User talk:TK/TKarchive2

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search



Hi, Terry. I appreciate your patient guidance as I learn the ropes here. I've been with Wikipedia for 5 years, but I guess not everything is the same here. I look forward to working with you more. --Ed Poor 19:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

  • (Chuckles) Perhaps it is I who should be consulting you! I tried to send you an email, but: "This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users."  :-( Maybe if you have aol instant messenger, you could use the screen name in the red bordered box above, and we could chat sometime. --~ Terry Talk2Me! 20:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Oops, sorry, I forget to reply confirm my email address. Should be fixed now. --Ed Poor 20:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
  • No, I just tried to send from here, it doesnt work yet. You might need to fill in the email box again in preferences, and have it re-send the confirm. --~ Sysop-TK Talk2Me! 22:13, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Well it said Your e-mail address was authenticated on 20:50, 20 March 2007. so I figured that was enough. Let's see what I can do. --Ed Poor 14:12, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
D'oh! "Enable e-mail from other users" - had to check that checkbox. It oughta work now. --Ed Poor 14:15, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Thank you

Thanks for your kind words on my talk page. I promise though, that I will not snipe people's beliefs but only unreasonable actions that contradict both reasonable civil discourse and the CP Commandments. If it is a sin to be an iconoclast it certainly is one of the more delicious vices. --Crackertalk 00:13, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I'm leaning towards a VAT or other sort of "flat tax", I hear Romania's done wonders under it. --Crackertalk 00:16, 21 March 2007 (EDT)


While I do appreciate you blocking this bigot, I think it might be best to unblock him for now, merely because Aschlafly's involved, and I'm sure RightWolf2 will make belligerent comments to him, and be permanently blocked. I will respect your decision either way, however. --Hojimachongtalk 18:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Good call on that one. Though Hojimachong (IMO) went too early for the throat. Sometimes we all forget we're dealing with other PEOPLE here and too easily get riled up. --Crackertalk 18:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Like I posted on the other talk page...I read his "contributions". He seems kinda mono-sighted. And I did catch the angry bent to his dialog. Surely we have enough of those kinds on the WEB already, lol. Three days isn't gonna kill him. When he comes back, he can go for me. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 18:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

A sockpuppet is the same person with another IP, a meatpuppet is another person who's taking up his friend's fight by proxy. --Crackertalk 00:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

A "sockpuppet" refers to an alternate account created by the same person, for the sole purpose of disruption. A "meatpuppet" is a person recruited off of the wiki, merely to bring another voice to the discussion. Functionally, they are the same thing. --Hojimachongtalk 00:45, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Amazing. We are talking about the Internet here, right?  :p --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 01:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Ronald Regan edit

I think you have the wrong person. I've only made the following edit: [2], where I was changing the spelling of "flavor" to confirm to Conservapedia's commandments about American spelling. Fairandbalanced 16:01, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Dporter is the person who made the edit that you were interested in: True, when I changed the "flavor" spelling, the part about the "force" was still in there, but that wasn't intentional. I didn't have the opportunity to scan through the whole article for objectionable content. Fairandbalanced 16:20, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Okay, deporter has been removed. When you see moronic changes, such as he made, especially without attributions, just undo their work, rather than spell check it. ;-) --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 16:28, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Ah, I think was more interested in jelly beans than the Stars Wars stuff! Fairandbalanced 16:29, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

No, when you "spell checked" the piece, it became yours as well. Please look at what you are checking, and "undo" such obvious crap when you are there. Surely you couldn't have believed any of the changes deporter made, Mr. FairandBalanced? --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 16:31, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

You may be expecting a little bit too much. I just changed what I saw as an obvious error, rather than reading the whole article. Just because I changed the spelling of one word, to follow one of the Conservapedia commandments, doesn't automatically mean that I necessarily agree with the content of the whole article (nor have I read the whole article). I guess that's why there are other people to help collaboratively edit the article! (Otherwise, edits would never get done, since it would be onerous to expect full ownership of the content of the article.) Fairandbalanced 16:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Well, you have a point, however it does point up something that is problematic, eh? Perhaps people will just expect more of you becuase of your user name. Thanks for the clarification. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 16:45, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Agreed, I should do a better job of living up to my username~ Fairandbalanced 17:04, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Locked Pages

I am a registered user. I can edit none of those pages. Believe me, I checked. Myk 04:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

  • I don't know about all....but the one we just exchanged messages about, the Liberal page, I did protect it only against un-registered users. Did you check it after we exchanged messages there? --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 04:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, you'll notice it's not on the list. In the time it took you to change the protection status, I wrote the message. Slow night. Myk 04:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
  • ROFL! Slow for who? :p --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 04:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Hitler Article

I didn't really read the whole thing, you only have to read a few paragraphs to see that its a poorly written article with a lot of opinion. What I would like to know is what you want from me.--Elamdri 09:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

  • I don't want anything. I posted I would ask some other Sysop's about the things they were complaining about. So, I put messages on a few others, like you. Seemed pretty simple and easy thing to ask of a Law Major. The articles they were complaining about were, as I said, under the title "Abuse of sysop priviledge" and were done by RobS. The were complaining about two pages in particular, Hitler and Liberals. Sorry to have bothered you. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 10:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
    • Oh no, its ok. Um, well, I haven't looked at the Liberal article, but the Hitler one is pretty bad. There isn't a lot of factual evidence so much as it is opinionated. There are a good 5-6 paragraphs of just blatant opinion before you even get to the meat of the article. I'm not sure who's responsible for that stuff. Whether or not it can be dealt with, I do not know. Granted, the nature of this website allows for a bit of opinion. Also, most of the opinion on the Hitler page is rather common opinion. Personally, I don't know how to go about handling it. The whole "Incarnate of Absolute Evil" and whatnot. Its not that its not "true" but it makes it look unprofessional.--Elamdri 10:14, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
  • LMAO! That whole "Incarnate of Absolute Evil" was written by perhaps the foremost expert on Nazi's and Hitler, in the entire world....perhaps they don't teach such things anymore. Thanks anyways. Sorry you didn't like my edit job there. Most did. But then, you knew that. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 10:25, 23 March 2007 (EDT)


