I created a yahoo email on my main page if you ever need to contact me!--Elamdri 15:59, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
I thought it's pretty funny. Jaques 01:36, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
- Anyone ever tell you that you're odd? :p Maybe you could find a more appropriate one? --~ TerryK MyTalk 01:55, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
My appeal to Conservative
Please see my latest post to Conservative at his talk page. I tried to outline what I believe are some of the biggest concerns. I will be on for another 10 mins, and would appreciate if you could get back to me by then. And after that, I won't be on until Thursday evening. --Hojimachongtalk 00:34, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
- Thanks Terry, I really appreciate it. I know we may not see eye to eye, but I think you are one of the good people who make CP a bearable environment. I am going to go watch the Colbert Report and then go to bed, pending my trip to Mexico tomorrow. Ole! --Hojimachongtalk 01:54, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
- As the note said FYI....FYI.....for your information. No accusation attached, and I didn't even specifically bring up your lone ranger unblocking of blocked users. :p --~ TerryK MyTalk 19:10, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Ok, I'll bite. What has the Good Samaritan got to do with Sid and me? I am sure that I am just a bit slow today, but I don't get it. --Horace 04:24, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
- The trouble with Scripture, a wise old lady once told me, was that people looked too hard for meaning....the parable is there. Be kind, be gentle to each other, go and do kind things for others. That is the Word Of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. Easter is a good time to ponder the most simple, yet the most complex concept man will ever face. ;-) --~ Sysop-TerryK MyTalk 05:51, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Wish you a blessed easter. Geo.Talk 03:20, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for your Easter message Terry. --Horace 05:51, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
Same here. Thanks for the message, and a happy Easter to you, too. :) --Sid 3050 06:53, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
- Thank you. It is this verse from Hebrews 4:2
- For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them,
- the "them" being Israel in the wilderness. From this we learn the gospel of salvation through the death, burial & resurrection of Christ was preached long before Jesus was ever born, and Christians and Jews really do have very much doctrine in common. RobS 13:25, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
The same goes for you, Terry. MountainDew 13:48, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
Colors of the Wind
- Ed said I could use Trillian, which I have, and didn't know you could use it for IRC.
So many times in my role as a technical advisor I've stumbled over things which nobody realized that one party "didn't know" - because it was so obvious - because no one knew that somebody didn't know it.
There's a nice song about this in Disney's Pocahontas (movie):
- How can there be so much that you don't know?
- You think the only people who are people
- Are the people who look and think like you
- But if you walk the footsteps of a stranger
- You'll learn things you never knew you never knew
I want to learn new things! --Ed Poor 09:26, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
- Colin, I looked and looked, coudlnt find your suggestion! Under what sub heading did you make it? --~ TK MyTalk 20:08, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for the article you posted on my userpage and
here is something I will share with your and hope you will share with your friends:
ARTICLES I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WRITTEN AT CONSERVAPEDIA:
ABORTION RELATED ARTICLES:
- Abortion alternatives
- Abortion procedures
- Culture of life
- Dilatation and curettage abortion
- Dilatation and Evacuation abortion
- National Right to Life Committee
- Prostaglandin Abortion
- Partial birth abortion
- Right to life
- Right to life books
- Right to life movement
- Right to life leaders
- Saline abortion
- Suction abortion
- Sanctity of life
- Silent scream
Conservative 19:11, 9 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
- I think those are great ideas! I can also see, Conservative, that you were correct about some of the complainers and snipers. I shall join you now in removing those who constantly complain, rarely, if ever, create pages, but always argue endlessly every sentence in articles they are opposed to. Conservapedia cannot move forward allowing disruptors who are always negative and opposed to Conservative values to remain as Sysop's or editors. That is counter productive. --~ TK MyTalk 19:22, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
- I never said to remove them but if you do I will not shed any tears. I pretty much ignore them but I give AmesG blocks when he breaks Conservapedia rules. Conservative 21:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
Maybe you didnt notice that I put a long comment on Talk:Political spectrum about why I reverted Rob's edit. The problem is that Rob only offers a COMPLAINT about the political spectrum, not a DEFINITION of the political spectrum. I am going to put my DEFINITION back. I will be very happy if somebody comes up with a better definition. But an encyclopedia needs to list definitions before it lists complaints. --Redblue 04:06, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
- Yes, I read it, thought I would play it safe and let Rob decide, since your convo was mainly with him, and it was a late-night kinda change. You can push it back, if you feel its important, but I would rather you discuss it with Rob, okay? I was on my way to post there, but got delayed by ice cream. ;-) --~ TK MyTalk 04:12, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
- My opinion is that Maxwell is a creationist. I don't care if he's categorized that way or not. I leave that decision to you, sir.
- BTW, I just blocked Peter for 1 day.
- Sorry about the delay on the password. Please check your email now. --Ed Poor 16:23, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
I accept your apology. However, the password is a moot question, for the "elites" have demonstrated, like on the archiving of Abuse/Conservative, they have no intention of cooperating, or letting other users have any say whatsoever about this Wiki. Their only intent is to keep information from others, and hide their subterfuge. Why do you think, after the tussle last night, ColinR ran to hide their true intent posted on his User page? And you will not discuss any of this. Instead you are enabling them. Why? There can be no progress unless and until you, and they, start to cooperate, teach, and accept collaboration, and not only from/with those they agree with. --~ TK MyTalk 16:29, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Terry, Will's usually a good editor; I don't think he actually read the material he was restoring to the NC article. I suspect he simply mistook my removal of the vandalism as an act of vandalism in itself. Would you unblock him, please? Tsumetai 08:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
- Thanks. He seems like a good kid; he was just a little careless. Tsumetai 08:19, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Thank you so much!! i didnt read the article and only replaced it because it was a long one and i had to go. i thought TK was just taking the article for himself by editing it. sorry i will try not to be so careless anymore. --Will N. 08:29, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
... of User:Conservative Guy
Thanks. niandra 19:38, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Fixed by Benjamin. Thanks anyway. niandra 19:40, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Hey, did you have any luck with them? My offer to set them up for you still stands (no vandalism or messing with your page or you can block me. Tell Aschlafly I even said so.) ColinRtalk 03:32, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
- Colin, your offer is very kind, and I would appreciate your help with them. I would like to use the Reagan one, Accepted Jesus and suuport the troops, please. Then maybe I can experiment and learn how to make them. Dan give me the link to the code and templates, and I bookmarked it. Thanks again! --~ TK MyTalk 03:53, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
- Done. Let me know if you need any help with creating UBXs (userboxes), and I appreciate you letting me help you. Thanks! ColinRtalk 04:03, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
- Is okay, Colin. I'm a Marine, so I have that flag with me always, more important to remind people it's their kids who are still fighting, and they ain't political pawns, but real flesh and blood out there. ;-)--~ TK MyTalk 05:32, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
- Feel free to use Ralph, whenever, and if you want. Lots of paste eaters here, and everywhere. --~ TK MyTalk 05:47, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
What user did i unblock, to cause you aggravation? I am making stare decisis my policy as per unblocking. Geo.Talk 22:18, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
- Stare decisis doesn't apply to formal administrative adjudication, or at least I think that's how Chevron comes down on it? Couldn't resist. Anyways, I hope Myk gets unblocked.-AmesGyo! 22:21, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
- Geoplrd, you went behind my back, as did CPAdmin1, and unblocked Palmd001. Now Andy has decided such actions cannot be taken again, and if a Sysop wants to unblock someone, they must go to the blocking Sysop, and try to get them to do it. Failing peer pressure resolving it, big cases can be emailed to Andy. But as managers here, we shouldn't have to drag him into things continually, otherwise, he might as well get rid of all Syops, and do it himself, eh? Accordingly I have blocked Palmd001 again. If you disagree privately message me. We will discuss. Cooperation and unity of purpose is more important than what any of us personally think. --~ TK MyTalk 23:27, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
- Thank you for clarifying that point. I will retrieve your IM information from my inbox and look forward to a productive discussion about Dr. Lipson. Geo.Talk 02:17, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
- Well I didn't hear from you Geo, however the good Doctor and I had a very pleasant and productive conversation. We mutually agreed on all actions, and we take each others word as honorable men, in spite of Ames continued hysteria. Andy has been appraised of the results. --~ TK MyTalk 02:30, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
