User talk:TK/TKarchive4

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search


"retired" template thing

I don't know if you guys have noticed, but in html redundant spaces are not shown. In the "retired" thing, I see there are several spaces between each letter. Which of course, don't parse. For "extra" spaces, & nbsp; [leave out the space after the &) can be used (several times in a row if necessary). Human 20:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Could you translate that into non-tech speak? I have no idea what you are talking about, sad to say. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 22:04, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
I'll try. If you use several spaces in a row on a web site, the way browsers interpret them is to ignore them. The only way to create multiple spaces in a row is to use "Non Breaking SPace" thing. Is that enough? I thought my original explanation covered how I learned they work. Feel free to ask again on my talk page if I haven't made it any clearer. Human 22:23, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Okay, I responded on your page. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 23:29, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
me too.. I don't understand your attitude, I am just trying to help? Human 23:55, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
  • There isn't any "attitude" on my part, other than what you make up in your mind. I have no idea of what you were talking about, and don't understand what there is to help about, so I have to rely on those of you more wiki-versed to help me understand. If that is having an attitude, I don't know what to do about it. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 00:27, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
He isn't talking about whether or not to use a template, or whether it should be easier or harder to ID people who have been blocked. What he's trying to say is: in the text you put on some blocked users' pages, there's the string "R E T I R E D", with three spaces between each letters. The way the web works (and this has nothing to do with wikis), that's exactly the same as "R E T I R E D" with just one space between the letters. Assuming the extra spaces are there in an attempt to actually do something, viz put more space between the letters, you need to use what's called a 'non blocking space'. That would look like: "R   E   T   I   R   E   D". See the extra space there? You can view the page source to see how I did that. --Jtl 00:57, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
  • That seems to be a product of off-brand browsers, Jtl. It looks just as it was intended to look when using Internet Explorer. :D --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 01:19, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Let me see if I can clarify.This has nothing to do with IE or "off-brand" browsers. The question is, how much space do you want between each letter? If you want one space, why put three? If you want three, it will have the same effect as using one, because the HTML standards (which I think all browsers follow on this point) is to treat multiple consecutive spaces as a single space. If you are happy with the way it looks, that must mean that you are happy with one space between each letter.
Human was quite reasonably assuming that, because you have three spaces, you wanted a larger gap between each letter than one space would provide, so he was telling you how to achieve this. This is by putting "non-breaking spaces" between each letter, rather than normal spaces, because browsers don't collapse multiple non-breaking spaces down to a single space. HTML has what are called "entities", which include "special" characters, such as non-breaking spaces. (Non-breaking spaces, by the way, are what you use to prevent browsers, word processors, etc. from putting line breaks where you don't want them. If, for example, I wrote "I like No. 6", and I didn't want "No." to end up at the end of one line and "6" at the start of the next line, I would put a non-breaking space between "No." and "6".)
HTML entities take the form "&"<a code word>";", and the "code word" for a non-breaking space is "nbsp". Therefore, if you put "&nbsp;" (without the quotes) in your HTML code, it treats that as a non-breaking space.
I hope that makes it clearer.
Philip J. Rayment 03:50, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
P.S. Instead of copying and pasting the code for the "retired" notice, you can use the template, but put "subst:" at the start, like this: {{subst:Retired user}}. Doing this puts (substitutes) the code of the template in the page, not a link to the template, so it has the same effect as copying and pasting the code. Philip J. Rayment 03:50, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Philip, thank you for explaining to me about the HTML. I never had a problem with it, liked the appearance as it is. Andy made the code up, not me. If I do indeed like it fine, is there a need to change it? I just couldn't understand anyone wanting to "fix" it, because I never saw anything wrong with it. I just wonder why we needed the code in the template in the beginning, when we discussed it, no one ever said a word about making it track everything. That was Ed Poor, I think, and his "wiki" ways of wanting to track everything, lol. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 05:33, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
The only reason to "fix" it is that the redundant spaces take up a tiny extra amount of space (in the file). But now that you remind me of its origins, the template I made (yes it was me) used the original code, so has the extra spaces also!
It is not designed to "track" anything. Some of Ed's templates automatically add categories, so that by looking up those categories one can get a list of pages under those categories. The {{Retired user}} template does not have any categories. However, this does not prevent "tracking", as like any template one can still look up a list of where that template is used (linked to, not substituted).
Philip J. Rayment 10:06, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Goodness! So all this was much ado about nothing? ROFL! At least peoples intentions were good! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 14:40, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

thank you :)

Thanks for the help with the image - I replied to you on my talk page also --Taj 19:33, 6 May 2007 (EDT)


I would not shed any tears if you blocked AmesG infinitely. I think it is overdue. Conservative 20:09, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

  • MississippiMud, Human, and Jeremiah4-22 should have remained block, if not for idealogical-only reasons. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 20:11, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
I thought we didn't block for idealogical reasons? Jrssr5 00:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
Please speak up, if you know something I do not! To my knowledge being a provocateur, dropping in and changing the edits of the articles originator, and a Administrator to boot, knowing full well the POV of this 'pedia, acting in concert, is pretty much forbidden on any site. We don't take things here on a case-by-case basis, but en-total. Taken together their combined past actions, I believe that Conservative was justified in his block. Did you not read carefully? I said: "(they)...should have remained block, if not for ideological-only reasons. And that you have some issue with? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 01:07, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
I'm not interested in their past or current actions, but the idealogical point was what jumped out at me. I recall Andy saying that they don't block for those reasons. And ... i just found this: Locks and BlocksJrssr5 08:14, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Maybe you can throttle back on the district attorney bit? What does engaging in revert warfare have to do with ideology? We don't block for ideology, but I can assure you that if you go around reverting my edits, or anyone elses, in a planned, coordinated manner, you will most certainly end up blocked. Now, you have a problem with that? Quit making things up in your head, then posting as if it were true. Since neither of us have chatted with all the parties, it isn't smart to bet the store on what happened, is it? I never noticed any ideology, other than the Sysop's complaint about their instantly reverting his edits. Not a smart move, you would have to agree, eh? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 08:24, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

what did he do? --Will N. 08:39, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Dude, its not my deal. It is Conservative's. He blocked them, then gave Hoji permission to unblock them about an hour later or so. That's all I know. These other people are posting her because Conservative rarely answers their complaints, and I think he's on to something, given the abuse I am getting for doing nothing.  ;-) --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 08:42, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

HAHA ok then I will talk on Conservative's page. :)--Will N. 08:44, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Where did I make things up? You said they should remain blocked for idealogical reasons. If that's the case then the Locks and Blocks page should be changed to reflect this new idea of patroling articles. Jrssr5 08:46, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
Dude!!! Read it again! What I said was: "MississippiMud, Human, and Jeremiah4-22 should have remained blocked, if not for idealogical-only reasons." Got it? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 08:49, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
Ok, maybe my grasp of the english language is lacking, but I take that to mean that they should remain blocked for idealogical reasons. Maybe you could expand on your sentence and clarify your point because I'm totally confused right now. Jrssr5 08:53, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Also here at Conservapedia we respect everyone's veiw points and DO NOT block for ideology. --Will N. 08:55, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Your grasp of English is good enough to ridicule me for mistakenly blocking you once, though, isn't it? You have already shown yourself to be a nice, fair person! What part about saying they should have remained blocked IF NOT FOR idealogical reasons, isn't clear? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 08:59, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

I was telling Jssr5 that, if he did not know that already.:) He is still arguing so i thought he should be told again by a non-admin user. --Will N. 09:03, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

I think this should be dropped though. --Will N. 09:04, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
Well, I guess I could do what Conservative has done, and lock my talk page, lol. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 09:17, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
Will, I was the one who pointed out that we don't block for ideological reasons. Since you seem to understand what TK is saying you can explain to me how IF NOT FOR means "not for" instead of the normal interpertation meaning the "reason being". Thanks. Jrssr5 09:23, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
  • What I said, rearranged and using different order is: "If you didn't block them for ideological reasons, they should have remained blocked." I cannot believe anyone would keep pursuing something they so obviously didn't understand, instead of just seeking out someone to explain it to you. Somehow I doubt this will be the end of it. *Sigh* --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 09:29, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
TK, TK, TK. Quit making things up in your head, then posting as if it were true. Only one of the three users being discussed here (MississippiMud, Human and Jeremiah4-22) was blocked for reverting an edit, and that revert was 57 minutes after the last piece it reverted, not instantly, so I doubt the Sysop complained "about their instantly reverting his edits". And if all you know is that they were blocked then unblocked, why are you throwing around baseless claims like "a planned, coordinated manner"? --Jtl 14:23, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

