User talk:TK/TKarchive6

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Keith Olbermann

  • Could you please add the following CITED information to the "Keith Olbermann" article:

In early October 2006, a woman who previously had an unsatisfying one-night stand with Olbermann launched a blog to warn other women about his "boorish bedroom habits." The woman, who called herself KarmaBites1, wrote that she didn't want others "to fall into the same trap...and I want him to feel some remorse for what he's done...He sets his mind on a woman, lures her in, and once he gets what he wants, he refuses to ever speak to them again. And I don't think he understands the damage he's caused."

The woman wrote that she struck up an e-mail friendship with Olbermann and agreed to fly to New York City to meet him in May of 2006. She came to her hotel room and opened a bottle of Merlot which he "spilled all over." Then, when "sexual activity began [in] less than an hour," Olbermann had difficulty. "I pretended he knew what he was doing," she wrotes. "I adored the guy. I didn't want him to think he was a dud in bed," so she faked experiencing an orgasm.[1] [2] -- AmeriCan 23:51, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

  • I think that's a bit tabloid for an encyclopedia. Did you think otherwise? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 00:58, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Scotland

Minor alteration required to this article; see its talk page for details. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 08:20, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Team contest

I would like to have you on my team for our new team contest. You can read more here. Please let me know if you can compete. Thanks, ~ SharonTalk 07:09, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

I don't think the contest will be ready to start until Monday, as we have to finish making the teams. I have added you our team's page here. ~ SharonTalk 06:28, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
TK, where is your record directory, which ought to be labeled either User:TK/contest or User:TK/Contest? We need that to assess your contributions to your team effort. -- Judge TerryHTalk 15:08, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
He probably forgot TeamRW isn't part of the contest. Somebody should IM him and remind him again. RobS 16:30, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Odd response from a sysop who has been busy undoing blocks on their officials all day, isn't it? And TerryH, I posted an email to all of you, telling you I would be away for a few days, due to my Mother being hospitalized. Perhaps not a good reason in your book, but in mine it is. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 18:23, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Look at the timeline TK, it doesn't fit. RobS 11:00, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

Archive link

I fixed one of your archive links, account the discussion here. Philip J. Rayment 10:38, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

I deleted the old link that was never correct. Why fix it instead of deleting it? I wanted to restore them all, but now am so confused with wiki cleaning, don't know what to do. Please email.--Sysop-TK /MyTalk 06:53, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Team contest

TK, the judges need you to keep track of your work so they can give you points for it. Please start a record similar to mine: User:SharonS/contest. Thanks, ~ SharonTalk 17:37, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Terry, pursuant to our telephone call, in which you asked for a link - I decided to go ahead and give you a template.
Take a look at User:TK/contest okay? --Ed Poor Talk 20:57, 12 July 2007 (EDT)


Thank you!!!

It will be interesting to have the tall of every player. Don't you think? --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 12:34, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Maybe this is a language difference? I have no idea how tall any of the players are. Except for me. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 14:47, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk page unprotect

Hi! Any chance you could unprotect my talk page? Just asking since you're the sysop who originally protected it. Ed unprotected my user page, but forgot about the talk page. (crossposted to Ed's talk page since he's the unblocking sysop.) --Sid 3050 13:58, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Nevermind, has been resolved :) --Sid 3050 15:26, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Contest Talk page protection

Just a quick note that not all contestants are sysops. You just locked out 25% of Team One. --Sid 3050 14:06, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Contest participants have been given special access, Sid, so I was told. Your interest here is? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 14:09, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
Since Sid has been baned for sarcasm - I'll attempt to answer. Contestants have special access to the Team name space as appropriate. However, no special access have been given to override a sysop lock of Conservapedia name space. Locking the page prevented contestant who is not a sysop from editing it. --Mtur 14:14, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Ahhh, then I was misinformed. Which "contestant" wished to post there? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 14:20, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
I have no idea. However, they won't be able to do it if they do so wish. If this is not an issue, then nevermind and leave it as it is. However, I know that Fox has been active in that page in the past and he is not a sysop - he will be unable to edit it going forward to bring up concerns that he might have again. If the answer is "have him contact a sysop to unlock the page so he can edit it" then thats the answer. --Mtur 14:25, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
  • LOL! Fox is very much a Sysop, Mtur....having won our last competition! Sorry, please go elsewhere to raise "issues" okay? You know where this kind of thing will end with me, right? I am still awaiting your response about the AFD template you made, and I received approval from Andy to implement, and you have refused to respond about. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 14:28, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
My appolgoies on not keeping up to date on that. As for the AFD template, could you please give me a list of all currently active AFD proposals? I am not sure how many of them have been decided upon or are stale. --Mtur 14:29, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
  • You proposed and designed a template for it. I got it approved, posted so there and on your talk page. You never responded in spite of several earlier prompts from me. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 14:32, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Could you communicate with DeborahB?

