- 1 Welcome to SYSOP/admin
- 2 User:JC
- 3 Please do not unprotect the article.
- 4 Maxpower
- 5 404.shtml
- 6 Creationism
- 7 Torment of the Damned
- 8 Intelligent Design
- 9 Weasel Words
- 10 Great block on JaneNormal
- 11 Problem user
- 12 Blocked RobS due to vandalism
- 13 What the heck?
- 14 Please discuss with Aschlafly regarding unprotecting the Theory of evolution article
- 15 So that's why...
- 16 Scientific Theory
- 17 Good luck
- 18 Welcome back
- 19 million and billion
- 20 Deleted page
- 21 Barack Obama
- 22 Philosophy
- 23 Happy Easter!
- 24 Donuts
- 25 AmesG
- 26 Pagan
- 27 Help with boxes
- 28 Donut
- 29 No worries
- 30 Re: Athens article
- 31 thanks
- 32 Sysop Pledge
- 33 Proposed Block Policy
- 34 Pledge on my page
- 35 Lemon
- 36 Keep up the good work, ColinR!
- 37 Pledge..
- 38 WP logo
- 39 New Name
Welcome to SYSOP/admin
ColinR, thanks for your excellent edits. Welcome to SYSOP/admin status! I should have granted this to you even earlier.
Please block a user immediately, without warning and for infinite duration, for any obscenity or vandalism. I mean it. Borderline cases of silliness can be addressed with warnings or short blocks. Ideological differences are not addressed with blocks of the user. Instead, and rarely, we have to protect a page if the person keeps reverting changes. Welcome!--Aschlafly 19:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
- Thanks! I'll do my best. ColinR 19:38, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
RobS 20:42, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Please do not unprotect the article.
Until things are resolved do not unprotect the dinosaur article. The evolutionists have refused to put in disclaimers. They have to agree to do so. I would also suggest warning AmesG not to put in the evo "fact" version. I would but I don't think he is too fond of me. Conservative 17:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Please see my most comment on the talk page. The evolutionist have to agree to the compromise on the talk page. If they don't the page remains locked. Please don't unlock the page. I would like to see this setttled. Wikipedia doesn't unlock pages until both sides hash things out. This is one case where I agree with Wikipedia. Conservative 17:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
I hope you will agree that I have been the most fair person so far as far as the 'dino" conflict. I am the only one to offer a compromise between the two sides. Please let me put in a compromise version that won't destroy the work I did. Conservative 17:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
I don't want all my work and research destroyed. I don't think it would be fair to have a weak creationist version as far as citing scientists and having a robust evolutionist version. Please let me work out the compromise. I am asking nicely. Conservative 18:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
I just did what you suggested re: Dino Conservative 18:08, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Vandalism was where? I was having fun reading what he put on my userpage and responding(as obviously unserious as it was) and was curious to see if he'd do what he said and refrain from vandalising anything. Even if a block was necessary, I feel that an infinite block was a little much. Liberal doesn't immediately mean vandal. Just thought I'd point that out.NSmyth02:09, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
- Also, I just got an email from him asking why he was blocked.Nsmyth02:15, 21 March 2007 (EDT)"
- I accidently blocked him, and tried to unblock him, which I thought I did successfully, though it didn't work. I just unblocked him and I apologize for the error. ColinRtalk 02:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
- No problem, i was confused about the vandalism since i didn't vandalise anything, thanks both to NSmyth and ColinR :) Maxpower
The current text on 404.shtml is misleading (the "Page not found" part). The page only appears when someone clicks on a Mexico or calico link, and it isn't a standard page and won't appear in any other contexts (eg. MediaWiki doesn't ever use it to mean "sorry, a page doesn't exist"). The issue is that those two pages do exist:  . I actually think 404.shtml shouldn't be protected, because it's a temporary problem that should be resolved soon (see the talk page), and again, it's not a standard system message (all standard system messages reside in the MediaWiki: namespace, and all of those are permanently and automatically protected). Regardless, the text of the page should be something more along the lines of "The page you're looking for does exist, but is currently difficult to access. You may be looking for: Mexico, Category:Mexico, or Calico." Could you either unprotect the page, or change the text to that, please? --Interiot 10:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
- I think when the issue first came to light, the agreed workaround for Mexico was using Mexico (country). Just a side note. Congratulations for shedding some light in this issue, though! --Sid 3050 11:27, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
- Well, there's Category:Mexico now, which
hashad the same problem.
