, and that is another matter. Rob Smith 22:52, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

I replied on my page, and yes, Buddha did not believe in the Judeo-Christian God. I agree with you, and will be much more careful. So, a note on a user talk page for aa user with a non-profane inappropriate name and not used for conducting vandalism should suffice.--JamesWilson 22:57, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

Right. We want to help these people, not be dictatorial and drive them away. We want to help them become better editors. Rob Smith 16:16, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

Gotcha.--JamesWilson 16:19, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

Elvis Presley

I am working on greatly expanding this article and am wondering if you could help with images. Before I started working on it, there already were pictures of Elvis at the Aloha from Hawaii concert and a family portrait. Could you find pictures of perhaps the 50's Elvis and a movie photo if you get the time. Many thanks. In Christ,--JamesWilson 00:02, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

Commiserations

You did your best. No-one that matters thinks any the worse of you just because you failed. Good luck with your future projects. --DamianJohn 14:46, 25 July 2011 (EDT)

I appreciate very much your encouragement. I don't know what's next. Conservapedia won't become a vibrant and cohesive community until this arbitrary blocking is finally dealt with. Sysops have too much power, and are unaccountable. Editors are terrified and have every disincentive not to contribute. Conservapedia thinks it can re-invent the wheel dealing with trolls and vandalism. It's efforts have failed, and it's too proud to admit in can learn from other's experience. Rob Smith 15:27, 25 July 2011 (EDT)

Please respect my time and my polite request

Please respect my time and my polite request.

I told you via email a few things and some of them include:

1. I have a very busy schedule for the short term.

2. I no longer want you to post to my talk page (or user page) given that I don't believe you are a respecter of my time and that you are an unreasonable person. I had also told you that if you have something extremely important that you absolutely need to relay please do it via Andy Schlafly. I believe you are far less likely to waste my time if you have to relay matters via Mr. Schlafly.

3. I also said that I was willing to work out a mutually agreed blocking policy with you and Karajou plus Mr. Schlafly if he wanted to participate. I laid out a few pre-conditions for that September meeting to occur given that I don't believe you respect my time. I also said I unblocked you as far as receiving personal emails so you could tell me if you wanted to participate in such a meeting.

I am adamant that BobSherman was a parodist. Karajou and Mr. Schlafly agree with me. I no longer wish to discuss this with you.

Please stop leaving me messages using my talk page or user page. I no longer have interest in what you have to say to me because you don't respect my time. I am no longer interested in having that September meeting with you. Again, please stop posting messages to me using my talk page or user page. If you have something very important and urgent to tell me, please go through Mr. Schlafly as I feel you will be far less likely to waste my time via unreasonable and trivial matters this way. I have once again blocked you from sending me personal emails. I don't see myself unblocking you for the foreseeable future.

I regret telling you the above, but I don't believe you are giving me other options. I suggest working out a blocking policy with Karajou and Mr. Schlafly since you have very different ideas about blocking than Karajou does and I suspect he is going to be far more active than me for the next 45 days at Conservapedia concerning blocking. Conservative 04:31, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

Posted this message to Aschafly's talk page

I just posted this message to Aschafly's talk page:

At User talk:RobSmith I repeated my request for him to no longer post to my talk page or user page as I don't believe he respects my time plus I believe he is an unreasonable person. I shouldn't have had to repeat this request to him given that I told him I have a very busy schedule in the short term. I told RobS that if he has something very important and urgent to tell me please relay through Mr. Schafly as I believe he will be far less likely to send me unreasonable and trivial messages this way.

RobS just tried to bring up me blocking user BobSherman again via my talk page. You, myself and Karajou believes this person is a parodist. RobS knows BobSherman lied at our wiki. There is no pressing need to keep rehashing the blocking of a parodist liar.

