User talk:MountainDew

Archive: User talk:MountainDewarchive1

User:Conservator

I can't tell what he's doing. He seems to be adding extra-huge amounts of content to articles, but every time I try and go there, it errors out. Just fyi. --Ymmotrojam 16:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Anarchocapitalism

The user created a redirect to that page at Free Market, and it looked like a crank article.Geo. 02:54, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Sorry for any time that I wasted. Geo. 02:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

God

I unlocked God to registered users since around 8 days have passed since it was locked. Probably a good idea to keep an eye on it, so I thought I'd let you know. ColinR^talk 18:36, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

User:Conservative

The debate over User:Conservative is going on at Talk:dinosaur, and the section above the one you just created at User Talk:Aschlafly. I must agree, it is somewhat disturbing that the notion "Conservative's worldview is the ONLY worldview" has gained acceptance. --Hojimachong^talk 18:37, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

New User

The New User log has been installed. You can see new account creations now. Thanks for the tip! Conservapedia Webmaster 09:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

=Judaism

You have to revert that page to an older version, ASAP. There is slander in there I think you missed - like saying that the real Jews are white Europeans and that Jews descended from Satan.--Dave3172 12:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Judaism -- the version you have protected is the wrong one

Hi MountainDew -- a note to let you know that the version of Judaism which you protected is an innacurate one, filled to rants by someone who subscribes to the widely discredited Christian Identity school of racist thinking which goes so far as to reject the notion that the Jews of today even *are* Jews, and says they are descended from Satan. Please revert to an earlier accurate version if you are going to protect this entry!

Boethius 12:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

User names

Thanks for that block. If I were an admin, I'd have done the same. Keep up the good work! :-) --Ed Poor 14:48, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

CP:AID

Hello, You recently expressed your opinion at CP:AID. After voting, it has become obvious that the first article to improve is Germany and any related articles. Details will be posted soon at CP:AID, check there tomorrow for details. Thanks! --Hojimachong^talk 15:36, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Unlock

Now that the rash of vandalism seems to have passed, could you unlock my user page? I need to make some edits. Thanks. Palmd001 21:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, feel free to delete this little thread. Palmd001 21:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Spoon

why did you block him?? All he did was quote the Bible. If you don't think it belongs where it was put, delete it, but don't block the editor. --TimSvendsen 22:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

He was only posting verses that post the Bible in a bad light. I will unblock him, though. MountainDew 22:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

User Ilikebigbibles should be blocked. Are you going to be up a while? If not, then I'm inclined to block him now.--Aschlafly 02:36, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks much. He's from Australia (near Sydney) based on his IP, and his edits and name highly suggest the need to block. Unless you see a reason not to, I'd recommend blocking before you sign off. Thanks much!--Aschlafly 02:40, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Alien

Please explain your justification for deletion of the content i added to Alien. Ilikebigbibles 02:43, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

confused

Tsumetai said to ask someone on the list and you had a cool name, so I'm asking you. What did i do that was vandalism? and what am I a not good parody at? I thought we were supposed to add true things here, not like at Wikipedia were you have to have npov and liberal bias. Gabriel 13:33, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Dispute Resolution Process

Erm, not sure if you meant to, but you overwrote my edit here. --Hojimachong^talk 22:43, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

OK, thanks for the quick response. I was getting worried for a minute. --Hojimachong^talk 22:48, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the quick block

Wow, you were really quick on that last block! Thanks!--Aschlafly 00:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Gah, you're way too quick with these obscenity-laden usernames! Hopefully this message will distract you long enough for me to nab one. Mwuahahahaha! --Hojimachong^talk 00:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Sockpuppet/Troll Stalker!

I know you are the same person as that hoji...you ain't fooling anyone, pinko liberal godless soul!