JTodd, JTodd, JTodd....because it was a coordinated effort. You know it. I know it. Please don't post on my page anymore with disingenuous statements, because this is NOT a court, never will be. We don't need positive proof. You know that, I know that. What is the purpose of your post? To "set the record straight"? Is that part of your sworn duties for humanity? I have my sources, and I think you have a good idea of who the are, or at least where they are from. Go complain on Conservative's page. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 17:44, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

I posted because I care about accuracy, whether in court or not. I have no reason to think it was coordinated, and even if it was it wasn't "revert warfare" -- there was a single revert amongst these three users. And that one wasn't "instant". And I'm posting on your talk page rather than Conservative's because you're the one who said these three should have remained blocked indefinitely for...well, I'm not sure for what, since they didn't do what you seem to be saying they did. (I'm not being disingenuous here (nor was I above, though), so I'm not in violation of your request. Plus, you asked me a direct question which I'm answering.) --Jtl 18:08, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Understand two things: 1) You most def owe Hoji & Conservative, because it was he who agreed to letting Hoji unblock you,

I've thanked Hojimachong for unblocking me. If there's anything I owe User:Conservative, it's payback for him blocking me improperly in the first place. I see no need to actively seek satisfaction for this, though; as his crime is being User:Conservative, it is also his punishment.

and 2)You now have my attention, and if I see you trying that sort of ploy again, no one will be able to save you. I hope we are completely clear.

What "sort of ploy" do you allude to here? I haven't the faintest idea what you're on about. (And nor (I suspect) do you.) Get a grip. --Jeremiah4-22 12:58, 7 May 2007 (EDT)


I'd be more willing to believe your commentary on the sysop abuse page, about how you can do things without provoking acrimony & anger, but I've seen your edits over the past 3 days that I've been blocked, and I've just seen you effectively threaten a fellow editor, and I'm not getting the sense that this is a very nice place to be except for the big dogs, who just use their power to push other people around.

If you're going to turn over a new leaf, then it might be attractive to me to do the same. Until then, though...?-BillBuck 21:20, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

  • And what edits are those that were driven by acrimony? Do tell. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 21:35, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

The one you just deleted. So blinded you can't even see yourself.-BillBuck 21:36, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

  • It was deleted, because I placed my comment not on user Human's talk page, but the talk page of an article! Are you that ignorant? That blinded by your hatred of authority? I posted the exact same comment on the proper page. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 21:38, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

I wasn't accusing you, I was just pointing you to the right article. I meant nothing else by it, but interesting conclusion. We're done here. If you were a real Christian, though, you'd know the right way to act.-BillBuck 21:39, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

I do. And bye bye, btw. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 21:41, 6 May 2007 (EDT)


The redirect was cleared by Andy, as a way to ensure that people looking for Hacker get sent to Linus M. Therefore it is not a parole violation. Geo.Talk 12:18, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

  • It was a violation because he was seeking relief from Andy from something he had already agreed to, and something Andy tried to check with me on, but I was working on something, and not checking my email for over an hour. He took advantage of Andy not remembering the terms I had sent him. A person with integrity does not do such things, seek to go back on his word. Do you disagree? I have let it go, however. He has proven himself to be a person who cannot be trusted to keep their word, and I will not be forgetting that. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 17:50, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for the snipe. --Liπus the Turbohacker(contact me) 22:05, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

3rd Conservapedia Commandment

Sorry, as this seems to have skipped your notice, but can you clarify something here?

Here, you seemed to say that, for CP purposes, 'crap' is a 'family-friendly [and] clean' term? Thankyou in advance for clarifying. --Wikinterpretertalk?

  • I do? You are talking like a tele reporter now. LOL --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 17:14, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
Highly appropriate - always ready to get to the truth of an issue, only dissuaded if it doesn't fit the front page ;-). But the point remains - is the word not bad enough on the internet to mean that it slips past commandment three? --Wikinterpretertalk?
Is this 'I haven't seen the question' silence or 'I don't want to answer' silence? Sorry for being blunt, but I would quite like to know. --WikinterpreterLiaise with the cabal?
  • It is ignoring a provocateur ploy to engage their need for endless chit-chat, IMO. Is there some other reason you think "crap" and "bastard" are cursing? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 15:21, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Protected Template

Ok, I figured you'd want them there in case someone had a comment/edit/change to be made so they could easily contact you. Just trying to make life easier. Jrssr5 20:01, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Like I said, no problem. Official Pages, on all sites are protected, and rarely if ever is editing allowed by general users. Same for Wikipedia, so I don't see a need to add all such pages to the protected list. Articles are a different story, however, and your help with categories is most appreciated! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 20:05, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Re: Redirects...

Sorry, I wasn't trying to take advantage. I apologize for the appearance of such. BTW, can you tell me why you did this? --Liπus the Turbohacker(contact me) 22:26, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

  • I think it gives a bad appearance editing one's own probation notice, even adding a period. eh? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 14:01, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

AmesG Retired?

He is only blocked for 2 weeks, so i don't think we should have the retired notice on his page. --CPAdmin1 22:39, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, nice that you support him so much. But it will stay. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 22:59, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't really support him that much, I just think that saying that he is retired is somewhat misleading. If you have some info that leads you to believe that he is not coming back then it is fine. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 23:05, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Is it tweeking him? Yes. Does he deserve it? Yes. Look at his posting, from when he last was allowed back, to when Conservative removed him again. They were also going after Andy's family, and to me, that means all gloves off. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 23:16, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
OK, then block him indefinitely if he deserves it, and take the heat from the liberal users. That is much more effective and would make the template apropriate. If he does not deserve it then leave his page alone. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 23:26, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
  • You have previously been asked to handle these things in private. Since you will not respect that, please stop posting here, Tim. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 23:29, 7 May 2007 (EDT)


How do you determine if a user is a sock puppet of someone else? Jrssr5 12:39, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

-<Sorry to barge into your user talk, just trying to save time for you>-

I think it's a combination of factors - admin generally don't give them out, as it makes it easier for puppeteers to make countermeasures - this does, however, have a deleterious effect on transparency.

  • IP address
  • Editing at similar times
  • Similar ban/user creation times
  • Similar mannerisms/ways of speaking/interests

The Wikipedia article's quite good. --WikinterpreterLiaise with the cabal?

Note: IP address being the same isn't always a good indication of socking. Especially if the IP comes back to a cable ISP as users "share" bandwidth via a single IP. The routers at the cable company help disperse the data correctly and the router at home and built into the firmware of the cable modem also distinguishes "who" gets "what". - Rob Pommertalk 13:26, 10 May 2007 (EDT)


I fixed your archive links ... one still goes to a funky page, but I cleaned up the links. Meant to comment on the edit, but hit save by accident. Jrssr5 14:52, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

I made your archive links look nicer. However one (the 3rd archive) goes to a weird page name, so I left that alone. Jrssr5 15:05, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

You are editing my page, exactly why? That is blockable. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 15:12, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

He was trying to help, TK. He's done something positive. Another example would be Ed Poor's edit of Ian St John's page; he wasn't banned for it. If you don't like what Jrssr5 has done, then revert it and tell him. --WikinterpreterLiaise with the cabal?
And it wasn't your user page, it was your talk page (this page). --Hojimachongtalk 15:17, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Thank you wikinterpreter and hoji for pointing that out to TK ... I was trying to be helpful, but if you don't like it, feel free to revert. Jrssr5 15:17, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Since we got a few sysops here and are discussing this issue, I would like to point at the other point raised in the opening post: Could somebody move the third archive out of the main space? It's currently #2 of the list of long pages and will pop up in search and random queries. Thanks in advance (and thanks to Jrssr5 for pointing it out here). :) --JLindon 15:22, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
  • I expect someone to notify me, and ask. I don't give a flying crap what Ed does, how does that concern me? I appreciate help, but I do expect some respect and consideration from others. Is that too much to ask for? Especially when some other Sysop is apparently discussing it with the users, and cannot IM me. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 15:25, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
  • I will block anyone moving or changing anything to do with my page, who doesnt first IM or email me. Clear? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 15:26, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Blocking users for making improvements (as you just did) sends out way wrong signals, TK. And since you are apparently touchy about your pages, I ask you specifically: Please correct your own mistake and move the third archive page. --JLindon 15:38, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

