Sysop:Talk/Archive 2

test

works for me. DanH 22:07, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

My non-Sysop test account (SKS) can't view the page. I get this message:

The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups "*", "user".

Return to Main Page.

~ Sharon^Talk 22:26, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

Can non-Sysops see this word: asdfghjkl ?

This works. The error message is imprecise and I'm not sure how to fix that. But all my tests show that non-Sysops cannot search or read these pages. Don't provide descriptive comments for any edits because comments are visible in the Recent Changes log.--Aschlafly 22:41, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

We dont need a good error message. Let spies die of curiosity.

Working for me. We just leave the edit summary blank with each post, right? --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 23:21, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

Breaking News

What do you think of the articles in the Breaking News section?

What do you think about the Older News page?

I'm just wondering since I haven't seen any feedback lately. --Crocoite 23:10, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

Good as usual. DanH 23:26, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

Moving sysop pages here

Is there any reason we shouldn't move conservapedia:sysops and conservapedia:New Sysops Training Page into this namespace? Philip J. Rayment 02:28, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

None at all, that I can see...in fact better for it to be here! --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 03:00, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Lets archive and delete that page, and use this one for discusiion. Geo.Complain! 03:10, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Which page? I asked about two pages. Philip J. Rayment 03:38, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

I am sure Geo is talking about the Sysop Hangout, Philip, and just move the Training Page here. Actually move both, archive the "Hang Out" so it stays private. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 04:20, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

I've moved them both, and made the first one an archive of this page. Philip J. Rayment 04:18, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Portal

Anyone care if I make a entry portal for this namespace? It will have all the pages linked Geo.Complain! 03:12, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

I care. I think it's a good idea; I had vague thoughts along the same line myself. Philip J. Rayment 03:41, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Done! Sysop:Portal —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geo.plrd (talk)

How does a user edit before they've registered?

In going through registrations to apply welcome notices, if they've already edited I like to check their edits so that I don't get embarrassed welcoming a vandal. I came across user:Ahowlett, who registered on 5th July (my time), and when I checked his contributions, there are seven contributions all dating from March!

The only thing I can think of is that an older user was deleted from the database, and a new user (or the same person) has registered with the same name.

Any other ideas?

Philip J. Rayment 06:45, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

That would be my guess. I have seen the same a very few times....and wondered the same, or perhaps someone blocked long ago, and the block expired, or they haven't been back in many months, and somehow the new posting refreshes the DB? --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 06:56, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

If they were blocked and the block expired, it should show on the block list. There was no new posting (as distinct from registration) to refresh anything. And if there was an old user by that name still in the database, they shouldn't have been able to register a new user with that name anyway. Philip J. Rayment 07:18, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, but I have seen blocks "fall off" the list, Philip. Not unblocked, just gone. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 07:21, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

I've just found another. It's a little different, but fits with the idea of the original user name being removed from the database. In this case user:Acatisfinetoo edited and was permanently banned back in March, and a new account with the same name was created yesterday, and made one edit before being banned again. I see this as a problem with deleting users from the database. If they haven't edited, it shouldn't cause any problems, but if they have edited, the old edits for that username get attached to the new account, which just might be an entirely different person. If the username is offensive, then I guess it serves then right, but otherwise they are getting lumped with something they didn't do. Philip J. Rayment 07:33, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

New users welcomed

Just to let you know, after discussing welcoming practices with some other sysops who agreed that we should welcome all new users (assuming that we haven't already blocked them or are about to), I decided to put welcome notices on all users who have registered since the 1st July (according to my time zone). I have now completed doing this.

There were so many users already blocked that many times I did a group of six to ten with not one that wasn't already blocked! Many times I felt relieved that I'd found one that wasn't blocked yet! Many of them I couldn't see an obvious reason for blocking (inoffensive name and no posts listed), but I wasn't about to check up on you all by checking IP addresses and the deleted pages log to see if they were justified! I just assumed that they were.

If you do unblock any user (who had previously been blocked indefinitely), and they haven't already had a welcome notice put on their user page, please add one, because nobody else is likely to notice and do so.

The reason, by the way, for adding the notice, is not only to make new users feel welcome, but to post right on their talk page a list of things that they need to read (the Commandments, etc.), which is (a) hopefully likely to minimise them breaking the rules, and (b) to reduce any chance of them claiming later that they didn't realise what the rules were. So even if you think somebody is a likely vandal, unless you are prepared to ban them, give them a welcome message—it reduces their ability to say "I didn't realise...".