If RobS continues to post to my talk page or user page, please remove his sysop powers which will preclude him from continuing to leave messages on my talk page. I also suggest that you, Karajou and RobS work out a block policy as Karajou and RobS have very different ideas about blocking. My position on blocking is somewhere between Karajou's and RobS's approach. Perhaps, no refinement of our blocking policy is needed and good judgment concerning our existing blocking policy is all that is needed and the differences in blocking is not the central issue but rather who has blocking powers and Sysop powers and who should no longer have those privileges. Conservative 05:27, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

Guidelines

Hi Rob, I appreciate the work you a trying to get done here. If you need my help formulating anything just let me know. I haven't been here long, that I know, but I am always polite and feel the best way to grow a community is by being respectful of each other. Thanks. MaxFletcher 22:18, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

Well thank you. One would be a review of Conservapedia:Blocking_policy; be bold in updating, the page is unlocked. When we have some good ideas to work with it will be presented to the site owner for consideration and approval. Another is Conservapedia:Vandalism, and it is sad sad sad. If you have ideas you could start on the discussion page there. It's a priority item I just haven't been able to get to. Rob Smith 23:12, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

That's OK, I want to be a part of this wiki and I agree that there some seems to be a lack of accountability. I will take baby steps though because I don't want to be blocked - on the contrary, I want to help! MaxFletcher 23:15, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

Good! It's a New Era! This is the kinder, gentler, Conservapedia. Baby steps may be smart, we still have unresolved issues. But sysop dictatorial rule has been put in a box. After those pages are updated and presented for approval, we then need a sound definition of good faith. Then we'll get the ball rolling. Rob Smith 23:25, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

Please review this and let me know what you think. Thanks. MaxFletcher 23:56, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

Hi Rob, did you have a look at my proposed guidelines? I tried to alert Conservative also but I can't post on either his talkpage nor where he posted his own guidelines so don't know if he saw my suggestions. MaxFletcher 19:41, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

Yes, hope to get to much of it tonite. In lieu of a committee, I would propose a sole bureraucat (either from among existing bureaucrats or another created at the site owners pleasure) be tasked with Blocking Review. Not all cases would necessisarily be reviewed upon appeal, but the bureacrat would be tasked with periodically reviewing a blocking editor or sysop's blocking habits, tweaking blocking policy, discussing problematic blocks with blocking editors and sysops, and ultimately the ability to desysop a blocking editor or sysop who persistly abuses blocking rights after having been counceled what is and what not an appropriate block. Rob Smith 19:54, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

As I am a mere user with blocking rights I certainly have no "power" as such but am more than willing to do the leg work and compile a weekly "blocklist" for the reviewer t go through. I can email it or post it here and the reviewer can then go through and look at them all. MaxFletcher 19:58, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

I guess my question would be "Who watches the watchman?" If a sole bureaucrat is tasked with the job, what happens if said bureaucrat turns out to be abusive? Or, in a less extreme case, what if said bureaucrat simply becomes busy with real life and begins to neglect the job of review? I think you need to have procedures in there for replacing him if necessary. --Benp 20:15, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

Let's call it, the Blocking Review Bureaucrat who serves at the pleaseure of the site owner. This site has 2, maybe 3 bureaucrats. It could be one of them, or a senior, active sysop promoted to the spot. They would be tasked with periodically reviewing sysop and editor blocks, tweaking policy, and counceling sysops and editors on current blocking procedures. They could reduce and undo blocks, and have an option based on time constraints, to listen to or ignore appeals (cause this could be just another form of trolling). When undoing or reducing a block, the Blocking Review 'crat should publicly councel the original blocking editor so everyone can understand current policy. If a blocking editor or sysop persistently continues with excessive or unjustfiable blocks, the Blocking Review 'crat has the authority to remove their blocking rights. The Blocking Review 'crat functions primarily as a foreman for sysops and blocking editors, and not as an Appeal Board for blocked users. Rob Smith 20:55, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