J. Lindon, sysop nominee and an editor who currently helps out in the economics and template areas. *holds out hand* Pleasure to meet you. :)
Now that I have introduced myself, could you please correct your mistake? Thank you kindly. --JLindon 15:46, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Since no one has offered the respect of explaining what is wrong, or why they have this "concern" over it, is it really unreasonable on my part to be questioning the actions? It seems the very people preaching transparency other places, get awfully upset when they have their own actions questioned. Like certain Sysops as well. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 15:50, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
It'd be best if everyone calmed down a bit. What Jrssr5 was trying to do was to sort out your archive folder - something no-one would have noticed probably, if s/he hadn't told you here. The problem is that s/he can't fix the third archive file - here, as something's gone wrong with it (note the fact that it gives the page name as a URL. S/he has already said that you can change it back if you want, so you can do what you want now; revert your archive folders, or carry on trying to find a way to fix them. I hope that's some respect and consideration for you; it must be a bit jumpy-making to have others editing your talk page - might be a vandal. --WikinterpreterLiaise with the cabal?
  • Since you are one who seems to hold dear the concept of "A users page is his castle" I do find your comments odd and disingenius. All the URL's for the archives look exactly the same to me, which is why I was asking, and I know those of you who deem yourselves "elite" hate being questioned, but it wasn't me being upset, but merely asking and trying to learn, which seems to actually upset some of you, and make you defensive. Besides, if I am reading this correctly, someone else posted above it wasn't the archives edited, but this page:
And it wasn't your user page, it was your talk page (this page). --Hojimachongtalk 15:17, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
--Sysop-TK /MyTalk 16:00, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
A simple look should have told you what needs to be moved, Sir Sysop: Http:// is an article with that title. It should be moved to User_talk:TK/TKarchive3. If you had simply clicked the link for the third archive I mentioned, you would have instantly seen the wrong title right at the top of the page. --JLindon 16:05, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
To make it even clearer: The full URL of that archive is --JLindon 16:06, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Sorry, I did not, and still don't see the difference, otherwise I would not have asked. Surely just using AIM or sending an email, or even making a clear and concise post here, either asking, or explaining, what it is you wanted to do/or did, would have taken far less time. I wasn't the one who introduced whatever problem existed between whoever and Ed Poor. So by introducing that into the mix, my thought was this was a ploy to make a point about whatever Ed did. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 16:13, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
For the record I did notify you ... the start of this thread was exactly that. I'm sorry if my attempt at helping you out bothered you. And the easiest way to fix the 3rd archive, would be to copy the content of the current page to the redlink that Jlindon has above, then delete the old page. Then everything will be where it should be. Jrssr5 16:09, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Where it "should" be? There again you confuse me. Who decides that? And why is it in the "wrong" place? My point was, you served me notice of something you decided it was okay to do, and then didn't offer any explantion as to why, that I could understand. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 16:14, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
If you think of it as a folder system like on your computer your first two archives are at c:\User_talk:TK\Archive# and your third archive is at c:\archive3. You want to move it to be under your talk page so it does not show up as a normal encyclopedia article. Jrssr5 16:17, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Click on the link for Archive #1. Copy the title of the page and put it in note pad. Click on the link for Archive #3.  ::Copy the title of the page and put it in note pad. You should see:
 User talk:TK/TKarchive1
As the title of the first one and
 Http:// talk:TK/TKarchive3
As the title for the third one. It is that the third archive's title is the full url to what it would normally be that is trying to be pointed out. Its not an issue of where it should be, but rather that it is a bit awkward to link to the third one and isn't actually in your user talk space. This may confuse some searches. --Mtur 16:18, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
  • So the actual reason was to make my archives more easily searchable. Got it. I still have absolutely no understanding as to what is "wrong" or why it is, or who decides what is wrong. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 16:34, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
If you do a default search for AmesG (for example), you will see a few debate pages, an essay, a RobS's somehow improperly named talk page, and your third archive. You will not see any of Andy's talk pages, or any talk page of a normal page unless you specify those name spaces to be included. It is 'odd' to have those two talk pages with names that put them in the mainspace. Likewise, if you search for Denny Crane[1], you will find your page and the Denny Crane page to show up. This (talk pages and archives showing up when searching the Main name space) is typically not the desired behavior for search on a wiki and may confuse people looking for things in the Main name space. --Mtur 16:43, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Just my 2 cents, but any wiki has certain "housekeeping" functions, sometimes handled by "bots". Here it is done by knowledgeable sysops. Archiving, redirects, adding signatures, etc are all routine functions that should never cause a fight. I guess there must be history here I'm unaware of.JoyousOne 16:32, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Since this isn't Wikipedia, those ideas don't really apply here. Here Andy has proclaimed each user and discussion page the person's "castle". There isn't any history other than the people talking about the edits, several of them, are ones who have made nasty, personal remarks about me. And I don't think it is out of line, given that a persons pages has been declared by the Owner to be their castle, that an understandable explanation be offered, preferably before the editing is done. Maybe it is just me, I don't know anymore. And I still don't understand what was, or is, the "problem".
  • Thank you Mtur for that understandable explanation. I wonder why no one has edited AmesG's problem? Maybe because his is locked? Maybe because he wanted the page hidden? Did I? I find lots of pages not where they should be, but have left them, even knowing they are purposely done as they are to render them unsearchable. Maybe I need to change my policy of live and let live......--Sysop-TK /MyTalk 17:02, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
The pages are not unsearchable. You can go to the bottom of the search results and add other name spaces easily. For example, if you search for Jurisprudence with User talk selected and Main unselected, you will find my talk page.[2] It is just a matter of trying to make the search work as efficiently as possible and putting things into the areas they belong. This way it is easier to find what you are looking for without having to dig through pages that have little to do with what you are searching for (much like google). --Mtur 17:13, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Thank you once again. I don't object to making things work as best they can, just hate it when others won't share information, or assume a person to be an idiot or mean for asking questions. Personally it cuts me when people do that. I think anyone can read this topic, as you obviously have, and see all I have been doing here is asking, and when not given an explanation I could understand, asking yet again for people to keep hands off. I apologize to everyone if in so doing I was breaching some protocol I know nothing about, or don't understand. Perhaps the problem is people are somehow assuming everyone else understands the wiki file heirarchy, or in some cases just wiki customs. If you know how to make the problem go away, please feel free to fix it. I just am not seeing the difference in locations among the three archives, and was really thrown when Hoji posted it had nothing to do with the archives, and was an edit of this page. Is that understandable at all? As for being on some list, I didn't even know existed, of "long pages" how does that injure anyone? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 17:26, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Don't worry TK. There is No Cabal ;-). I'm also sorry about seeming to be a wikigeek, or appearing to call you mean or an idiot; I think a lot of it comes down to people liking symmetry and consistency, but you've got a perfect right to defend your user page. Those long lists? I'm not sure (you'ld have to ask Ed or Linus), but I've got a horrible feeling that bad things accumulate down the line if they aren't kept fine - the URL thing was the butterfly that by flapping its wings causes a hurricane. I hope everyone's happy again. --WikinterpreterLiaise with the cabal?
  • Post like this one of yours, seems to make a mockery of your words to many of us (yes, I do discuss with others, as you do):
Don't worry - I came to the project sort of expecting this, but if you thought people might, y'know, be civil to each other on the internet, I understand that it would be a bit of a let down. Oh, and kudos for having a go. --Wikinterpreter-Liaise with the cabal? Retrieved from ""
Does that make sense to you? Now you are saying there wasn't really a problem, just a "butterfly". If that were so, there would not be the hundreds of words above. People wouldn't be putting links to this thread on their pages, using it to point out how "unreasonable" and mean I am, and how they are re-evaluating their helping here. To many of us, such actions are interlinked, and the "proof" is the comments others leave on various talk pages, seemingly different in tone there, then here, and the inevitable links to someones post elsewhere, trying to paint others, like me as "unreasonable" yet they post other places saying that isn't their intention, lol. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 17:47, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Ignoring all non-technical parts for the sake of defusing the situation:
Here are the full links of your three archives:
The third archive has the title "Http://" (which appears that way in the title bar when you click the archive link). I guess you made a simple mistake while copy-pasting in the URL bar or something. Since the move function is disabled for non-sysops and since the page in question had been protected by you, only sysops can move it to User_talk:TK/TKarchive3. Which is all people are saying. --JLindon 17:41, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

What is it that you need to be unlocked? Archive #3? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 17:47, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't think he's asking for it to be unlocked - only sysops can move pages, which is what he's asking you to do. And as to the above - I'm not trying to paint you as 'unreasonable', just trying to stop an argument that would drive people away. I know actions are interlinked, but a big part of being civil is to know your audience.--WikinterpreterLiaise with the cabal?