If you are interested, here is a script to help with posting welcome notices.

Philip J. Rayment 08:39, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Philip, I tried several times to get your Welcome script to add a tab, but couldn't. I'm using Mozilla Firefox version 1.5.0.12. The "welcome" tab simply will not show up.--TerryH^Talk 12:30, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

I installed Firefox 1.5.0.11, and it works for me (shows up at least). I did wonder if for some reason it only works for me, but another user reported getting the tabs at least. I've created a new account for myself to test this and potentially other things, but locking must be disabled at the moment, so I can't edit in my other account! You don't want to upgrade to the latest version of Firefox, do you?

You should not have the <pre> tags around the code on your page. Before you put them there, did you force your browser to clear its cache? Unless you do, the code from your javascript page probably won't get reloaded.

I've also created a debugging version of the code. I'm adding some new instructions here on how to use it. Please give this code a try.

Philip J. Rayment 08:39, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Non-Sysop contest

When we complete the Sysop contest, I'm proposing a similar contest for non-sysops. This would promote a friendly competition with the rest of Conservapedia's editors; with the added benefit to this site. We've already seen some interest from non-sysops to be in this contest, and I don't think it would be difficult to organize teams similar to our contest (of course we would leave out points for blocking, etc.) --Crocoite 17:10, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Good suggestion, Crocoite. Contests are motivators. What do you think of advertising the upcoming team contest on the front page? It might generate even more interest in it, and some people might ask to be on one of the remaining spots.--Aschlafly 17:17, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

I will generate something now for the front page. --Crocoite 17:19, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Done. --Crocoite 17:36, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

I like your changes Andy. --Crocoite 19:13, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

When does the contest start? DanH 23:19, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Deletedpage text

Everyone:

If the Deletedpage template has a link to the Main Page, then whenever anyone visits the Main Page and clicks "What links here," they're going to see all those pages, including many having names that we don't want them to see. I propose removing the Main Page link and keeping it removed. If someone needs to get out of a "deleted and protected page," they can click on the logo and get back to the Main Page that way. Let's leave that instruction on deleted pages--not a link to the Main Page.--TerryH^Talk 14:00, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Should we include a line of text in the template saying "Click on the logo to return to the main page"? --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ^talk 14:01, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes, that would work. But let's all agree on this change.--TerryH^Talk 14:16, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Blogs 4 Brownback

A user insists on linking the Sam Brownback page to Blogs 4 Brownback, which I think is an obvious parody site (it's most famous for its post "Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine"), and he claims that he "sees no reason to think it's not legitimate). Do you think I'm in the right to want to keep it out? DanH 01:46, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

I'm not familiar with the site. Link? Philip J. Rayment 01:51, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Saying heliocentrism is atheistic is a parody. You're right to keep it out, unless Philip feels strongly otherwise.--Aschlafly 01:51, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

http://blogs4brownback.wordpress.com/2007/05/18/heliocentrism-is-an-atheist-doctrine/ DanH 01:53, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, I reckon that's got to be a spoof site. Philip J. Rayment 02:28, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Good catch DanH. Your analysis looks on target. This was a tuff one, but it does appear to be disinformation to divide the GOP. One of the team founders states, "My primary focus is conservative (not necessarily GOP) politics. [1] and "I want voters to “just say no” to RINOs."

Also, Brownback, McCain, & Hillary Clinton are all U.S. Senators, yet this site refers to Hillary as a "kook" and engages in namecalling on McCain as well. While Senate Democrats may have no qualms about violating Senate rules by trashing and mocking other members of the U.S. Senate publicly, this is a clear distinction between Conservative Republican values and the Democrats win-at-any-cost philosophy. The site does more to promote division among potential GOP voters, than find common ground. Look how savagely Romney is trashed. RobS 12:15, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Style manual proposals

I've started a couple of discussions on Style manual matters, for which I'd appreciate some feedback.

Philip J. Rayment 03:13, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

So far, one sysop has commented on one of those. So does that mean that if I add my views to the Manual of Style that nobody here is going to object? Philip J. Rayment 10:47, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

(Comment from Conservative moved to Conservapedia talk:Footnotes - technical help#Footnote style.))