• Sorry, Dan...I apologize. I thought you would realize the humor, the joke, being since you were posting on hoji's page too. --~ TerryK ^Talk2Me! 03:17, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Blocked user

I just got an e-mail from AmesG that he was blocked by conservative, he wanted me to ask another admin to look into it. I am not sure the surroundings but there is a decent chance it was pre-mature. Tmtoulouse 17:13, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Thank you all again!!!-AmesG 17:21, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Poor AmesG. You're like the red-headed stepchild of the family. :-p ColinR^talk 17:27, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Like the gingers from South Park! --Hojimachong^talk 18:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

• ROFL! Cheer up....I haven't banned you yet! :p --~ TerryK ^Talk2Me! 18:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I totally am. But getting banned by Conservative is good for the soul.-AmesG 18:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Bans need not be permanent. Does a user block here also stop the user from posting on their own user talk page? --Ed Poor 19:27, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

• If one is banned, they cannot sign into the site. They could, I guess, post as someone else on their banned page. Perhaps the Webmaster needs to remove the pages of banned users... --~ TerryK ^Talk2Me! 20:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Please Stop Removing Page Protection

It is especially rude for you to unprotect pages, without consultation with the Sysop who locked it. Is there some explanation for doing it, other than just your idea you know better? --~ TerryK ^Talk2Me! 01:32, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

BillOReillyFan

I'm not sure if this has surfaced in the discussion over User:BillOReillyFan yet, but this edit to Wikipedia by somebody who seems to be BillOReillyFan is quite incriminating. --Hojimachong^talk 03:01, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Can't we call him something else, some cool code name? BillOReillyFan...meh....Tmtoulouse 03:04, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I just say BORF. MountainDew 03:05, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Ha! Thats perfect actually. You are on a roll tonight! Tmtoulouse 03:06, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia Threat number zero-five-two-nine, abberviated at CON-T0529. --Hojimachong^talk 03:05, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Have fun BORF hunting, I will see you tommorrow! Tmtoulouse 03:15, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I think User:Pacman might be a BORF. Lots of good edits (esp. in knowledgeable areas) and then complete silliness. Anyway, he's blocked for a day now. I guess we'll see. ColinR^talk 04:41, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

If nothing else, he likes the nickname you gave him. Myk 04:42, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Unblock

Thanks for the unblock, MountainDew. I had no idea how sneaky people were, what with the edits by "BORF". Thanks for redeeming me. Vossy 03:52, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Scientology

Can you provide some justification for your edits on Scientology? I was fixing a rather overzealous edit by a user called Terryeo.

I am he. Since the discussion seems to go on at Pacman's Page, I replied to him there. The data Pacman is introducing is already in the article. It is in the Contoversy Section of the article and has been there for some time. Tmloulouse introduced the data on 19 March at this editing difference. He and I worked out a compromise wording that we could both live with, but he introduced the idea and documented it pretty throughly. Pacman seems to want the data taken out of controversy and put into basic beliefs, which would be incorrect. That's why he and I are working that out. Terryeo 13:10, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Hitler, whatever...

Were you able to block him with no problems? Every time I tried to, it said no user of that name existed. ColinR^talk 14:56, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Same problem here :( niandra 14:57, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I had to remove the underscores from his name and type the plus sign in myself. It took me several tries. MountainDew 14:57, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Why the heck ins't his IP blocked? Special:Checkuser says the same IP has been used by all of the "hitler" vandals. I'm confused. --Hojimachong^talk 15:12, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure. I suspect that the names are being created by somebody who has an established account here already; I'm going to go run some checkuser inquiries. --Hojimachong^talk 15:22, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

See what you may glean from the users talk page on Wikipedia. Evidently, it's an AOL Proxy, and I will try to block this IP. --Hojimachong^talk 15:38, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly's talk page

Hop over to Aschlafly's talk page and tell me what you think of the banner at the top, I spent some time trying to get it presentable... --Hojimachong^talk 02:00, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Ashens

I'll block him if he continues. Fred Phelps is a phsyco, and it's our job to paint him as such! I like your request to him, by the way... I'll go CheckUser him. --Hojimachong^talk 02:36, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

He says he's going to "report us for hounding him". Shall I just block him now, and delete all traces of his existence? Yes? That sounds like an excellent idea! --Hojimachong^talk 03:15, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

We should give him one warning for name calling first. Whether he's broken any rules seems borderline, even though he's here to cause trouble. MountainDew 03:16, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

• This is what I mean. Do either of you understand what other Sysops think when reading these kind of posts? --~ TerryK ^MyTalk 03:43, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

The whole communication thing, right? MountainDew 03:45, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

• In order for a page to be on a sysops watch list, one has to enable watch manually, or have auto watch enabled so, if a sysop hasnt posted on your page, mine, or hoji's, they dont know the convo is happening = exclusionary. I have had other Sysops express the same frustration. We just can's assume they will see the topic on their watch lists. --~ TerryK ^MyTalk 03:57, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Recent Blocks