- Yay, it looks like the webmaster just fixed the problem, so all of these pages should load properly now (though it may take a hard reload to avoid seeing the old 404 page: Shift+Control+R in Mozilla or Opera and Ctrl + F5 in Internet Explorer). So 404.shtml could actually be deleted now, since it will likely never be used. (eg. Wikipedia does not, nor never did have a 404.shtml page). --Interiot 12:49, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
- Well, there's Category:Mexico now, which
No problem - I think people are just a bit wary because of the vandals that the sight has attracted, however my suggestions are made with the best of intentions. I'm not one for introducing too many rules but clear policy pages are the way to ensure that admins are not a) busy fire-fighting and b) that there is some common standards. In regards to the actual creationism bit - as I said, it's a dead issue in europe but if the community here decided that's what they want, well that's upto the community but it will stop so many problems if that's explicitly addressed - I've been following the theory of evolution and dinosaur pages and many of the problems there could be avoided by clear policy (oh and by admins get another admin to look at pages they are actively involved in editing but that's an issue for another time). --Cgday 16:46, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Torment of the Damned
ColinR, just wanted you to be aware of my response to your point on my talk page. I think it is important that Christians recognize what pleasures are deeded to them in Heaven. The delight in the suffering of the damned might be a less visceral delight than what is (falsely) promised to Muslims, but I'm sure you agree it is not only important, but an important aspect of our Faith. In Christ. DunsScotus 16:29, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
- Uh, no… that's innacurate. Sorry. I don't know if you're a parody, so I thought I might as well. --Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 20:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
I move to block editing on Intelligent Design because it is being vandalized by secularists. DunsScotus 18:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
- I am opposed and would rather take the time to manually remove vandalism than block a page. Open editing is an important part of wikiality. ColinRtalk 18:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't have a recollection of this template, and guessing from the lack of template-designers here, I would probably say just leave it as is. If the two look similar, then they will both serve the same purpose. --Hojimachongtalk 22:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
- EDIT: using Special:prefixindex, I found Template:Who says. --Hojimachongtalk 22:25, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Great block on JaneNormal
That user was from Texas, not Europe. Thanks for your quick thinking on blocking him or her.--Aschlafly 22:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
- I just blocked her because all of the edits involved bodily functions. ColinRtalk 22:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
[User:SammyJr] Is blanking pages and creating new silly articles. Tmtoulouse 22:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Blocked RobS due to vandalism
Conservative 23:02, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
That wasn't him. Look closely. That was somebody impersonating him. MountainDew 23:02, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
- reverse the ban. Sorry. Conservative 23:03, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
What the heck?
Why did you block me for 24hrs? You gave no explanation apart from "vandalism". Just exactly what was I supposed to have vandalized? I have no problem with people disagreeing with my edits, as long as they try to be reasonable about it. You didn't even get in touch, and when I tried to email you about the block, I found you don't have an email address registered on your account. Not impressed!
I've been adding loads of good content to this project, but if the mods are just going to go around bullying the users I don't think i'll bother!
Please discuss with Aschlafly regarding unprotecting the Theory of evolution article
Please discuss with Aschlafly regarding unprotecting the Theory of evolution article Conservative 19:39, 25 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
- Seems you are next. Good luck! --~ TerryK MyTalk 20:42, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
- I'm not really surprised. Both Hoji and Colin are among the few brave and awesome people who actually try to open "difficult" articles. --Sid 3050 20:48, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
So that's why...
...you got the temp-ban? I only noticed it when I checked the ominous Webmaster's logs.
Sheesh. I will miss you and your balanced and community-friendly views, but I fully understand and support your decision. It's been a nice time with you, so thanks for giving us some hope and for all the other cool things you did and said. :) It's just a pity that Conservapedia is not interested in consensus and only wants to push its YEC view. =/ --Sid 3050 18:28, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't know about the above [=this page], but I was not impressed by your edits on Scientific Theory. You repeatedly removed my edits while refusing to discuss the matter on the Talk page. You even insisted on removing a statement that the section was disputed! RSchlafly 23:14, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
I hope its not too late to get a message to you, you were one of the best sysops here. Good bye and good luck, if you are on wikipedia you should drop me a line on my talk page (same ID). It was good working with you. Tmtoulouse 12:58, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- yep, good luck. it's nice to see the request regarding "biblical abominations" was ignored... Airdish 16:06, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Good to see you around again. Tsumetai 04:24, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Indeed it is! :) --Sid 3050 05:20, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
million and billion
I note that you changed 4,500 million to 4.5 billion "for clarity". Sorry, no. To conform to this site's American bias, perhaps, but not for clarity, given that "billion" means different things to different people. To the English, a billion is a million million. Philip J. Rayment 06:36, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Sort of - when discussing money it's a thousand million. --Cgday 07:05, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Philip, should we start spelling color "colour" so that the English are not confused? No, the American meaning is the correct meaning. Ribbix 13:23, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
- Yes, what's wrong with spelling it "colour"? :-) Bad analogy, by the way, as non-Americans (not just the English) don't have a different meaning for "color". As for billion, that matter was settled. Philip J. Rayment 20:00, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
see this discussion under random page.
