User talk:CWest - Revision history

Aschlafly: Reverted edits by GIVEmeLIPOSUCTION (talk) to last revision by JMR10

2012-06-07T23:11:45Z

Reverted edits by GIVEmeLIPOSUCTION (talk) to last revision by JMR10

GIVEmeLIPOSUCTION: GIVEmeLIPOSUCTION

2012-06-07T23:05:10Z

GIVEmeLIPOSUCTION

JMR10 at 22:45, June 5, 2012

2012-06-05T22:45:04Z

Karajou at 21:17, June 5, 2012

2012-06-05T21:17:50Z

CWest at 21:02, June 5, 2012

2012-06-05T21:02:19Z

Karajou at 20:59, June 5, 2012

2012-06-05T20:59:08Z

CWest at 20:54, June 5, 2012

2012-06-05T20:54:07Z

Karajou: Created page with "We're not going to have a rant from a repeat-troll who uses a foreign proxy server to post it, and we're not going to have anyone else feel like they can revert the decisions of ..."

2012-06-05T20:46:49Z

Created page with "We're not going to have a rant from a repeat-troll who uses a foreign proxy server to post it, and we're not going to have anyone else feel like they can revert the decisions of ..."

New page

We're not going to have a rant from a repeat-troll who uses a foreign proxy server to post it, and we're not going to have anyone else feel like they can revert the decisions of an admin who responds to it. If you are liberal and want to preach tolerance, try tolerating us for a change. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:46, 5 June 2012 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:11, June 7, 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~GIVEmeLIPOSUCTION~~	+
		+	{{welcome\|sig=[[User:JMR10\|Joaquín Martínez]] 18:45, 5 June 2012 (EDT)}}
		+
		+	We're not going to have a rant from a repeat-troll who uses a foreign proxy server to post it, and we're not going to have anyone else feel like they can revert the decisions of an admin who responds to it. If you are liberal and want to preach tolerance, try tolerating us for a change. [[User:Karajou\|Karajou]] 16:46, 5 June 2012 (EDT)
		+	:Why would I be on this site if I was liberal? I didn't realize the individual that made that edit used a proxy. I didn't really think his edit was a rant, except for the end where he posted clear undefended attacks on Fox and the Tea Party. He sounded to me like he simply took issue with the stereotype that all liberals obsess over each of the things listed in the article, and wanted to present himself as a liberal that didn't necessarily fit that stereotype. Again, I do agree that the last part of his edit was unacceptable, but perhaps his comment can be kept on the talk page without that last bout of insults he spewed? I am not here to preach tolerance, but if you do choose to not have his words on the talk page, of course I will tolerate that. I would also like to point out, however, that "we're not going to have any one else...revert the decisions" doesn't sound tolerating either. I would not have brought up tolerance at all if it was not an official Conservapedia policy. [[User:CWest\|CWest]] 16:54, 5 June 2012 (EDT)
		+	::Fair enough. If you've read into this website for the last several years, you would see we have been targeted by liberals and their brand of "tolerance", which is to say they have absolutely no tolerance for anyone who doesn't agree with them. [[User:Karajou\|Karajou]] 16:59, 5 June 2012 (EDT)
		+	:::That's sad to hear. How often do liberals access this site just to try to wreck it...? Also, by "fair enough," though, were you referring to me defending myself as not preaching tolerance, or did you mean that individual's comment could remain on the page with that last part removed? [[User:CWest\|CWest]] 17:02, 5 June 2012 (EDT)
		+	::::Referring to you defending yourself. As far as restoring edits which were removed, best ask an admin, or take the proposal to the talk page in question. [[User:Karajou\|Karajou]] 17:17, 5 June 2012 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:05, June 7, 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
−		+	GIVEmeLIPOSUCTION
−	~~{{welcome\|sig=[[User:JMR10\|Joaquín Martínez]] 18:45, 5 June 2012 (EDT)}}~~
−
−	We're not going to have a rant from a repeat-troll who uses a foreign proxy server to post it, and we're not going to have anyone else feel like they can revert the decisions of an admin who responds to it. If you are liberal and want to preach tolerance, try tolerating us for a change. [[User:Karajou\|Karajou]] 16:46, 5 June 2012 (EDT)