I don't think it was his making of articles with the "fact" tag, but that he deleted legitimate content from several articles, and spammed many pages with the "fact" tag, which were his only contributions. My initial impression is that he was only here to cause trouble. But hey, if you feel it unjustified, feel free to unblock. --Hojimachongtalk 21:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

  • The problem being, you didn't cite any of those other actions, only reacted to his tagging articles which lack citations, and in my opinion, far too many of our pages need them. Maybe you could be more forth-coming with sharing information, like the IRC channel, etc......--~ TerryK Talk2Me! 21:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
    • Yeah, I even went to the IRC channel #conservapedia trying to start a discussion. Maybe you could reduce his sentence from infinite to time served? And try to explain on his user page what you want him to stop doing? (I've taught Sunday School, and let me tell you kids thrive on clarity: no hitting, no teasing! They can understand stuff like that.) Uncle Ed 22:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Well, this is what happens here, at Conservapedia. Everyone wants to be a diva, and if questioned, they shut down, and don't respond. It is hugely troubling. :S --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 22:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I cited a collection of his Speeches and gave a page number for the Hitler article.--Stills 03:26, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Liberal edit

I just saw that you locked the liberal article. There are a few typos in it. Also the repeated edits of the "support of/oposition to an american foreign policy that supports ..." are annoying. Mostly because this is more a difference of opinion between isolationists and interventionists, and not between liberals and conservaties. You can find isolationists and intervertionists on both sides of the political divide. User:Order 24 March 13:30

  • I agree, but the tit for tat editing is _issing me off. And that isn't just aimed at you, Order. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 22:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Locking hitler

I saw that you kept the bit that Roehm was gay in the Beer Hall bit, in the locked article. It is factually wrong, because Roehm was not openly gay, it was more an open secret. And in addition it is irrelevant for the Beer Hall Putsch. I would suggest removing it. User:Order

  • You are just saying the man was Gay. Either he was, or he wasn't. If he was, and it goes to point about Hitler's gassing of the Gays along with the Jews, Catholics, Artists, Lutheran's, etc., etc., in showing he was a lunatic, leave it in. I just get ticked when people feel the need to brand any association with someone Homosexual as some kind of titillating "proof" that they must be Gay as well.... --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 22:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Roehm is just not important in relation to the beer hall putsch. So he shouldn't be mentioned at all, gay or not gay. When we ever come to describe how Hilter consolidated his powers, Roehn has to be mentioned, and also his sexual orientation. But leave it like it is. There is more wrong and unecyclopedical about the article. User:Order
  • I really, really think most of this stuff needs to be put on a Nazi Party page, or the Germany page, if it doesn't go to describing Hitler, the man. Otherwise, it becomes yet another page, like Global Warming, or Evolution, that is trying to be all things to all people. Does that make sense? Yes, I agree with you, but another Sysop seems to disagree. What am I to do? It isn't like I can ask someone else here to take a look at it, or even get a response. I have tried contacting Andrew, and he refuses to even reply to my IM's or emails. I posted about that lack of consideration on his page, and you can see it wasn't even responded to. I'm afraid I had more respect for these people before finding this place, and it does make me wonder why he made me a Sysop here, if he didn't want to communicate. Hell, they set up a Sysop channel on IRC, and never even told me about it. I learned about it in some post on Andrews page, even though a Sysop who I chat regularly with was evidently given the password for it, lol. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 23:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Who knows. Maybe one of them has a friend who is openly gay. User:Order 24 March 15:00 (AEST)
  • ROFL! I have a brother who is, but that didn't compel me to link Homosexuality with Hitler. :p --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 00:21, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Can you unlock the Hilter article again. Because it only helps RobS to introduce more gossip and factual error. He is the only one editing right now, and the lock just protects his negative edits. Nobody can even go ahead and fix the other factually wrong entries. I mean, we will have to live with the fact that RobS uses his powers to push his gay holocaust view. But that shouldn't prevent us to fix , e.g. the 1933 election entry, which contains many factual errors. Order 25 March 15:40 (AEST)