Terry, if you have no objection, I'll sort this out for you tonight (my time), and explain what's going on. Philip J. Rayment 23:35, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

  • None at all my friend. Ed and I discussed some of it via telephone, and his idea was it seemed as if a Chinese Fire Drill was being run. Since I had been through all of this a month or so ago with AmesG and Colin, who also said some archive was in the wrong place, and supposedly fixed it. Please, if you can, fix what needs fixing and just IRC or Yahoo me--cpsysop_tk. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 23:39, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Philip, I believe Geo did the actual repair, just a while ago. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 02:24, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

category question

I think you have confused me[3]. My question was am I supposed to put articles in all the categories that they fit in, even if the categories could be considered redundant(example:an article in both history and US history)?Bohdan 00:08, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Personally, I put them in the category that best fits. So, an article about the Civil War would be placed in "US History". One about Alexandria, Egypt, "History" or if about the Great Library, "Ancient History". Andy needs to make a decision, I I haven't seen something written about that. Some like to load the articles up with categories, some, like me, we are more minimalist. Oh, did I say somewhere I am also sometimes nosy?  :p --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 02:22, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Where do you report vandalism

See this recent vandalism by User:Cybrpnk for example. HeartOfGold 00:13, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

P.S. I reverted the vandalism. HeartOfGold 00:15, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
Also, see this apparent vandalism by user User:Icewedgetalkswithyou. HeartOfGold 00:19, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
  • We have an abuse page for that. However "Swifty" Andy beat me to blocking both of those! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 00:26, 11 May 2007 (EDT)


Hi TK, could you perhaps unlock the article Scotland so that I can tidy it up and sort the stuff the liberals messed up? You can lock it again when I'm finished. It won't take long. Cheers Auld Nick 07:54, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Sure. Let me know when you are done. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 08:15, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
Have tidied up the article. You can lock it again. Once again thanks. Auld Nick 08:24, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

The article Scotland wasn't blocked soon enough after sorting. Once again the liberals have removed all reference to the pernicious homosexual agenda in Scotland. It hasn't disappeared all together but has been moved to Church of Scotland‎ where, presumably, the liberals hope no one will find it. The last pre-liberalization edit was this. Auld Nick 14:41, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Take a look at the edit history from where I left off [4]. I feel I'm fighting a loosing battle here. The conservative facts are going to loose out there. Unless a higher authority does something to stop the inevitable that information will remain suppressed. Auld Nick 14:50, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
  • What you view as "hiding" I view as placing information in its proper place. In an encyclopedia, unlike a magazine article, there is a certain order, protocols, that need to be followed. Thanks for adding that information, btw. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 14:58, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Creating Categories

Hello, could you please assist me by telling me how to create a new category? I was thinking of creating one for books of the Bible, but don't know how to do it. Thanks ;-) Learn together 13:59, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Just add the following code to the bottom of any article page:
[[Category:Books of the Bible]]
This will automatically create the category. You can then click on the red Category:Books of the Bible link to annotate the category page. --Ed Poor 14:04, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

[[Category:Biblical books]] already exists. --Jeremiah4-22 14:13, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

One can go to Special:Categories to see the list of all the current categories to see if any of them happen to fit. --Mtur 14:15, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
  • How that information helped, Learn together. Jeremiah, I believe Ed was merely making an example. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 14:26, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Thank you all for your assistance. Yes, that was very helpful. ;-) Learn together 14:45, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Well, your name really says it all, no? ;-) --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 14:47, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Excuse Me

I'll kindly ask you to leave my "castle" alone. Flippin 16:01, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

You posted your were leaving. Enjoy your vacation! God's speed. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 16:02, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

I posted that I was taking a break and it is arrogant of you to change a user's page. Flippin 16:02, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Well, sorry you disagree. I saw it as being transparent and informative, and protecting your pages while you are gone. Besides what you had up was a vioilation of the CP Guidelines, a general attack on CP and its users. I just know you will come back rested and refreshed, Flippin! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 16:05, 11 May 2007 (EDT)


TK, why the revert? I made a mistake by making it a separated article in the first place. I asked Ed since he asked me to write it.--TimS 16:49, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

I also had locked it, and saw my mistake, and unlocked it. You can see that in the edit history. Please carry on. I meant to post on your page, but became distracted, most likely chatting with Ed.  ;-) Sorry for the confusion I caused. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 16:54, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

No problem, thanks I just wanted to check before doing the redirect.--TimS 17:01, 11 May 2007 (EDT)


Thanks for the kind words on the Jesus edits. Hopefully we can continue to make it better.

I also have a question. I goofed in creating an article "crucifixtion" instead of checking up the correct spelling "crucifixion". Can you delete the article "crucifixtion" (which I have blanked). Thanks! ;-) Learn together 18:55, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Will do! Please check on Jesus Christ again, will you? If you are happy with it, I will protect it....seems lots are interested in spinning it. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 18:57, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, I've added some more information to the article on Jesus to finish the flow to get it to why he was betrayed. I hope that helps. Personally, I'm not sure I'd protect it yet, as I don't see a strong effort to pervert it that couldn't be handled and there will always be other important things that could be added that we don't have in there, or links, etc. I would only protect it if it looks like it's really necessary. Learn together 20:45, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

  • I agree. Sometimes statements are made by Administrators to be more a shot across the bow. A warning to others.  ;-) --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 20:49, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

edit conflict?

"TK just deleted this addition wthout explanation:

November 17, 1973, Declaring that "I am not a crook," President Richard Nixon vigorously defended his record in the Watergate case and said he had never profited from his public service. "I have earned every cent. And in all of my years of public life I have never obstructed justice," Mr. Nixon said.[2]

Nixon almost destroyed the presidency with his deceit on this issue. And yet, a Larry King misquote, presented as a question, is still included? Human 20:53, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Sorry! Must have been an edit conflict! Please don't be so suspicious, and try contacting a guy, okay? I haven't blocked a user for contacting me in at least a week!"

All that was quoted from talk:deceit. I understand edit conflicts, they can get pretty complicated. Would you mind putting it back in, if that's all it was? I just usually prefer to discuss "article business" on the article talk page so everyone can follow. By the way, that was funny :) and I got the joke! Human 23:59, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

  • It was restored, Human, before I posted. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 00:03, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
I see you already fixed it. Thanks, and I hope you're having a productive and pleasant Friday evening! Human 00:02, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

When quoting other messages, particularly several in a row, I find it best to use a {{QuoteBox}} to help make it clear what is being quoted and what isn't. Philip J. Rayment 00:49, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Template list

The template list is a list of all templates (assuming it's up to date, which it isn't totally), not a list of "approved" templates. Also, the template you deleted is designed to be used with the "subst:" prefix, which means that you won't find any places that it is in use, but doesn't mean that it is not required. But now that it's gone, I guess we can wait and see if anybody misses it. Philip J. Rayment 00:46, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, Philip, if you are peeved. Any Sysop can undelete it, no? I think you also know my email as well. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 01:36, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
Not peeved, just correcting what appeared to be misunderstandings. Philip J. Rayment 02:03, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Well then, whoever is maintaing those templates, we need to get a stronger hold on them, and what they do, and what they link to. I just want to avoid the Webmaster cleaning the house completely. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 02:13, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Re: Parole

Okay, okay… Ed already asked me, I replied on his talk page. --Liπus the Turbohacker(contact me) 12:34, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

  • I notice that the articles listed on Ed's page haven't been touched, yet you have time to take your anger out on people, like Benjamin. You know the truth is I wanted you back, agreed to it. Please stop making me out to be tormenting you, as you approached me about getting back, and told me you wanted to write articles! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 13:58, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Are you speaking of the scotland article and if so.....

Are you speaking of the scotland article and if so has Andy weighed in? Conservative 20:02, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Yes, as it pertains to checking with one another. I am attempting to strike a balance, because Auld Nick is a bit over the top, and bombastic. I checked with Andy, and our intent was to let things cool down, and have some of our good, conservative editors add some material. I don't think one can paint an entire country with that broad of brush, do you? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 20:05, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
Ed was the original one to remove this information, maybe he should be consulted as well. No need for warring sysops. Jrssr5 20:55, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
  • I speak with Ed constantly. He has no more "pull" here than Conservative or me. We are usually 95% in total agreement on all issues. Turn about is fair play. Please refrain from embarrassing yourself further by sticking your nose into something that does not concern you. Do not post on my page again. You can avial yourself of the contact user link to the left. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 21:15, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, I was just letting you know, and since I'm an editor here on conservapedia things that relate to editing articles does concern me, especially when I see sysops participating in a revert war. Just because you don't like me doesn't mean everything I say has a subversive undertone. Jrssr5 21:19, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

To many of us Sysops, it does. There wasn't any revert "war", that is a bit of drama of your own making. Post here again, I will remove you. And yes, I can. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 21:33, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Re: Thank you...