This is what I like to see

A fairly new editor asked for the World of Warcraft article to be unlocked so that he could add to it. It was, and he added a lot. Too much, apparently (not malicious, just unencyclopedic). Two other editors (mainly one other) have jumped in and cut it down to size. And all, as far as I know, without one of us having to issue any warnings, lockings, or do any other intervention. Philip J. Rayment 10:47, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Hmmm, perhaps I spoke a bit hastily. Learn together now claims that the cuts that have been made are to the content the previously-protecting sysop put in, and he's reverted the cuts.

Nevertheless, he is suggesting that they discuss the matter before making any drastic changes. At this stage, still no reason to jump in—let's see if they can sort it out themselves.

Philip J. Rayment 11:42, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Problem loading pages

For a browser, I normally use Maxthon, which is based on the IE engine. It has a known bug with opening links in specific circumstances, but I can load those links if I use IE itself or Firefox. However, I've found some pages that I can't load even with IE or Firefox. The page all have an ampersand in the name, and the ampersand is obviously the problem. Are others able to load these pages? Unless it's just a problem I'm having, I will move these pages to a different name (there is a way I can do it without opening the page first).

A couple of these already have duplicates without an ampersand, suggesting that others do have this problem.

The list below is just the ones that appear on the uncategorised pages list; there may be more than these.

Philip J. Rayment 10:56, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

I can't get them with the latest versions of either Firefox or IE. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 04:30, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I'm moving them. Philip J. Rayment 05:21, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Alexa

Yesterday's numbers were pretty good (26,585); [2] best in a month. RobS 14:28, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

User name guide

I propose putting the following information on the login/create account pages:

Note: Offensive user names will result in that user name being blocked and perhaps your IP address being blocked. Frivolous user names, names of prominent living persons, and user names consisting of, for example, all capital letters or all the same character, may also result in that user name being blocked. User names based on your real name or initials are preferred.

If you have an existing account that has been blocked, do not create a new account to appeal the block. Instead, contact an Administrator, as explained here

I'm not 100% happy with that wording, but I think that something along this line would be a good idea. What do others think? Philip J. Rayment 09:25, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Sorry I missed this! Perfect idea! --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 05:40, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

Okay, this proposal has been here almost a week now, and has no dissenters and one vote of support, so I will implement it. Philip J. Rayment 02:30, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

Perfect, Philip! I did forget to give this Ed Poor's approval as well, so as his alter-ego & unappointed official spokesperson, I hereby do so. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 04:24, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

It didn't work out quite the way I hoped, but it's not too bad. The login page should have the text to the right of the box instead of underneath it, but on the create account page it should be underneath. When I first posted the text, there was an awful-looking narrow strip of text down the right of the create-account box, so I had to use a clear:both to move it underneath, but this moves it underneath the Login box also. It does appear possible to have two separate blocks of text, one for each page, which could solve the problem, but CreationWiki, from which I figured out the bit to change, doesn't have this problem, so I don't know what's causing it here. Philip J. Rayment 09:31, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

State governor images

I received this email:

AManInBlack <maninblack3125@yahoo.com>AddSunday, July 15, 2007 11:00:55 PMTo:Crocoite <crocoitecp@yahoo.com>

Anyway, what I was there to talk to you about was state governor images. While the US federal government does release any possible copyright claim on its products, state governments don't necessarily follow suit. In fact, most don't. These images unfortunately aren't in the public domain. Copyright issues are always some of the thorniest, and I don't want to see CP getting into trouble over this sort of thing.

These photos were copied from .gov sites, with a link to the actual photo. Is there a copyright problem or is this guy just blowing smoke? --Crocoite 03:18, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

From what I seem to recall reading before, I think he's probably correct. It depends on the individual government (federal, state, or otherwise). Philip J. Rayment 04:01, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

I am starting to email each individual state for permission to use these photos on our site for educational use only. I will add the positive responses to the photo credits and remove any images where the permission is denied. --Crocoite 04:17, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

He is incorrect. All levels of government grant rights of use for educational and non-commerical use, as Andy has posted many times. Therefore he is both correct and not, depending on the useage. We are fine. I would add that in the future, none of us should be rushing around in reaction to this kind of thing, okay? Such emails should always be forwarded directly to Andy, and then we should wait before removing things, etc. If some of us were signed into IM, this could have been cleared up rather quickly. ;-) This user continues to make my block finger itchy, and I simply don't care who they are at WP. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 06:26, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Please scratch your finger. From what I've seen, AManInBlack's being doing good work. Philip J. Rayment 06:32, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

