Difference between revisions of "User talk:KevinM"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Despair not)
(Undo revision 489002 by Ed Poor (Talk) - Respecting my talk page: You're doing it wrong.)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
−
==Removal of wikilinks==
+
#REDIRECT[[User:KevinM]]
−
How else can ''we'' determine what pages are most wanted if you keep removing those links? [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 22:06, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
:Those articles are ''protected against (re-)creation''. You ''can't'' create them. When people follow those red links, you will get to a "Permission Error" page (unless they're a sysop). I'm not doing this arbitrarily, don't worry. --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 22:12, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
::Hmm.. right, I should have checked up before accusing you of wrong.  At least I wasn't dumb this time and blocked someone for doing some good... [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 22:15, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
:::No worries. If you had briefly blocked me, I totally would've forgiven you. Mistakes happen, after all, and you would have done it to protect the project against a potential troublemaker. :) It also only occurred to me later on that not everybody might know that "salted" is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protected_deleted_pages#Creation_protection wiki-slang] for "protected against (re-)creation", so I'm not ''entirely'' innocent, I guess. --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 22:22, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
==4chan==
 
−
The article [[4chan]] was protected with a '''.''' as the reason.  Technical error perhaps? [[User:RobertBobkins|RobertBobkins]] 15:01, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
:No, it was salted: Deleted and protected against recreation. If you check [[Special:Protectedtitles]], you will see that several articles were protected that way some time ago. --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 15:04, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
::I looked in there and wow there are a large number of furry related titles protected.  [[User:RobertBobkins|RobertBobkins]] 15:08, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
:::Yes, it's quite a list. I disagree with a few of those pages being salted, but then I consider that we are still lacking more important articles, so this might be a battle to be fought later. --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 15:13, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
==Good catch==
 
−
Thanks! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:27, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
==Malfunction==
 
−
Discussion moved to [[Talk:Jessica's Law]]
 
−
 
 
−
==Block Rights==
 
−
 
 
−
Keep up the good work.  I hope you get them. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:44, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
==Your attitude==
 
−
seems different since your failure to get block rights. Do not become embittered by this. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:18, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
:You're right. I should so totally not become embittered by the fact that two talk page contributions apparently had more merit than my 140+ encyclopedia contributions. --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 17:25, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
::Many people have to wait a long time. Do you think I got block rights overnight? Others have a faster track. It may console you to read the parable of the labourers in the vineyard, Matthew 20:1-16; ''So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many are called, but few chosen'' (verse 16). Best wishes, [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:32, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
:::What bothers me most is the multiple lack of logic. I'm supposed to make more and better edits, but my attention is required to undo the work of vandals (who I have to combat until somebody with block rights notices what's going on instead of, oh, I dunno... actually blocking them), and I have less time to prove my worth because the site is suddenly locked down. And I don't get edit rights because my edits once again lack "merit" - and then I look at that guy on the Lenski Issue talk page, who got edit rights after making just ''two talk page edits''. And the payoff? That guy hasn't made a single mainspace edit so far! And when I tell Andy that, I get told that I need logic and faith. Uh, yeah, apparently a bit more of the latter than the former. But for some reason, I didn't just pack my bags, so I guess I still have ''some'' faith left... --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 17:42, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
::::'What cannot be cured must be endured'. Glib? perhaps. But true as well. Keep a stout heart. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:44, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
You'll also gain respect a lot quicker if you don't go off in a huff or "slam the door". I had to revert your talk page to join this discussion.
 
−
 
 
−
If you need quick attention on vandalism, try alerting a sysop by email. I have two accounts: one I check a few times a week, the other is refreshed automatically every 5 minutes. (Friends get my cell phone number, hint, hint.)
 
−
 
 
−
I got picked as a sysop within 7 days of signing up, but then again I had a lot of experience as an admin and bureaucrat on 2 different wiki encyclopedias - plus I use my real name. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:37, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
 

Latest revision as of 17:33, July 10, 2008

Redirect to:

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:KevinM&oldid=489057"