You're quite welcome :). --Liπus the Turbohacker(contact me) 10:36, 13 May 2007 (EDT)


Last night you told me that I didn't have an e-mail address enabled [5]. Am I supposed to? Or should I?Bohdan 13:04, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

  • You can do so through your preferences. It does make it easier for other users to contact you about stuff they may not wish to post publicly. It does protect your privacy, as if you reply via the board through their enabled link, your address is kept private. Most editors use a special Google/Yahoo/MSN/AOL free email just for CP use. If you notice the top of my page, as a Sysop I also provide a AIM instant message name. It comes in handy talking with other Sysop's, but is also a great and fast way for editors to notify me of vandals, etc. I remember trying to email you about some post you had made that tickled me. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 13:43, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
Thank you for your explanation. I was unaware that this was even an option. I have enabled it. Thank you.Bohdan

Global Warming

Hi TK, I noticed you've protected the Global Warming article. I just read that a recent issue of Geophysical Research Letters has just concluded that Neptune has been warming up, matching the same pattern and degree as Mars and Earth. It would be nice to include this information in the article. Thanks ;-) Learn together 19:45, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Let me know when you are ready, and I shall unlock it for you. Happy to. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 21:15, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
Thanks. In fairness to JoshuaZ, I've been waiting first to see if he'll have any comments. I provided him with information on the article as he requested and I want to give him time to respond. Learn together 10:52, 15 May 2007 (EDT)


After looking over some of Flippin's edits I have noticed that he has made some edits that are counterproductive and harmful to the site. I think you are being to lenient by only giving him a two week ban. Here is a list of some of his edits:

Thank you for your time.--AdrianP 20:58, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
TK, sorry in advance for replying here, but this way everyone instead of just Adrian will see the reply:
Adrian ... 2 of those articles you reference don't exist (or the link is bad) and the other two you are leaving out intermediate revisions which makes what you're showing wrong or out of context. Jrssr5 21:07, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

To many of us Sysops, it does. There wasn't any revert "war", that is a bit of drama of your own making. Post here again, I will remove you. And yes, I can. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 21:33, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

You were previously warned, Jrssr5. By more than one Sysop.

Thanks for the heads-up, Adrian, I will take a look soon. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 21:12, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Still, two of those links really don't exist... MiddleMan

  • Are you another who thinks I need your "valuable" input to read and make up my own mind? Flippin quit the site. Said so on his page, that is what I read. I am perhaps the most accessible of all Sysops, having provided multiple ways of contacting me. If Flipping has a problem, or you do, avail yourself of those, please, and stop turning a simple request for me to look at things into more drama. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 21:19, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for your support

Thanks for your support. I appreciate the vote of confidence. HeartOfGold 23:15, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

  • No problem. But remember to be careful about what you wish for.  ;-) --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 23:22, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
Sort of like the Chinese curse: ~"May your dreams come true."? HeartOfGold 10:22, 14 May 2007 (EDT)


The addition Burns wrote of the town "Auld Ayr wham ne'er a toun surpasses / For honest men and bonnie lasses". to Ayr by User:Xenophile is factual [8]. His addition to Homer was factual but certainly trivial. Deletion not really a problem. I'm no great expert on semantics but isn't the difference between ineffectual military and ineffective military in the article United States of America splitting hairs? I would personally regard that as an opinion, and question its validity. Perhaps that bit shoud be reworked somehow. Was your decision to ban him not a bit hasty? His other edits seem reasonable. Auld Nick 07:08, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Well, those types of changes, which was nothing more than opinion, not fact, is indeed the modus of a subtle vandal, correct? Whilst you might think something is this or that, it does not alter the fact that is indeed how subtle vandals work. I am not unreasonable, but I do follow Andy's dictates, and one of those are to block first. I will be sure to do what I always do, Auld, and that is to carefully examine all of his contributions, and make a final decision based upon that examination, and consultation with other Sysops. Is that "fair" enough? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 07:15, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
It is certainly fair to block first. Policy is quite clear:
Sysop's and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed. Failure to do so will result in the user being blocked.
Expressed in more simple terms
Sysops may do whatever they want, everyone else has to do what they are told.
I will of course respect your decision. Auld Nick 07:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
You may want to know that it was User:Xenophile to add the ", although somewhat inefficient and ineffective" part into the United States of America article and you may consider reverting to the previous version. Leopeo 07:20, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
Update: Niandra took care of it.

I reverted it before I blocked Xenophile, But evidently not far enough, as the removed user did many edits. Thanks to Niandra! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 07:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Seems he was indulging in some deviousness after all. Well spotted! Auld Nick 07:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Please spread the word, Auld. While I am often tart, sugar will rot one's teeth, lol. My "job" here isn't to promote my own agenda, but that of Andy and the Student Panel. I am still going to review their contributions, and on the basis of that, and advice from other Sysops I respect, might yet shorten or remove that block. Oftentimes it depends if they care enough to email and explain. Thanks for being a gentleman, and noticing what I did, post again. That is appreciated. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 07:35, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Please, behave correctly

Do not revert things as _you_ want them to be. Do not start edit wars (and banning people after that) by doing that. If yout like this site to contain only one opinion about things, please change rules and close this from "outer" people. --Aulis Eskola 07:59, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

  • I am an Administrator of this site, and will remove anyone's ideological edits. I have posted on your talk page about your unacceptable reverts to Deceit. There will not be any "edit wars" because if there is, I will lock the article. Are we now clear? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 08:13, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
Requirement for referencies is not ideological, it is said to be the priciple of this site not to just write opinions of own but we must collect relevant references (mainly to things which are contradicted, I think). (Or if it is ideological this site is ideological when referencies are emphasized). You are clear of cource, because you only lock and don't discuss. --Aulis Eskola 10:10, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
Now there is a quite good scientific reference deceit (Freud), I think article is now better. I don't understand why efforts to this kind of improvements are here taken as acts against site (-> and causing you to give "warnings" :D ). Many other thesis in article have refs, why not this? Do you not think references are needed to be like encyclopedia? (Or do you only try to get the life of us non-sysops hard here?!)
Do you see any difference on working that way we try to discuss how to make articles better compared to way only reverting and blocking (if you have got privileges to do that)? Discussing and working together may take harder work but it many times gives better results. --Aulis Eskola 12:11, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
  • I quite agree. Take a look at your original posting here. It is contentious and finger-wagging. If your original post had not been attacking, I would have thought there was a possibility of discussion. The edit notes say you were removing the requests for citation, but in point of fact you actually removed the item. That was subterfuge. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 17:34, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
You are here attacking with your revertings and blockings. If questions and discussion about contents at talk pages are not allowed in some extents, can't help you. Shortened note of my edit says: removing Freud (as talked in discussion, "-" meaning removing from text, "+" meaning addition to text), there are no referencies given despite of reqs, only my req has been moved earlier (see the history). If you don't understand the note with shortenings (it is no idea to describe whole edits in notes), see edit and talk page before you start reverting and giving your warnings. If you try to keep it open and working, open discussion is your possibility, not attacking all the time against everything which can be somehow opponent to you - I am quite sure about that. --Aulis Eskola 19:19, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
  • References were given! You will follow the instructions of Administrators here. Please ask about this with the Owner, AndyS. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 19:23, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
Refs asked are _now_ given, not at the time of my edit. _After_ having ref also for this Freud I wrote "thanks" message. See discussion and history. You are trying to find some "!subterfuge" to block?! (At least 90/10 is fulfilled soon after this kind of episodes when trying and trying... if you don't find something else...) --Aulis Eskola 19:46, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Freud (Deceit)

Sorry, forgot to sign --SeanTheSheep 08:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)


Did you change the color of your userpage? It might be just me seeing this, but it looks bad:-(Bohdan

Looks fine from here. Colored background. Are you using an off-brand browser like Firefox or something? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 20:43, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Blocking of Linus M.

I don't understand your comment on Karajou's talk page. Is it directed at me? Certainly, this is not true for me: "Karjou, this user was answered already, and the link to his probation given to him. It is a disingenuous post". Where did someone answer me? And please, don't be offensive: my posts are not disingenuous.