You wanna make a wager, my intuition against your "facts", mate? :p I distrust any editor emailing a Sysop about legal matters, instead of Andy, especially such well-known matters as images, and their release for all educational and non-profit use. We need to guard against users pushing us toward Wikipedian conventions. Those in contact with this guy, please feel free to pass on to him he most certainly has my attention now. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 06:38, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Deleted Page

Is there something being tinkered with, that perhaps would be better shared (and explained in detail) with the Sysops? [3] --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 17:34, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Look at the log for the page. It was deleted a few days ago, yet many pages still redirected to it. It was then recreated by a vandal as the definition of fornication so all the pages redirected to the definition of fornication. I was the one who removed the content and protected it, then it was deleted as Andy removed the vandals work. I asked if it should be deleted, protected or restored? now he restored it so all is well. Bohdan 17:38, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Just saying I wish TerryH would post here, explaining to the rest of us, what it is he is doing. The reason being, if it happens again, we will know how to fix it instantly. I did ask about this before, never was answered, and could have fixed it if only I was informed, as I am sure others could have. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 18:12, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

For everyone's information, all I remember doing was changing the template to remove the explicit link to the Main Page. Instead, the text of "DeletedPage" (whether in the main or the Conservapedia namespace) should instruct the viewer to click on the Conservapedia logo to get back to the Main Page. If the link to the Main Page remains, then suddenly the Main Page links to a lot of deleted pages, some of which have titles that are not family friendly. With my refinement, those pages become dead-end pages, and that's as it ought to be.

I don't know who deleted the template entirely. I did not do it.--TerryH^Talk 20:34, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Well, I have deleted it many times, having been directed there automatically, and thinking I was still on the deleted page, deleting it again, lol! But my earlier post wasn't about that, but about the bit on Andy's page, and Bohdan's comments someone was working on it, I looked and saw the last edit as TerryH, but didn't note the time or date....;-) --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 20:38, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

The last time I did anything on Conservapedia:Deletedpage was to change its form and content to the form and content it now has.--TerryH^Talk 20:58, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Well, then the post by Bohdan on Andy's page remains a mystery, lol! --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 21:14, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Look again. The post about work being done was by someone else. All I did was remove some vandalism. Bohdan 21:15, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Well, you, someone else, something was posted, and it was about some work being done, right? So, it still remains a mystery! --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 22:44, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Clarification and categories

So anything that is under the 'Sysop' namespace is only viewable by sysops and above?

and

Categories - I'm urging everyone to take part in putting categories in the existing articles. We only have around 1,600 articles to categorise.

Niandra ^talk 09:16, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Regarding this namespace, yes, that's the theory (although the edit comments are viewable by anybody in the Recent changes list). Philip J. Rayment 09:46, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

It helps if you make the subheader something general, say like: "Question about..." and then start below with the person's name...that way the summary won't reveal what you are specifically what you are talking about. Anything really confidential, or something you only want other sysops to read, just use the email. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 19:31, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Navigation Aids..

We could sure use a navigation template for these protected pages! Something that has links and a BACK button to all of them. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 15:51, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

Geo created a portal page for these protected pages, but it never got far. I didn't want to chase Geo up on it until the contest stuff was out of the way, but I think that TK has a good idea here. Given that the number of sysop-namespace pages will never be large (I think), then a navigation box listing all the pages is probably more useful than the portal. As for the back button—???. What's wrong with your browser's "back" button? Philip J. Rayment 21:45, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

Back browser? (Horrified expression) Pish! Like on the Sysop Contest, a back button to take one to the table of contents! Of course if there were a nifty template at the bottom, like the one that lists Presidents, with the page titles to click on, that would be super-super as well! --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 23:10, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

So you wanted to browse your back? <shock> The "back" button on the table of contents was not really a back button, unless one assumes that that's where you've just come from. But a link to take you to a contents page would be fine, if there was such a thing (the portal page) that was any use, which I think it wouldn't be if the navigation box handled it all.

The problem with a navigation box at the bottom of what are essentially talk pages is that clicking the "+" tab to create a new section would add that new section below the navigation box, which means that it would no longer be at the bottom. So I'd suggest that the navigation boxes on these sysop pages should be at the top.

I'm happy to create the template for the navigation box myself, and I'd do it in sysop namespace rather than template namespace, but I think that it will render Geo's portal page redundant, so I'd rather wait for him to comment before I do that.