I wanted to take a moment to apologize to you. The other day, I was in a bad mood and rather than recognizing that I got on line and took my anger out at the first target I saw. I was unnecessarily hostile to you and since that exchange you have been quite friendly and helpful, I really appreciate it. Please accept my sincere apologies. --Reginod 23:06, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
Proposed Block Policy
I am trying to communicate. You don't seem to like to explain your blocks. --CPAdmin1 23:34, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
Andy has already decided this CP, you are making an ass out of yourself, by not getting in touch, privately on IRC or AIM....ask Ed Poor of the ConservapediaWebmaster! Or ColinR!!!! --~ TK MyTalk 23:36, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
- And what blocks am I not explaining, CPAdmin1? And when was I asked to, and where? --~ TK MyTalk 04:44, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
As my good deed of the day I am requesting that you place this template on your userpage. Participating sysops will earn my respect and gratitude. --BenjaminS 00:08, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
- Hello, Benjamin!! Where have you been? Read this:  Andy already decided that, and it's been posted for a week or so. --~ TK MyTalk 00:24, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
That is exactly why I created this pledge. That policy handed down by Mr. Schlafly leaves WAY too much room for (in my mind) unfair blocks. Therefore, I have decided to only block people who have broken the rules and have asked my fellow sysops to do the same. The sysop pledge is by no means mandatory; it's designed to protect the average joe (or maybe the average sid or myk) from tyranny. --BenjaminS 00:30, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
- But this isn't "your" place. Andy runs it, for the Students. Can't you get it? You aren't entitled to make such pledges without approval, and going through the rest of us. Any of us can be removed as easily as we were installed as Sysops. Maybe you could talk to CPWebmaster or Colin, if you won't believe me. BTW we don't just have the Commandments that govern, you know there are policies, like this one:  --~ TK MyTalk 00:36, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
I know it isn't "my" place. Nobody has to use or follow my pledge; it is not a "governing policy". Am I not allowed to make guidelines for myself??!! --BenjaminS 00:40, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
- Actually, no, not so long as you are a Sysop/Administrator, because you are supposedly part of the management here, and there is a structure, same as at Wikipedia, same as any corporation or corner grocery. Your appointment didn't give you the "right" to whatever you feel like. --~ TK MyTalk 00:43, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
IMO, you can accept the pledge and still comply to the commandments, guidelines, and other rules. I think that it's an act of good faith mostly, just reaffirming that you won't ban for ideological reasons. ColinRtalk 00:41, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
As a sysop am I obligated to block anybody? --BenjaminS 00:47, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
Says who? Aschlafly or you? --BenjaminS 00:49, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
- Benjamin, please paste here, the message you got making you a Sysop. Isn't it roughly the same as the one I got, on my user page? What does it say? --~ TK MyTalk 00:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
I was given Sysopness on day one. Back then (when everybody still knew everyone else, we had like 15 users) I think we worked out sysopness verbally at Mr. Schlafly's world history class (I don't remember exacly how it worked out). --BenjaminS 00:58, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
- Well, I would submit, if you took the position, you were told to block at the very least, vandals, etc. If you don't like the stucture you should resign. Thats what a person of integrity would do. But hiding on talk pages, and not messaging is silly. --~ TK MyTalk 01:02, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
BenjaminS is trying to bring decorum and order to this page and site, which I admire. You could learn something.-AmesGyo! 01:04, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
- Do I have to separate you two?--Elamdri 01:05, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
Question for TK: Isn't vandalism a direct violation of the Commandments? If so, then what is wrong with BenjaminS's template? Scriabin 01:08, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
- Hey, yknow what, figure it out on your own. In the mean time I'll just be over here in the corner, writing articles.--Elamdri 01:11, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
I like Benjamin's proposal and the polite way he has presented it. I voted for CPAdmin1's proposal because I simply think it's more practical (based on my 6 years of experience with wiki collaboration).
I also value TK's unstinting dedication to rooting out nonsenses and subversion in this project. Whenever I start getting too soft, he fedexes me a fresh supply of tough pills. I like that. --Ed Poor 18:32, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
- There isn't anything "wrong" with Benjamin's pledge. I take such things seriously, and to me, pledging not to block for any reason except the Commandments was too narrow for me to promise. I changed his template to language I could pledge to support, so that was my "solution". :-) I admire Benjamin's thoughts on trying to reassure the more worried users who somehow feel uneasy speaking their mind for fear of retribution. --~ TK MyTalk 22:46, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
- And after all the huffing and puffing of many above with their intemperate words of scorn, I see "The Sysop Pledge" template has been changed to reflect the language I added. Of course without any acknowledgement (except the very gracious CPAdmin1) or apology for jumping me from any of the above posters. That's okay....I've come to expect that here, people jumping in without being willing to listen to anyone else. --~ TK MyTalk 09:05, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Liberal Blocking Practices
I created the policy in response to certain users acting in a decidedly unconservative manner. (which just so happens to be against the rules [No Ideological Blocks] but nobody seems to care.) Forcefully silencing those you disagree with is something that you would expect from Hitler or Stalin', (see fairness doctrine,) not conservatives. I thought one of our complaints with wikipedia was that they run conservatives off the site. If we start running the liberals off, that makes us hypocrites. I am open to suggestions about how to change the proposed policy. I included in the policy a provision for unproductive editing, but with guidelines to keep ideological blocks out. --CPAdmin1 11:47, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
- Tim, no one made "ideological blocks." CPWebmaster 11:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
- See Palmd001, Myk, Sid3050, CWilson, and PF Fox, --CPAdmin1 12:00, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
- None of those were ideological blocks. And if you communicated more, and were less interested in disrupting and thinking the worst of people, you would know that. But maybe, where you are right now, you judge others as you are, I feel so sorry for you, living in such a world. Your "problem" seems to be you have turned on your former teacher, for one reason or another. Like Karajou for you also appointed yourself "Inquisitor", I always run blocks by Andy. Shame on you, Tim! --~ TK MyTalk 18:43, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
Regarding the Pelosi/Washington Post question: in time some of this has to be pared down anyway, so from that perspective, not the copyvio allegations, maybe we should let a few editors have at it and see what portions of the editorial can be summarized in a few sentences. If it doesn't work we can always restore. What would you say about removing protection so they can have a chance at it? RobS 12:08, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
- Editorials, in most major newspapers, are exempt from that protection, specifically to encourage complete quotation, rather than snips that can change the meaning. Call them on their 800 and find out I am right. They hate that being there, because she was skewered by "one of their own". Nevertheless, I intended to edit it down. The page has been unlocked for a couple of days now. --~ TK MyTalk 18:21, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
- Thanks. I think that's right about the copyright. I was just thinking in the longer term, in 3 mos or 6 mos or two years this whole episode will be worth about one or two sentences, so I figured let's let a few editors give us an idea what part's should be kept and what is expendable. RobS 20:04, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
- Whatever. It plays into the ideological arms of the haters, but ok. I asked, after the "complaints" guised as concern, the Publisher of the Post. Was told their editorials, their official word, if copied in whole, are exempt. Maybe they are ignorant as well, of the law. Wouldn't be the first time. I am so sick and tired of this so-called Christian place being full of haters and nasty people who question the integrity of others so often. --~ TK MyTalk 20:12, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
- Criminey, you're a piece of work, ain't 'cha? As I was the one who originally brought up the WP editorial copyright issue, I'm guessing that it is I to whom you refer to as faking concern, and being hateful and nasty, not to mention questioning my faith (“so-called Christian”). (Say, don't personal insults, even thinly veiled ones, warrant a block?) I signed on here utterly unfamiliar with the process and interface, so I've been feeling my way around slowly, making small edits online, trying not to step on tender toes, and throwing in an occasional suggestion/comment, reporting abuses, and so forth, while working on larger entries offline (Michigan, Ohio, Genealogy, and some Civil War stuff). In short, while I don’t have as much time to devote to this project as do some others, I’m trying to be of value to Conservapedia, which includes suggesting that perhaps the site might want to avoid legal difficulties and the accompanying ridicule brought by not following copyright law (I’ll take your word that editorials aren’t an issue here, which I did not know, but which makes some sense, and you could have said that initially instead of being snotty about it). Perhaps you might want to pocket that chip on your shoulder. [I feel a block coming…]--WJThomas 12:54, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