Admittedly, I liked Conservative's idea of a board to review the cases of blocks. Perhaps a group of, we'll say, 3 users (2 sysops and 1 regular user or vice versa, preferably the former) would suffice. The idea of only one user/sysop as the be all/end all blocking regulator could be conducive to corruption; i.e. if the particular user/sysop in the position were not to be on the up and up. I do agree with not using an 'appeal board' for blocked users, however. The determination of a false block, IMO, should be up to the board and the board alone. WesleyS^Hello! 21:43, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

We just don't have enough established users. The position is geared more to getting editors with blocking rights--including sysops--into a more uniform, user friendly way of doing things, rather than the tedious process of case by case review. And a Committee quickly gets bogged down in cases rather than adding or improving articles, bringing blocking editors up againt the 90/10 rule. As the Community grows, then more established, trusted users could be asked to get involved in administrative tasks like a case by case appeals process. But we're not there yet. Rob Smith 21:56, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

While this may be true, I just think that there should be more than one board member. Perhaps once the community grows, as you've stated, then maybe the board can expand. And I should say thank you for trying to establish these guidelines. WesleyS^Hello! 22:06, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

Could I raise an issue related to blocking? When I signed up I was not asked for an email address, nor can I see anywhere in my preferences that I can provide one. Accordingly, Conservapedia email is not available to me. If blocked therefore I will be unable to email the blocking sysop (or anyone else for that matter). Is this right or is it just that my technical abilities are wanting? --JarradD 20:25, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

It's inactive at this time, so most all interactions are supposed to be on the open wiki; this is one issue we hope to address at some point. Rob Smith 20:55, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

Federal Debt Limit

Thanks for the cites!--JamesWilson 12:51, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

And are we going to feature it tonight? I already created a new archive page and put Libya in it.--JamesWilson 16:08, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

I'll do it now; attention is near its peak. Rob Smith 16:11, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

Unlock

Are you able to unlock the talkpage for this page so imight comment? MaxFletcher 22:52, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

Ha, you beat me to it as I wanted to make some comments about image protection. CA†HERINE 22:57, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

Block

Hi Rob,

I wasn't blocking Daviddunalewicz for editing a debate page, but for this obviously false page discovered by CPalmer that is clearly parody. Jcw 13:46, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

Per this note I've reblocked the user with a smaller expiry time; infinite seemed excessive, in my opinion.--IDuan 13:52, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

Alright, good catch -- my mistake, I'm sorry. I'm sure we're going to be tested how serious CP is about reforming blocking policy and I myself acted too hastily in this one. Good work, all. Rob Smith 15:40, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Featured articles

User:TracyS has raised concerns about the mainpage layout. Could you take a look? Thanks!--JamesWilson 10:58, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

General question

Why doesn't Conservapedia have a litmus test for editors? It's called Conservapedia after all. I understand there may be topics where the conservative position may be debatable (immigration policy or drug policy for example). However, most people reading Conservapedia don't want to read the liberal claptrap that Wikipedia offers. Being a conservative encyclopedia project, I believe, we mist go beyond just dispassionately listing facts. We must provide critical analysis of the facts. Of course, the facts we cite should be verifiable, but the conservative analysis here is what I think the value of this project is. HP 21:36, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

Grrr

I'm making my angry face. PatK 07:08, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

Please block this PatK, reviewing his edits shows hes an obvious,parodist/vandal/troll, also can you delete all the pages he is creating. --MRellek 09:59, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

Sid

Rob,

I know you've taken a personal interest in Sid. Could you please speak to him concerning Andy's talkpage? I'm not sure he understands that I'm trying to keep this from becoming any more of a mob scene than it already is. I think, based on your previous comments and actions, that you agree with me that it's not appropriate to turn a user's talkpage into a general debate forum, and that the issue would be better resolved elsewhere.