Protection removal

There had been a request to take a look at page lockings, and I unlocked some of the ones that had been locked for a long time and where the justification given by the protector had been a current rash of vandalism. If this wasn't the case for any of them, I apologize and feel free to re-protect. All of these were meant to be in good faith. MountainDew 01:34, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Who is the person who made this request of you? Nothing is in good faith without consultation/communication. The page was vandalized again tonight. In point of fact, it had been protected by me, and CPAdmin1. Please stop your unilateral actions with things other Sysops are involved with. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 01:41, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
    • I do agree there should be more communication on protections/removals, especially because some pages have been protected a month when the justification given was temporary vandalism. I see now that this was not the case for the Reagan article, and I will not be so quick to unprotect form now on. The user was Myk. MountainDew 01:43, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  • At the same time, MountainDew, please don't be too slow to unprotect. I feel like it's the only way this encyclopedia will move forward, given that some unnamed others hold it back so.-AmesG 01:45, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  • One of the ones was the September 11 attacks page. I protected it about a week ago because some vandal kept targetting it, and I simply forgot to remove the protection. MountainDew 01:46, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Wisest thing to do, instead of allowing users to Sysop Shop, and go from one to another until they get what they want, is to refer people like that back to whoever locked it. In my experience at many sites, people who make such requests do so with an agenda of their own, that has nothing to do with fair and open access. ;-)
With all due respect, AmesG, you are not a Sysop, and Mr.Schlafly has remarked many times to protect those pages who remain problematic. I have found that people interested in legitimate editing, the addition of major facts of headings, of problem pages, don't have a problem putting the edits on the Talk page, or contacting the locking Sysop, and asking for it to be opened for them. That isn't too burdensome, is it? --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 01:54, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
The main thing is that we have a standarized policy on how to handle protections from now on to prevent confusion (such as the mass protection/banning war pitting Conservative against several other sysops this afternoon). MountainDew 01:56, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
AGREED with MountainDew. TerryK, I have gotten nowhere by placing legitimate edits on talk pages, absent people like MountainDew unlocking needed pages. I'm sure you have, since you're a sysop, and a good one at that :-), but some other sysops stonewall legitimate edits and offensively protect, which is damaging to the wiki as a whole.-AmesG 01:57, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
I would direct TK to some of our old standards: Evolution, Dinosaur, Homosexuality. Each of these have had consistent attempts made by people to add facts or delete non-facts with very little in the way of results. Heck, I've just been trying to get the two "See Also" sections merged on one of those with no success.
Looking at Ronald Reagan... it suffered one hit of vandalism 7 hours after the protection was removed... it was fixed within three minutes. That isn't rampant vandalism, that isn't an edit war... why protection? Myk 02:05, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Well, thanks for the kind words. I am more concerned about what I call "stealth" vandalism. You go to a page, and it looks okay, then you start reading, and slowly it dawns on me, a few words here and there, a sentence removed, and by golly, someone has taken a page and turned its meaning upside down. When I check the user edits, I see several people with lots of very good edits, and just a few, sly, anti-conservative pages vandalized. And no, it isn't someone making a mistake. So, some pages will be protected. If there are minor flaws, they can be posted on the talk page, easy enough, no? Go look at Newt Gingrich, and the edit history there. It read like the Sun, not serious information. No attributions. In fact I just unbanned someone last night who is famous for marking pages with "citation needed". And well he should. We have too many pages without a single attribution. One thing I can promise you, I won't ever leave valid edit requests unanswered, and I realize the frustration some Sysops have caused all users in that regard. It is something I am trying to get the management's attention on, with about the same success you are having. :p --~ TerryK MyTalk 07:27, 24 March 2007 (EDT)


Are you sure noodles is a reily sock? Tmtoulouse 02:50, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

My gut says yes. Read his comment on Andrew's page. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 02:52, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I did, they seemed to fit the mold of an observer not a reily sock.......up to you of course, he has been tossing in questionable edits here and there anyway. Tmtoulouse 02:53, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Well, as Andy says, ban first, ask questions later. My IM is posted on my page. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 02:56, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
The "occasional questionable edit" is the Mark of the Beast. MountainDew 02:57, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Brilliant. Tmtoulouse 03:00, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Gingrich picture

It seems that the picture was vandalized by a troll. billoreillyfan a.k.a. Until we find another picture, I suppose. Vossy 03:35, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I will put a link on the talk page there for a new one, if you would be so kind as to upload it. Same deal on the Reagan is unlocked. --~ TerryK MyTalk 20:27, 25 March 2007 (EDT)


Whoa, why'd you block Vossy? He/She's made nothing but good edits as far as I can tell. ColinRtalk 03:41, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Because of poor communication, that's why. If you guys know some picture is rigged, and find it out on Wikipedia, and send some non-sysop to remove pictures, that's the problem. Okay? --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 03:42, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
I only knew the picture was non-existent when I saw it on recent changes and went to the entry to check out the edits made. I'm confused to what Wikipedia has to do with anything. ColinRtalk 03:45, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Ah, I see now where Wikipedia comes into play (after looking at Vossy's talk page), but I think that utilizing the info they have on vandalism on our site would be a good thing. The more vandalism we catch, the better, eh? ColinRtalk 03:47, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  • My point is COMMUNICATION! I agree with you, on utilizing the info, but put it in channels! I saw the pic an hour ago, it was fine, maybe something hidden, but who cares? So some jerks can pass the link and snicker? --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 03:53, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm sorry, maybe it's because it's late and I'm tired, but I don't understand what you mean by communication. Do you mind elaborating? ColinRtalk 03:54, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
He's talking about the Wikipedia talk link that Hoji placed on my talk page from BillOReillyFan about his vandalism, and how it wasn't passed on to more sysops I think. MountainDew 03:57, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Partially. I am talking about the lack of a place to discuss possible new Sysops, and get away from the dumping ground Andrew's page has become. And tonight is a prime example. If we had a special page, that info could have been posted there, and no one would have been booted, less confusion, no? --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 04:02, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Oi. That was confusing. I can see that kinks are being worked out though. I've replaced the Gingrich picture with something un-altered. Cheers. Vossy Speak 04:17, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Hey! Since you are such a night owl, could you look at the Reagan talk page? I posted a link to a pic I wanted to use, but am too incompetent to do it. :p --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 04:22, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Sure thing. It's uploaded now. Vossy speak 05:57, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  • i know what that means! I opened it for you. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 06:16, 24 March 2007 (EDT)


What a nitemare. RobS 12:44, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

  • I kept clicking that damn unblock, like 6 times, and it was always still there! --~ TerryK MyTalk 12:45, 24 March 2007 (EDT)


Hey dude, why did you block my account? Do you consider my edit [3] to Theory of Evolution to be vandalism? Interesting. --Gishel2 20:25, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

  • You were blocked for three days. Your edits, not noted on the Talk page, were significant enough to change the meaning of the previous version on a problematic, much posted about, page. If you can make a better attempt at explaining the reasoning of edits on like pages, I don't have a problem unblocking you immediately. --~ TerryK MyTalk 20:49, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
I inserted some scientific facts -- with references. If that is vandalism, then so be it. I saw now (see [4]) that you actually blocked me for an edit to Switzerland. But that wasn't me! It was obviously the king of Sweden: [5] ;-) --Gishel2 01:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Oops! I apologize! Which account do you wish to keep? --~ TerryK MyTalk 01:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)


