User talk:CPanel - Revision history

JessicaT at 14:03, February 24, 2009

2009-02-24T14:03:55Z

JessicaT: edit old user's sig - there are 31 pages linking to non-existant "request for admin thanks to that

2009-02-23T16:24:26Z

edit old user's sig - there are 31 pages linking to non-existant "request for admin thanks to that

TK: /* Editorial Policy Question */

2007-10-20T13:25:54Z

Editorial Policy Question

TK: Protected "User talk:CPanel" [edit=sysop:move=sysop]

2007-10-20T06:53:54Z

Protected "User talk:CPanel" [edit=sysop:move=sysop]

QBeam: /* Delete Day of the Year pages */

2007-10-19T18:45:15Z

Delete Day of the Year pages

Lukecorlando: /* Delete Day of the Year pages */

2007-10-15T22:01:00Z

Delete Day of the Year pages

Lukecorlando: /* Dead-End Page */

2007-10-15T22:00:39Z

Dead-End Page

Lukecorlando: /* Dead-End Page */

2007-10-15T01:57:54Z

Dead-End Page

Lukecorlando at 01:52, October 15, 2007

2007-10-15T01:52:39Z

Aschlafly: Reverted edits by YayBush (Talk); changed back to last version by Wisdom89

2007-10-02T01:43:32Z

Reverted edits by YayBush (Talk); changed back to last version by Wisdom89

@@ Line 169: / Line 169: @@
 I would also suggest that any user who attempts to bypass any reasonable dispute resolution process, and instead chooses to waste the panel's time by getting you to fight their battles for them, should be censured, up to and including permanent blocking if necessary. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
-== Submitting [[CP:RFA]] and [[CP:RFB]] for official ratification ==
+== Submitting <nowiki>[[CP:RFA]] and [[CP:RFB]]</nowiki> for official ratification ==
 I hereby submit the pages linked to by the above redirects for transformation into official Conservapedia policies, where the result of the vote is binding. The current state of the RfA process simply takes potential applicants to an enitity, whether it be Sharon, Philip, Andy, or the Panel, which can decide, regardless of the community's desire, whether an individual becomes a sysop. I respectfully ask that you consider my request. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<sup><code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code></sup> 06:53, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

@@ Line 180: / Line 180: @@
 == HELLO?  HELLO? ==
-Is there anybody in there?  I posted two questions above and have received no response.  --[[User:Horace|Horace]] <sup>[[Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship#Support_2|Vote Horace for sysop]]</sup> 20:17, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
+Is there anybody in there?  I posted two questions above and have received no response.  --[[User:Horace|Horace]] <sup>Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship#Support_2|Vote Horace for sysop</sup> 20:17, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
-:So did I. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<sup><code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code></sup> 18:01, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
+:So did I. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<sup><code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA)</code></sup> 18:01, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
 == I further solved the issue of the definition of the evolutionary theory ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:25, October 20, 2007
Line 306:		Line 306:
	==Editorial Policy Question==		==Editorial Policy Question==

−	I've been trying to discuss potential edits to the [[Communism]] page, and have run into [[User:RobSmith]], who has twice, in short order, threatened the "BanHammer," both of which appear to me to be absurdly inappropriate. As I think is apparent from a review of the commentary, both threats were (1) based on a completely unjustifiable characterization of my points; and (2) premature, even had I been saying what I was accused of saying, since, surely, the first response to bad ideas should be to explain why they are bad. Only when someone reveals themselves to be unreasonable and uninterested in participating in an intelligent exchange does it make sense to censor them, I would think. Frankly, I'm shocked by the juvenile conduct of RobSmith, and find it to be an embarrassment to me, as a conservative. I believe the decision to grant this individual authority to threaten the "banhammer" should be reviewed.	+	I've been trying to discuss potential edits to the [[Communism]] page, and have run into [[User:RobSmith]], who has twice, in short order, threatened the "BanHammer," both of which appear to me to be absurdly inappropriate. As I think is apparent from a review of the commentary, both threats were (1) based on a completely unjustifiable characterization of my points; and (2) premature, even had I been saying what I was accused of saying, since, surely, the first response to bad ideas should be to explain why they are bad. Only when someone reveals themselves to be unreasonable and uninterested in participating in an intelligent exchange does it make sense to censor them, I would think. Frankly, I'm shocked by the juvenile conduct of RobSmith, and find it to be an embarrassment to me, as a conservative. I believe the decision to grant this individual authority to threaten the "banhammer" should be reviewed. {{unsigned\|QBeam}} 11:45, 19 October 2007
		+
		+	*The Panel's page isn't the place for this type of complaint. You should be using [[Conservapedia:Desk]] or [[User talk:Aschlafly]]. Thanks. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK\|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK\|/Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 09:25, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:45, October 19, 2007
Line 303:		Line 303:

