Conservapedia talk:Request Unprotection

• Wow, I wish I had seen this page sooner. Could you please unprotect Theory of Evolution. Thanks. --Horace 21:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I concur with this,time to put up or shut up. You are doing exactly what you accuse wikipedia of doing. Gut check time. Tmtoulouse 22:33, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

• Read the instructions above. Another proof some do only as they want, lol. --~ TerryK ^MyTalk 18:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

• • Check the History - The Category thing didn't show up since the beginning, so it basically said "unprotection of an article found at, request" forever. He stuck to the instructions, but the instructions were not properly phrased. And by now, the rules changed to allow his request either way.
  • I do NOT appreciate you dissing people like that. I also do NOT appreciate that you try to sabotage the sense of this page by randomly switching rules. This page was created to act as a central hub, not as an instruction to go away. --Sid 3050 18:10, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

• Well, I hope you had a good cry. I don't base my actions on what any one user appreciates. No rules were switched. Merely instructing that talk go on the TALK page. It is logical to first ask the Sysop who locked a particular page to unlock it, before posting here, trying to create an issue that might not even exist, IMO. Sometimes a Sysop will lock while editing a piece, and just forget to unlock it, comprehende? Go pick a fight with someone else, Sid. Quit making up bull just so you can continue to fight here, OK? If you have something to contribute to the articles here, or yet to be written, that would be more than welcome. --~ TerryK ^MyTalk 02:53, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

This is not an "article". It's a special page in the "Conservapedia" namespace. Are you going to move all the debate pages to the "Conservapedia Talk" space because they're talk? This here is talk. Your insult was talk. YOU posted that insult in the non-talk space. Hypocrisy, much?

Check the history. The cases mentioned either fall into the salted category or are about locks that were already heavily challenged and criticized by editors on the various talk pages. Officially, ALL pages are being locked "temporarily" or to "protect against vandalism" or some other bull. Well, except for the lock of this article, which is just you abusing your power (same goes for your initial revert of my entire edit - which ironically enough also vaped a highly useful change to the format) to get the upper hand after an arbitrary process change, along with a snarky remark. I'd report you on CP:Abuse or on Andy's Talk page, but that would be futile. Andy would just go "I don't see anything he did wrong. He is a very good admin and a useful contributor", just like he goes with Conservative and anybody else who gets reported for abuse against "liberals".

Don't you realize that you and others behaving like dicks is what drives good people away from this site? Random policy changes, hypocrisy, power abuse, and the complete inability to listen to rational people who try to improve this site are all factors that make rational people contribute less and less to articles.

And in the end, Conservapedia will be populated only by Young Earth Creationists, Bible-Literalists, and people who don't give a damn as long as they can exercise power and push other people around. You'll fit right in :) --Sid 3050 08:26, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Not as long as I'm here. I think the earth was created by God much longer than 10,000 years ago; I guess it's as old as geologists estimate it to be. I don't take the Bible literally because it contains metaphors such as "the saints who had fallen asleep will be raised" (i.e., Christians who die) - see also Luk. 9:60 "Let the dead bury the dead" (metaphorical and literal usage in the same breath!)

If you see me pushing other people around - and you object - drop me a line at User talk:Ed Poor. I'm easy going and I listen to other people. --Ed Poor 08:31, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Project pages, like nearly every other page on a MediaWiki website, come with an attached "talk" page. It is normal to divide 'posts' between the page itself and its associated talk page.

I support Terry's efforts to organize this project page.

We might also figure out a way to have a record of fulfilled and/or denied requests. --Ed Poor 08:35, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

• You are way too fast for me, Ed! I was just about to message you and suggest Sysop's use the Project Page. If the supplicant posts on the page of the locking Sysop, and isn't responded to there, we could use the Project page to note actions taken. I can't imagine more than one or two Sysop's not responding to a request, pro or con. Those that do not, well, they abdicate their right to decide, IMO.... --~ TerryK ^MyTalk 09:49, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

What are we counting as a response, BTW? A simple 'no, get lost' would hardly seem sufficient. Tsumetai 09:52, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Depends on the circumstances, I think. Obviously someone requesting Creation be unblocked by the blocking Sysop is kind of nuts anyway, making the request, no? I posted elsewhere, some pages, it is a dead horse deal to keep arguing about them. Until some of our more fidgety editors learn some self restraint, and stop reverting pages twenty times a night, because they are unable to do dispute resolution themselves with each other, I won't apologize for locking certain problematic pages. As Andy keeps telling everyone, this isn't Wikipedia, we don't play by their PC rules. It's little trouble for a user to put the changes they want to make on the talk page, and then either unlock it for them, or paste the changes in for them. This whole process would be helped if other Sysops supported my call for a private talk page, to bang these problems out. Just my two cents. --~ TerryK ^MyTalk 10:02, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

If there's no response to a request which is posted both on sysop talk page and Request Unprotection, I would consider it fair game. I guess I should leave a follow-up on the previous sysop's talk page, so they don't get a surprise.

Let's also bear in mind that some are protected semi-permanently, and others temporarily (as after a brief vandalism episode).

Teamwork is key here. --Ed Poor 10:08, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh, and I support your call for a private talk page. Until that is created, there is #conservapedia to get attention and #conservapedia-sysop for private IRC talk. Email me for the password.

• Exactly, Ed. We have little, however. But, I am in hopes with the promised Sysop private page, we could engage in some productive hair pulling and slaps, and resolve at least some small issues, and coordinate our efforts, as opposed to the Keystone Cops deal we now have, lol. I did email you! Anyway, I installed mIRC, and evidently I am not alone in not being able to use it to navigate to that channel.  :-( Didn't you message me you had gmail chat? --~ TerryK ^MyTalk 10:13, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Barack obama

I request the unprotection of Barack Obama. It was locked after being vandalized twice in 48 hours. The reason given was that presidential candidates can expect a good deal of vandalism in the coming months... and the election isn't for another 19 months. It's a wiki, vandalism happens, we revert it, no muss, no fuss. Why isn't there the equivalent of a semi-protection? Can't edit a given page unless you're been registered for four days? Myk 12:16, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Anyone? Myk 16:24, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I had a chance to fix a couple things this afternoon but it was locked again. The article is a little embarassing at this point in time. Could someone see fit to unprotect it? Myk 00:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)