Hey, at least I've made an effort to communicate! Lol, I'm still waiting for somebody to figure out that "Sysops-only" discussion page. Any other communication ideas would, of course, be appreciated! --Hojimachongtalk 22:22, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Perhaps you should share the codes for the IRC? Maybe you excluded some of your fellow Sysops from access? Hmmmmm, I wonder if that would be a start? I wonder if you actually signed into AIM, if that would help? --~ TerryK MyTalk 22:35, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Well, that seems to have put a cap on it! ROFL! --~ TerryK MyTalk 23:08, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Lol, sorry, but Cracker is the one who gives out the pass, not me. We're not just excluding you, as of now it's just him and me with the channel password. --Hojimachongtalk 23:10, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

So, what's the bs about him sitting there waiting? Without a pass, since he said it was a private channel, I cannot get in. And why are you inviting me to AIM chat, then no one in the room? --~ TerryK MyTalk 23:49, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Again with the IRC

I sit here all day lonely on the IRC chan watching the inefficient talk page hopping that is the curse of the wiki format. again, 6667 #conservapedia --Crackertalk 22:26, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

  • I am still waiting the courtesy of an email or IM with the codes to use it, that you gave to others. You have only yourself and Hoji to blame. --~ TerryK MyTalk 22:33, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

That would be for the chan #conservapedia-sysop, which I do not own (nor am I invited to). My invite still stands and you can join the channel at anytime you should so choose. I can do no more than I have already done.--Crackertalk 22:38, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Perhaps I am wrong. Your post on Andrews page said a code was required, and you had given it to Hoji. Perhaps I assumed wrongly that "going there" without a password or code, as you posted was needed, would be futile. --~ TerryK MyTalk 22:44, 24 March 2007 (EDT)


TK can you see about resetting Cracker's password he is currently locked out of the site. Tmtoulouse 00:06, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

  • I have no idea about that. He isn't blocked? I've never seen a way to reset-passwords. :-( ...Maybe post on the Webmasters page? --~ TerryK MyTalk 00:17, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I posted on the Conservapedia Webmasters page about this, after chatting with Cracker today. He hasn't gotten a response from Andrew to his emails about it. --~ TerryK MyTalk 19:56, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

That evil guy

please Consult with locking sysops before taking unilateral action

Sorry, Terry, I should have asked you first. Won't happen again. --Ed Poor 19:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

    • BTW, see my note in the edit history of Hitler. I am not trying to be picky, but if I do not insist on the consultation, we end up with a Spy versus Spy (Sysop versus Sysop) deal. It remaining locked precludes the inclusion, even by a Sysop, as I complete a new version. It isn't going to make all happy, but nothing will. In the meantime, those needing to add material can put it on the Talk page, it can be reviewed, and either I, or any Sysop, can open it for them to paste in, or we can do the pasting. At least this slows down the constant revert war. --~ TerryK MyTalk 19:54, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Hi, I just wrote a new secion that replaces the section on the Reichtags fire. Could I have access again, even for a brief time. User:Order

Perhaps some of the more contentious items could have been avoided? --~ TerryK MyTalk 20:38, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Feel free to edit them. I admit that it is a very drafty draft. User:Order
  • Maybe after this, you could just make a draft header on the talk page, eh? I am tired of this back and forth business, no one ever being satisfied. The page is supposed to be about Adolf Hitler, not a wide-ranging discussion about detailed psychological ramifications of all matters in his life. Not saying thats what you did, but I think you understand my frustration. --~ TerryK MyTalk 20:45, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
It was frustrating that we had to stop working on the article, just because one sentence was or was not in the right place. This discussion went on all kind on unneccessary tangents, but not leading to improvements. I kind of try to stick to known facts in an article, and avoid vague allegations or myths. Hope that was noticable. Order
  • Yes, I have noticed your good work. But as I have said, everyone can post in talk, or just contact me, and add the needed material. I know its not typical of Wiki's, but this place isn't typical. --~ TerryK MyTalk 21:10, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Global warming

Terry, I'd like to have the Global warming article unprotected. I know a huge amount about global warming, and am - cough, cough - Wikipedia's foremost neutral editor on the topic. In fact, I'm currently on probation there for having the nerve to work at making climate article neutral. It's a battleground, with hundreds of billions of dollars at stake.

Anyway, if you don't mind ... may we unprotect the article? User:Ed Poor

  • Done! Yes, I am in the middle of doing that now, working on a policy forumulation for work. Please see my comments at the top of the Talk page, Ed. --~ TerryK MyTalk 09:07, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Hit List and other Intimidation

So now the true colors are showing. A fascist hit list with deceptive informatino maintained by Richard. How lovely.PalMD 20:48, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

  • I am never in favor of such things. Especially when the person has power over others. One is entitled to voice their personal views, but gives up that right when accepting such positions. IMO, someone in a position of power, having knowledge of wrongdoing, someone violating the rules, doesn't need a public list. Their duty would be to remove the wrongdoer, not keep them on a list, otherwise the only purpose of a list would be intimidation. Intimidation rarely works for long, in my experience. Nor am I impressed by people dramatically throwing around terms like "Nazi", "Fascist" or "Communist". Since Richard is a Sysop here, just like me, any list he keeps is his own product, not mine or Andrews. When faced with the same situation in my past, I did what I always do about insults or aspersions, I ignored them, and let my work speak for me. That is always the best revenge--one served cold. --~ TerryK MyTalk 09:35, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Wanted: New Entries

Terry, we love ya, but how about doing some more new entries like your Fox News? I want to hit 6000 new entries this week. With your help, we can do it. Thanks much.--Aschlafly 23:10, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

