nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW
26,487
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 456:
Line 456: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Conservapedia talk:Commandments (view source)
Revision as of 14:43, April 4, 2007
, 14:43, April 4, 2007→Rule against templates
*Somewhere between 5 or 8, I would think more than fair, Benjamin. Now, Sid, part of the problem in discussing anything with you is your hyperbole. Could you at least make an attempt to tone down the flamboyant language? It brings a real anger and false urgency to anything you post about. Blocking for a short duration is more in tune with suspension than "banning" which traditionally means never to return. Arguing nit-picks about if this or that is "vandalism" isn't going to garner you support or replies from Andy and the others. Spend less of your posting on complaining and elevating all issues to VERY IMPORTANT status, and more can get done. I notice lots of people with good ideas for this place, and looking at their talk or user pages, also notice really nasty and vile remarks about Andy, and even his family. Surely you realize crap like that isn't going to get them to be willing to take people who do that seriously..... --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 09:07, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
*Somewhere between 5 or 8, I would think more than fair, Benjamin. Now, Sid, part of the problem in discussing anything with you is your hyperbole. Could you at least make an attempt to tone down the flamboyant language? It brings a real anger and false urgency to anything you post about. Blocking for a short duration is more in tune with suspension than "banning" which traditionally means never to return. Arguing nit-picks about if this or that is "vandalism" isn't going to garner you support or replies from Andy and the others. Spend less of your posting on complaining and elevating all issues to VERY IMPORTANT status, and more can get done. I notice lots of people with good ideas for this place, and looking at their talk or user pages, also notice really nasty and vile remarks about Andy, and even his family. Surely you realize crap like that isn't going to get them to be willing to take people who do that seriously..... --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 09:07, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
*The stub template seems entirely unnecessary to me. Why do we need a notice telling us an article is short? Anyone can see when an article needs expansion. A category for short articles is beneficial, because it will allow people to find short articles easily, but the stub template is superfluous and distracting. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] <sup>[[User talk:SharonS|Talk!]]</sup> 09:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
*The stub template seems entirely unnecessary to me. Why do we need a notice telling us an article is short? Anyone can see when an article needs expansion. A category for short articles is beneficial, because it will allow people to find short articles easily, but the stub template is superfluous and distracting. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] <sup>[[User talk:SharonS|Talk!]]</sup> 09:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:It's a boot in the tail. If random visitor X see short articles over and over they'll wander off of the site...If they see stub after stub they MAY think "Hey, I could do something on this article!" And register (if it's open) and expand the article. That's my take on that template anyways. --[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]]<sub>[[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]</sub> 09:48, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:It's a boot in the tail. If random visitor X see short articles over and over they'll wander off of the site...If they see stub after stub they MAY think "Hey, I could do something on this article!" And register (if it's open) and expand the article. That's my take on that template anyways. --[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]]<sub>[[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]</sub> 09:48, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:*I agree, Sharon. Rob and Sharon, the template in question, the newest one, in essence it said "This Article Is Moronic", in the original version, it threatened "banning" for the contributor. They revised it to read other, later, but kept the snide tone. Then, as MoutainDew posted on my talk page, it was slapped on several articles by a couple of people. Something about doing that, and something about others here thinking that kind of behavior is acceptable, is whacked. Here are the three templates, the original and the "revised" editions:
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="border: 1px solid #CC9999; background-color: #FFCCCC;"
|-
|align="center"|[[Image:Stop_hand.svg|50px|Warning]]
|align="center" width="100%"|'''Warning!''' <br />Be advised that editing with a factual bias grounded in reality is counter to the principles of Conservapedia, and if you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing for a period of time, or banned.
|}
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="border: 2px solid #8B0000; background-color: #CD5C5C;"
|-
|[[Image:stop_hand.svg | 50px]]
|align="center" width="100%"|'''Warning!''' <br />You are editing against the consensus of other users, and to promote your own bias in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments. You are requested to cease and desist.
|}
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="border: 2px solid #8B0000; background-color: #CD5C5C;"
|-
|[[Image:stop_hand.svg | 50px]]
|align="center" width="100%"|'''Warning!''' <br />This article has been identified as containing biased, unsourced statements.
|}
and its location is here [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&action=submit]] That earned the guys slapping it up a day or two off, just FYI. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 10:43, 4 April 2007 (EDT)