What I'm concerned will happen is that, if mass numbers of new and inexperienced users keep chiming in on Andy's talkpage, he'll eventually lose his patience with the clutter, at which point large numbers of people will wind up blocked. I'd like to avoid that, if at all possible.

Also: do you think it would be possible to shift the discussion from Andy's page to the CP again? It's really spiralling out of control over there, but I don't have the authority to start moving discussions that include input from so many sysops.

Regards, --Benp 15:32, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

I respectfully disagree. Andy needs to see all of this. SamHB 15:49, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

He can see it regardless of where it is on the wiki. --SeanS 15:51, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

We have the poll at the Debate Forum; user Sid raised a valid point that User:Conservative on Friday said the issue was over, yet continues trolling Mr. Schlafly's talk page. Sid has not been redundant, or trolling, whereas a Conservapedia sysop has openly violating numerous established site policies on Andy's page.

I agree, the issue is over site policy, and should not be what another sysop has tried to make it, a personal dispute and a rallying of the mob. Rob Smith 15:55, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

quick note

I made it very clear I do not want to communicate with you. Please do not post messages to me as I will not read anything you post to me. Communication only works when you have some degree of trust in the other person and believe what they have to say. Regrettably, I have no trust in what you have to say to me in terms of its sincerity and truthfulness. Thank you. Conservative 19:51, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

It seems every time someone is critical of you, you burn the talk page and remove all trace of the criticism. You're doing the same thing here. Instead of refuting RobSmith, you cower away into your "intellectual bunnyhole."--CamilleT 19:58, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

I don't know if I can believe what he says about not wanting to communicate with me since I don't trust him. Maybe that means he really does want to communicate cause we don't trust each other. Likewise, maybe he really will read what I post cause I don't trust him. If communication only works when there is a degree is trust, and I don't really believe what he says, than maybe communication can really work since he said that it doesn't. It makes perfect sense, now. Rob Smith 20:04, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

My user and talk pages

If you have a spare moment in these troubled times, would you mind unlocking these so I can edit them? Human 22:15, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

Hmmm...

Without further ado, I politely suggest you undo your edit and save it for a time when Conservative actually says adieu to proper spelling. :) --Sid 3050 16:27, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

Ahhh, let him take to Arbitration. Rob Smith 16:33, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

*squint* --Sid 3050 16:40, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

Featured Articles

The debt ceiling crisis has pretty much reached its peak. When should the Featured Article be changed?--JamesWilson 22:41, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

What do we got next and is t ready to go? Rob Smith 23:10, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

Elvis Presley. It is ready to go.--JamesWilson 08:00, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

Update: SharonW added two tables and said it's ready as well.--JamesWilson 12:30, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

You want me to do it or can Joaquin? Rob Smith

please help

Why is there no way to communicate with user:Conservative? Come someone please stop his "Your overweight haha" business. It is insulting, childish and brings this place into disrepute. MaxFletcher 18:41, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

I mean, its all over the front page and it looks terrible. MaxFletcher 18:42, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

Have you tried steering the conversation in the direction of what percentage of the 34% of obese Americans are registered Republicans vs registered Democrats, and what percentage intend to vote next year (one out of three adults is a very large demographic), and what possible benefit can be gained by insulting people, maybe God will perform a miracle and open his eyes. Rob Smith 18:51, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

I have tried that actually. I got jeered at, then redirected to an irrelevant page, had my comments deleted then when I commented again I was told their were no errors in any of the articles so I pointed one out which was ignored. When I re-pointed out the error I was shown a picture of a rabbit. I will pray instead, I know God works wonders. MaxFletcher 18:57, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

The kicked dog yelps the loudest, MaxFletcher. You must be a thin skinned atheist/evolutionist and therefore safely ignored. :) Nate 19:13, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

There's got to be some sources here that can be worked into mainspace. Do something on a user subpage, I'll review it, and we can discuss. Rob Smith 19:18, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