  • I can try, Andy, but to be honest, I have questions, and you won't respond. One would think if Newt manages to respond to emails, you can too. I enjoy this place, and endorse its premise. I know kinks have to be worked out, and you are only one man. But basic organization and steering are needed, and it is a major distraction for our younger contributors, and older ones as well. I'm not one to trumpet my contributions, but I know you can see the changes/contributions I have made to improve articles aside from writing them. Check Hitler, Newt Gingrich, for example. There is, of course, a laundry list, and I absolutely won't contribute to the drama that exists by listing them here, which is why it's disturbing, you ignoring my emails. --~ TerryK MyTalk 00:26, 27 March 2007 (EDT)


Why did you lock liberal?User:Order

I locked it pending RobS big re-vamp, but I haven't heard from him. Opened. --~ TerryK MyTalk 09:59, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

BTW: I don't intend to edit the Liberal article, but I'm a bit wary about Robs big revamp.. An when he starts re-editig locking the article would protect his edit, and take us the opportunity to fix it User:Order 28 March

Mogul - look at the top entries. Mogul does have a negative connotation. I think a more neutral term "businessman" is justified. Please do not denigrate my edits. Richard 14:25, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

  • You simply do not know what you are talking about. One uses a dictionary, not Google, a huge secular progressive, anti-Christian corporation to learn from. Your judgement is now suspect, and you will be watched. --~ TerryK MyTalk 17:25, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Palms Out Sounds The other cause is the current notion that every MC should become a "mogul" (ignoring both the original connotation of the term, deriving from the Mughal ... - 111k - Mar 25, 2007 - Cached - Similar pages

Comments on: BLOG PULITZERS... not connected with the fallen media, and already carries the connotation of an award. ... just as the newspaper award is named after a newspaper mogul. ... - 9k - Cached - Similar pages

Top Lawyer Under 45 In its modern connotation, the word has also come to stand for high achievement. ... billion default judgment against a client, Federal-Mogul Corporation. ... - 14k - Cached - Similar pages

[PDF] The American LawyerFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML In its modern connotation,. the word has also come to stand for. high achievement. Both meanings ... Little wonder then, that when Federal-Mogul - Similar pages

Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Main Entry: 1mo·gul Pronunciation: 'mO-(")g&l Function: noun Etymology: Persian Mughul, from Mongolian mongγol Mongol 1 also mo·ghul or mu·ghal /'mü-/ capitalized : an Indian Muslim of or descended from one of several conquering groups of Mongol, Turkish, and Persian origin; especially : GREAT MOGUL 2 : a great personage : MAGNATE mogul also moghul or mughal adjective, often capitalized [6]

mag·nate Pronunciation: 'mag-"nAt, -n&t Function: noun Etymology: Middle English magnates, plural, from Late Latin, from Latin magnus

a person of rank, power, influence, or distinction often in a specified area


let me say my goodbyes.. I'm not hurting anything. I won't edit pages other than chat pages. And what did I vandalize? I wrote articles that fit the mold...that the founder what if I didn't mean it? Richard 19:31, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Certainly he's offended the site, but he has not committed a ban-able offense. Personally, I don't think you should ban him.-AmesGyo! 19:33, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
  • PROVERBS 27,28. Ungodly men bestow more pains to do mischief than would be needful to do good. The whisperer separates friends: what a hateful, but how common a character! Like all of your ilk, you cannot defeat the Conservative without resulting to dishonesty. And, it has always been the Liberals undoing. --~ TerryK MyTalk 19:35, 27 March 2007 (EDT)


This individual has been using his SYSOP priveleges to un-ban himself. he also, as you can see, recieved loving support from AMesG and they're proud of what he did. Yes, I am upset. Karajou 20:07, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I blocked him! How can he still be un-banning himself? --~ TerryK MyTalk 20:11, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

BEcause I'm a SYSOP. I just click Unban. Sit a bit...calm down and by tomorrow I'll be gone.. ( I have a real job to attend to) Richard 20:12, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

"Therefore they are a bankrupt soul. There is no point in their living at all.." Nice. Is that what passes for Christian forgiveness in your church? -Sevenstring.

  • So, Richard, the hate is starting to rise to the top, eh? That is good! Let the poison out! Someone who lies, and becomes a trickster to supposedly "advance" their point of view (and boasts about it, no less!), lives without integrity, honor or morals. Therefore they are a bankrupt soul. There is no point in their living at all.... --~ TerryK MyTalk 20:14, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Mmmmmmm! Fear is the path to the Dark Side! Fear leads to anger! Anger leads to hate! Hate leads to... suffering! I'm not proud of what Richard did, but I think he probably saved this site. He exposed the bias; all that we can do is learn from it and turn ourselves around. Also, on a strict constructionalist interpretation of the commandments (and I KNOW conservatives love their strict constructionalism) he didn't break any rules.-AmesGyo! 20:51, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Lighten up, Francis.--Dave3172 20:37, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Ames, I am not "one of those", far from it. As my posts should have indicated to you. My point, which you seem to have decided to take for other than what it was, was that a man without personal honor, has no reason to live. --~ TerryK MyTalk 22:46, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Terry, I don't want us to be in a battle, because us moderates & liberals have to stick together (I know you're at least a moderate, the constructionalist joke was a crack at the site, not you). I understand your point of view, it's just that I don't think that "dishonor" is reason for discharge here (obviously it is in the Navy, and maybe it should be elsewhere). And I don't think he was dishonorable. He made a cunning point. But really, I want us to get along. So please stop assuming my mala fides re moving around the talk page, etc. I'm not a bad guy, despite my 7 blocks ;-)-AmesGyo! 22:56, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Without you messaging me, Ames, I can only go with my gut. My AIM is, and always has, been posted above.  ;-) --~ TerryK MyTalk 23:01, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't believe in AIM. I do believe in gmail chat. But I ask you to trust me. I am an honorable person, and I do not lie.-AmesGyo! 23:05, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Email me through the board. I can give you mine. I haven't had a problem with you. If I thought you had done anything bad in your edits or articles, I would have blocked you. I'm pretty blunt, and ain't into games, as you can tell, unlike some here. --~ TerryK MyTalk 23:12, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Using bullets instead of indents

