Difference between revisions of "User talk:LowKey"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
: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) | :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) | ::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) | ||
Revision as of 15:16, July 28, 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)
- 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)