Philip J. Rayment 23:57, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

Wasn't the portal page part of the problem with security? Or was it the re-directs? Anyway, I left Geo a message. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 00:40, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

AIM

I've recently signed up with a screen name at AIM messenger with niandraconserve@hotmail.com

With the help of TK, I have added a few of your addresses. Niandra ^talk 05:36, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Main Page Attack

I'm almost positive it's traffic from Ebaumsworld.com--Elamdri 08:45, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

I would have protected the template earlier if I knew it was being used on the main page! Niandra ^talk 08:49, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

I think it's only been used on the front page for a few days. You've had a busy evening, Niandra! Philip J. Rayment 08:53, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Shows in the block log! Niandra ^talk 08:56, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Have you had time to do anything else? Philip J. Rayment 08:57, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, I had tea a few hours ago, I haven't really been online here for that long, it's just the amount of blockings all came within a short time. Niandra ^talk 08:58, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes, it interupted a rare and lovely chat it did! --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 12:40, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

And now last night, again, reference to Ebaumsworld in the six or so vandalized pages. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 16:47, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Warning

I believe that Dramian1337 is a friend of Superjack, for several reasons based on Superjack's vandalism. Also, his obsession with code/hacking is worrisome and the number "1337" is common slang among hackers. We need to keep a close eye on this user. DanH 22:55, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Big-time watch. He already has included several articles about hackers and hacking ("leet speek" is one), but what I find more confirming than that is his inclusion of the Norse god "Loki", and that's all he says about it. What's not included is the fact that Loki is the god of subversive chaos and anarchy, as well as being the basis for The Mask starring Jim Carrey. Karajou 16:57, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Case #1

User:Ore765 posted patently false information in the David Obey article [4] (See 110th United States Congress#Earmark reform for why). He's been rather active, all his contribs need to be checked. RobS 16:16, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Anti-Flag

Do we need this article? All it does is push the anti-American rhetoric in CP by our liberal "friends", as usual. Karajou 17:10, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Article history:

16:22, 28 April 2007 Hojimachong -- New page: Anti-Flag is an American punk band from the United States. The lyrics of the band often criticize the irresponsible capitalistic of large corporations.

It is a Pop Culture entry, and if kept, shouldn't be allowed to veer from a basic description of the group, IMO. Andy has said we need to guard against clogging CP with too much pop culture references, like Wikipedia does. I should think a template could come in handy here, with a main article about Punk Bands, and a template listing them. Instead of 50 idiot like articles on each and every minor punk band who ever recorded a one hit wonder. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 17:16, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Templates vandalized

The following templates were vandalized and Niandra reverted them:

Template:Tt
Template:T row if
Template:QuoteBox2
Template:Public domain image
Template:User GunControLovedByTotalitarians
Template:Unprotected
Template:President

When I saw these templates were vandalized, protecting them seemed necessary.[5] Vandalizing a template has the potential to affect a larger number of articles, and all templates should be protected similar to pics. --Crocoite 04:34, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

In my opinion, there is no need for blanket protection of all templates. And most of those template have very little use on article pages, so for most of them, being vandalised for a short time until reversion is no big deal. Philip J. Rayment 12:13, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

New Template Policy

Andy has asked me to help implement a new policy dealing with templates, and work with Philip and others in getting it off the ground. The attack this morning by a vandal, or vandals, on them, and the recent vandal attack on the main page template, is one of them main reasons for changing what we have been doing.

Here is what we have come up with:

1. Create a special page for user-designed templates to be placed for review by PhilipR and our more template minded sysops. Templates would be displayed, along with the currently required documentation.

2. Upon his approval (or any Sysop who is technically savvy enough to do so) they would be added to our existing list of approved templates for general use. This page will also remain locked to prevent editors from adding unauthorized templates to it.

3. This policy would be that before any editor can place the more complicated tables and templates upon pages, they will need to be reviewed per #1 above, and that those templates will be locked to prevent any changes after approval. Users wanting to change them can merely ask a sysop to open them, and leave a note for Philip so he can have a look to make sure the changes are benign.

4. These changes would include “user boxes”. Heretofore they have been excluded, however many have linked theirs to user created categories such as “Gay Conservapedians” “Liberals on Conservapedia” which has made it easier to locate others of a like mind, and sometimes those boxes have been altered to include a link to RW, etc. This is of course unacceptable.