Howdy TK! Could I ask you to use indents (:) instead of bullets (*) when on a discussion page? Using bullets kind of messes up with the formatting and confuses people in general. GofG ||| Talk 20:35, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

  • The bullets only startle you. What messes with the formatting is the users putting too many colons in threads....I edit several per day. --~ TerryK MyTalk 08:21, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Warren G. Harding

Thank you for cleaning up the monstrosity that was that page. MountainDew 19:31, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

You're most welcome, although no one but you will notice, lol. Don't forget to thank Rob, who was editing at the same time, in his usual eloquent and technically correct manner! --~ TerryK MyTalk 19:38, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
I just put in one little cite!?-- Rob PommerTALK 19:40, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

RobS, I was talking --~ TerryK MyTalk 20:04, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh and it might be time for you to archive this? Rob PommerTALK

Archive what? This page? Never given it a thought...but how does one do that? --~ TerryK MyTalk 20:02, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Type something like User talk:TKarchive 1 into the search field, as if you were creating a new page (you are), and copy and paste all this discussion into there, and you can start over with a new talk page. MountainDew 20:06, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Jeeze! And then I suppose, I would need to copy and paste to the top, something like Andy has done, listing the archived pages? --~ TerryK MyTalk 21:44, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Fox News Channel

Terry, can we try unprotecting this? I'll add it to my watchlist. --Ed Poor 20:24, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Ed, I think some articles will remain "protected" as problematic, as they are on other wiki's, available for users to use the talk pages to suggest changes, but not open for all to edit at will. Andrew alluded to that as well, fairly recently. That's my personal feeling at present, but always willing to discuss. Some pages just have a dynamic of temptation for ideological edits, it seems.

Servant Leadership

You know, there is a concept in this world of servant leadership. Leaders are supposed to serve those they are leading. Look at our government. Every elected official, every bureaucrat, every officer of the government is referred to as a public servant. As a sysop, you are leader of this wiki... and yet none of your actions serve the community, they serve yourself. You seem proud of it. [7] Look at that. Hope you had a good cry? What is that supposed to mean? Have you ever looked at the talk page for Theory of Evolution? Or User:Conservative's talk page? There is an unending litany of requests for the article to be opened and a constant stone wall put in there place. And then I come here to leave this comment and I see more of the same. Where did you get the impression that sysops are more important as editors than the regular users? A sysop can lock an article so that they can edit in peace? Why is that? A sysop's job is to maintain order, not establish their own. Myk 03:22, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Well, thanks for the input, Myk. At this stage of my life, I tend to just state my point of view (about the pages you mention) and then move on to other things. Now I realize people (you?) are real riled up about Dino's, Evolution and the Sysop without a real name, "Conservative". If you follow stuff here, and I know you do, Myk, you also know I have said more than most about his attitude and actions, eh? So, please refrain from some kind of linkage on that score. I hear and understand everyones frustration, and I have dealt with such issues for most of my adult life. So listen to me when I say, nothing you, or anyone says, is going to change their mind, make them turn their backs on their religious faith. Is that violating some right of yours, or anyone? No. If you like the idea of an alternative to Wikipedia, then by all means participate! Edit and create what you can. Most of what is in an encyclopedia doesn't have anything to do with Dinosaurs, Creation or Evolution. Fixating on one set of articles isn't logical, so therefore I reject your efforts in regard to those problematic pages. The horse you are beating is dead. No amount of raising fists and yelling is going to undo that. You make lots of assumptions about me, and others here. I excuse that because it's the nature of the young (myself included 20+ years ago.) Now, I think you need to do some soul-searching, decide if participating in a project such as this, knowing that its point-of-view is most likely something you don't agree with, is really where you want to spend your time. If you are so diametrically opposed to Andrew Schlafly's point of view, what are you here for? Argument? If that is the reason, I guess it's okay, but not a very productive use of time, arguing funde religion with a confirmed believer. Me, I do what I can, add new articles I see are needed, work on those that fall short. I don't agree with Andy on lots of his religious tenants, and have the respect and patience not to argue about those things with him. That is called Respect. So please, take your issues with other people and things that upset you to them. Your transference of frustration to me isn't productive or logical either. I suspect you would be much happier if you just let go of the bone, and worked on other topics, and contributed what you can, or go someplace where you won't feel so alienated. --~ TerryK MyTalk 04:58, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
TK - It's funny how you make an assertion about the young making assumptions and then assume that I'm young. I'm not. And I am far less annoyed by those chestnuts being locked (evol, dino, homo) than you think I am... namely because those are not my areas of expertise. What annoys me is, quite specficially, your management style. The way you act as if being a sysop entitles you to more rights. It does not. It entitles you to more responsibility. Myk 12:51, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Well, perhaps you are right. Maybe there is value in Conservative's style. I will have to consider that. Maybe I assumed you were young based upon what I cited above. Constant arguing against a philopophy you knew was in place when you joined, a railing against the rules. Beinng a Sysop entitles me to both, IMO. It also entitles me to receive critiques from those whose qualifications to offer them are in some doubt. Tread lightly, Myk, some might think you are here only to stir the pot. --~ TerryK MyTalk 17:41, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Traffic to popular pages

I just read this. I'm still in shock that Mr. Schlafly apparently does not believe that people only visit the popular pages because they are advertised as laughingstocks in major news outlets. Read the comments I left above yours if you feel inclined, I must go to bed now. Se la vi (sp?) --Hojimachongtalk 01:57, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