−	:Why would I be on this site if I was liberal? I didn't realize the individual that made that edit used a proxy. I didn't really think his edit was a rant, except for the end where he posted clear undefended attacks on Fox and the Tea Party. He sounded to me like he simply took issue with the stereotype that all liberals obsess over each of the things listed in the article, and wanted to present himself as a liberal that didn't necessarily fit that stereotype. Again, I do agree that the last part of his edit was unacceptable, but perhaps his comment can be kept on the talk page without that last bout of insults he spewed? I am not here to preach tolerance, but if you do choose to not have his words on the talk page, of course I will tolerate that. I would also like to point out, however, that "we're not going to have any one else...revert the decisions" doesn't sound tolerating either. I would not have brought up tolerance at all if it was not an official Conservapedia policy. [[User:CWest\|CWest]] 16:54, 5 June 2012 (EDT)
−	::Fair enough. If you've read into this website for the last several years, you would see we have been targeted by liberals and their brand of "tolerance", which is to say they have absolutely no tolerance for anyone who doesn't agree with them. [[User:Karajou\|Karajou]] 16:59, 5 June 2012 (EDT)
−	:::That's sad to hear. How often do liberals access this site just to try to wreck it...? Also, by "fair enough," though, were you referring to me defending myself as not preaching tolerance, or did you mean that individual's comment could remain on the page with that last part removed? [[User:CWest\|CWest]] 17:02, 5 June 2012 (EDT)
−	::::Referring to you defending yourself. As far as restoring edits which were removed, best ask an admin, or take the proposal to the talk page in question. [[User:Karajou\|Karajou]] 17:17, 5 June 2012 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:45, June 5, 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+
		+	{{welcome\|sig=[[User:JMR10\|Joaquín Martínez]] 18:45, 5 June 2012 (EDT)}}
		+
	We're not going to have a rant from a repeat-troll who uses a foreign proxy server to post it, and we're not going to have anyone else feel like they can revert the decisions of an admin who responds to it. If you are liberal and want to preach tolerance, try tolerating us for a change. [[User:Karajou\|Karajou]] 16:46, 5 June 2012 (EDT)		We're not going to have a rant from a repeat-troll who uses a foreign proxy server to post it, and we're not going to have anyone else feel like they can revert the decisions of an admin who responds to it. If you are liberal and want to preach tolerance, try tolerating us for a change. [[User:Karajou\|Karajou]] 16:46, 5 June 2012 (EDT)
	:Why would I be on this site if I was liberal? I didn't realize the individual that made that edit used a proxy. I didn't really think his edit was a rant, except for the end where he posted clear undefended attacks on Fox and the Tea Party. He sounded to me like he simply took issue with the stereotype that all liberals obsess over each of the things listed in the article, and wanted to present himself as a liberal that didn't necessarily fit that stereotype. Again, I do agree that the last part of his edit was unacceptable, but perhaps his comment can be kept on the talk page without that last bout of insults he spewed? I am not here to preach tolerance, but if you do choose to not have his words on the talk page, of course I will tolerate that. I would also like to point out, however, that "we're not going to have any one else...revert the decisions" doesn't sound tolerating either. I would not have brought up tolerance at all if it was not an official Conservapedia policy. [[User:CWest\|CWest]] 16:54, 5 June 2012 (EDT)		:Why would I be on this site if I was liberal? I didn't realize the individual that made that edit used a proxy. I didn't really think his edit was a rant, except for the end where he posted clear undefended attacks on Fox and the Tea Party. He sounded to me like he simply took issue with the stereotype that all liberals obsess over each of the things listed in the article, and wanted to present himself as a liberal that didn't necessarily fit that stereotype. Again, I do agree that the last part of his edit was unacceptable, but perhaps his comment can be kept on the talk page without that last bout of insults he spewed? I am not here to preach tolerance, but if you do choose to not have his words on the talk page, of course I will tolerate that. I would also like to point out, however, that "we're not going to have any one else...revert the decisions" doesn't sound tolerating either. I would not have brought up tolerance at all if it was not an official Conservapedia policy. [[User:CWest\|CWest]] 16:54, 5 June 2012 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:17, June 5, 2012
Line 3:		Line 3:
