Block, SkipCaptcha
195
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − <big>Hello, I am LowKey.</big>+ − + + + + + + − {{Useful links}}+ − Lemme guess... LowKey Lyesmith? [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 00:02, 14 November 2008 (EST)+ − :They call him Mr World these days ^_^ [[User:HKing|HKing]] 00:11, 14 November 2008 (EST)+ − Please stop making comments about [[User:Bugler]]. Thanks, [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:18, 1 December 2008 (EST) − + − Good heavens, you do have a down on me. I hadn't realised before reading your lengthy analysis that I was the Worst Person Ever. Is this an Australian thing? I only ask as so many of the Bugler Bashing Club seem to originate in the Antipodes. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:52, 11 December 2008 (EST)+ − :Not all of them. I for one am sharing your island for the moment, but am distinctly American. :P--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 09:03, 11 December 2008 (EST)+ − :Bugler Bashing Club? They don't have meetings and organise ways to annoy you, you've just <small>[removed]</small> that many people off. [[User:CJones|CJones]] 15:15, 11 December 2008 (EST)+ − ::CJones, I can't tell if such naivety is genuine or merely put on for my benefit. This is not a dispute about an individual; it is part of an attempt to seize control of the bridge and steer Conservapedia in a leftwards direction - and onto the rocks. The Liberal putschists think that by dragging down one reasonably prominent Conservative-minded official they will be able to strengthen their own position vis-a-vis the leadership. The individual could have been Ed, or TK, or Karajou; instead, perhaps they thought that because I was newer and of a lower rank I would be easier meat. Well, I think they may be finding me a tough chew. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:29, 12 December 2008 (EST) −
→Extra privileges granted: thanks
== I think we would all appreciate it ==
I don't have too much to say at the moment. I will probably mostly read articles and talk pages before I do much editing.
If you didn't suddenly destroy a conversation--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 10:35, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:Conservapedia has a policy against negative personal comments. LowKey was within his rights to remediate that unseemly conversation. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 10:47, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::And we all know that conversation isnt going to go away because a user decided to replace a bunch of comments with "personal attack removed". Besides, If they are personal attacks, that would be hiding the evidence they existed, forcing a judging synop to go through the history to see the original remarks,. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 10:56, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Believe what you like, SeanS. No judging sysop except RobSmith has yet gone through any history in the last 8 months of people complaining about "Conservative's" behavior, including his most recent tear of really nasty comments against individuals (editors here and otherwise) and whole organizations (the Catholic Church). I don't expect anything to change since multiple discussions of this nature have occurred on Andy Schlafly's talk page and the Community Portal and he's declined to intervene. LowKey might as well put a better face on an awfully unseemly discussion that is going nowhere. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 11:16, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::If conservative is so uncaring about the rules, why would hiding his comments do anything? That conversation won't disappear because you hide them, and it isn't going to have a change in tone or words because you hide them, all it'll do is get you to be an enemy of conservative. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 11:28, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
SeanS, I replaced the personal attacks with the template that is prescribed by policy. If you disagree with that policy, then take it up with the policy makers. Your assertion about "hiding the evidence" makes little sense, as no-one was seeking censure ''for'' the personal remarks, but simply annihilating them for the sake of civility. I am a completely disintereted party who read through the "conversation", saw the civility policy invoked, read said policy and enacted it as written. I do not think I should be the one criticised for the fact that up unitl then everyone failed to follow the policy. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 23:13, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
== Slight change. ==
I think it would be fair to say I [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_controversy&action=historysubmit&diff=894934&oldid=894584 clarified] your [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=894584 edit]. What say you? --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 00:24, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
:I don't know that it's a clarification, so much as a slight change of meaning. Some scientific controversy is '''not''' driving advancement, which I left room for in my edit. As it currently stands, the article says that controversy ''necessarily'' drives advancement, which is not necessarily true. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 20:51, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
==Open Letter==
== Extra privileges granted ==
You've been granted blocking and SkipCatcha privileges. Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:08, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:Oh. Thanks. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 00:49, 23 August 2011 (EDT)
:::It's nothing about rank, you just seem to use more insults than all other regular editors combined... --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 07:30, 12 December 2008 (EST)