that is what i was trying to do but apparently i wasn't doing it right. --CPAdmin1 16:31, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
- I believe the "block" was to registered users only, (I don't know this as I cannot see the controls), but the options are all edit, only registered edit or sysop and above edit. Crackertalk 18:39, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
- Per the terms of the applied template to locked articles, agreed and worked out by Ed Poor and myself, Sysops are required to contact the locking Sysop before unlocking. This does mean you. Foremost among Conservative values is mutual respect. You cannot get it if you don't offer it.... --~ TerryK MyTalk 19:11, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
- For the benefit of others: As I said on TK's talk page, I was not the first to unlock the entry, that was CPAdmin1. I was just reinforcing his decision and the request of multiple users. ColinRtalk 19:15, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
- Just so people know, ColinR wants a Sysop war, so as long as I find one other Sysop to agree with my actions, anything done by a Sysop can be undone by another, without consultation, just like the Old West. Ride'm Cowboy!! --~ TerryK MyTalk 19:20, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
As if the logic that because one lemming jumps off the cliff, others should too. Err, I mean if one Sysop unlocks something, without consultation (surely a draconian measure, requiring that consultation!) than all others are entitled to do that as well...yes, good logic! --~ TerryK MyTalk 19:34, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
- As I said, if you have a beef with what happened, talk to CPAdmin1. I've yet to see you say anything about the issue to him. And it's then, not than. ColinRtalk 19:39, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
- Well, I guess you told me! I will show you by example, undoing all of your actions. When you are ready to apologize, let me know. And I did post on CP's page, dude. You should just admit you were wrong, and thought you could get away with it. Be a man, don't hide behind another wrong action by CPAdmin. --~ TerryK MyTalk 19:41, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
- It's been said before, and I feel it best be said again: drunk, perhaps? At least drunk with power, that's for sure... And I wasn't hiding behind CPAdmin, I was explaining that instead of attacking me for following in another's footsteps (as you did before with Sid), you should settle your beef with the person who started this. And if you get the chance, please explain how what you meant by several admitted deceits. When did I admit to lying? ColinRtalk 19:47, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
- Is this fight really necessary? TK, ColinR (obviously) had reason to believe that CPAdin1 had notified you that HE was unlocking and it was fine with you, (as per the request you had on the talk page). But still, what HARM was actually done? Crackertalk 19:48, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
- Colin, I think on your user page, you admitted to deceit about evolution, eh? Rob, no harm was done, and I can't think of one time I have ever refused a request to unlock if someone wanted to add something, as opposed to the just a GP generic unlock request, because Wikipedians hate locked pages. Mu point, Rob, is that Ed Poor and I went to lots of trouble to get the whole locked/unlocked matter settled, and CPAdmin1 and Colin here, seem to think it doesn't apply to them. Now, that is the point. All this, it seems obvious from Colin's comments, is about Sid. And Colin, name calling, is a removable offense. Keep that in mind, an apologize now. --~ TerryK MyTalk 19:59, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
- A-you have called me a liar and yet don't show me where I lied. B-I never said it didn't apply to me, I was just following the footsteps of CPAdmin1 (which clearly you have a problem with his actions, but as far as I can tell, refused to settle with him, but instead try to pick a fight with me). C- I have pointed out the Sid issue, because this one is almost a direct parallel to it. D- A page should be locked to prevent vandalism. If vandalism isn't a problem, or the page has been locked for a while, there is no need to lock the page, especially one dealing with current events that could and should be updated as much as possible without having to request permission to do so. E- I refuse to apologize to you (for name-calling, something I did not do), until you apologize for your actions for your false accusations and refusal to accept you may have been wrong. ColinRtalk 20:04, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
- "I also worked hard to ensure that articles weren't needlessly protected and just entries on personal viewpoints. I even went so far as to support Creationism, something I consider a joke." ---ColinR --~ TerryK MyTalk 20:16, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
- Pssst, Colin....check your moral compass! Most people consider that to be lying. Disingenuous. Immoral. Deceptive. --~ Sysop-TerryK MyTalk 03:51, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
- I fail to see how supporting Creationism on this site, despite my personal opinions about it, is lying. I have never tried to hide the fact that I think Creationism is a joke, but when it comes to an article on the subject, I feel it best to present the article in a NPOV or at least a non-negative POV (especially something like Creationism, which many on this site consider valid and true, i.e. Conservative (in fact, ask him about me supporting Creationism)) It would be one thing to lie about what Creationism said or try to deceive people about Creationism, but to try to help an editor support what he considers a valid view is not lying. Simple as that. Moreover, even if you really want to consider helping another editor explain something in a non-negative light lying, I fail to see how "[working] hard to ensure articles weren't needlessly protected" is considered lying.