My best guess is, he know's Conservative, and is loyal to a fault, like many of my clients. Richard Nixon lost the Presidency doing just that. "Only" visits is a wild exaggeration IMO, however I wouldn't doubt if half the traffic generated to Conservative's efforts are driven there by the Campus-word-of-mouth machine. Schlafly is doing his best, but out of his element here, and I don't see how he manages the time here, and still able to put food on the table. --~ TerryK MyTalk 02:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk Archive and accidental censorship

Two notes: You should move your archive(s?) from User talk:TerryK/TKarchive1 to User talk:TK/TKarchive1, and this diff here accidentally removed two words from the archive. The source of the problem is already known (see User_talk:David_R#censorship.3F), but I can't repair your archive since it's protected, so you should do it yourself. --Sid 3050 14:40, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Not much of an explanation. --~ TerryK MyTalk 17:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Not much of an explanation for... what? --Sid 3050 17:57, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Sid, you are not an obtuse person. Why should the archive be moved? --~ TerryK MyTalk 18:03, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Never mind, I completely misread that. Tsumetai 18:05, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
It's generally considered impolite to invade foreign User name-spaces. You are free to create sub-pages of User:TK, but you do not have any claims for User:TerryK. Just like you wouldn't tolerate me creating archives of my Talk page at User talk:TK/Sid_1. --Sid 3050 18:12, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Huh? --~ TerryK MyTalk 18:07, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I misread the first comment in this section, responded to it, then realized my mistake and replaced my comment with the above. Apologies for the confusion. Tsumetai 18:10, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Sid, I still have no idea as to what you are talking about! I didn't archive anything from your pages. --~ TerryK MyTalk 18:24, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
*rubs temples* You archived your page in User:TerryK's space, even though that's not your user name. Anything in the User:TerryK and User talk:TerryK spaces belongs to TerryK. You are not User:TerryK. You are User:TK, and you're free to create sub-pages of User:TK and User talk:TK. The archive you created is at User talk:TerryK/TKarchive1, but it should be at User talk:TK/TKarchive1 to avoid conflicts and to keep your pages in your space. --Sid 3050 18:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Sid, thanks! I unlocked it. I have no idea how to move it, though. --~ TerryK MyTalk 18:33, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Just hit the "Move" tab at the top of the archive page and enter User talk:TK/TKarchive1 as the destination. I can't move pages myself - that ability is restricted to sysops. --Sid 3050 18:34, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I removed that stupid stub someone put appears Hoji was into it too. I thank you sid for explaining about the naming mistake, however Hoji, or anyone, adding stubs to my page(s) is unacceptable. --~ TerryK MyTalk 18:40, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

No problem. --Sid 3050 18:42, 30 March 2007 (EDT)


Would you mind logging on to AIM? I miss your presence on my buddy list :(. --Hojimachongtalk 18:38, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

  • I am logged in. You show as invisible, as am I. --~ TerryK MyTalk 18:40, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm going to be off for a while, playing Americas Army and killing terrorists. Good luck without me, and could you watch out for User:Sersabian if he needs help? He's new, but apparently has good intentions. --Hojimachongtalk 19:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Ahhh, missed this, all I got was you needed to switch computers, and would be back. --~ TerryK MyTalk 21:03, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I just IM'ed you on Yahoo at TerryK - is that your correct handle? --Ed Poor 21:12, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
I just replied to your email with the words "doddering old fool". Did you get that? --Ed Poor 21:18, 30 March 2007 (EDT)


Conservapedia's wiki picture uploading software is not properly configured. Jaques 02:24, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Thanks Jaques. Perhaps you should let the Webmaster know? --~ TerryK MyTalk 02:58, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
can you? Jaques 03:36, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
  • I certainly can, but lack any technical expertise. What is the problem with the configuration? --~ TerryK MyTalk 03:39, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't know either, ask him to upload an image and see. Jaques 03:41, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Revert war over maintenance

(sigh) Requesting sysop assistance because TK is creating a double redirect:

I have attempted to fix this double redirect two times, and both got reverted by TK. I assume he sees my routine repair as an attack on his User Talk page, so I need sysop authority to get the permission to fix things. The page is now also protected in its broken state, so I definitely need a sysop now.

So: I officially request the opinion of sysops User:Aschlafly, User:TK, User:Conservative, User:CPAdmin1, User:CPWebmaster, User:Ed Poor, User:David_R, User:AustinM, User:Geo.plrd, and User:Tsumetai to get a poll of roughly 33% of all sysops for this undoubtedly critical change to a User page.

All replies should be left at User_talk:Sid_3050#Double_Redirect_Poll for easier evaluation of the results. --Sid 3050 09:50, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

  • It is the responsibility of the Sysop who made the changes to fix them, not Sid. --~ TerryK MyTalk 09:53, 31 March 2007 (EDT)



Users with complaints about Administrator (Sysop) actions please use this link:[[8]]. For editing abuse please follow this link:[[9]].
Keep in mind that disputes should first be posted on the particular "Talk" page involved, and only if the matter cannot be resolved, esclated to the above links.

Other topics I am pleased to discuss here.