I think we all know the red state south is by far that fattest area of the US. On top of that the US obesity problem is epidemic but, as User:Conservative states, Atheist make up 1.9% of the population. Something is not right with the figures. Finally, to top it all off, his entire premise is based on a Gallup study that doesn't mention either obesity of atheism!. MaxFletcher 19:23, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

You're making a valient effort, Max, but the reality is Conservative does not care just so long as he gets attention about the subject. I've come to the conclusion that the best reaction to his efforts is no action and/or attention at all. --SharonW 20:14, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

perhaps you are right. It saddens me though. MaxFletcher 20:15, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

So true. So if 1.9% of the 34% obese voters are atheists, that leaves about 33.345% Republican, Republican leaning, independent, Democrat or Democrat leaning. We need some hard data and statistical analysis. Rob Smith 19:28, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

Its not a matter of politics, more that no one group is more inclined towards obesity than another and that sneering all over conservapedia about it is childish and decidedly anti-Christian. MaxFletcher 19:33, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

A logical argument can be made that Q% of likely voters are obese athiests, of which most are Democratically inclined; X% of the remaining obese likely voters are Republican or GOP inclined; Y% of obese voters are Democrat, of which the likely majority of Q% of likely Democratic obese atheists would have to be added with the remaining non-atheist Democratically included obese voters; to offset the loss of a likely majority of Q% voters, Republicans would have to make up the difference among Z% of non-self professed atheist obese independent voters. This could be a problem for Republicans, especially since were talking about 1/3 of adults, and the fact that Democrats may outstrip Republicans in overall voter registration{{fact}}. The loss of obese voters could cost the GOP the election and we'd have to suffer through another four years of Obama. Rob Smith 19:50, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

That is fine but an even more logical argument is that there is no connection between obesity and atheism and as such the article should be moved into essay space because it is pure opinion as it stands. MaxFletcher 19:53, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes, but here would be the starting point for making those arguments. Rob Smith 20:06, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

Sorry, I don't get it? MaxFletcher 20:12, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

The site owner first made the claim conservative values are superb in defending against obesity (first item on that list) and User:Conservative picked up the ball and ran with it. But the voters, one third of which are obese, ultimately will decide on this one. Rob Smith 20:32, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

Thank you

Thanks for the unblock. RobertE 09:04, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

FCapra

Hi Rob,

Just for reference, FCapra's offense was this rather hot-headed edit. I of course defer to your authority on how reasonable the block was, I just thought you'd like the background. Jcw 17:39, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

Thanks for giving me the diff on that. We should expand the drop down list making it possible for shorter blocks, but I'd really like to see some warnings or gentle pursuasion, you know, rapport before handing out stiff blocks. Let's build some good will and civility. The banning should be for only persistent infractions and failure to heed warnings, and even then, shorter duration. Let's be an example of how to be fair with people. Rob Smith 18:16, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

I wonder if this site is too quick to brand a frank exchange of views as "incivility". Without commenting on the substance of FCapra's comments, I should have thought that they if they are honestly held thoughts critical of an essay or series of essays on a subject, they should be allowed to stand. If someone writes an essay on a subject I firmly believe that person should be required to stand behind what they have said and defend criticism of it. This is a fundamental part of what I would call "academic rigour". Lets develop some thicker skins here please. The world does not end because someone disagrees with what you write. --DamianJohn 18:25, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

If anything, FrankC's comments were off-topic, the discussion was a vote to can User:RobSmith, yea or nay. Frank got off track in criticizing the User who took the question to the sysop mob to pressure the site owner. But even then, in that sort of community discussion, we should give a little extra leeway. I notice no one gave the complaining sysop a 2 hour, one week, or one month block, let alone a warning, for repeated incivility with baseless claims and no evidence (which is just trolling and innuendo). So let's apply the rules uniormly and fairly. Rob Smith 18:33, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