	We need to delete the "day of the year" pages. They are ridiculous, and lower the credibility of conservapedia.[[User:Lukecorlando\|Lukecorlando]] 18:01, 15 October 2007 (EDT)		We need to delete the "day of the year" pages. They are ridiculous, and lower the credibility of conservapedia.[[User:Lukecorlando\|Lukecorlando]] 18:01, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+	==Editorial Policy Question==
		+
		+	I've been trying to discuss potential edits to the [[Communism]] page, and have run into [[User:RobSmith]], who has twice, in short order, threatened the "BanHammer," both of which appear to me to be absurdly inappropriate. As I think is apparent from a review of the commentary, both threats were (1) based on a completely unjustifiable characterization of my points; and (2) premature, even had I been saying what I was accused of saying, since, surely, the first response to bad ideas should be to explain why they are bad. Only when someone reveals themselves to be unreasonable and uninterested in participating in an intelligent exchange does it make sense to censor them, I would think. Frankly, I'm shocked by the juvenile conduct of RobSmith, and find it to be an embarrassment to me, as a conservative. I believe the decision to grant this individual authority to threaten the "banhammer" should be reviewed.

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:01, October 15, 2007
Line 302:		Line 302:
	==Delete Day of the Year pages==		==Delete Day of the Year pages==

−	We need to delete the "day of the year" pages. ~~This~~ are ridiculous, and lower the credibility of conservapedia.	+	We need to delete the "day of the year" pages. They are ridiculous, and lower the credibility of conservapedia.[[User:Lukecorlando\|Lukecorlando]] 18:01, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision	Revision as of 06:53, October 20, 2007
(No difference)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:00, October 15, 2007
Line 299:		Line 299:

	I think that the dead-end pages list should be updated. Most of the articles there are not dead-end pages. [[User:Lukecorlando\|Lukecorlando]] 21:52, 14 October 2007 (EDT)		I think that the dead-end pages list should be updated. Most of the articles there are not dead-end pages. [[User:Lukecorlando\|Lukecorlando]] 21:52, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+	==Delete Day of the Year pages==
		+
		+	We need to delete the "day of the year" pages. This are ridiculous, and lower the credibility of conservapedia.

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:57, October 15, 2007
Line 298:		Line 298:
	==Dead-End Page==		==Dead-End Page==

−	I think that the dead-end ~~page~~ should be updated. Most of the articles there are not dead-end pages. [[User:Lukecorlando\|Lukecorlando]] 21:52, 14 October 2007 (EDT)	+	I think that the dead-end pages list should be updated. Most of the articles there are not dead-end pages. [[User:Lukecorlando\|Lukecorlando]] 21:52, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:52, October 15, 2007
Line 295:		Line 295:
	==Missing important information==		==Missing important information==
	I've thoroughly read the entire article and while the lead section does do some justice to the science, the article is seriously lacking in the current view of evolution, namely what is the prevailing theory today - Modern Synthesis. This theory combines Natural Selection, Mendelian Genetics and other scientific fields and is preeminent in the study of biological evolution. I am a pretty knowledgeable scientist who has researched much on the subject, but I'm not sure how this exactly works. I would love to contribute to the article or submit some information. Is this possible? Regards. [[User:Wisdom89\|Wisdom89]] 12:35, 1 September 2007 (EDT)		I've thoroughly read the entire article and while the lead section does do some justice to the science, the article is seriously lacking in the current view of evolution, namely what is the prevailing theory today - Modern Synthesis. This theory combines Natural Selection, Mendelian Genetics and other scientific fields and is preeminent in the study of biological evolution. I am a pretty knowledgeable scientist who has researched much on the subject, but I'm not sure how this exactly works. I would love to contribute to the article or submit some information. Is this possible? Regards. [[User:Wisdom89\|Wisdom89]] 12:35, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+	==Dead-End Page==
		+
		+	I think that the dead-end page should be updated. Most of the articles there are not dead-end pages. [[User:Lukecorlando\|Lukecorlando]] 21:52, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:43, October 2, 2007
Line 295:		Line 295:
	==Missing important information==		==Missing important information==
	I've thoroughly read the entire article and while the lead section does do some justice to the science, the article is seriously lacking in the current view of evolution, namely what is the prevailing theory today - Modern Synthesis. This theory combines Natural Selection, Mendelian Genetics and other scientific fields and is preeminent in the study of biological evolution. I am a pretty knowledgeable scientist who has researched much on the subject, but I'm not sure how this exactly works. I would love to contribute to the article or submit some information. Is this possible? Regards. [[User:Wisdom89\|Wisdom89]] 12:35, 1 September 2007 (EDT)		I've thoroughly read the entire article and while the lead section does do some justice to the science, the article is seriously lacking in the current view of evolution, namely what is the prevailing theory today - Modern Synthesis. This theory combines Natural Selection, Mendelian Genetics and other scientific fields and is preeminent in the study of biological evolution. I am a pretty knowledgeable scientist who has researched much on the subject, but I'm not sure how this exactly works. I would love to contribute to the article or submit some information. Is this possible? Regards. [[User:Wisdom89\|Wisdom89]] 12:35, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
−
−
−	~~God is a lie...Yay Darwin!~~