There is no valid reason to protect this article, as no vandalism occurred while it was unprotected, and while this is an encyclopedia, there is nothing to prevent an encyclopedia from presenting the most accurate and up-to-date information. If the entry is vandalized repeatedly in a short period of time (by more than one editor and his sockpuppets), then I will support protecting it. Until then, I think it's best to go with the thoughts of multiple editors and unlock it. ColinRtalk 18:28, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Goodness, I thought you left! Oh well, around here, now, we ask and no longer arbitrarily do. Per the protected template. Understood? Unless you wish some kind of Sysop war of reversions, which might explain why you came back.--~ TerryK MyTalk 18:34, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Well then, I suppose you should be having this little "we ask..." conversation with CPAdmin1 too then, as he was the first to unlock the entry after your gratuitous locking of it. ColinRtalk 18:39, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

P to the S, I see that you unlocked the article at the same time I moved the permission to registered users. I'm glad to see you unlocked it, and I'm sorry for any confusion that may have been had. ColinRtalk 18:44, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Per the template, revised and agreed to by Ed Poor and I, attached to the article: "Sysops do not unlock without contacting the locking Sysop". So, it was wrong of me to expect cooperation and contact? I don't think I have ever refused to unlock a protected article when asked. So, Colin, what you are wanting here is a modern day version of the Old West, like what you complain about Sysop Conservative does, where all Sysops are independent Sheriffs, never acting in concert, and always exercising independent judgement, undoing each others blocks and locks? I though paramount to all Conservative values was respect for the individual? Did you decide to come back, Colin, after several admitted deceits, just to cause trouble? --~ TerryK MyTalk 18:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
I was not the first to unlock the article, you can thank CPAdmin1 for that. I was just reinforcing his actions, and I do think you did refuse to unlock the Obama entry until the recent "lock war." I know you and I have never gotten along, but rather than try to pick a fight with you or question your motives, I make clear my intentions and explicitly explain my actions and reasoning when there is confusion. ColinRtalk 19:13, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
  • So, two wrongs make a right, correct? Your reasoning is your own, and since you spend so much time quitting and attacking Andy and Conservapedia, how would you have the time to keep yourself informed as to anyone's reasons? Just so we are clear, in the future when I undo your actions, I will make sure I "explain" my reasons. Is that what you want? I will pass all this on to Conservative as well, so he can be on the lookout for errant Sysop actions as well. :p --~ TerryK MyTalk 19:17, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
I'll assume your ad homimen attacks and lack of addressing the issue at hand means that you have no valid response to my argument, strikingly similar to how you dealt with Sid3050. ColinRtalk 19:23, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
  • You, Colin, are the one who dragged personalities into this, with your comment about us never getting along. Until you mentioned it, I wasn't aware of that fact. I take it your post above this, is your way of obsfucating the issue, and ignoring you also unlocked a page without contacting me, as did CPAdmin1. This agreement about unlocking, was approved by Andy. Go pout somewhere else. --~ TerryK MyTalk 19:31, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Olive Branch

Hey, I know we haven't gotten along that well in the past, but as an olive branch of peace, I would like to extend my help to you with the userboxes. I'm fairly competent at wiki-formatting, so if you'd like my help jump on the irc channel or leave a message on my talk page. Hope I can be of assistance. :) ColinRtalk 02:49, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Well, thanks, Colin. I had second thoughts that maybe I was unfair, perhaps you guys weren't just mean, and tried the code I was given in IRC, and of course, it was a was a gag/trick. I am sure there is a plausable explanation, there always is...most likely that I am an idiot. You guys win. Stick a fork in me, I'm done here. --~ TK MyTalk 02:53, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
Hey, you had the code almost right, you just had a couple of mistakes in the formatting. Oh, and to quickly add userboxes (assuming you want the American and Christian UBX), just copy and paste {{userboxtop|TK's Userboxes}} {{User American}} {{User Christian}} {{userboxbottom}} and add linebreaks (enter or return) between each of them. That should fix things for you, or I can set it up for you if you'd like. If I vandalize your page, feel free to block and desysop me. I give my solemn word that I won't screw your page up. (Eagle Scout's word) Good luck! ColinRtalk 02:58, 12 April 2007 (EDT)


Did you see my explanation of the deletion? I moved it to a different page because his nomination for bureacracy did not belong on the request for admin page. --<<-David R->> 22:38, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

  • According to whom? You? With no discussion with Andy or the majority of Sysops? Forget it. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 22:41, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Dude, you need to settle down. The information was not deleted. It was merely moved, which is in the realm of my authority to do. Sysop discussions are not required for every little thing. So please, I beg you, chill out. Thank you. --<<-David R->> 22:43, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Forget it. Nominations have been deleted too. Where is the link posted on that page, to the new one? And yes, now you do need authority for such things. You, or me, anyone cannot delete things without explanations. Please post there saying who you consulted, who's idea it was, why people who nominated themselves were removed, etc. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 22:47, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

No...I don't, and I think you are trying to pick a meaningless fight. I was just about to link you to it. Here is the new page. --<<-David R->> 22:50, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Maybe you haven't been around much, but things like you did, are out now. Per Andy. Check with him, dude. Who did you talk to about doing that? You keeping secrets for a reason, or what? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 22:51, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Ok, I am not going to continue this revert war with you. Instead, I am going to recommend your de-sysop to the Panel, which I happen to be on. You have earned it... --<<-David R->> 22:52, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Be my guest. You are not an appointed tyrant, David, entitled to do whatever you want. The rest of us are trying to team build and unilateral actions, without consultation or explanation, doesn't do that. So far as I am concerned, only Andy has the right to take unilateral actions, and until I hear different from him, none of us will be doing that. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 22:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

No problem TK. I am sorry for not informing you about my intentions. But the move was hardly a vandalizing liberal-biased action. Just doing a bit of organizing. :) I plan to remove the request for bureaucratship from the adminship page. I will place a link to the bureaucrat page on the admin page and vice versa. Is that alright with you? --<<-David R->> 23:38, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

PS: Then I plan to sleep. :)

  • I don't know if you logged off or what, but I am going to go through with the edits. I am tired and need to finish my train of thought before I sleep. Feel free to revert if you still object to the change. --<<-David R->> 23:50, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
  • They complain about everything! I just didn't want a big to-do, because of it, thats all. I had already reverted the page. Thanks for explaining. What seems logical to you and me, they take another way, and often.  ;-) --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 23:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
Personal tools