I was asking why he gave 3 months to Linus M. As I understand it (correct me if I am wrong, which is very possible!), Karajou gave him 3 months for a serious offense, which then was corrected to blocked-for-life because he was on parole (and I'd like to know the terms of the parole too, if they are not secret obviously). Then I'd like to know what the serious offense was. I think you agree with me that his latest contributions were constructive. Or did I miss something?

If instead his first block to 3 months was not because of a serious offense, but because of him being on parole, then it's clearer. This is just what I'd like to know. And, I repeat, not disingenuous, whatever that means. Leopeo 06:50, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

disingenuous meaning ...Niandratalk 06:57, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
Thanks :-) Leopeo 07:02, 15 May 2007 (EDT)


I asked for help on the Help Talk: Contents page, but I haven't gotten it. It's been a long time. Would you answer the question? It begins with "Creating a path . . ." Earl100.


I have received your emails. Sorry, I forgot to check. But what does it mean?Bohdan

  • First one, a sense of humor. Second, don't remember, lol. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 15:59, 15 May 2007 (EDT)


I deleted some duplicate versions of the Neanderthal article and redirected them all to it. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 23:15, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

  • It was agreed to discuss such things on the ADF pages, so that is why I am confused once again, by unilateral decisions. Did Rob's request make it in time? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 23:16, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Now it is my turn to be confused. What is ADF? and if that was agreed, then why didn't I ever hear of it. There were multiple articles of the same subject so I deleted and redirected. As a sysop, I have the authority to do that right? Do you object to the deletions? --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 23:20, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

A typo of AFD -- Article for deletion (which itself needs some cleanup -- Conservapedia:Articles for Deletion and Conservapedia: Articles for deletion need reconciliation. --Mtur 23:22, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
A draft of the AFD process can be seen at Conservapedia:Articles for deletion/Process which suggests a way to come to the proper community consensus as to which articles should be deleted. --Mtur 23:24, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

AFD is for determining whether or not to have an article on a certain subject. It has nothing to do with deleteing duplicate articles.--Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 23:26, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Ahh, well I feel so much better being treated like an adult, with you making the decisions for me, checking with no one, deciding what material makes it through, and which doesn't, without any input or chance to give it. Enlightened! And I will expect your public support for doing likewise in the future. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 23:34, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Perhaps I need to undo the edits, so we can have a discussion.....--Sysop-TK /MyTalk 23:47, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

We can't all get together and agree on everything before doing it. I deleted and redirected because there were duplicate articles. Someone made copies of the original page and created 2 seperate articles (one as the creationist perspective, one as the evolutionist perspective) stuff like this has been dealt with the same way before, so i didn't think it would be an issue. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 23:49, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Who is the "someone" is it a secret? Please undelete the articles, and let us all see what is going on! At the very least reclaim them and put them someplace the can be looked at. I would hate to have to undertake a major new revision of it. Maybe Conservative could help me with that. And since you have previously been asked several times before NOT to take such unilaterial actions, I fail to see how you could have thought that. And, since you obviously discussed this with Hoji before the fact, how much trouble would it have been to post to the Sysop page and discuss? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 23:58, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
It was MiddleMan, and I discussed it with Hoji after the fact. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 00:03, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

I repeat, kindly undo your edits, and we will discuss this. Most of us Sysops manage to discuss these things every day, via email, and you are one of the few who refuse to participate. Unless you want your efforts all undone, at least provide copies of all the versions, because I don't think it should be your decision as to what was or was not moved into the new article, or MiddleMan's, or Hoji's. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 00:07, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

I put it here so that anything we want can be copied over. Sorry for the confusion. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 00:08, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
  • No, I am not talking about the version MiddleMan saved and gave the link to to RobS. I am talking about the other articles. Where are they? Restore them, please. You did say there was more than one, no? If so, restore them all. And I beleive you had no intention of putting anything anywhere, as you say above, otherwise you would have posted that. You showed the link to RobS only when he asked on your page, no? What are you trying to hide here? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 00:16, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

The other ones I was talking about were the current version in a previous location, (before i moved it) and an exact copy put in homo neanderthalis (creationist view) or something like that. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 00:18, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Where are they? The Creationist POV? Where are the discussions for all of that? I want to read them. Kindly submit to my request and restore all versions, so we can all see. What are you trying to hide here? Why won't you just let us look at all versions? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 00:20, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
I am not hiding anything, there were no discussions, You can see all of the versions. There are only 2 the current one and the one i gave you a link for. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 00:24, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

TK, are you not a sysop? You have the ability to look at the page histories and edits. No one but you has a problem with Tim taking initiative and consolidating two almost duplicate articles. He's trying to help the wiki, what's your beef with his work? ColinRtalk 00:22, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

I'd like to second TK's request. The page was actively being edited at the time of the move. RobS 00:27, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
What request? --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 00:28, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
To restore the deleted versions of Homo neanderthalensis. RobS 00:30, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
There is only the one in your userspace, and the one at Neanderthal everything else was a cut and paste job. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 00:32, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Also, liberals aren't trying to ram anything through. All Tim was trying to do was consolidate articles. He's graciously provided a copy of the article that info was pulled from so none-sysops can see it. If you have a problem with the content of the article, change it. But there's no reason to have two articles on the same subject with almost the same content and name. ColinRtalk 00:29, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

  • RESTORE ALL PREVIOUS ARTICLES ON THE SUBJECT, ALONG WITH ALL THE DISCUSSIONS. With you posting, ColinR, I know something is trying to be covered up for sure, lol. I have no idea where the other articles were, or how to find them. I do know the Webmaster will find and restore everything, though. So, thanks for nothing, CPAdmin1. We will get it all back, and see what POV has been inserted, if any. I have also asked for Conservative's help in making sure the article that remains is true and accurate. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 00:30, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

I GAVE YOU ALL OF THE VERSIONS, AND THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION what is so hard to understand. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 00:33, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Could you please point me to the rule that says that sysops have to have discussions before they do anything? I couldnt find it anywhere. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 00:34, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

The civility clause would apply during active editing. RobS 00:36, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm not covering anything up, in fact I'm looking at the two versions right now, and the only difference is that the current entry now has the "deleted" entry's portion on Creationist's views. I don't see what the huge deal is about this whole thing. No one's trying to enforce any view at all. All that was done was Tim combined two articles. That's it. If the current entry isn't sufficient, edit away! It's not being locked, protected, etc. And TK, I'm not even touching the article, I don't do anthropology. I'd appreciate you refraining from "veiled accusations." ColinRtalk 00:38, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Tim, you didn't. When I tried to restore that one, since you had blanked it and redirected it, I could not restore it. Please undo all your actions, if indeed you haven't done anything untoward. How hard is that? I have asked Andy to post here, maybe if he asks, you will do what we want. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 00:39, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

How mant times do i have to say it. I gave you the link to the other version, and there is nothing hidden to be restored. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 00:46, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

TK, you're a sysop! YOU CAN SEE DELETED EDITS!!!! Click on the page history and it will say, "see -- deleted edits?" Click there and bam, ability to view deleted edits. ColinRtalk 00:41, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Oh, and by the way the version i deleted was the more evolutionist version. (RobS just replaced the Neanderthal page with the ((evolutionist) version I deleted). --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 00:59, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
  • It does not allow me to see any edits since CPAdmin1 blanked the page before deleting it and redirecting it. It only shows me CPAdmin1 deleted it. Why all this fighting? Why doesn't Phillip just undo what he did, rather than sending his lapdog to tell me to do it? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 01:01, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Why bring Philip into this? (which philip you are refering to is beyond me) and who is his "lapdog"? --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 01:05, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

For previous versions of the deleted version, go here --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 01:08, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

If you notice, Philip (the webmaster) was the first one to redirect that page. Then when it was recreated i deleted it quickly. After that it was recreated again, and i wasn't on so it was edited for a while before i deleted it again. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 01:10, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Sorry Tim, I meant you. Tim, not any of the Philips. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 01:07, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

I need to go to bed now, if you don't figure out that i was a) just removing a doubled entry, and b) workin for the creationist side, then I will pick up the conversation tomorrow. Good night. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 01:13, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Odd you just didnt take the 3 minutes and restore everything, isn't it. Instead all these posts. Weird. We'll get someone else to revert it all. Have a nice night. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 01:25, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