- Yah but all the photos in the meeting with Assad have her without the head dress, whereas the photos from Saudi Arabia and meetings with the powers-that-be there have her wearing head dress. IMHO, this creates a confusuion between the secular nature of Syrain Ba'athists and the theocratic Saudi regime. RobS 12:56, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
still looking for a diff for why he got blocked this post was left unsigned by: CPAdmin1
- Surely by now the Doctor has told you of our agreement to end the matter. Why are you trying to make an issue where there isn't one? You can IM if you would like, as you have been told repeatedly. Don't leave unsigned posts here again. They are indicative of the "bully boy" tactics you have adapted. --~ TK MyTalk 18:26, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
- I posted on the Conservapedia:Sysops Page asking all of the sysops including you for input Here, and I asked you personally for input Here. I meant to post the first message on your talk page when I posted it on others, but I accidentally missed you. I am doing my best to try to involve you in the development of this policy, but all you have offered so far is insults. Please make suggestions. --CPAdmin1 23:18, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
- As I said, you inviting comments, AFTER you started the vote is corrupt. You mistake what I am saying for being against all your efforts. It is just I view any type of railroading of ideas as intolerence. Anywhere I have been, something isn't voted on before the proposal is finalized. You have circumvented all discussion and change by putting it to a vote! Why cannot you see that? Documents/Proposals/Rules shouldn't ever be changed after someone has voted! If it isn't a vote why say it is, and have it? What was wrong about having the discussion, then forging something to vote on, as is common practice? --~ TK MyTalk 23:54, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
I would like to try to work this out in a friendly manner. I apologize for not asking for your input on your talk page when I first started asking people. The vote is not and was never intended to be anything official. It was just intended to measure the response to my proposed ploicy from other users. I called it a vote because that seemed to me to be the logical name for it. I am sorry if that was misleading next time I will call it a poll. I was not attempting to circumvent discussion and change by posting the poll/vote and i have been changing it based on the suggestions posted on that talk page. Please tell me what you would propose differently for the block policy. I am sincerely trying to get your input and criticism and make use of it. --CPAdmin1 00:31, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
- If you had ever been sincere, this wouldn't have happend. Instead, you and a few others have made it their mission to humilate and demean me, and others.
- Tim (CPAdmin1), then why not simply change the word "Vote"? Why have anything voted on until we have a clear consensus? I think you see my point. If I had liked it 100%, and voted yes, and then later found whatever changes were made I couldn't live with, puts me on the spot, no? If it is changed now, different than I voted "no" on, I am still on the spot. If I change, I am going against Andy, and "for" you. It is an impossible situation. One that could have been easily avoided by you getting on the IM with several of us first. Now we have another "mini war" going. If you had messaged me, or even Ed Poor about this first, I feel certain one of us would have suggested you sending the text around via email, privately, to Andy and all the Sysops, and tried to gain a consensus first. By short-circuiting that normal process, one insisted upon in Universities and Corporate America, we have another of these "situations", and no amount of proposed rules is going to change this constant arguing.
- I chaanged the description on the vote page, is that enough, or would you perfere if i moved it to a different page? --CPAdmin1 09:27, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
- Finally, in my world, one much older than yours, it is demeaning to be ignored, insulting to have someone reversing my blocks, what very, very few I have made compared to others. All that I have gotten from you (especially you) has been insults and ridicule, some made made to others, and dutifully reported back to me. I have asked for communication many times, and you have always ignored it. You stepping in, without appointment from Andy to do so, and reversing the actions of another Sysop is insulting, it does actually marginalize us, it does breed ill will. Instead of messaging and asking what was I thinking, you just pimp-slapped me publicly. With the exception of Ed Poor, Hoji, MountainDew, Cracker, ConservapediaWebmaster, RobS, PhilipR and Geo, who have been open, welcoming, the other members of this so-called group have been distant, mean and hostile. Without exception these people have never bothered to contact me, ask my thoughts, try to educate me. Instead you have left me feeling abused, betrayed. I am going to make your day, CPAdmin1, and get out of dodge. I don't need to be verbally slapped by you elites any longer, and can take the not subtle hints. I am sure you will find another idiot to make fun of in no time. --~ TK MyTalk 01:20, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
Is he? TK, I see you contribute mostly only on talk pages.-AmesGyo! 13:16, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Seriously? Didn't notice. Thanks for letting me know to update my block counter. Anyways, you really don't contribute much other than on talk pages. Sleep well.-AmesGyo! 00:34, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
user boxes page
Has CPAdmin1 told you that pages should not be temporarily protected during editing in order to avoid edit conflicts? If so, where please? Philip J. Rayment 02:35, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
- He has only complained about me doing so, Philip. Even when trying to edit a piece. That posted in the summary, with a tart comment. Since he has never once emailed or messaged me, I have never had the benefit, as you apparently have, of his thinking. Please excuse my ignorance, and accept my apology. --~ TK MyTalk 03:03, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
- The only "benefit" I've had from him in this regard is the absence of any such complaint. I don't see the problem with temporarily protecting a page whilst doing extensive editing, to avoid edit conflicts. Philip J. Rayment 03:30, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
- Neither do I, Philip. I didn't realize it was you locking it, and should have checked more carefully. I thought it a obscure way to show CPAdmin1 how it felt. All I know, he has made me a frequent target for doing so. I wasn't complaining about you, Philip, as I thought it was CPAdmin1. --~ TK MyTalk 03:33, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
- Apology accepted, by the way. Philip J. Rayment 04:50, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
Do you mind if I use your pledge on my page? --CPAdmin1 09:21, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
I made it into a template, and placed it on your page instead of the raw code --CPAdmin1 21:59, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
On a related topic, when I am next blocked, I will not ask other sysops to unblock me (not that I have). As long as there is a policy in place, we should respect it. Of course, I did say when I am blocked, so my pledge does not include being occasionally controversial.--PalMDtalk 13:00, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
Thank you for your apology. I would also like to apologize for not asking your opinion at the beginning, and anything else I did. I would like to work together to make a block policy with the other sysops. Would you be interested in helping? --CPAdmin1 20:00, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
- CPAdmin, I would, most sincerely. I think working together with all of the Sysops who wish to contribute, we can work with Andy and the Bureaucrats to find an acceptable compromise. Since we all share the same goal, I don't think it will be too much of a challenge! --~ TK MyTalk 21:26, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
If you give me your email address, I would be happy to communicate via email. --CPAdmin1 20:02, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
- Click the "E-mail this user" link in the toolbox on the left. Philip J. Rayment 20:15, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
- Yes, but I can't get email that way. my spam blocker will filter it out. so I need a real email address --CPAdmin1 20:51, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
- Just use the link to the left, and ping me, and it will be done. I do get emails through the board, but you need to add a "rule" to whatever email client you are using, to allow subject "Conservapedia e-mail" through. Once I have your message, I can add your email to my address book, and you will have mine. I would have emailed you already, however you don't have that option enabled in your preferences. --~ TK MyTalk 20:57, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
- No, I have an extremely strict spam blocker, that will not allow any email from an address I have not told it to allow. If you don't want to post your email address (I wouldn't) I could ask Aschlafly for if he has it. --CPAdmin1 21:39, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks --CPAdmin1 21:54, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
Why do you block new users with random letters and numbers. I am sure you have a good reason Are they almost always vandals? Like a user name of gkd8d9 for example. If so, I can block them too. Conservative 23:10, 14 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
- There was a message left in abuse about random hex and letters being used for attacks. I'll look for the post, good sir. --~ TK MyTalk 23:17, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
The abuse alert page isn't working. I assume we are under attack. MountainDew and someone else was blocking similar user names as well.....your help is appreciated. Many cannot even log-on. --~ TK MyTalk 23:43, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
So far as I can tell the random letter accounts aren't really doing much at all since they are being blocked almost as soon as they are created. I have encountered them on other wikis before though, they are usually used to spam. I don't think I've ever seen them being created this often. If I were an sysop I'd want to let one live for a little while just to see what it does. --Sulgran 05:42, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
- A few of them have survived long enough to vandalize pages. In any case, sockpuppetry is against the rules, so they're already eligible for blocking even if they do nothing.
