nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 699:
Line 699: + + + +
→Privacy Rights Section: It's the /handling/ of the edit, not the edit itself, that I'm talking about.
:::::: OK, so the ACLU edit is not liberalism, just a defense of liberals (ACLU). But in doing so, claiming that they were very concerned which in fact is not factual. You and me both know that the ACLU is no stranger to defending privacy in the courts. Joe the Plumber did not make concern enough to pursue. The Campos edit was liberalism. He was in fact trying to discredit the GOP with a references that only the GOP want mandatory sentencing, not liberals and that the GOP feels it as the ONLY solution, when they don't. When it is in fact not exclusive to the GOP (Ca. democrats enacted the same law) and is not the only solution in the national platform. He wanted me to add the Ca. info but I feel the mandatory min. info didn't belong their in the first place. So JohnnyBB is a liberal with a non-Conservative agenda, that has a beef with administrators. PJR, if you disagree with me, then you sir are worse than Hitler! I give credit to Greg Gutfeld's 'Red-eye' for that fancy statement. --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 22:18, 19 February 2009 (EST)
:::::: OK, so the ACLU edit is not liberalism, just a defense of liberals (ACLU). But in doing so, claiming that they were very concerned which in fact is not factual. You and me both know that the ACLU is no stranger to defending privacy in the courts. Joe the Plumber did not make concern enough to pursue. The Campos edit was liberalism. He was in fact trying to discredit the GOP with a references that only the GOP want mandatory sentencing, not liberals and that the GOP feels it as the ONLY solution, when they don't. When it is in fact not exclusive to the GOP (Ca. democrats enacted the same law) and is not the only solution in the national platform. He wanted me to add the Ca. info but I feel the mandatory min. info didn't belong their in the first place. So JohnnyBB is a liberal with a non-Conservative agenda, that has a beef with administrators. PJR, if you disagree with me, then you sir are worse than Hitler! I give credit to Greg Gutfeld's 'Red-eye' for that fancy statement. --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 22:18, 19 February 2009 (EST)
::::::: Jpatt, I was not claiming that the edit was totally acceptable. I was claiming that it was reverted without explanation, the user inappropriately threatened, told to discuss the edit, then blocked when he ''did'' discuss the edit, because he dared to question his treatment. There is nothing wrong with defending liberals ''per se''; if they have been falsely accused, for example, then they deserved to be defended as much as anybody else. And just because someone does defend a liberal doesn't mean that they themselves are liberal. That is illogical. So yes, I do disagree with you, and therefore calling me names ("worse than Hitler") is arrogant and rude, and especially inappropriate for a fellow administrator. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:26, 20 February 2009 (EST)
{{cquote|Administrators and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. '''Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed.'''}} [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Administrators#Duties_and_Authority]
{{cquote|Administrators and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. '''Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed.'''}} [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Administrators#Duties_and_Authority]
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 22:58, 19 February 2009 (EST)
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 22:58, 19 February 2009 (EST)
: That does not give you carte blanche to inappropriately threaten editors. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:26, 20 February 2009 (EST)
The Privacy Section was inappropriate. Two referenced inconsequential letters, which have no legal effect, and the third item at best merited a footnote. Placing such a Privacy Section above far more important issues was an obvious distortion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:45, 19 February 2009 (EST)
The Privacy Section was inappropriate. Two referenced inconsequential letters, which have no legal effect, and the third item at best merited a footnote. Placing such a Privacy Section above far more important issues was an obvious distortion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:45, 19 February 2009 (EST)
: Perhaps it was inappropriate. My point is not whether the edit was appropriate in that sense, but the inappropriate ''handling'' of it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:26, 20 February 2009 (EST)