	::Fair enough. If you've read into this website for the last several years, you would see we have been targeted by liberals and their brand of "tolerance", which is to say they have absolutely no tolerance for anyone who doesn't agree with them. [[User:Karajou\|Karajou]] 16:59, 5 June 2012 (EDT)		::Fair enough. If you've read into this website for the last several years, you would see we have been targeted by liberals and their brand of "tolerance", which is to say they have absolutely no tolerance for anyone who doesn't agree with them. [[User:Karajou\|Karajou]] 16:59, 5 June 2012 (EDT)
	:::That's sad to hear. How often do liberals access this site just to try to wreck it...? Also, by "fair enough," though, were you referring to me defending myself as not preaching tolerance, or did you mean that individual's comment could remain on the page with that last part removed? [[User:CWest\|CWest]] 17:02, 5 June 2012 (EDT)		:::That's sad to hear. How often do liberals access this site just to try to wreck it...? Also, by "fair enough," though, were you referring to me defending myself as not preaching tolerance, or did you mean that individual's comment could remain on the page with that last part removed? [[User:CWest\|CWest]] 17:02, 5 June 2012 (EDT)
		+	::::Referring to you defending yourself. As far as restoring edits which were removed, best ask an admin, or take the proposal to the talk page in question. [[User:Karajou\|Karajou]] 17:17, 5 June 2012 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:02, June 5, 2012
Line 2:		Line 2:
	:Why would I be on this site if I was liberal? I didn't realize the individual that made that edit used a proxy. I didn't really think his edit was a rant, except for the end where he posted clear undefended attacks on Fox and the Tea Party. He sounded to me like he simply took issue with the stereotype that all liberals obsess over each of the things listed in the article, and wanted to present himself as a liberal that didn't necessarily fit that stereotype. Again, I do agree that the last part of his edit was unacceptable, but perhaps his comment can be kept on the talk page without that last bout of insults he spewed? I am not here to preach tolerance, but if you do choose to not have his words on the talk page, of course I will tolerate that. I would also like to point out, however, that "we're not going to have any one else...revert the decisions" doesn't sound tolerating either. I would not have brought up tolerance at all if it was not an official Conservapedia policy. [[User:CWest\|CWest]] 16:54, 5 June 2012 (EDT)		:Why would I be on this site if I was liberal? I didn't realize the individual that made that edit used a proxy. I didn't really think his edit was a rant, except for the end where he posted clear undefended attacks on Fox and the Tea Party. He sounded to me like he simply took issue with the stereotype that all liberals obsess over each of the things listed in the article, and wanted to present himself as a liberal that didn't necessarily fit that stereotype. Again, I do agree that the last part of his edit was unacceptable, but perhaps his comment can be kept on the talk page without that last bout of insults he spewed? I am not here to preach tolerance, but if you do choose to not have his words on the talk page, of course I will tolerate that. I would also like to point out, however, that "we're not going to have any one else...revert the decisions" doesn't sound tolerating either. I would not have brought up tolerance at all if it was not an official Conservapedia policy. [[User:CWest\|CWest]] 16:54, 5 June 2012 (EDT)
	::Fair enough. If you've read into this website for the last several years, you would see we have been targeted by liberals and their brand of "tolerance", which is to say they have absolutely no tolerance for anyone who doesn't agree with them. [[User:Karajou\|Karajou]] 16:59, 5 June 2012 (EDT)		::Fair enough. If you've read into this website for the last several years, you would see we have been targeted by liberals and their brand of "tolerance", which is to say they have absolutely no tolerance for anyone who doesn't agree with them. [[User:Karajou\|Karajou]] 16:59, 5 June 2012 (EDT)
		+	:::That's sad to hear. How often do liberals access this site just to try to wreck it...? Also, by "fair enough," though, were you referring to me defending myself as not preaching tolerance, or did you mean that individual's comment could remain on the page with that last part removed? [[User:CWest\|CWest]] 17:02, 5 June 2012 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:59, June 5, 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	We're not going to have a rant from a repeat-troll who uses a foreign proxy server to post it, and we're not going to have anyone else feel like they can revert the decisions of an admin who responds to it. If you are liberal and want to preach tolerance, try tolerating us for a change. [[User:Karajou\|Karajou]] 16:46, 5 June 2012 (EDT)		We're not going to have a rant from a repeat-troll who uses a foreign proxy server to post it, and we're not going to have anyone else feel like they can revert the decisions of an admin who responds to it. If you are liberal and want to preach tolerance, try tolerating us for a change. [[User:Karajou\|Karajou]] 16:46, 5 June 2012 (EDT)