Well, its not that. You had the stub on the Usertalk page, which isn't were stubs should go. And, I'm not really sure if stub is the appropriate template. Do way have any templates about biased articles that need to be fixed?--Elamdri 13:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
- Oh, we're putting them on the talk pages? Well that doesn't make much sense, but oh well. My bad then. As for the templates, no I don't think they are organized. Pet project maybe?--Elamdri 16:31, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
- Sigh, tell me about it. I'd do it, but I don't understand wiki code.--Elamdri 16:38, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
All of it is here, with links, images, and tables, editing, and the MetaWiki Handbook. SIGH, there is your information, it's what I learned from (as well as experience). --Hojimachongtalk 16:43, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
On Elamdri's talk page, you wrote: "Really.I don't know much about templates. Are they catagorized and in one place like people did with the user boxes?? "
I don't follow. Are you asking if there's a list of all templates? If you are, the list is here.
If you are asking for an organised list showing what each one does and how to use it, that is something that I have been thinking about doing. However, it is nowhere near as easy as the userboxes, because for each template you would need to write a bit about it (writing documentation for things that people use is not a simple task), and you would first of all have to figure out, in some cases, just what they were for and how they worked. Furthermore, some of them perhaps should not be there at all, at least in their current form, and documenting them would give some type of legitimacy to them.
Philip J. Rayment 22:50, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
- Yes, was just wondering aloud, mainly, being since so much time and effort has been spend organizing user boxes. I'm still feeling my way around, and now am learning to ask questions more selectively, as some don't even want to help others understand. --~ TK MyTalk 00:32, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
- Check my archives. #2, I think it was. And this has been thrashed out already, Colin. Unblock him, at your peril. You may however, email Andy and ask him to mediate. --~ TK MyTalk 00:50, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
- I never said anything about unblocking him. I only asked where you asked him to stop posting on your talk page, which is a horrible idea, by the way. You've always wanted more communication between editors, and yet you ask an editor to stop posting on your talk page, which is your page only in the sense that it has your name on it. The talk page is designed so others can get in touch with you, comment on items already posted, etc. I don't know about the validity of AmesG's statements, but if what he posted was true, and many of your edits are on talk pages, then there is no reason to block him. Personal feelings are not valid reasons for blocking. ColinRtalk 00:54, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
- Ames, you are on ignore for violating your probation. Since you seem ignorant of other rules, made by Andy, who runs this place, you cannot speak to anything here. I posted the link to it above. It spells out reasons for being blocked. Benjamin obviously hasn't seen the link either, CPAdmin1 as well. Now, Ames do not post on my page ever again. That is my right. --~ TK MyTalk 01:14, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
Is that clear enough, Colin? I am for communication, but obviously he isn't so just drops in to accuse and insult. Other's more open-minded than some here, have agreed he is insulting to many. --~ TK MyTalk 01:00, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
- But you don't have the right to prevent people from writing on your talk page. How else are they supposed to communicate with you? ColinRtalk 01:04, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Apologies that I missed your warning not to post on your talk page. I will not, ever again, except to apologize here. However, I do not feel that I insulted you.-AmesGyo! 01:17, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
From: Aschlafly@aol.com mailto:Aschlafly@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 4:46 PM
Subject: Re: Just wanted to check privately...
Terry, this unblocking should stop. I'm going to notify Sysops about it.
But it would help to have a summary of [removed to protect user name] justify the blocks.
Feel free to block him again immediately as you think appropriate.
- A: Why hasn't he contacted the sysops about it yet? B: Where does he say no unblocking ever? ColinRtalk 02:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Terry, this unblocking should stop. I'm going to notify Sysops about it.
I cannot provide you an answer as to why. I assume with all the bickering and fighting and constant messages, being human, he forgot. But it does illustrate the point, Colin, if people started being less distrustful, and more Christian, we would get a lot more done here, eh? Do you really think a man of my age has some personal agenda against Ames, or anyone? Does your mind really work that way? I mean, come on! I have blocked so very, very few people, compared to you other Sysops! --~ TK MyTalk 03:05, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
locked page talk pages
When an article page is locked and the article's talk page is locked, where should discussions of possible changes to that page take place? Under what circumstances is it a good idea to lock an article talk page? --Jtl 04:39, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
- People should move on to other articles, or not. That's what. I am disgusted by what I saw there. If you cannot understand that, I feel sad. --~ TK MyTalk 04:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
- Thank you for that, Jtl. From you I take that as high praise. I could care less about precedent than with the subtle vandalism I have continued to see. I know Conservapedia is a joke to many. If so, no one makes them come here. Look at Bamboo for another example. --~ TK MyTalk 05:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
As I have AmesG on probation, could you please contact me in the future before blocking him? He has made some valuable contributions. --CPAdmin1 09:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
- How long is his probation for? Please say when it ends. Is this something new, placing favored users under the personal protection of certain Sysops? Valuable contributions I agree about. However they do not excuse his behavior. A one hour block, or whatever, is what he got. If he isn't running wild with the insults, I will attempt to contact you. However since it took Andy to stop you (among others) from reverting assorted previous blocks, you do have some nerve asking me. BTW, still waiting for that email address, so some progress might begin on that important project you started. --~ TK MyTalk 09:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
- OOps, Sorry a forgot to send my email address. What I really mean on AmesG is don't block him for something you wouldn't block a new user on. And contact me first if you want to block him infinitely or for a long time. I am trying to work with him and get him editing productively, and i don't ant to see him blocked for something silly. I apologize for undoing blocks, and will not undo them in the future without proper discussion with the blocking sysop. --CPAdmin1 12:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
- The misunderstanding is, 90% of my blocks are infinite. That's the shock value. I am not a moron, and would never block anyone, except a vandal, forever, infinitely. It speaks to people's own gullibility for them to even assume someone would be that counterproductive as to do that, and be an Administrator here. As for Ames, he is all yours unless he chooses to make confrontations with me, another Sysop or Andy. We are a group, and need to start acting like one. Obviously our present methods are not working. Andy, he is the founder and our host, and it is ignorant in the extreme to treat him like a lunatic, or some uneducated buffoon. Just because you or I might not agree 100% with him, the students or anyone else, is no excuse for what I have seen posted by some. They react very strongly when someone isn't bullied by them, and agree with their logic and conclusions, and that is only inducement to me, can you understand that?
