User talk:TK
From Conservapedia
Archive #1
Archive #2
Archive #3
Archive #4
Archive #5
Archive #6
Archive #7
Archive #8
Archive #9
Welcome back!--Aschlafly 18:58, 9 January 2008 (EST)
- Thanks, Andy! --₮K/Talk 18:18, 10 January 2008 (EST)
Welcome back TK! --Crocoite 13:46, 12 January 2008 (EST)
- Thanks! Unfortunately, with my schedule, 80% of my editing was overnight, so I doubt I can help much, starting at square one as the Prodigal Son--₮K/Talk 13:56, 12 January 2008 (EST)
Great to have you back!...shoot me an email when you get a chance, your old one isn't showing for me. Luke 16:29, 12 January 2008 (EST)
- Sorry Luke, I don't have your email, and you don't have it enabled through Conservapedia, it says. But thanks for the greeting! --₮K/Talk 22:47, 12 January 2008 (EST)
Ok, I enabled my email, that should do the trick. Luke 23:53, 12 January 2008 (EST)
Contents |
Probation
Does he need to be on "Probation"? After all the good things he did for this site? He should be welcome back with fireworks. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 19:58, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
- Well, Joaquin, it seems as if some Sysops cannot differentiate between their personal feelings and the rules of Conservapedia. I have never damaged CP in any way, shape or form, never allowed parody or vandalism. According to the Commandments, there is absolutely no reason I should have been blocked. But I thank the people responsible for my unblocking, and perhaps will at some point be allowed to edit and help Conservapedia fulfill its bright promise. We shall see. We all need to remember Our Lord's injunction: Judge not, least ye be judged." and "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone." I have admitted to my mistakes as to the Sysop Group, and apologized. To date, those Sysops who have been spreading false accusations against me, who never allowed me to defend myself against their spurious charges, have never once apologized, nor offered me a chance to refute their so-called charges. The whole idea of a secret cabal of any making, now repulses me. If someone is deemed worthy enough, trustworthy enough to be made an administrator here, they should be included in any group of Sysops. As it now stands, most are excluded, and the secret actions, without review of refutation allowed, of a very few self labeled "elite" sysops is not only un-democratic, but decidedly non-Christian. I reject any parole or imposed terms, because I simply have never violated the Commandments, and have never vandalized CP. Therefore, nothing I have done should be or is under the authority or review of current administrators of this site. Any of my actions, while an administrator of Conservapedia are not within their scope of authority to judge or decide punishment for. That is Andy's province alone. I suggest that all involved mind their own business, stick to helping CP gain acceptance and add content, rather than continue to make themselves look bad by spreading lies and unsupported charges about anyone.
- Thanks for your effort and words of support, in any case Joaquin! And thanks to Ed Poor, Geo, Boudan and Crocoite as well. You have all proved to be fair and good Christians & friends. --₮K/Talk 20:21, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
Good work!
Like on the old days:
Keep going my friend. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 23:03, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
The same = Ibidem --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 18:11, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
Liberalism template
TK, I've been asked to invite you here to add your voice to the discussion. Philip J. Rayment 10:58, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
Welcome
Welcome back Sir!--Ben Talk 13:57, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
Caps
I saw where you changed "biblical" to "Biblical". I'm of the understanding that adjectives are never capitalised, and I therefore always write "biblical". I don't, however, know if this "rule" is universally accepted, so I'm not going to revert you, but just thought that you should be aware that according to some conventions at least, "biblical" is quite correct. Philip J. Rayment 06:48, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
- Well, I was not certain, as you seem to be as well, old chap, but HelpJazz was the one who informed me it should be. You will need to check with him on the applicable rule. Cheers! --₮K/Talk 07:44, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
Welcome
Thanks for the welcome TK! AdenJ 23:34, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
Americans
Why should Americans not be put under the Category:Americans? -- 
00:03, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
- Because some have expressed concern about co-opting the name. Technically everyone in North and South America are "Americans". My previous decision on this, and to my knowledge Andy has not replaced me as the one to decide, was to label all things United States, with just that. So instead of Americans, we would use United States Citizens, etc. This is being discussed at this very moment. It isn't a big thing, as Ed Bot can rapidly undo anything done, but it will negate your edit count. ;-) --₮K/Talk 00:32, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