I'm confused about some of these. Kiowa and Tmtoulouse mainly. I know there's probably good reasons, but I never saw anything against the rules in any of their entries that I saw.Nsmyth 04:03, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

• Most of it was on Andrews page. I wasn't a party to, nor do I agree that Tmtoulouse should have been blocked, and until I saw your post, didn't know he had been....yet. His feelings were hurt, and he lashed out. That isn't the way to handle such things. --~ TerryK ^MyTalk 04:08, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

He did actually suggest being blocked. That said, I do disagree with the blocking, but it's not my call. ColinR^talk 04:09, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

• If he asks for a second chance (he has my IM), I wouldn't oppose giving it to him. MountainDew 04:12, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Kiowa was placed on a short block for subtle vandalism of Americium and a couple of other articles

Stub2 Deleted

The webmaster deleted the stub2 template and now we have a ton of pages siting around with a broken template. I have been fixing them, but I'm tired and need sleep, could you help when you log on. All the pages with broken links can be found here: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Template:Stub2

(Issue has been fixed via Template Redirect.) --Sid 3050 08:38, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

• I appreciate you letting me know about the problem, sid....I sent email to webmaster, didnt get an answer, but main thing its fixed. --~ TerryK ^MyTalk 08:58, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Main praise goes to Elamdri for actually spotting it. (The initial alert didn't come from me, it's an unsigned entry by Elamdri.) --Sid 3050 09:01, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
• That was sarcasm. None of these guys answer their email, so I don't know why I bothered. And of course, you messaged that the problem was being worked on, but not to me. ;-) --~ TerryK ^MyTalk 09:03, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
  • I tracked down the people Elamdri alerted and left the "No worries, it's been fixed" notes underneath Elamdri's posts to avoid the alerted people from going all "OH NOES!". Not much use to leave a message on ALL sysops' pages going all "There was some problem, but it's not there anymore, so this message is fairly pointless.". ;) If you check Elamdri's contributions, you'll notice that only a few people have been alerted.
  • Besides, you showed that you keep your eyes open by checking other User Talk pages. That definitely speaks for you. :) --Sid 3050 09:10, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
• No worries, I'm on a tear about communication...I should have it worked out of my system by this evening, lol. :p --~ TerryK ^MyTalk 09:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

McCain v. Reagan

Hey MD- Just a heads up.

• Ronald Reagan, born 2/6/11, took office 1/20/81. 69 years 11.5 mos.
• John McCain, born 8/29/36, would take office ~1/15/2009. 72 years 3.5 mos.

I've had to fix that a couple of times and mentioned it on the talk page. Jus ta heads up. (Personally, I think the entire section about "electability" has got to go but someone disagrees with me. Myk 11:31, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Eric

No, just a friend of his. You must admit, however, that he has his fair share of Google hits (and an interesting biography that you can read here [1].

Anyway, he wouldn't be enough of a loser to put his own name on somebody's wiki. ColemanFrancis 15:16, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Civil War, et al

It used to be a stub...now it's filling out. Slowly, but it's filling out. The subheadings that are there already (before 1861) are going to be filled with detail before I add the rest. What do you think so far? Karajou 17:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

DDT ban

Hi, don't know if we met yet. I've only been here a week. Thanks for your edit to Rachel Carson. --Ed Poor 17:44, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Picture

it seems the name of the picture can only be 4-5 characters long and can only contain alphabetical letters.Jaques 03:14, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservative

I'd consider it a badge of honor to be on your list of conservatives.

Nice chat with...

I had a nice chat with a certain someone, and I pointed out that the problem was not only with Richard, but with those people here who gave him a pat on the back for what I saw was an attempted destruction of Conservapedia. Should they get booted? Karajou 22:10, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure. On the one hand, I think we should keep all the troublemakers who have no intention of positive contributions out On the other, some of these people have made contributions, and I don't want us to get accused of ideological banning any more than we already have on blogs. MountainDew 22:12, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

You have raised a very valid point, Karajou. If one's actions are disingenius, like Richard's, lacking honor, yes, they should be booted as well. The rub is in the proof. I posted for several days about his actions, and yet no one in authority acknowledged what I was saying. I emailed a certain someone about his actions, never received a response. :S --~ TerryK ^MyTalk 22:15, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