- Finally I am suspicious of anyone who makes it difficult to communicate instantly, or not at all. Such people want the bully pulpit, but wish to remain anonymous, and unreachable to resolve conflict for a reason. They leave the rest of us to work twice as hard resolving problems (see proposed blocking policy as an example) that are 90% lack of communication, and their own unreachable status contributes to that, especially because their coordinated tactics makes it clear they are choosing to communicate with others. If this site were mine, I would gladly agree to make Ames yours, 100%, subject to you agreeing to resign if he violates his unspecified and apparently open-ended "parole". I say this because you are wanting me to defer to your judgement where a specific individual is concerned, which is a risk of my duties here, without taking any corresponding risk yourself. That really doesn't seem fair to me. However the site isn't "mine". I am personally offended each and every time you post here about things which should remain private, handled via IM or email, just so you know. Once again. --~ TK MyTalk 14:44, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
"Much as I wish the majority of your posts would be unsigned, Flippin, Rob Pommer has hit the nail on the head. Anarchyville is down the road about 20 miles, you can turn right or left and still end up in the same place. --~ TK MyTalk 18:29, 16 April 2007 (EDT)"
- I don't think is too much to ask that we be civil with one another. I had a valid question regarding the prerogative of any sysop to remove legitimate user content. I have thus stated my opinion politely and fairly--not calling you out on the other page and so on--I just ask for the same in return. Maybe we could work on the Golden Rule page together. Have a nice day. Flippin 11:42, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
- Well, remember today's history always ends up at the bottom of a landfill. ;-) --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 09:05, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, didn't mean to be snide
I apologize, I just found the remark extremely insensitive and the warning light. I did not mean any disrespect, but the original comment was disgusting. Flippin 10:40, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
- Understood. Flippin 10:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, I guess I can't post this, but thank you for 'retiring' my account. 22:25, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Terry, I don't understand why you changed Teresita's page (your last change there).
I can understand if you thought that it was pointless having two notices, but I don't understand why you removed templates and went back to code, and I don't understand your edit comment ("Stop with the tracking and aiding those who like to easily get the info").
Can you educate my ignorance, please?
Philip J. Rayment 23:25, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Main Page Talk
I believe that it was you who attributed the comment under Encyclopedic standards talk main page to me. I deleted the f word in the comment and the real perpetrator was banned.Bohdan 01:22, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Thank you both. I would never write something like that.Bohdan 01:31, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
- — done. Philip J. Rayment 08:54, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
the vandal is back ==I'll revert vandalism but leave new pages alone, we can deal with them when it quiets down, you concentrate on blocking vandal's accounts. Rob Pommertalk 00:50, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
- Erm, the content of the page doesn't affect the ability to delete the page. Rob is deleting the pages. --Hojimachongtalk 01:03, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
What a nasty little person you are, Hoji. Instead of you and Colin making cracks here, or telling me how, you just want to make show you are somehow superior. What fine people you are. --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 01:05, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
- Don't chastise me. I was saying, that Rob was deleting the pages (note that it says "deletion log" next to the diff). He wasn't blanking any of the pages. --Hojimachongtalk 01:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
Um, I think BillyC edited an article page instead of a Userpage. That really was the only reason I put this here--anything you sysops came up with after that is your own problem. Unless you want an article on BillyC. Sterile 08:25, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
[[CP:RFA]] consensus data
Why do you keep deleting[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia%3ARequests_for_adminship&diff=119904&oldid=119891] the data that I placed about when a consensus regarding an RFA is deemed to have been obtained? --Hacker
(Write some code) 23:17, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
I thought thinly veiled obscenity was a blockable offense. That said, TK, your reasoning seems fair.-AmesGyo! 23:57, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
Funny stuff :-) -AmesGyo! 00:35, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
does anyone know why Terisita left?
does anyone know why Terisita left? Conservative 00:38, 21 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
- Hoji blocked her over userbox conflicts. She took umbrage. UNpon her return she created a sock "Lambchop" that was caught and both Teresita and lambchop were block indefinitely as being socks of one another. Rob Pommertalk
- What is a userbox conflict? Conservative 00:42, 21 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
- She asked me on IRC for a block, I've gone over this already. And a "userbox conflict" refers to the birth of userboxes on this site; the Donut War! --Hojimachongtalk 00:44, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
- Can we get Teresita back? I think she was a good editor if memory serves. Userbox conflict sounds like some techie small potato conflict. What is a userbox?Conservative 00:45, 21 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
- She asked me on IRC for a block, I've gone over this already. And a "userbox conflict" refers to the birth of userboxes on this site; the Donut War! --Hojimachongtalk 00:44, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
Uh oh. Can we be friends now :-) ?
TK, I just noticed that I posted on your user page above, and I said I would not earlier this month. But, we seem to be getting along, and our disputes faded into the past. Given that, am I invited to post on your talk page again? I am sorry I forgot that I was dis-invited when I posted above. If I am not invited back, I will blank my comments, but I hope that, since we seem to be getting along, we can be friends, with the talk page privileges that entails.-AmesGyo! 00:46, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
So I can post here so long as I behave? Yay! Thanks. Duly noted. Nor did I expect you to change your vote, lol.-AmesGyo! 01:27, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
I seek your help
I would really appreciate your help. I have applied to become a sysop. If you could support me I think it could make a difference. --Horace 07:15, 21 April 2007 (EDT)\
- Don't support him. Conservative 07:27, 21 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
Create a template
Further to our conversation on IRC, this will get you started. Click the red link below this message and create your notice. If you don't like that name, edit the name before clicking it. After you save it, the red link below will be replaced with the notice (which you will then probably want to delete from this page). Philip J. Rayment 11:30, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
Congratulations! There, that wasn't hard, was it? Philip J. Rayment 01:23, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
How do I unblock someone
In the blocked users list, you will see a "Unblock" link (unblock). You will need to do both that you see, if you unclicked the top box when blocking him....you will see a second line, in that list, right below the one with his name, that actually blocks the IP address. That needs you to click unblock on as well. If you have problems, let me know. My AIM is in the box at the top. The ones in bold, below are what you need to click. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 20:03, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
15:52, 21 April 2007, Conservative (Talk | contribs | block) blocked WhatIsG0ing0n (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (unblock) (vandal)
15:52, 21 April 2007, Conservative (Talk | contribs | block) blocked #4851 (expires 15:52, 22 April 2007, account creation blocked) (unblock) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "WhatIsG0ing0n". The reason given for WhatIsG0ing0n's block is: "vandal")
a small favor
I permanently blocked someone and it was by mistake. I think I fixed it but I am not sure. Please make sure Bill_M can edit. 00:03, 22 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
Please vote for me
Please vote for me here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Request_for_Bureaucratship Conservative 19:39, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
How long is he banned/blocked for? Human 20:59, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
I completely forgot he was....
09:23, 14 April 2007 Karajou (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Sid 3050 (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (This user engages in edit wars and battles with others continually, and refuses to stop. He will not be allowed back except under Aschlafly's discression)
I miss him. --Horace Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship#Support_2|Vote Horace for sysop 02:39, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
Under the weather
Get well soon! :-) --Ed Poor 16:03, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes, I hope are resting and recuperating. Human 17:28, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
- Thanks guys! Today is the first day I have actually been able to sit at the computer in the last 4. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 21:31, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
Glad to see you back. DanH 21:32, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
Hi, can you please unblock the article "Global warming" again. The User "CPdmin1" reverted all my edits without an explanation, although I referenced my edits with reliable sources. Java 17:34, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
- Since you have now had two Sysop's correct your figures, I don't think that's a road we'll be going down. You are more than welcome to make a sub-header on the discussion page, and submit your suggestions there. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 17:38, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
Hacker = Sockpuppet?
I notice that hacker was just banned ('retired') for being a sockpuppet of Linus_M. Given that a comparison of this and this show that he/she wasn't editing at the same time. I'm curious - is it still sockpuppetry in this case given that the user has not done this to circumvent any of the forbidden uses of sockpuppetry (I don't think there's any specific policy here, so I'm using wikipedia as precedent) -
- Voting and other shows of support
- Avoiding scrutiny from other editors
- "Good hand, bad hand" accounts
- Circumventing policy
- Administrative sock puppets
Just wondering. -- Wikinterpretertalk?
Have to agree Wikinterpreter here, Hacker hasnt used used his "sock" account to anything after registering as Hacker, so i cant really see how one could ban him from this while we know that some people get away from even voting with their sock puppets. I ques one just needs to be conservative to get away with it? Oh, and about that "Retired" template... Really, it stinks so much of an cover up to make it seam like the user would have left voluanteerly. It's kinda disgusting. Timppeli 09:57, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
- It really is a bit too much of a euphemism. He was banned, so it should say so. Shall I write up some draft policy on sockpuppetry (although the current wikipedia one is very good)? --Wikinterpretertalk?
