Conservapedia talk:Blocked on sight
Thank you, dear two-times the first positive nullstelle of the cosine function ! --LArron 06:33, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- Your welcome. - User 06:43, 7 November 2008 (EST)
One user per line[edit]
Before I do any more do you approve/agree? Please feel free to revert if you don't like it. Silver Sloth 06:58, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- I'd like the old version better - it get's awfully long, otherwise. But if there is a consensus to do it your way, I'll provide a version with the <br> tags, no need to do this by hand :-) --LArron 07:01, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- We seem to be losing names and block reasons in the editing. Can you place the original list again? - User 07:14, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- Not everyone got a block-reason, I'm afraid. So, which version should it be: one user per line or continuous text? --LArron 07:32, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- I've reverted, one objection was good enough for me. Silver Sloth 07:48, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- I liked the list. I was only worried about losing names. - User 07:50, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- s/)/)\<br\>/g - but it turns out some of the entries don't have reasons which mean they don't have closing brackets so there's a need for a better substitution. Something along the lines of s/\'\'\'[^']*\'\'\'/\<br\>\'\'\'[^']*\'\'\'/g - don't you just love regexp! Silver Sloth 07:56, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- Just to show off it's s/\(\'\'\'[^']*\'\'\'\)/\<br\>\1/g Silver Sloth 08:13, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- I have never know you to be able to place a space in a name (although you have been allowed to earlier), so use a space as the break. - User 08:35, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- Just to show off it's s/\(\'\'\'[^']*\'\'\'\)/\<br\>\1/g Silver Sloth 08:13, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- s/)/)\<br\>/g - but it turns out some of the entries don't have reasons which mean they don't have closing brackets so there's a need for a better substitution. Something along the lines of s/\'\'\'[^']*\'\'\'/\<br\>\'\'\'[^']*\'\'\'/g - don't you just love regexp! Silver Sloth 07:56, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- I liked the list. I was only worried about losing names. - User 07:50, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- I've reverted, one objection was good enough for me. Silver Sloth 07:48, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- Not everyone got a block-reason, I'm afraid. So, which version should it be: one user per line or continuous text? --LArron 07:32, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- We seem to be losing names and block reasons in the editing. Can you place the original list again? - User 07:14, 7 November 2008 (EST)
Not necessarily blocked on sight[edit]
Just because these users have no visible edits does not mean they made no edits at all. E.g. I can see two or three manifestations of myself in this list, & I can assure you that they did stuff prior to being blocked, just in locations which have since been deleted (Conservative's user page, one of his Gentlemen messages, creating new fake messages or articles).
If a user's block reason is "unacceptable name" or similar, then probably they made no edits, but if it's "vandalism" or "obscenity" then it seems likely that this user did make an edit or edits which have since been covered over. JuanK 07:12, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- I tried to make this clear, perhaps we'll rephrase the intro: no edit-history doesn't imply no edits at all --LArron 07:33, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- I did a quick re-write of that and added a link to burning the evidence if that helps. ArmondikoVnarchist 08:37, 7 November 2008 (EST)
Delete[edit]
I'm gonna delete this, it's pointless and stupid. ħuman
04:36, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
- Ugh, I hit the wrong button. Anyway, a bit more consensus would be welcome. Word stupid Phantom Hoover! 05:57, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
- pointless? stupid? Well, it's at least dated and no fun anymore - so, I'm for deleting, too... larronsicut fur in nocte 15:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)