Anyone who wants to create the page, and format it, please proceed! It will need a short introduction, detailing our new policy, and smoothing this over, so as to cause the least amount of complications to our best contributors.

--Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 04:45, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

All of the templates are protected. Niandra ^talk 06:14, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Thank you so very much! --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 08:30, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

We do not have an "existing list of approved templates". The existing list of templates specifically says that listing there does not imply endorsement of any of them.

The "working with Philip" involves telling me that the new policy is fait accompli. So I hereby give my approval in advance for all new templates that are not vandalism, offensive, or etc. After all, a vandal is hardly going to abide by this policy anyway, is he?

Despite the desire "to cause the least amount of complications to our best contributors", this policy does precisely the opposite. Most of the high-risk templates were already protected, so this new policy achieves little except to disenfranchise editors.

Oh, by the way, as this is a private sysop-only page, I trust that nobody will object to me expressing my opinion, especially as it wasn't sought before the policy was decided.

Philip J. Rayment 12:26, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

No, Philip I am sure no one will complain about Andy's decision. And it was his alone, based upon dozens of emails sent back and forth about templates over the past two months or so. Given the attack recently, and before, it seems more than prudent, less than ideal...but what in life is? ;-) --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 21:01, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

main page templates

Just to reiterate..

The templates: AboutC, Tfa and Newsline aren't in use for the main page.

They have been replaced by Template:mainpageleft and Template:mainpageright

Niandra ^talk 10:53, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Should I delete the talk page I just made and use this one instead? DeborahB. 10:54, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Just use the general main page discussion page? Niandra ^talk 10:58, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Case #2

User:Jalepeno is back. [6] Here created all these accounts (I might have missed a few). Plus,

18:48, 19 May 2007, Bohdan (Talk | contribs | block) blocked UncleJalapeno19 (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (unblock)

18:48, 19 May 2007, Bohdan (Talk | contribs | block) blocked UncleJalapeno18 (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (unblock)

18:27, 19 May 2007, Bohdan (Talk | contribs | block) blocked UncleJalapeno17 (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (unblock)

18:26, 19 May 2007, Bohdan (Talk | contribs | block) blocked UncleJalapeno16 (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (unblock)

18:24, 19 May 2007, Bohdan (Talk | contribs | block) blocked UncleJalapeno15 (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (unblock)

18:22, 19 May 2007, Bohdan (Talk | contribs | block) blocked UncleJalapeno14 (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (unblock)

18:21, 19 May 2007, RobS (Talk | contribs | block) blocked UncleJalapeno13 (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (unblock) (vandal)

18:20, 19 May 2007, RobS (Talk | contribs | block) blocked UncleJalapeno12 (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (unblock) (vandal)

18:16, 19 May 2007, RobS (Talk | contribs | block) blocked UncleJalapeno11 (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (unblock) (vandal)

18:14, 19 May 2007, DanH (Talk | contribs | block) blocked UncleJalapeno10 (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (unblock)

18:12, 19 May 2007, DanH (Talk | contribs | block) blocked UncleJalapeno9 (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (unblock)

18:09, 19 May 2007, RobS (Talk | contribs | block) blocked UncleJalapeno8 (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (unblock) (vandal)

17:59, 19 May 2007, RobS (Talk | contribs | block) blocked UncleJalapeno7 (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (unblock) (vandal)

17:54, 19 May 2007, RobS (Talk | contribs | block) blocked UncleJalapeno6 (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (unblock) (vandal)

09:44, 19 May 2007, BenjaminS (Talk | contribs | block) blocked UncleJalapeno5 (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (unblock) (sock of unclejalepeno3 & 4)

09:19, 19 May 2007, Aschlafly (Talk | contribs | block) blocked UncleJalapeno4 (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (unblock) (sock)

09:07, 19 May 2007, Aschlafly (Talk | contribs | block) blocked UncleJalapeno3 (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (unblock) (sock)

00:12, 19 May 2007, RobS (Talk | contribs | block) blocked UncleJalapeno2 (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (unblock) (vandal)

RobS 12:28, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

If memory serves me, there was email about this user, that I had, or DanH had. I beleive the IP's are completely different for Jalapeno and the Uncle series. Dan might remember better than me. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 12:39, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

I remember that being the case, although I think that Geo.plrd was actually the one who investigated it. DanH 12:49, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Case #3