- Agree as well. A year seems excessive. Especially since User:Scorpion apparently engaged in voting fraud using no less than six sock puppets, and he only got one month. --AKjeldsen 10:33, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
Was Linus ever blocked? I can't see him on the block log. Given that, it seems kinda weak to block a guy for just creating a new user name. I didn't know he was the same guy, but I don't think there was any harm in it.-AmesGyo! 10:49, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
Oooh. Poor Linus/Hacker. He'll be missed. Are we sure they're the same person?-AmesGyo! 12:39, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
- Who knows? Just two hours ago, I learned that everything I thought I knew about arithmetics is wrong. So who can be sure of anything these days? --AKjeldsen 12:42, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
- Its okay, we always come back, we are like the Phoenix, though I am sure TK has a different analogy in mind. Tmtoulouse 12:51, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
Here TK claims that Hacker has admitted being Linus. Which would have been quite suicidal of him or then he just trusted too much on the good will of some people. In any case, i think he has done good work here, and would be shame to loose him on grounds of something as small as this. Timppeli 12:52, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
- Without admitting sin, and asking for forgiveness, there can be no redemption, you guys do understand that? If one is actually campaigning for a position, one of the qualities of leadership, shouldn't at least one of those qualities be honesty? How can you ask others to abide by rules you have spit on? Can a foundation for anything good be built on deceit? I'm pretty much live and let live. Several weeks ago Linus told me he was going to apologize to Andy. His maneuverings to gain support for becoming a Sysop only convinced me that I could no longer look the other way, and I feel better, and sleep well. It is disturbing that so many of you attack the messenger instead of the dishonest person. Maybe it is because you knew, and are now embarrassed. Get used to it. In your lives, embarrassment's will happen many times. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 17:30, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
- "I'm pretty much live and let live" Hmmm, Exodus 20:16 springs to mind when you say things like that. --Jeremiah4-22 19:26, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
Ah, but the same laws must apply to everyone, must they not? So why did you ban Hacker for 1 year for being 1 sockpuppet, which didn't harm conservapedia, when Scorpion, the precedent, was banned for 1/12th that for creating 5, and using them to rig the vote? You've got the Sysop pledge (in fact, judging by the other comments, you invented it) at the top of your article; unless you can justify the ban, then tu quoque to that 'spitting on the rules' allegation (oh, and which rules did we spit on, exactly?). He's got a perfect right to stand for leadership - we, the users of Conservapedia, chose him 18-2 for adminship based on his qualities. About that 'embarrassed' thing - I'm intrigued. What, without any condescension or ad hominem attacks (what we know is not what is discussed here), should I be embarrassed about? --Wikinterpretertalk?
- Hacker was used to circumvent a ban. Besides Scorpion had his suffrage removed for six months. Geo.Talk 17:51, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes, I am - and was - both Linus and Hacker. It seems that I trusted too much in TK's good will, although I didn't admit per se, and was rewarded with a stab in the back. I have e-mailed Andy twice, and have had both ignored. I will not digress into what I think of the situation, I will only take this opportunity to say, yes, I'm sorry. It was childish and thoroughly immature. However, I feel like, as I do have good intentions, I could help this site. I have a large quantity of technical technological skill, and will do my best to help if I am unblocked. Also, feel free to block this sock, this message was its sole purpose. Oh, and I will be back, regardless, I simply want to do it the honest way. --Hacked 17:56, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
- Your user page is your castle, but not when it insults the people who run the place you claim such good intentions. Please provide me with examples of other wiki's or websites where that is allowed, OK? I like the "retired" deal that was Andy's own design, btw, much better than that sterile, and easily monitored template. Please, sir, your childish whining, about your good will, didn't extend ever to me, except once. Perhaps you should have let me know you did as you told me you would? I do respect your stepping forward, and hopefully after discussing it with the other Sysops, and Andy, you should receive a more modest block. FYI, as of this posting, I haven't received even one complaint about your block. Heck, with Ames, at least two or three Sysops went to bat for him. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 21:39, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
- Hey, give us at least a day or two to cobble together a UXB or something! (personally, I prefer to leave blocking/unblocking issues between the user and the admins) Human 21:53, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
- ROFLMAO! Oh we will soon have the unblocking "issue" solved, once and for all. :D
- So do we have confirmation that there's one law for scorpion (even with his 'suffrage removed' whatever that means), and another for hacker? Oh, and Human, I'll have a crack at making a userbox. --Wikinterpretertalk?
- LOL! You mean you are "just" discovering there isn't equal protection under the law? How quaint! It is almost like teaching Social Studies. In my mind their are rules for actual people, and then there are rules for non-humans. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 08:27, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
- Well, atleast some one is laughing a lot, but im not sure how to interpret this, are you saying that people here indeed aren't equal and you are more than happy to discriminate some? And im not even starting to ques what you meant by non-humans, sounds kinda insulting... Timppeli 09:54, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
- Well, that clarifies a lot of things, I must say. Could you perhaps be more specific on how to distinguish between people and non-humans, though? --AKjeldsen 09:58, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
- So, teacher, who is a non-human? Someone who has disagreeable views perhaps? --Wikinterpretertalk?
Oh, by the way, I would quite like an answer. Otherwise, steps might be taken.
The following points would be nice -
- You banned User:Hacker for being an alternative account of Linus_M, despite there being no coterminity in their editing. Is this correct?
- The ban was one year in duration; a comparable case would be User:Scorpion, who used no less than five sockpuppets to rig a vote in his favour. He received one month's block. Are you a) of the opinion that the equivalent block by User:Geo.plrd was too lax? or b) are there other circumstances which justified you giving him a longer ban, bearing in mind that User:Hacker confessed to the sockpuppetry (an extenuating factor for him)?
-Your above remark about 'non-humans' suggests that different editorial and wiki standards apply to different users. On what are these based? Do you follow them in your duties as an admin? --Wikinterpretertalk?
- ~yawn~ You are certainly more than welcome to file an abuse claim. Please provide proof of your connection to any of the above cited actions, if you do. I don't explain the actions of other Sysop's, except to note, like Andy, I have a high percentage of being right. Yes, I do have different standards for non-human users, and I refuse to tell what they are. I am not aware of any "rule" that compels me to. This is not a "commune". Administration matters are dealt with by administrators, and that isn't a part of your duties, nor do they interfere with your ability to contribute, except where your participation in matters over dead issues are concerned. You are sadly mistaken about this place. It is Conservative, has a moral outlook, doesn't pretend to be neutral. That's the other place. Immoral editors, liars, they won't ever be happy here. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 15:53, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
- What an attitude... You are above the rest, judging how you wish and you dont need to explain yourself or your actions, because those others are just non-humans and belove you? I haven't lied, i haven't done anything immoral here but it makes me sick to read how you look down upon the lowly contributors, who don't have to worry themselves with the busineses of the administrators, just to write and take the spanking when the higher powers feel like giving one. I dare say that if the rest of the sysops had the same attitude this place would be empty. Sorry, just had to let some steam off, feeling better now. Timppeli 16:54, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
- I don't appreciate the 'you wouldn't understand this' tone, but I'll let that pass. What I won't let pass is the claim that 'I'm right, and I don't have to explain myself, because of my shiny sysopship.
How's he/she going to file an abuse claim anyway, if you blocked them? Would it be sufficient to contact Linus_M. at wikipedia, to get responsibility for taking this case? --Wikinterpretertalk?
- I suggest you step-off before you are blocked as well. This isn't a court, there is no "case". You repeating babble about non-existent "rights" that the Net God gave you, notwithstanding. Linus is in touch with me and Ed Poor and Andy. Your pot-stirring isn't helpful to the situation. Our cite isn't governed only by the Commandments, but by our other guidelines as well, one of them here: []. In short, this isn't Wikipedia, and if you are in hope it will become more like it, I can only warn you that will never happen. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 17:14, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
- I'm sorry, in that case (and that isn't web-sarcasm). Oh, well, I've learnt something very telling today about the way the system works. Very well, I'll drop it, but don't think that this sort of adminning will ultimately help CP. Selon moi - it's a problem. Bye then. --Wikinterpretertalk?