I take your point, Rob. Normally I wouldn't have banned for something like that without a warning, but in the particularly heated atmosphere during that period it seemed the right thing to do. My main motivation in cases like that, where FCapra clearly isn't a parodist, is to prevent the editor from unwisely saying something even worse and getting banned forever. I'll show more forbearance in future. Thanks for your help, Jcw 18:47, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

Better doc diff

Emphasizes the point more, I think. --Sid 3050 21:09, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

Horace

Do you think it is about time that Horace was unblocked. I don't think that his edit history warrants his being blocked. --S0CK0FH0RACE 22:28, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

NO. His record back then consisted of picking fights; his record with a second chance consisted of picking fights; his many unauthorized socks during the past two months consisted of picking fights. He's not going to be unblocked. Karajou 22:56, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

I don't think the edit history bears that out Karajou. Also, I don't think it is appropriate for you to censor my direct request to Aschlafly (as the blocking sysop). --KimbaTWL 03:22, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

P.S. The only fights any of my socks picked were with Conservative as a result of his appalling trolling behaviour. I regard those posts as fair discussion on a point of vital interest to the site. --KimbaTWL 03:25, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

There was a revert war on this page, and I haven't had a chance to review any of it. Rob Smith 12:57, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes, well, I also posted to Andy's page (as the blocking sysop). I had to suffer something of a revert war there also. Email is not currently available here so I have no other choice. I cannot understand all of the reverting and blocking. It is all so melodramatic. --DaveFB 03:19, 10 August 2011 (EDT)(Horace)

"I cannot understand all of the reverting and blocking. It is all so melodramatic" JohnMcL 13:06, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

Again, I need help

I mentioned this above but how does one actually communicate with user:Conservative? What is going on with this user? I don't understand, is he the owner of CP because I thought it was Andrew Schlafly? I have some questions for him but I can see of no way to engage him. It is very frustrating. MaxFletcher 19:26, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

Unfortunately, I don't believe there is a direct method of communicating with Conservative as he has chosen to protect his talk page. Us lesser beings can try to contact him by possibly adding a section to the main talk page - it may or may not work. Best of luck! --SharonW 19:59, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

I'm sorry, but that seems like one of the serious problems on this site with sysop accountability. I myself can't communicate with him. Rob Smith 13:01, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

Karajou's comments

The last I heard, Andrew Schlafly was in charge of this website, not you. When you let trolls and vandals come in with impunity, when you let them edit with impunity, when you blame sysops for the conduct they have taken, when you refer to this website in vulgar language on another website, when you blame me for the vandal attack on another website, when you refuse to get you act together and get your facts straight, it's time for you to go. I am fed up with the hate and discontent you have brought here. Resign from the site, or be thrown out. Karajou 13:25, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

Why don't you stop your Conservapedia:Trolling. And if you haven't read that page, it states trolling is,

• responding to reasonable requests and questions with off-topic or potentially offensive rhetoric; (see [1])
• posting outrageous comments to bait people; (see block log) or
• employing redundant arguments intended to occupy and waste the time, efforts, or energies of other users or to distract them from productive editing and making mainspace article contributions.

Please abide by CP Commandments & Guidelines. Thank you. Rob Smith 15:38, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

Perhaps I'm simply out of the loop, but Andy Schlafly hasn't yet made a statement concerning all of this. Perhaps we should await his judgement before asking each other to leave the site?--CamilleT 16:05, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

I don't believe I have asked anyone to leave the site. I have made several good faith requests of a few users to abide by CP's long established Commandments & Guidelines. Rob Smith 16:09, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

Good luck

Good luck, Rob. Hopefully Andy takes into account the overwhelming community support behind you.--CamilleT 11:33, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

doubtful. RonLar 11:42, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Polite request

Rob, I'd be very grateful if you would resist the temptation to calumniate me on the other wiki. If you have something to say to me, I'd prefer you to do it here rather than somewhere I can't respond. Thank you. Jcw 21:28, 12 August 2011 (EDT)