There are a couple people here who have approved of what Richard had attempted to do, and they enjoyed it. I'm for removal for at least six months. What say you? Karajou 22:18, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

About the SYSOP status I just sent Andy a letter reminding him that Richard is still on it. Karajou 22:26, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Karajou, are you referring to what people have said in the "Vote: Keep Richard?" page? MountainDew 22:28, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

• He's (Andy) been posting, within the last hour on the board, he is aware. And what is the vote page? --~ TerryK ^MyTalk 22:29, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

It's not a vote page, I referred to it wrong. I mean the discussion on Andy's talk page that AmesG branched off to this page: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Keep_Richard_Around%3F MountainDew 22:30, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Picture someone who's just desperate to force a rules change to an article, like the evolution article, and then picture him as being gleeful when someone else comes along and does something to destroy Conservapedia's reputation. That kind of individual. Karajou 22:44, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Richard is gone from the SYSOP list at this time. Karajou 22:47, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

You both have AIM, perhaps that would be easier, although I did message Karajou before, and she never responded...... --~ TerryK ^MyTalk 22:49, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Sorry for the lack of response, TK; I thought it was a one-liner. And who's a she? Karajou 23:02, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm just not sure, to be honest, if somebody doesn't actually do anything malicious with editing (or publicly exposing the site as Richard did). I think that really sets us up for accusations of ideological bias. They must certainly never be considered for sysop status. That being said, I'd think those users should be warned and receive an infinite ban upon any infraction. Ultimately, it's up to you/Andy.

Also, thank you for checking with Andy on the SYSOP list. MountainDew 22:50, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

• I messaged you on both Yahoo and AIM the other day, love. Maybe you had finished posting, and left. --~ TerryK ^MyTalk 23:03, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

It's interesting how tweaked you all are over what Richard did and none of you are even the least bit concerned that he exposed the single biggest flaw on Conservapedia - the willingness to overlook problems if someone professes to be a conservative. Anyone could have read what he wrote and realized he was goofing. But since he said all the right things, he was SysOped. If you worried more about that and less about the fact that some of us found it funny, this site would be the better for it.--Dave3172 23:13, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I also ask you how American it is to ban people who stand up for people who did something wrong. The poor Federal Defender's office... someone should tell them.-AmesG_yo! 23:16, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Ames, how can you overlook my huge war with "Conservative"? --~ TerryK ^MyTalk 23:19, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, I do appreciate that. It's just that I'm defensive because it sounds like you are trying to get me banned for standing up for Richard. Tell me I'm mistaken?-AmesG_yo! 23:21, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I didn't think that you were one of the people referred to, Ames. I wouldn't support banning you, in any event. MountainDew 23:24, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Here is the deal with me: I don't try, I do. If I thought that way, you would be gone already. I don't sneak or pussyfoot around, as you can tell from my public messages even to Andrew. ;-) --~ TerryK ^MyTalk 23:35, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, I'm comforted by that, thanks. I think my contributions are valuable, even (especially) the controversial ones, so I appreciate it. I also hope you won't ban my friends, like Dave3172. And MountainDew, I knew you wouldn't, thanks :-). If the tables were turned (which they won't be - Andy'd die before seeing me as a sysop) I'd be behind you 100%.-AmesG_yo! 23:37, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Well Dew certainly has you fooled! While chatting with him, he was quoting scripture to me, giving reasons you were Satan! LMAO! --~ TerryK ^MyTalk 23:39, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

"He who voteth toward the left shalt not edit Conservapedia?" MountainDew 23:40, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I've seen that passage - it's in Hypocrafly, Book I, verses 9-27. But I've been called Satan a lot, actually. I only expect it to go up after I pass the bar. "New Republic" got hold of one of my editorials for the Rice newspaper and called me a bunch of names. My girlfriend & I laughed for days. -AmesG_yo! 23:43, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

"He whoeth maketh fun of Dew lies with Satan" I beleive was your passage.... :p --~ TerryK ^MyTalk 23:45, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

LOL! If I've ever made fun of you, MountainDew, you have my deepest apologies! But I seriously doubt I have!-AmesG_yo! 23:46, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

You haven't, but the commenters on the blog my userpage links to have. MountainDew 23:47, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Good times. Back to ConLaw, I've spent too much time here today.-AmesG_yo! 23:49, 27 March 2007 (EDT)