- I would hope what you have learned is; that assupmtions shouldn't be made, and it is wrong to think others are not trying to resolve matters, but that situations resulting from an individuals private actions, are not really public matters. So the more they are agiatated about, the less progress is made. I have never left anyone blocked who sincerely apologized, and agreed to some sort of remidation plan.--Sysop-TK /MyTalk 20:13, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
An idea to build more internet traffic to conservapedia
Wikipedia gives the top 1,000 articles for its website as can be seen here: http://hemlock.knams.wikimedia.org/%7Eleon/stats/wikicharts/index.php?lang=en&wiki=enwiki&ns=articles&limit=1000&month=04%2F2007&mode=view
I think we might be able to drive more http://www.google.com and other traffic to Conservapedia if we make the following articles at Conservapedia better based on the first 100 or so most popular articles at Wikipedia:
- The Holocaust
What do you think about starting a Conservapedia improvement drive for these articles? Clearly this are serious subjects that people are interested in based on Wikipedia statistics. Therefore, I believe from a strategic point of view in regards to creating internet traffic to Conservapedia it makes a lot of sense to start a improvement drive in regards to these Conservapedia articles. Conservative 22:56, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
- CP peaked when it got first "exposed", back in late feb 07 (AD). It will never be interesting to the "real world" again. Oh, yes, and how about improving some articles? Or adding some content? Human 23:12, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
- Human, I just cannot imagine why you stick around such a hell on earth, lol. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 00:32, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
- Haha, good question. Two reasons, basically, that flip back and forth for dominance. One is the giant empty sandbox that is CP, it's fun and good practice to try to fill it up with decent little "trees" of articles (cf. building trades and classical music). The good practice is determining what one clearly knows and trying to explain it well, as well as getting better at wiki markup. The other reason is, well, sometimes it's amusing to see up close how the "other half" thinks. This one has to be taken in small, careful doses, measured by whether or not I'm still laughing or at least saying "hmmmmm". Them's my scuses and I'm sticking by them. Oh, and, once in a while, making somone ROTF<AO. Human 14:21, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for getting back to Helios on my talk page, TK. This "ice*wedg*e" idiot has been harrassing me on Email and Wikipedia. I think I'm going to ban anyone who talks about ic*ew*edge at all, unless they are reporting him for vandalism or purely in terms of CP history. And hope you're feeling better! --Hojimachongtalk 14:10, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
Why is this locked please?
Google traffic - part II
If we are going to get http://www.google.com to build our web traffic for us I think the article improvement drive we are engaging in is the answer and I think the article improvement drive should focus on wildly popular subjects. With that being said, I don't think it is enough for our specific World War I, World War II, Jesus, and Adolf Hitler articles to have quality. They must offer depth of information too. What do I mean by depth of information? What I mean is that they must have quality articles associated with them though the internal links, see also sections, and articles available though the Category tags.
I believe there are 5 ways to have lots of articles associated with the above topics (for example, World War I and WWII. The first is to have second, third, and fourth waves of article improvement using the main/front page (for example, have a article improvement drive for "Western front". The second is to have a article improvement page. The fourth is to make sure all the articles have category tags. The fifth is to send emails to groups that would be interested in building these articles.
Here is a email I sent the group whose webpage is http://www.worldwar1.com/ (World War I - Trenches on the Web):
Dear Mr. Hanlon,
I and some others are looking to build the most comprehensive WWI resource on the internet. The resource will be located at http://www.conservapedian.org If you could spread the news it would be appreciated as we are looking for volunteers.
What do you think of my idea? And if you like it, what steps are we going to take to achieve this goal?
Conservative 20:23, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
Here is something I put on the main page regarding getting more web traffic to Conservapedia
Getting Web Traffic to Conservapedia - Article Creation/Improvement Drive Conservative 21:28, 29 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
Why do you keep deleting this category?
It is the most wanted category* not yet in existence (See http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Wantedcategories), and a useful addition to Category:Political people.
Put it back, please. --Jeremiah4-22 19:12, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
* (With the exception of the stuff directly lifted from Wikipedia)
- I haven't seen this data you speak of. My problem is, a couple of users are also listed in the index for it. If that can somehow be stopped, I can allow the catagory. It appears to me to be a sub-catagory of "political people". Am I wrong? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 20:16, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
Whats with locking and wiping his userpages?--Elamdri 03:17, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
- Karajou was doing some checking:
I checked my copy of Shirer's "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" just now. The reason they could not provide a page number for their citaions is because IT IS NOT EVEN WRITTEN IN THE BOOK!. They made it up; the homosexuality statement, the "Hans Zega-something- or-other" doctor, the whole nine yards.I just love this!"
Andy, RobS, Geo, Dan, Karajou, all us decided to block him initially for ten days, pending further possible decisions. There were other "troubles" with their contributions as well. All users, blocked for reason, their pages are blanked and locked now. No more gathering spot for other birds of a feather or socks, Elamdri. Such intellectual dishonesty and outright Homosexual Agenda bias isn't to be tolerated or even given a chance here. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 03:29, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
- ...and no more chance for them to defend themselves either. Nematocyte 03:44, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
- What was the claim (or what page was it on)? I've been trying to figure out what's up with AmesG and Czolgolz and so far I'm failing. Is it all about the (deleted) "Hans Zugstein" page? --Jtl 04:04, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
- Among the problems, they inserted a quote, Ames did, claiming it to be from "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich". It related to some weird Gay Agenda thing, and when asked to provide the page numbers for the quote, they couldn't be provided. Ames even voted to delete his on contributions. Later, Karajou checked his own personal copy of the book, no such quote was indexed, evidently. Nemetocyte, your comment wasn't at all called for, and speaks to your personal lack of character. Wherever you come from, Wikipedia, perhaps, maybe people without integrity abound, so you are judging from that experience. No one was looking to skewer Ames. Please refrain from posting on my page again, ok? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 05:07, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
- May I make a final suggestion then? If AmesG suggested it be deleted then perhaps he made a genuine mistake, rather than one in bad faith. Perhaps he got confused between this book and any other of other titles on the Third Reich (for there are rather a lot, many with similar titles). Perhaps it would have been a better solution to ask for an explaination rather than preventing the user in question from even responding to the accusation before proceeding with a block? Nematocyte 05:54, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
- Perhaps at long last you will finally stop yapping! It is more than one quote, over several articles, I am told. Why are you so hard-wired into automatically assuming all that wasn't done? It is beyond lunacy. This wasn't just me. It was RobS, half a dozen other Sysops. Ames defended the quote. I am so sick of you conspiracy buffs, I am ready to rob the Kennedy Archives to give you something to "look into". You next post here, if there is one, better be your apology. I am totally serious about that. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 06:17, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
- I am unable to find any indication of AmesG arguing for Han's Zugstein inclusion in the talk page of the article in question. Is there a message he leaves where we can rule out stupidity rather than malice? My concerns were that he has no chance to give his case on this issue, not that there is a "conspiracy" of sorts. If my messages were unclear then I apologise for that. Nematocyte 06:49, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
- TK, the link you give above is to changes made to the article by Czolgolz not Ames G. I've reviewed the history of the article and see no changes made by Ames G that warranted his block. Ames has made tons of useful edits, and his original writings have been placed on the front page by Aschlafly. Back to the original question: why did you delete everything from his talk page and user page? I can understand locking the pages (maybe) when a user is banned, but it seems a nazi-like tactic to delete everthing from the pages, then lock them. --Tim Smith 07:02, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
- Like I have not too subtly said above, Tim, if that is indeed what you think, I wouldn't stick around here for another two seconds. Let me put this in bold, to help you and the others: There were several edits/citations. Not one. Several. Argued about for days. I wasn't involved with any of the bull. It was RobS and Karajou. See? Even though I have previously said here that someone being blocked is no one else's business, just the person being blocked, when I do try and be helpful, and explain, not even that is appreciated. So, of course all of you know better than to approach me again about this kind of thing, unless it is your own block. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 07:28, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Sorry to hijack your page for this TK, as i know you didn't have anything to do with this one. But what im worryed about with this is that if AmesG actually got pulled into this because of his misquote here: As i couldnt atleast find any entryes where AmesG was involved with the stuff Czolgolz wrote. RobS seemed to take that one really personally, he even claimed it caused "whole series of faulty, and deceptive references and editing" while page history clearly shows it did neither one, false claim by him. Allso that misquote by AmesG was completely harmles. link was still to the right source and both organizations share the same opinnion and very similar names which make his mistake understandable. He would have gained nothing by doing it on purpose. Timppeli 08:19, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
You still haven't answered the question, asked directly above first by Elamdri - "Whats with locking and wiping his userpages?--Elamdri "
Then asked again by me: "Back to the original question: why did you delete everything from AmesG's talk page and user page? I can understand locking the pages (maybe) when a user is banned, but it seems a nazi-like tactic to delete everthing from the pages, then lock them"
I put it to you a third time - Why do you delete everything from a users page and talk page when you block them for a period of time? Are you afraid of people seeing what they have written? Is it a "punitive" measure? Or do you just like exerting control over others? This has never been done in the past, so when did you decide this was now "policy"? It looks like other sysops do not agree with your actions.