User:Conservativeguy maybe a sock of User:Ilovegeorgew. IP 67.134.189.66

26 July 2007 12:07 Democratic Party (diff; hist) . . (-52) . . Conservativeguy (Talk | contribs | block)

25 July 2007 16:23 Yale University (diff; hist) . . (+1,662) . . Conservativeguy (Talk | contribs | block)

15:16 San Francisco (diff; hist) . . (-1) . . Conservativeguy (Talk | contribs | block) (Grammatical error)

15:10 (User creation log) (diff; hist) . . Conservativeguy (Talk | contribs | block) (New user)

23 July 2007 16:53 Rush Limbaugh (diff; hist) . . (+58) . . Ilovegeorgew (Talk | contribs | block) (grammatical errors)

15:51 (User creation log) (diff; hist) . . Ilovegeorgew (Talk | contribs | block) (New user)

RobS 12:41, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Case #4

User:Taj - disinformation. [7] RobS 14:02, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

New Policy....

This was presented by Andy, and added to the Style Manual here [[8]], under "What Not To Add To Articles". --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 19:46, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Uncite template - I would appreciate fellow Sysop support

Dear fellow Sysops,

I am sending you a note about the uncited template and how it can substantially increase web traffic to Conservapedia.

The Conservapedia article on homosexuality is now ranked in the top 10 of http://www.google.com searches. I estimate that the Conservapedia article on homosexuality is giving 300-400 people new people a day to know about Conservapedia who wouldn't otherwise know about it. When the article is in the top 5 of the search engine rankings it will bring in SUBSTANTIALLY more as the top 5 entries get the lion's share of the internet traffic.

Now a main reason why the Conservapedia homosexuality article is ranked in the top 10 is that the search engines highly reward articles with footnotes that link to other internet websites. Accordingly, since our uncited template is successful in getting people to cite their material as Andy Schlafly stated, I made note of the uncited template in the following Conservapedia articles:

Conservapedia:Commandments: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Commandments

Conservapedia Manual of Style: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style

Conservapedia:Footnotes - technical help http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Footnotes_-_technical_help

Currently about 50% of Conservapedia articles are completely uncited and a high percentage of articles that are cited are poorly cited. If this persist, not many people are going to know about Conservapedia as our articles will be poorly ranked by the search engines. However, I strongly believe that the uncited template will make a substantial difference.

My message on the indicated pages clearly indicates the template is to be placed on a article or section of an article that are COMPLETELY uncited. It also gives the template for merely indicating a sentence that is uncited. Lastly, my cited articles are clearly bringing internet traffic and the uncited articles are not only breaking the conservapedia commandment about citing your sources but they are creating Conservapedia articles filled with unverifiable or hard to verify information. Plus uncited articles are not making a significant impact in regards to bringing in search engine traffic.

Accordingly, I would appreciate Sysops efforts in supporting the uncited template. Conservative 16:16, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

I like the idea. We need more citations. Bohdan 16:37, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

I like the concept, don't like the execution, without any warning or asking. My problem is, the changes made are an open invitation to [RW] to flood all articles with requests for citations. It is not made clear, or wasn't when I read the changes some time ago now (and maybe they have been recently edited) how many are enough? I have always added the cite template when their are none, or simply did the job of a sysop and added them myself. However if there are two citations on a short article, does that merit the template? We will end up with a list with 10,000 articles on it, if we fail to give very specific instructions, and not the vague ones presently there. --Sysop-TK _{--Talk 2 Me} 16:44, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Conservative, TK makes a valid point about flooding articles with this template, similar to what we've seen with the {{stub}} template. I do think it would be helpful in certain situations, like the Homosexuality article or other lengthy articles. --Crocoite 16:56, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

TK and Crocoite, while I certainly agree with the fact that Conservapedia has enemies, I do think that we should not allow them to impede efforts to improve Conservapedia that are clearly warranted. Second, the uncited template is only to be used on articles or sections of articles that are COMPLETELY uncited. I cleary indicate this on the instructions for the template. Third, we do not allow the use of robots on Conservapedia so I don't think we can be flooded with uncited templates. However, if the [RW] people want to take the man hours away from creating vandalism to helping us put uncited templates (that are tastefully designed) on articles I would applaud their helpful efforts as they will only help us gain higher search engine rankings. Conservative 17:01, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

