Difference between revisions of "User talk:LowKey"
From Conservapedia
(→Extra privileges granted: thanks) |
|||
| (35 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | == I think we would all appreciate it == | |
| − | I don't | + | 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) |
| + | |||
| + | == 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) | ||
Latest revision as of 04:49, August 23, 2011
I think we would all appreciate it
If you didn't suddenly destroy a conversation--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. 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,. --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. 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. --SeanS 11:28, 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. Nate 11:16, 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,. --SeanS 10:56, 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. LowKey 23:13, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
Slight change.
I think it would be fair to say I clarified your edit. What say you? --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. LowKey 20:51, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
Extra privileges granted
You've been granted blocking and SkipCatcha privileges. Congratulations!--Andy Schlafly 12:08, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
- Oh. Thanks. LowKey 00:49, 23 August 2011 (EDT)