- "All users, blocked for reason, their pages are blanked and locked now. No more gathering spot for other birds of a feather or socks." Something about that you cannot, or perhaps simply will not, understand, Tim? In the past, socks of the blocked user have used those pages to post on, etc. Something I am sure you know nothing about. And how many of the 33 some Sysops have you personally spoken to? And how is it your businesss? Because this is a wiki, their pages can easily be returned as they were. You need to spend more time keeping your nose out of things that do not concern you.--Sysop-TK /MyTalk 13:53, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
- K, I was just curious. --Elamdri 14:11, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
- You were answered, exactly the same, hours ago, above, Elamdri. Please don't come to my page and pretend you didn't know, or hadn't already checked it out with other Sysop's, okay? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 14:21, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Calm down TK, lol. I posted that and went to be. I was responding to the post I made the other day. And no, I didn't check with the other Sysops. I had just seen that his userpage had been blanked, and I was curious as to why is all. No need to get hostile.--Elamdri 15:11, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Talk: Main Page
- Aren't talk pages for talking? how can we suggest changes/debate topics if we can't discuss? Jrssr5 15:15, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
- Sorry. Looks like it's just some maintenance going on. --AKjeldsen 15:18, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
- Yes, all screwed up, the archiving due to ColinR being a loose cannon, and refusing to message. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 15:20, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
- No, it's not my fault. 'You archived it to the wrong place, I was trying to move it to the correct place which would only then require changing one letter in the talk page (a capital "A" to a lower case "a"). Moreover, you don't have to lock something to archive it. It's not that difficult to cut and paste and then delete the copied material. ColinRtalk 15:23, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
- gotcha, all good. Jrssr5 15:23, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
- Sorry, Colin, you are wrong, as usual. I caught the error, was fixing it, as the records show. You just always want to jump down my throat, and try and show me as an idiot. Now you only make yourself look mean. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 15:52, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Jesus article, please leave it unprotected for a while
I noticed you recently protected the Jesus article during the article improvement drive. I disagree because it the article is still not up to snuff. We need to get it up to snuff so it rises to the top of http://www.google.com eventually. I know you have good intentions, but I don't think Jesus is going to fall off the throne if some tripe or vandalism is temporarily placed in the Jesus article. Conservative 19:30, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
- Are you aware at all it was protected again after the images were replaced by porn? Yesterday afternoon? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 19:44, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
- No, do you know if we can we take legal action? Conservative 19:51, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
- It was done with Andy's okay. Several of us Sysops were in chat when it happened. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 20:05, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Deep Fried Mars Bar
Can you please reinstate images mars1.jpg and mars2.jpg that you have deleted.
These are deep fried mars bars, and there is a discussion on the Talk:Chip shop page concerning these. They have been deleted once already. If you read the note that I have put there, you will understand that the deep fried mars bar (common to a Hershey Bar) is a delicacy in Scotland, but has been the focus of a debate about how the Scots cuisine is unhealthy. IIt was reputed to be a myth, but clearly isn't. --Felix 06:16, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
- Sorry, Felix, there wasn't a note when I deleted the image 01. Can you just upload another? I have ate them many times, but the picture of the deep fryer was too far away to notice! They also do the same with Snickers, but the Mars Bar, fried, is vastly superior! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 07:24, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
- I have uploaded two versions of this. One of these has been here before, and has been deleted once by a SySop, together with the article. The info on the Chip Shop page is meant to either put in a whole section on Deep Frying weird stuff or re-create a new page on df mars bars.--Felix 07:28, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Why did you revert my edit? DrSandstone 17:51, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
- Please be more specific, if you can, and provide a link/article name, okay? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 18:30, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
- The Czech Republic page; the last change made to that page is your reverting of my, what I consider perfectly acceptable, edit. What was wrong with my edit that you felt you had to undo it? DrSandstone 16:06, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
So while trying to learn about you after your, ummm, cryptic & slightly hypocritical attack against me, I saw that you use the Denny Crane userbox. Are you a Boston Legal fan too? I figure it may be something to unite, rather than divide, us.-BillBuck 18:57, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
- Denny Crane is one of the brightest legal minds of the past fifty years! I know this because he told me himself. Like Denny, I don't attack people, but merely speak unadulterated and plain English, with the "PC" conventions many of our younger members have grown up with. I admit also, that being past 50, I am sometimes afflicted by the "mad cow", it in no way, however, impairs my basic brilliance. Like Harry Truman used to say about those who complained about his rather peppery and plain speaking: "I don't tell anyone to go to Hell. I just speak the plain truth, and they think they are there." ;-) You might want to check my political compass for a good indication that, contrary to the back-channel speak of some members here, I am not exactly what others say I am. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 19:15, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
Denny Crane. Lock 'n load. He's kind of a liberal caricature, but I agree with you on the PC stuff, and who wouldn't want to be "name on the door" at Crane, Poole & Schmidt?-BillBuck 19:28, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
Alan, you know, one thing you sometimes forget is, no matter how hard your day, no matter how tough your choices, how complex your ethical decisions -- you always get to choose what you want for lunch. --'Denny Crane'
??? till next year?
you were joking right? --Will N. 09:57, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
- I couldn't have been, Will, as I am one of those designated by "those appointed by no one", as lacking a sense of humor. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 10:03, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
no i guess your not joking bud. so when is next year? why were we not told this earlier? --Will N. 10:05, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
- This is 2007. "Next year" would be the day immediately following December 31, 2007, or in common terms, January 1, 2008. I am really sorry that Flippin, through his own inattentiveness, missed the acceptance ceremony. I was stuck with several dozen uneaten jumbo prawns, that the caterer would not take back, not to mention several gallons of non-alcholic punch... --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 10:13, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
lol i thought the date would be today next year. --Will N. 10:15, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
- Well, yes, the opening of nominations would coincide with the start this year. Do you think the shrimp would freeze, if carefully wrapped, and be good next year? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 10:20, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
- And there you go with the inconsistencies again. Which were they, shrimp or prawns? Given your overall accuracy level, my guess is they were actually scampi. --Jtl 16:00, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
- Jtl, you know, one thing you sometimes forget is, no matter how hard your day, no matter how tough your choices, how complex your ethical decisions -- you always get to choose what you want for lunch. Denny Crane. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 18:47, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
Just to let you know, now that my unjustified block is over, I have no idea what you are talking about. If the rather cryptic message you left on my talk page was a request for information, I suggest that you make them clearer in future for I am not a mind reader. Meanwhile, the corrollary of all of this is that you appear to have perma-banned a completely uninvolved editer. I suggest that you take greater care before making accusation of sock-puppetry in the future. Nematocyte 09:32, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
- For your information, I have made a note of this behaviour on the Sysop abuse page. If you wish to give your side of this, feel free to contribute