I created a Neandertal page which redirects to Neanderthal. IIRC it existed before Tim's actions? Anyway, I guess many people think 'Neandertal' instead of 'Neanderthal'. Leopeo 05:43, 16 May 2007 (EDT)


Is this appropriate? I responded on that page, but this user did not discuss this with me on my talk page or on the articles talk page. HeartOfGold 01:14, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes, you are okay. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 02:48, 16 May 2007 (EDT)


Any particular reason you kicked and banned me from #conservapedia? --Jtl 02:44, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 02:47, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

And what is that reason? --Jtl 02:49, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Be patient. All will be explained, and soon. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 02:54, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Like all those other mysterious big changes you keep talking about that are coming soon? Why won't you just answer the question and explain your actions? --Jtl 02:58, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

I really would like to hear an explanation as well, i log on to IRC and you start to sprout all kind of insults which would here get one banned in an instant. And then you kick me, without any reason. I never thought highly of you, but this is just too much Timppeli 11:23, 16 May 2007 (EDT)


Why did you pseudo-delete Conservative's Sysop Abuse page (among other pages)? Oh, and you're redirecting to the wrong article. The redirects have to point at Conservapedia:Deletedpage. Just a friendly heads-up. --JLindon 07:09, 16 May 2007 (EDT)


TK, is there any reason why you deleted Ed Poor's section on chimps and human DNA? It looked reasonable and well cited to me. Erasmus 10:57, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes, it clearly linked humans with chimps. And that wasn't Ed's addition. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 11:01, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

OK I may have not gone back far enough in the edit history but are you deleting it because you don't like the facts? After all it is true that we share DNA with lots of different creatures in varying percentages. Couldn't you have rephrased it if you didn't like the deduction? Erasmus 11:08, 16 May 2007 (EDT)


Are you sure? they only made 1 edit each on Ian St John's IP, and all of Ian St John's edit were good. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 11:11, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Check with Andy, Tim. We know whats going on. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 11:12, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Could you email me what is going on? I already emailed Andy. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 11:17, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Please, comment on user pages things concerning one user

How do we know that user:Human gets comments directly said to him from page Conservapedia:Abuse? I think he is maybe not reading that page. (now I have pointed this comment to him, but if I hadn't...) --Aulis Eskola 11:42, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Human has been removed from CP. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 12:05, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Hoji's discussion page

After reading your complaints about people tampering with your discussion page, I don't think you should be deleting info from Hoji's. You know - pot, kettle, black, etc... --WWillis 12:19, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Do you think some are allowed to manipulated others talks here?! Or is it now commonly usable practice? --Aulis Eskola 16:42, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Forthcoming evidence

You said, in a previous (now deleted) comment that 'evidence was forthcoming' in the major ban-strike that you made earlier. I'd just be a bit interested to know what, although I know that it's unlikely that I will find out, and if not, then when will the evidence come forward?

Two pre-emptive points -

  • What has it to do with me? Well, given that pretty much all of the recently blocked ones were long-standing ones who made liberal edits, and I've made liberal edits, and am sorta' long-standing; for example, I'm the only non-sysop (I know that you can't ban Hoji) here. I'm just checking to see whether I'm next, which I'm sure you'd agree is enough to make it a bit of my business.
  • Before you ask/block, and for the record, I'm not an i--w---- sock. If you look through my contribs, this will be evident.

Anyway, thanks in advance. --WikinterpreterLiaise with the cabal?

You are more than welcome to IM me on AIM. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 13:52, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm afraid I don't have AIM. I'm sending an email; will that be OK? --WikinterpreterLiaise with the cabal?

Whatever you want. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 13:59, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Just checking - you got the email? Sorry, but I've been having some trouble with my email client recently, and just wanted to see it got through. It's better now, though. --WikinterpreterLiaise with the cabal?

Thank You

It is a great day for me. Thank you for this privilege.

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 15:09, 16 May 2007 (EDT)


just curious as to why the article was deleted. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 16:54, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

  • I was told to. You need to learn to email about his stuff. I won't remind you again, Tim. That's how it is from now on, ok? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 16:55, 16 May 2007 (EDT)


Re: Neanderthal

I did a little work on both articles. Rob's and the other one. Just make sure the evolutionists don't state their material as fact like they did in Rob's version. Conservative 17:35, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

  • No problem! We have gotten rid of many liberal haters last night, this morning. More to come! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 17:44, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

check your email

I just sent you an important email. Please study the diffs carefully. HeartOfGold 01:15, 17 May 2007 (EDT)


So what rule did he break while he was blocked? Scutter 11:38, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Something else to keep an eye on

Probably a coincidence. HeartOfGold 13:45, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

I notice that a VSA box has arrived on the Discussion page of "Eleanor of Aqhitaine". What would you like done? AlanE 14:58, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

  • I ran an IP search and Cullen and Colin are several states apart. DanH 15:09, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
    • Good, sorry to trouble you. HeartOfGold 15:12, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
Double oopss, I just realized that ColinR is a sysop. I need to stop trying to be helpful in this regard. HeartOfGold 14:23, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
Not anymore. JustineA --sysop--talk 14:24, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
I was right for the wrong reasons? HeartOfGoldtalk 01:34, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

ColinR was removed for good cause, as a Sysop, and blocked as well. You should be especially vigilant with his edits, templates, etc. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 07:51, 19 May 2007 (EDT)


I was just wondering why you deleted the scientology and conservapeia talk pages? --TomT 17:24, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Administrative decisions are not your concern, Tomt. If you want a place that specializes in mobocracy, try Wikipedia. Looking at your user page, I can see why you are asking, though. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 17:59, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

I do not want a place that specialises in so called 'mobocracy', and feel insulted that you are writing a scathing reply based on your biases against my beliefs. However, I feel that this topic is my concern as this is a wiki, and I have every right to ask a polite question on why a factual article was deleted and why we are unable to have general discussions about Conservapedia. --TomT 12:28, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

It is two days since I inquired about these deletions but I have still not had a satisfactory answer, just a rude remark about my beliefs. Could you please tell me why those articles were deleted? --TomT 07:15, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

Changes to "Hell" entry

What was wrong with my changes to the Hell article? I'm new, so I'm sorry about any mistakes I made. User:CastleVania --CastleVania 18:47, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Usually comments are made in the edit notes for the page, I will take a look tonight, and leave you an answer here, or on your page, okay? Thanks for asking! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 18:55, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks! And I'll make comments on the edit notes from now on. --CastleVania 20:40, 17 May 2007 (EDT)


Please tell others about: Conservapedia:New Sysops Training Page Conservative 22:03, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

I find the picture of Eleanor of Aquitaine inappropriate. Perhaps it is only my taste, but a digital representation seems to me to be "uncyclopedic". Surely one of the photos of her grave would be more appropriate. Call me old-fashioned, but to me there is little authenticity in it. I notice too that the picture is copyrighted. I intend to do similar articles as I have done on Eleanor, Henry II, Richard I on all the medieval kings of England, and other people of that era, but I would hate to have this sort of artwork beside them. I suppose I should learn how to include my own pictures - I am computer semi-illiterate. Please consider this. AlanE 03:26, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Let me see....a "copyright" on a picture from what century? Please never revert the contents of any Discussion page, AlanE. No article "belongs" to any editor, so if you don't like additions, including pictures to your work, a wiki isn't the place for you.--Sysop-TK /MyTalk 03:48, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

A picture from the 21st century, or perhaps late 20th, created by a fellow called Duncan Long, who is a graphic artist. It is from the cover of a book by Robert Fripp.

