Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia talk:Request Unprotection"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (→Organization of the page: It is normal to divide 'posts' between the page itself and its associated talk page) |
m (→March 2007: Clarification) |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
::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? | ::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". | ::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 | + | ::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 :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 08:26, 29 March 2007 (EDT) | ::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 :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 08:26, 29 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 13:02, March 29, 2007
Per the instructions on the Project Page, post here if you haven't received a reply posting on the talk page of the Sysop locking the article, after 24 hours.
March 2007
- 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)
- 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)
Organization of the page
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)