We do know of new editors that have been happy to add stub templates to most articles, then later Andy mentioned he thought they were being overused. I see the same potential problem with the uncited template. I don't think it would be helpful to add the template to small articles, such as Dusty Plasma. I think it should be limited to medium length articles, such as Peter Bourne or lengthy articles like Global warming. --Crocoite 17:22, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Conservative's motives are the best, I know that. I am only frustrated with him thinking anyone disagreeing with his execution of his own ideas is his "enemy". Conservative, while you have been busy doing your article, which is very important, many of us have been grapling with vandalism and plots, from our real enemies. That is why it is very important for you to learn how to untilize the email and this page to discuss all of the ramifications first. While we do not allow bots, Conservative, we have recently been attacked by them. We cannot stop them. And would it not be fair to say that your visiting other sites, and linking to your article is a more direct cause of the Google ranking, and not the many citations? --Sysop-TK _{--Talk 2 Me} 17:05, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

TK, I clearly did not say that Conservapedians who oppose the uncited template being used are my enemies. Please kindly show me where I said such a thing. Secondly, I do realize the importance of vandal blocking, however, that is not germaine to the issue. Please keep your comments focused on the issue being discussed here. Lastly, I have not put much effort at all into getting other websites to our homosexuality article and accordingly I have only gotten one site to link to our article and the site does not get much traffic (I contacted 4 sites on Saturday). However, there may be a huge site which will link to our article but I am not betting on it. Conservative 17:24, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Crocoite, I have noticed that putting a uncited template on articles early catches the problem while it is small. The problem with waiting until articles are medium sized is that there are so many contributors it becomes harder to contact the respective parties and remedy the situation. However, I do think that taking the time to put the uncited template on one sentence articles is not going to boost our internet search engine rankings. I have put the uncited template on 3-4 sentence articles, however, and it was quite successful. I also think that once people see citations on 3-5 sentence articles they will follow the leader(s). Conservative 17:30, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Conservative, I would like to see your example where you put the template on a short article and it was successful in increasing the rankings. Perhaps such an example would demonstrate your point and get my full support. ;-) --Crocoite 17:42, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

If that is so, I am asking you to amend your public changes to the Style Manual to reflect just what you said. You don't do a whole lot of maintenace or interaction with users, Conservative, and sometimes your ideas, while good ones, need discussion with your peers before you just rush out and make changes. Can you understand that? I have never made a change to our rules or guidelines without asking for input and a getting Andy's approval. I ask that no matter how justified your actions, that you do the same. IS that not fair? --Sysop-TK _{--Talk 2 Me} 17:35, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

TK, I think I am very clear in the Manual of Style. What do you believe I am unclear about? Secondly, I do communicate with other Sysops albeit some more than others. It all depends on the project at hand. For example, I sent about 5-6 private emails to RobS yesterday. Third, Andy thinks that using a strategy of having more citations is "brilliant" and I don't think I am being impolite in dislosing our private communication. I also think the results speak for themselves. Being top 10 out of 17 million plus articles on homosexuality is worth emulating don't you think - especially when it brings in new editors? Why should we not help our editors get more readers? I do think that people enjoy most having their material read by lots of people. I think we should facilitate this and it will make our contributors happier and more importantly having well cited articles is doing a public service and uncited articles are not very helpful because people want true and VERIFIABLE articles. While cited articles are not necessarily true, citations enable people to evaluate the sources. Conservative 17:51, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Andy Schlafly just approved my addition to the Conservapedia Commandments in regards to mentioning the uncited template. I just included it. Conservative 19:39, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

The Homosexuality article is now ranked #9 on Google. One of these days it will be number one - ahead of WP. ;-) --Crocoite 18:39, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Dogpile, which does a Metasearch of Google, Yahoo! Search, Live Search, Ask.com, About, MIVA, LookSmart ranks CP #9 ahead of Wikipedia at #13. [9] RobS 20:49, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Uncited Template....

There seems to be a bit of trouble with it....

Check out Salvation. It not only adds the template, it also inserts a whole paragraph of instruction (totally un-needed) into the article. Does anyone know how to fix this? Perhaps these things need to be checkout better before encouraging their placement. --Sysop-TK _{--Talk 2 Me} 14:17, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps we could create another, shorter template that merely says that more sources are needed without going through the whole paragraph-long spiel? DanH 14:20, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

The problem was caused by Conservative misplacing a no-wiki tag. I repaired it. --Sysop-TK _{--Talk 2 Me} 14:38, 30 July 2007 (EDT)