A stated an honest opinion, politely I thought, and at no time did I even suggest a revert! I think that the phrase "please consider this" deserved more than the answer you gave. I am trying to see where I implied that my articles belonged to me. All I asked was that you give consideration to changing the picture, and gave my reasons. Perhaps I misphrased it - I am known as a straight talker. Am I not allowed to ask? I had thought that I would be of use to the project. I gather you don't think so, which is a great shame because I think I have a lot to offer. AlanE 04:23, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Now I certainly am beginning to think you are up to no good. Instead of posting on the article's discussion page, where you should have, you come to my talk page and make up (out of thin air) and put words in my mouth, about you not being allowed to ask a question, and that I don't think you are allowed to ask a question, or that you might not be a valuable contributor to this project? Your question was answered. By one of the Administrators of this site. Politely. I did not deserve you posting again, with your inventions about what I am thinking. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 04:41, 18 May 2007 (EDT)


Hi, I'm new here - I've only managed a few entries but one of the articles I added to (scientology) has been removed? Out of curiosity, what happened to it? Thanks. Fantomas 06:50, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

  • It appears to have been removed. Don't take it personally, it probably had nothing to do with whatever you edited. This is a wiki-based encyclopedia, additions, removals, severe editing, are all part of it.  ;-) --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 07:10, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
K, cool. I was just curious cos I'm aware of the heavy-handed reputation the Scientology people sometimes have. I guess I'll just take my "severe editing" like a man! Thanks. Fantomas 07:38, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
Would you object to me creating new Scientology articles with basic facts? Geo.Talk 12:35, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Geo, who are you asking? Please check with Andy (or perhaps read your emails), if you are thinking of making another article. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 14:44, 18 May 2007 (EDT)


Hey man maybe not forever but maybe a month or so? That is a little harsh. I know you two have a lot of arguments and stuff but maybe not forever. --Will N. 14:06, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

  • While I appreciate your concern(s), you do actually "know" nothing of this situation. I don't block users because I "disagree" with them, and have successfully lobbied for the return of users (like LinusM./Hacker, who unfortunately failed to live up to his agreement)) on many occasions. Interesting you are posting here so quickly, however. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 14:43, 18 May 2007 (EDT)


I responded to your response. The article itself was good, and I am not doubting any of it. HeartOfGold 16:30, 18 May 2007 (EDT)


How do you change the background color of pages? DanH 17:59, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Go into edit mode for this page, or Sharons, and see the color code added.  ;-) I will be back later and on IM, if you need more info. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 18:03, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
Check your talk page history, DanH. JustineA --sysop--talk 18:05, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

Cool, thanks. DanH 18:13, 18 May 2007 (EDT)


would you have minded if I undid that vandalism to this page at the time of the incident? I did not because I know that you do not like people messing around with this page.Bohdan

  • I do not mind any Sysop editing my page at any time, so long as notice is given here (or via IM, which most of us use to reach one another) so I am aware there was a problem. What you have read here before were users claiming there was a problem, creating a sensation, and yet later we found they never actually "fixed" anything, so you can see now what their true motives were, eh? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 00:58, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
due to your suggestion, I will now sign with the date and time. Thank you.Bohdan 18:23, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

Hard feelings?

TK, I hope I explained myself sufficiently on my talk page. Do you know if an apology to RobS is in order? HeartOfGoldtalk 01:35, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Well, RobS reads here too.  ;-) I am sure he would have let you know. No worries. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 07:49, 19 May 2007 (EDT)


This user ninetyten is appears to be a sock of a thrice banned user. Should something be done?Bohdan 22:21, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Yes, I was just in that process of blocking that moron! Good catch, always just block infinitely others who run with that bunch. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 22:27, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

Wedge alert

[[9]] BrianCo 12:35, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

TK it was a frozen wedgie but Ed Poor took care of it. BrianCo 19:47, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Completely lost, but so long as you and Ed understand each other, that's a good thing, I think! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 20:15, 21 May 2007 (EDT)


Yes indeed.

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 19:18, 21 May 2007 (EDT)


Done. Thank you.

How did you find it in Google? I tried a lot in Altavista.

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 19:30, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

You use Google Images [10]  ;-) Sorry for butting in, but that other picture was kind of crappy, lol. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 19:38, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm sure Andy won't raise any objections in this instance but what is the copyright situation if this picture has been found on another site? It seems to me that there are many images that have been uploaded on CP which might infringe copyright rules. WP would love it if we got slapped with a lawsuit. BrianCo 22:47, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

I can't decide

I can't decide who is more hated by the Conservapedia outcasts. It seems to be tie between you and me. I guess my young earth creationist material at Conservapedia earned me a tie with you but your Sysop admin actions gained you a tie with me! Conservative 21:36, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Curse you, Conservative! I should win it hands down! I am tired of you denying me my rightful place with those vandals and terrorists! :p --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 21:38, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
  • sorry for being nosy (I am bored), but after reviewing this blog, I think you are the most hated.Bohdan Talk 21:56, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Seemingly, by you, according to "your" posts there Bohdan. :p They keep voting, and Conservative keeps winning! Curse him! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 22:39, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Edit wars

I have no problem with your edits to help:Editing etiquette, except that you say that edit warring is against the CP Guidelines. Well, it should be, but is it? Can you point me to where the guidelines say that it is wrong, please? Philip J. Rayment 22:44, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. I was looking for something that declared it to be wrong, rather than something that proscribed punishment for it, which is why I didn't look on that page, but that does cover it, I guess.
By the way, when you create a link that includes "http:", you should only put one set of square brackets around the link. Use two sets of square brackets only for wiki-links (no "http:").
Philip J. Rayment 23:31, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Thanks, I just used the local link deal at the top, Philip. Now perhaps we can start to make some progress on the AFD mess? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 23:50, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
I've added a proposal to Conservapedia talk:Articles for deletion#Idea for process and workflow. Philip J. Rayment 07:14, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Good work there, Philip! I agree mostly. We do need to make it all less complicated, even at the risk of it being no so automated, and providing all the intricate tracking. While Ed and I agree on big picture things, I believe he has an engineers tendency to like lots of tracking and trials. For the few page deletions we do, it is perhaps overkill to worry so much about it. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 20:12, 22 May 2007 (EDT)


Hi, I noticed your recent block of GofG citing the 90/10 rule. Admittedly he did not contribute 90% of his edits to articles so i suppose you are justified in that reasoning. His mainspace:talk page edit ratio is 1:1.51 (this includes edits to User talk pages). I would just like to point out that your ratio is 1:4.06, which is a far cry worse than GofG's. Don't you find that slightly hypocritical? Cheers MatteeNeutra 19:12, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

  • No, since Administrators here, like on Wikipedia, are forced to do far more answering, mentoring and rule enforcement as part of our "job". Surely such a smart person as you thought of that already, and your post here is meant only to be provocative. It is a rather simplistic thought that site Administrators, with all that they do, would fall under rules made for those who do not have such duties. But of course you know that. BTW, I am glad you provided support for my block, however it was a mistaken click. Another example of people just watching lists, and hurriedly posting to make judgements. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 19:27, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I noticed your retraction of the block so this is really a mute point. I'd just like to clear up a few things before i drop this though: I do not sit idly by, refreshing the recent changes page, i just so happened to be editing at the time and the block log popped up. Surely, had you not noticed the mistake you had made and the block gone unchecked a greater travesty would have been done? In the future perhaps, you should learn to recognise constructive criticism as opposed to mindless trolling.
Patronising users may be good for your self esteem but ultimately it leads to a negative view of yourself in the eyes of other users. Thanks for your discussion in this matter! MatteeNeutra 19:53, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
P.s. would you like some help archiving some of the stuff on your talk page? It's getting rather long!
  • You should perhaps read this: [[12]]. If someone is blocked for a bad reason, or it is a mistake, our Guidelines clearly state they should contact the blocking Administrator. If they don't well it could be a loss for the site, but humans do make mistakes. I fail to see, unless you were editing blocks and locks, how it would just pop up, for you. So yes, it was not mindless trolling, I agree. It was a calculated attempt to be provocative and get something going. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 20:08, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
If it makes you happy to think that I was trying to be provocative then go ahead! I doubt I'll be able to change your mind, anyhow! My offer of assistance with archiving of this page still stands if you would like? MatteeNeutra 20:17, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
  • And you are offering why? Was some decision made I am unaware of, as to "how long" a page should be? It worries me you have concerns about such things. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 20:26, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

"WARNING: This page is 106 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections." This message appears every time anyone edits this page. Seems to me that it needs to be broken down for ease of use. Not sure why that would be worrying to you! MatteeNeutra 20:33, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

  • It worries me when someone says they are here to edit articles and is paying attention to what I do or not do with this page, being since I am an Administrator. And given that you read everything, you know I have been touchy about this matter, and so I recognize your offer for what it really was, as I said above, just for you to be provocative. Now I warn you to drop this. This is a wiki based software, not Wikipedia, and we also reject the notion of editors involving themselves anywhere they want to. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 21:06, 22 May 2007 (EDT)


I just joined another not to be named wiki. I did not realize what it was (still am not quite sure). Anyway, I don't think I will stick around there long. Just wanted to let you know that I leaped before I looked at that other wiki--nothing nefarious on my part there. HGHeartOfGold talk 02:07, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

  • I am almost certain there is absolutely not sincerity in anything you typed above, however I am there too. Invited, and at least willing to listen. We shall see. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 02:11, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
Wow. I don't know what to say. HGHeartOfGold talk 02:33, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
Personal tools