From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Unblocking Users, Without Consult Or Notice....

I have asked before, nicely. Please stop. Andy concurs. Check if you must, and I know you will! :p --~ TK MyTalk 20:49, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Proposed Block Policy

There has recently been some disagreement over blocks, so I have created a proposed block policy Tell me what you think. --CPAdmin1 23:23, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Sysop Pledge

As my good deed of the day I am requesting that you place this template on your userpage. Participating sysops will earn my respect and gratitude. --BenjaminS 00:00, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Sysop Pledge
As a Conservapedia Sysop, I will NEVER ARBITRARILY block anyone who is not in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments or related CP Guidelines.


I have posted a version of the "Pledge" I can accept on my user page. One that includes the Admin guidelines Andy approved. --~ TK MyTalk 07:17, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

New Name

This is MountainDew's new name. DanH 17:22, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

A Private Thank you

For fixing up Nancy Reagan. Rob Pommertalk

  • Yes, Rob, he should be thanked, because I linked him to it, so he could. I don't have good enough skills with wiki to do it. --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 21:34, 18 April 2007 (EDT)


I didn't file the original complaint; I don't remember who did. The complaint seemed to me to have validity, at least enough to be worth responding to -- it alleged specific violations of the commandments. TK removed it without comment. The original poster then posted to that effect in the 'dealt with' section; this time, TK removed it with a commit comment of "unsigned will be removed". I took him at his implied word, and reposted the (accurate) 'no action taken' comment, this time signed. TK removed it with no explanation. I posted it a second time, hoping for at least an explanation for why it was removed. --Jtl 21:25, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Andy is the owner, Jtl. I don't have to explain my removals. But such things, other than just making a show to stir the pot, are better resolved by posting on his own page, or via email. And your posting on another Sysop's page, not mine, doesn't exactly appear to be forthright. --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 21:29, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Geo.prld asked me why I posted it; I was answering him. His talk page seemed an appropriate place (the other obvious choice being my talk page, where he asked; I chose his so that he was more likely to see the answer quickly). And no, you obviously don't have to explain your choices, but seeing as how you did once (or at least appeared to), I thought you might choose to again. Removing a comment for not being signed, if you would have removed it even if it was signed, doesn't exactly appear to be forthright. --Jtl 21:32, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Pot, kettle? You merely did it to stir the pot. You have been warned, now. The "Abuse" page is not a vehicle for your (or anyone else's) idealogical battles. If you think posting about Andy there embarasses him, you are really misguided. --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 21:37, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
What am I being warned for? Wanting a record of the sysops declining to reply to a commandment-based complaint about an administrator? Or for answering Geo's direct question to me on his talk page rather than yours? --Jtl 21:42, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
  • You have been answered, and my reason explained. Now, you have three choices here; make your complaint on Andy's personal page, email him asking, politely, for an explanation, or continue to revert on the Abuse page, and take your chances with me. Personally, I would choose the latter two. --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 21:49, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

If I have to ask, then the answer wasn't clear enough. This may well be on my side rather than yours, I admit. What am I being warned for? (and you meant 'former', not 'latter', right?) --Jtl 21:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Yes, former, thanks for catching that. You are warned for reverting what was removed by an Administrator, and abusing the "Abuse" page with frivolous complaints about the Owner, without first trying to resolve it on his page, or via email. We don't have to spell out in some "rule" what common sense and good behavior dictates as the prudent course you should have taken. If you wish to continue argument on this, which I don't suggest you do, please post it on my page. --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 22:00, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank You

Thanks man--Will N. 13:18, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I just voted for you too

I just voted for you too. Conservative 20:17, 22 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

usual crowd

A lot of the usual crowd has or will be blocked from Conservapedia via the 90/10 rule. Conservative 20:22, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Personal tools