1,767
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 9:
Line 9: − + − + + + + + +
Conservapedia talk:Request Unprotection (view source)
Revision as of 12:26, March 29, 2007
, 12:26, March 29, 2007→March 2007: What a nice abuse of powers to go with your insult, TK. How very fitting!
:*'''Read the instructions above. Another proof some do only as they want, lol.''' --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 18:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
:*'''Read the instructions above. Another proof some do only as they want, lol.''' --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 18:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
:*'''Check the History''' - The Category thing didn't show up since the beginning, so it basically said "unprotection of an article found at, request" forever. He stuck to the instructions, but the instructions were not properly phrased. And by now, the rules changed to allow his request either way.
:**'''Check the History''' - The Category thing didn't show up since the beginning, so it basically said "unprotection of an article found at, request" forever. He stuck to the instructions, but the instructions were not properly phrased. And by now, the rules changed to allow his request either way.
::I do NOT appreciate you dissing people like that. I also do NOT appreciate that you try to sabotage the sense of this page by randomly switching rules. This page was created to act as a central hub, not as an instruction to go away. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:10, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
:**I do NOT appreciate you dissing people like that. I also do NOT appreciate that you try to sabotage the sense of this page by randomly switching rules. This page was created to act as a central hub, not as an instruction to go away. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:10, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
*Well, I hope you had a good cry. I don't base my actions on what any one user appreciates. No rules were switched. Merely instructing that talk go on the TALK page. It is logical to first ask the Sysop who locked a particular page to unlock it, before posting here, trying to create an issue that might not even exist, IMO. Sometimes a Sysop will lock while editing a piece, and just forget to unlock it, comprehende? Go pick a fight with someone else, Sid. Quit making up bull just so you can continue to fight here, OK? If you have something to contribute to the articles here, or yet to be written, that would be more than welcome. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 02:53, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
*Well, I hope you had a good cry. I don't base my actions on what any one user appreciates. No rules were switched. Merely instructing that talk go on the TALK page. It is logical to first ask the Sysop who locked a particular page to unlock it, before posting here, trying to create an issue that might not even exist, IMO. Sometimes a Sysop will lock while editing a piece, and just forget to unlock it, comprehende? Go pick a fight with someone else, Sid. Quit making up bull just so you can continue to fight here, OK? If you have something to contribute to the articles here, or yet to be written, that would be more than welcome. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 02:53, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
::This is not an "article". It's a special page in the "Conservapedia" namespace. Are you going to move all the debate pages to the "Conservapedia Talk" space because they're talk? This here is talk. Your insult was talk. YOU posted that insult in the non-talk space. Hypocrisy, much?
::Check the history. The cases mentioned either fall into the salted category or are about locks that were already heavily challenged and criticized by editors on the various talk pages. Officially, ALL pages are being locked "temporarily" or to "protect against vandalism" or some other bull. Well, except for the lock of this article, which is just you abusing your power (same goes for your initial revert of my entire edit - which ironically enough also vaped a highly useful change to the format) to get the upper hand after an arbitrary process change, along with a snarky remark. I'd report you on CP:Abuse or on Andy's Talk page, but that would be futile. Andy would just go "I don't see anything he did wrong. He is a very good admin and a useful contributor", just like he goes with Conservative and anybody else who gets reported for abuse against "liberals".
::Don't you realize that you and others behaving like dicks is what drives good people away from this site? Random policy changes, hypocrisy, power abuse, and the complete inability to listen to rational people who try to improve this site are all factors that make rational people post less and less productive things.
::And in the end, Conservapedia will be populated only by Young Earth Creationists, Bible-Literalists, and people who don't give a damn as long as they can exercise power and push other people around. You'll fit right in :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 08:26, 29 March 2007 (EDT)