	:Why would I be on this site if I was liberal? I didn't realize the individual that made that edit used a proxy. I didn't really think his edit was a rant, except for the end where he posted clear undefended attacks on Fox and the Tea Party. He sounded to me like he simply took issue with the stereotype that all liberals obsess over each of the things listed in the article, and wanted to present himself as a liberal that didn't necessarily fit that stereotype. Again, I do agree that the last part of his edit was unacceptable, but perhaps his comment can be kept on the talk page without that last bout of insults he spewed? I am not here to preach tolerance, but if you do choose to not have his words on the talk page, of course I will tolerate that. I would also like to point out, however, that "we're not going to have any one else...revert the decisions" doesn't sound tolerating either. I would not have brought up tolerance at all if it was not an official Conservapedia policy. [[User:CWest\|CWest]] 16:54, 5 June 2012 (EDT)		:Why would I be on this site if I was liberal? I didn't realize the individual that made that edit used a proxy. I didn't really think his edit was a rant, except for the end where he posted clear undefended attacks on Fox and the Tea Party. He sounded to me like he simply took issue with the stereotype that all liberals obsess over each of the things listed in the article, and wanted to present himself as a liberal that didn't necessarily fit that stereotype. Again, I do agree that the last part of his edit was unacceptable, but perhaps his comment can be kept on the talk page without that last bout of insults he spewed? I am not here to preach tolerance, but if you do choose to not have his words on the talk page, of course I will tolerate that. I would also like to point out, however, that "we're not going to have any one else...revert the decisions" doesn't sound tolerating either. I would not have brought up tolerance at all if it was not an official Conservapedia policy. [[User:CWest\|CWest]] 16:54, 5 June 2012 (EDT)
		+	::Fair enough. If you've read into this website for the last several years, you would see we have been targeted by liberals and their brand of "tolerance", which is to say they have absolutely no tolerance for anyone who doesn't agree with them. [[User:Karajou\|Karajou]] 16:59, 5 June 2012 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:54, June 5, 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	We're not going to have a rant from a repeat-troll who uses a foreign proxy server to post it, and we're not going to have anyone else feel like they can revert the decisions of an admin who responds to it. If you are liberal and want to preach tolerance, try tolerating us for a change. [[User:Karajou\|Karajou]] 16:46, 5 June 2012 (EDT)		We're not going to have a rant from a repeat-troll who uses a foreign proxy server to post it, and we're not going to have anyone else feel like they can revert the decisions of an admin who responds to it. If you are liberal and want to preach tolerance, try tolerating us for a change. [[User:Karajou\|Karajou]] 16:46, 5 June 2012 (EDT)
		+	:Why would I be on this site if I was liberal? I didn't realize the individual that made that edit used a proxy. I didn't really think his edit was a rant, except for the end where he posted clear undefended attacks on Fox and the Tea Party. He sounded to me like he simply took issue with the stereotype that all liberals obsess over each of the things listed in the article, and wanted to present himself as a liberal that didn't necessarily fit that stereotype. Again, I do agree that the last part of his edit was unacceptable, but perhaps his comment can be kept on the talk page without that last bout of insults he spewed? I am not here to preach tolerance, but if you do choose to not have his words on the talk page, of course I will tolerate that. I would also like to point out, however, that "we're not going to have any one else...revert the decisions" doesn't sound tolerating either. I would not have brought up tolerance at all if it was not an official Conservapedia policy. [[User:CWest\|CWest]] 16:54, 5 June 2012 (EDT)