Talk:Robert Richardson

category:Best Selling Authors, category:Conservative Authors, category:Preparedness Authors, and category:Christian Authors already include the category:Authors, so it shouldn't be used again. The same holds for category:Christian Authors and category:Christians, category:Conservative Bloggers and category:Conservatives.

See: Conservapedia:Manual of Style#Categories.

--AugustO 04:00, 16 January 2015 (EST)

Responses from Admins and AugustO

Stop pointless battles about category tags. The category tags were fine. Conservapedia doesn't need a category tags gestapo to welcome new editors.

Conservapedia wants new editors creating content. Not endless battles with new editors and making mountains out of molehills.

Keep this up and you will have your blocking rights removed. Conservative 04:14, 16 January 2015 (EST)

• I try to inform new users about Conservapedia:Manual of Style#Categories before bad habits are ingrained.
• For me, it is a little bit problematic that an editor name User:OGSMEDIA (offgrid-survival media) uses an article to link to two external commercial websites, one of which called offgridsurvival.com . I remember a time when this was a blockable offense... --AugustO 04:26, 16 January 2015 (EST)

It's an Alexa USA top 55,000 website. He is an author. The guy is obviously prominent in this niche. Also, I think we should follow a more common sense approach to category tags to avoid senseless battles. I think having the category tags of "conservatives" and "conservative bloggers" on this same page is useful.

Second, if you nitpick new editors, you will drive them away. Less than 1% of people click on category tags anyways. Most people use on wiki search engine and the internal links within the articles. So why pick battles over category tags - especially with new editors.

Please stop spoiling for fights. It is annoying.

If you want to pick fights, please do it with the owner of the website. This is pretty harmless since he ignores you in most cases. Conservative 04:45, 16 January 2015 (EST)

• amazon is a Alexa USA top 10 website. Still, one wouldn't allow Jeff Bezos to advertise it at a resource for high-school pupils.
• I didn't "pick a fight". I fused some categories, and informed the editor why I did so, and I tried doing so in a non-threatening way (without referring to the loss of virtual lives or user-rights), hoping that my advice is followed.
• It is very unusual to see a new editor adding that many categories to his or her first article. Shouldn't he or she (or perhaps they) be informed about Conservapedia's usual approach? Or is everything allowed to newcomers, because it's fun?

--AugustO 04:52, 16 January 2015 (EST)

Sorry about the last sarcastic comment about picking a fight with the owner of the website who usually ignores you. While it is true that he usually ignore you, this was an unnecessary comment.

I still don't see the big issue about category tags. Lots of fine wikis have lots of category tags at the bottom of their articles. I don't think we need a category tags police state.

Your general attitude is driving away good faith editors who create useful content. I disagree with this. Conservative 05:05, 16 January 2015 (EST)

• No, we don't need a category tags police state, and I certainly take offense with being called category gestapo. But we need a sensible policy.
• At the moment, I see a couple of new editors promoting their own sites.
• Categories can be abused, e.g., to work as link-farms. Or look at Category:Best Selling Authors, which at the moment includes nine authors: Arthur C Clarke, Glenn Beck, Agatha Christie, Arthur Conan Doyle, Ayn Rand, James Wesley Rawles, Robert Richardson, Robert Heinlein, and J. K. Rowling. Can you spot the authors which are different from the others? For me, that's self-aggrandizement (Richardson's "The Ultimate Situational Survival Guide: Self-Reliance Strategies for a Dangerous World" is currently #80,000 at amazon...)

--AugustO 05:30, 16 January 2015 (EST)

Wschact, on his second edit after coming out of "The Cooler", unreasonably marking an article as Spam and deleting the content without Talk Page comment on a known published Christian Conservative survivalist author. http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Robert_Richardson&diff=prev&oldid=1133633. There was warning above. He needs a 1 day ban as a re-warning to stop targeting survivalism-preparedness articles that were written in good faith and following the proper format. Here is a review of his book: http://thesurvivalmom.com/ultimate-situational-survival-guide-robert-richardson-book-review from a very popular Prepper site. I vouch for the validity of this man in the Conservative Prepper circles. The article is noteworthy and is not a 1 sentence uncategorized stub, unlike the Swiss Miss, Sovereign_state and Bobby Charlton of Wschact's liberal friend EJamesW (http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/EJamesW). Perhaps when EJamesW's liberal friend User:Wschact when comes back from his second visit to the "cooler" would give EJamesW some extensive long winded explanations via the Community Portal, his User Page and each stub article's Talk Pages about not creating 1 sentence stubs.

Thankfully, User:Conservative just wisely re-blocked Wschact for another 2 weeks for "interferring with good faith content creator while having the template "retired" on user page and not creating significant content". This was just 3 edits after Wsacht came out of 1 week in "The Cooler for ignoring the continued advice of the Admins regarding his behavior. See: User_talk:Wschact#Wschact_Banned_Again_.2814_Days.29_for_Continued_Biased_Targeting_of_Conservative_POV_Survivalism_Articles TheAmericanRedoubt 15:45, 20 January 2015 (EST)

Responses from Other Editors

User:Wschact and I have problems with User:OGSMEDIA's advertising for his (?) OFFGRIDSURVIVAL shop in this article. Our concerns could be found at User talk:OGSMEDIA, but, alas, User:Conservative has deleted User:OGSMEDIA's castle with a flimsy excuse: (this person is probably long gone. pointless to keep this around). User:Conservative violates again Conservapedia:Guidelines...

See User_talk:AugustO#User_talk:OGSMEDIA for a version of the talk-page.

User:Wschact marked the article as spam, and I tend to agree: it seems to be a self-promotional stub.

--AugustO 18:30, 20 January 2015 (EST)