Difference between revisions of "User talk:Geo.plrd"

Revision as of 01:37, April 19, 2007

Geo.plrd

Archives
1 2 3

Current messages

Unblocking Users, Without Consult Or Notice....

I have asked before, nicely. Please stop. Andy concurs. Check if you must, and I know you will! :p --~ TK ^MyTalk 20:49, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Proposed Block Policy

There has recently been some disagreement over blocks, so I have created a proposed block policy Tell me what you think. --CPAdmin1 23:23, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Sysop Pledge

As my good deed of the day I am requesting that you place this template on your userpage. Participating sysops will earn my respect and gratitude. --BenjaminS 00:00, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Sysop Pledge
As a Conservapedia Sysop, I will NEVER ARBITRARILY block anyone who is not in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments or related CP Guidelines.

Pledge

I have posted a version of the "Pledge" I can accept on my user page. One that includes the Admin guidelines Andy approved. --~ TK ^MyTalk 07:17, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

New Name

This is MountainDew's new name. DanH 17:22, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

A Private Thank you

For fixing up Nancy Reagan. Rob Pommer_talk

Yes, Rob, he should be thanked, because I linked him to it, so he could. I don't have good enough skills with wiki to do it. --~ ^Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 21:34, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Abuse

I didn't file the original complaint; I don't remember who did. The complaint seemed to me to have validity, at least enough to be worth responding to -- it alleged specific violations of the commandments. TK removed it without comment. The original poster then posted to that effect in the 'dealt with' section; this time, TK removed it with a commit comment of "unsigned will be removed". I took him at his implied word, and reposted the (accurate) 'no action taken' comment, this time signed. TK removed it with no explanation. I posted it a second time, hoping for at least an explanation for why it was removed. --Jtl 21:25, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy is the owner, Jtl. I don't have to explain my removals. But such things, other than just making a show to stir the pot, are better resolved by posting on his own page, or via email. And your posting on another Sysop's page, not mine, doesn't exactly appear to be forthright. --~ ^Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 21:29, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Geo.prld asked me why I posted it; I was answering him. His talk page seemed an appropriate place (the other obvious choice being my talk page, where he asked; I chose his so that he was more likely to see the answer quickly). And no, you obviously don't have to explain your choices, but seeing as how you did once (or at least appeared to), I thought you might choose to again. Removing a comment for not being signed, if you would have removed it even if it was signed, doesn't exactly appear to be forthright. --Jtl 21:32, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Pot, kettle? You merely did it to stir the pot. You have been warned, now. The "Abuse" page is not a vehicle for your (or anyone else's) idealogical battles. If you think posting about Andy there embarasses him, you are really misguided. --~ ^Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 21:37, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Revision as of 01:37, April 19, 2007 (view source) TK (talk \| contribs) (→‎Conservapedia:Abuse) ← Older edit		Revision as of 01:37, April 19, 2007 (view source) TK (talk \| contribs) m (→‎Conservapedia:Abuse) Newer edit →
Line 43:		Line 43:
	:: Geo.prld asked me why I posted it; I was answering him. His talk page seemed an appropriate place (the other obvious choice being my talk page, where he asked; I chose his so that he was more likely to see the answer quickly). And no, you obviously don't have to explain your choices, but seeing as how you did once (or at least appeared to), I thought you might choose to again. Removing a comment for not being signed, if you would have removed it even if it was signed, doesn't exactly appear to be forthright. --[[User:Jtl\|Jtl]] 21:32, 18 April 2007 (EDT)		:: Geo.prld asked me why I posted it; I was answering him. His talk page seemed an appropriate place (the other obvious choice being my talk page, where he asked; I chose his so that he was more likely to see the answer quickly). And no, you obviously don't have to explain your choices, but seeing as how you did once (or at least appeared to), I thought you might choose to again. Removing a comment for not being signed, if you would have removed it even if it was signed, doesn't exactly appear to be forthright. --[[User:Jtl\|Jtl]] 21:32, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

−	::*Pot, kettle? You merely did it to stir the pot. You have been warned, now. The "Abuse" is not a vehicle for your (or anyone else's) idealogical battles. If you think posting about Andy there embarasses him, you are really misguided. --~ [[User:TK\|<sup>Sysop-</sup>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK\|/MyTalk]]</sub> 21:37, 18 April 2007 (EDT)	+	::*Pot, kettle? You merely did it to stir the pot. You have been warned, now. The "Abuse" page is not a vehicle for your (or anyone else's) idealogical battles. If you think posting about Andy there embarasses him, you are really misguided. --~ [[User:TK\|<sup>Sysop-</sup>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK\|/MyTalk]]</sub> 21:37, 18 April 2007 (EDT)