- Dude, it's okay. Perhaps a chat with your Priest, Rabi or Minister could help you short out just what is lying, and what is not. Your explanation of what you did keeps changing, man. On your user page, you say one thing, one way, here you spin it another way....I'm getting dizzy. Let me get you off the hook: I apologize for intimating you were a liar. Obviously you don't know the difference between dishonesty and truthfulness, and cannot be held responsible for your actions. Andy has said many times we don't follow the Wikipedia line about not locking pages. Among the many other things we don't follow here, versus Wikipedia. Get over it. --~ Sysop-TerryK MyTalk 04:10, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
- And you still accuse me of being a liar (despite your horrific spelling), without showing how I lied or "changed my explanation." I explicitly stated what I did in my previous response, and even said to ask Conservative about the issue (which, as far as I know, you didn't do), or you could have even looked at the history of the Creation Science article (the entry I was talking about, which you would have noticed if you had actually looked at my user contributions). Instead, you accuse me of being a liar and then of being ignorant of the differences of truth and falsity. If you have nothing constructive or relevant to this issue to say, please refrain from wasting my time and space on the Conservapedia database. ColinRtalk 04:20, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
- LOL.....enfant terrible, part 2! Did you turn red writing all that? --~ Sysop-TerryK MyTalk 05:28, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for creating the Philosophy article in the first place! I have expanded it a bit, thought you might be interested in it, and all the related pages i had to create once i had done so! :) Orgone 22:18, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Happy Easter to you, Colin!
The eleven disciples went to the hill in Galilee where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him, Jesus drew near and said to them, "I have been given all authority in heaven and on earth. Go, then, to all peoples everywhere and make them my disciples: baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and teach them to obey everything I have commanded you. And I will be with you always, to the end of the age." Matthew 28
Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right. You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, telling the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all. You know what has happened throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached— how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him. “We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” —Acts 10:34-43 NIV
Hey ColinR, I'm going to take your American userbox because you have the ability to make it, and put it on my page because I need it. Which is, of course, totally un-American. Teresita 01:55, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Do not unblock him. --CPAdmin1 16:47, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
What did he apologize for? --CPAdmin1 16:54, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
OK, I'll unblock him, but he is on probation, another case of anything like obscenity and he is gone for good. --CPAdmin1 16:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks ColinR! You're a great guy for (1) standing up for me, (2) communicating my apology, and (3) being awesome.-AmesGyo! 22:06, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
- Colin, I'm going to bed. Could you add those userbox templates to the userbox page I made, maybe? It'd be awesome...-AmesGyo! 01:35, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
Help with boxes
I would like some help, but I have no idea how to change them. Plus, I modified some of them from the templates that already existed. Not sure what to do there. Flippin 15:19, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
I didn't switch sides, I changed from the one that said "donuts without holes are donuts" to the one that said "donuts do not have to have holes". (these quotes are not exact, just the basic meaning) --CPAdmin1 16:06, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
just some harmless fun. Flippin 16:41, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
Re: Athens article
Why did you revert my change to the Athens article? It's already cleared documented in the homosexuality article already, and it seems important to put the information about Athens in perspective. --JustSaying
- If you want to add more information and then include the homosexuality bit, feel free to. However, we don't need an article saying "Athens was an ancient Greek city state. They practiced homosexuality." That gives the entry a slant so as to suggest all Athenians did was have gay relations. ColinRtalk 18:19, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
- Whoever you are (post is unsigned), ColinR is correct in this. Conservative and Christian values does not mean we play up abominations out of proportion. It would belong, IMO, as a portion of a sub head dealing with culture, etc. I cannot find any encyclopedia entries online or published where that topic consumes much space at all. --~ TK MyTalk 18:27, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
- My apologies. I have signed my post. I still believe it is important to note about the Ancient Athenians, but I will pull together some more info to make a more substantial article. --JustSaying
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 23:56, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
Proposed Block Policy
Pledge on my page
I don't mind at all. Thanks. --BenjaminS 00:24, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
LOL! Thanks for the edit - yeah, we grow some big lemons here on the West Coast... :p --Taj 03:52, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
Ok, ok.. I'll admit it, I guessed at the length. I should have researched that one a bit better... sorry :( but we do have biiiiigg lemons here! :) --Taj 03:57, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
Keep up the good work, ColinR!
I, Ribbix, hereby bestow you with my greatest honor:
The Ribbix Prize for courageous acts in the fields of libertarianism, conservatism, and celestialism.
May the Hubble be with you!
Ribbix 01:34, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
Hey Colin, sorry about that double upload... (the second was a fix of the first, not an attempt to steamroll you). I did not realize that about GFDL; I thought the "ok to copy" part meant it was ok. I guess the UXB in question will have to settle for a big "W". Thanks, Human 15:03, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
This is the new name of User:MountainDew. DanH 17:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)