Previously I have been told to that for communication with editors with locked talk pages I should go through you or Ed. In particular, [User talk:DeborahB./Contest] needs to be addressed before too much more work needs to be done - and I can't make an orange banner go up on the next edit. Could you please notify her of this? --Mtur 14:28, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Avail yourself of the CP mail link, and give me particulars, without posting here the details, okay? You can also use AIM to contact me, as I list it above, and on my user page. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 14:32, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
I attempted that in the past, and just now when clicking on it I get "This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users." -- There is no way for me to communicate directly with that sysop. --Mtur 14:33, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Oh, sorry, yours must be enabled as well! Thats the Wikimedia software, not me! You can use: exculpatory1@aim.com --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 14:40, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
I've sent email. And there was content lost in the edit conflict previously. Could someone please contact DeborahB to have her look at [User talk:DeborahB./Contest] before another large batch of ship articles need to be moved. I do not relish the idea of putting a few more hours of work cleaning up this. --Mtur 14:50, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
So, TK, have you looked at the issue and communicated the concern with DeborahB about the pages that need to be moved to the proper name for ships before any more are created? --Mtur 18:20, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
  • That was done in several ways, and long ago resolved. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 01:19, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

User:Sid 3050

What was the purpose of the block on User:Sid 3050? [1] RobS 14:40, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

  • As you have previously been informed, Rob, we do not discuss those issues on talk pages. I will say here that his actions since being allowed back (on a trial basis) show he has not changed. I checked with the majority of Sysops, and they have shown no disagreement. Ed Poor in fact, made a prior block for sarcasm, just today. Please post your concerns about things like this in the proper venue. Thanks. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 14:44, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
Where did this "checked with the majority of Sysops" occur? It was not on the Sysop pages that I can find. RobS 14:45, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Please post your concerns about things like this in the proper venue. Thanks! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 14:48, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
That is exactly what I asked you; did this "checking with other Sysops" occur in the proper venue? RobS 14:55, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Where is the discussion in the Sysop area? RobS 15:08, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
I was wondering if someone should create an article about being a "meatpuppet". Any thoughts on that? :p Scorpio 15:41, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
  • LMAO! Scorpio, while funny, that was a provocation. And needless. I have blocked you accordingly. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 15:44, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Where do I find a list of categories?

This goes nowhere. Jinxmchue 14:41, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Maybe this is what you were looking for? [[2]] --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 14:58, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
That shows the pages that need categories. But if you are looking for the categories that they can belong to to make sure that there isn't one that is already created that could be a better fit... --Mtur 15:00, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
Just look for a similar page and use that page's category. Stryker 15:23, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Internet Crime

TK, as you know, this article was created as a response to Ed Poor's suggestion to me that I help to contribute to such an article. I am happy to, but it seesm you have created it, then immediately locked it? Is it possible to allow me to add some (excellent) material? Wumps 16:19, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

here is an additional link/reference: [3] from the FBI Bohdan 16:24, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
  • As you don't know, it was created as a result of a suggestion, via email from Andy. Per the contest rules, I was told to lock created articles. Could you post info on the talk page, since I am unclear as to what the rules allow? I will of course make sure you are credited for the material! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 16:25, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Well, he was probably nudged to ask you to create it by this thread entry [4] Wumps 17:01, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

New pages

User:AManInBlack is changing my material (National League). I blocked him twice for other reasons. What can be done? --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 11:22, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Is there anything actually wrong with his changes? Philip J. Rayment 11:30, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Joaquin, perhaps my earlier suggestion of emailing the other Admins, with specifics, would indeed work better for you, rather than just posting on a few, select, sysop's pages with these kind of questions? Understand we work best as a group, all fully informed, rather than as "cowboys", eh? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 13:40, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

The contribution of the User seems to be good in National League. The problem is for the Jury. How are they going to evaluate 2000 new entries and also put in order the changes that anybody can make? (by the way I feel that he did it as a consequence of my blocking yesterday.)

Dear TK, what is the address of the 3 judges as a group. I haven't it. Sign: The new cowboy... --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 17:08, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Use the link to the left, and email me the request, Cowboy.  :p --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 17:10, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Done. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 17:45, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

McCarthy formatting

TK, the format looks better but is there any way to make them just a little bigger? The notes are pretty hard to read at that size. Is there a medium size that is available? It's funny we're both formatting at the same time. Brilliant minds...well you know. :p Scorpio 00:47, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

  • There is regular and small. I almost made it small small, but it was too much. PhilipR showed me how! God bless him. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 01:05, 14 July 2007 (EDT)
Ok, well then it's fine with me but then again my computer screen is 18 inches from my face, so I have no problem reading that size. But do you think most readers will be able to read those notes without difficulty? Scorpio 01:13, 14 July 2007 (EDT)
  • That seems to me more a problem for those editors making all those endless notes, Scorpio. My problem is making the formatting look decent and not having them take up more space than the article itself.  ;-) --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 01:19, 14 July 2007 (EDT)
Sadly, and yet gleefully I must add, there are still lots of footnotes to add. I'm just hoping everyone can read it. My laptop is down and I have to wait till I install my new hard drive before I can use that to work (UPS should have it to on Friday. Screwed again by UPS. I will never do business with them again. Incompetent.). Scorpio 10:37, 14 July 2007 (EDT)
I don't know if this is the right place to ask this, but you are all talking about format. Do you think it would be better to split the article up and have a separate article for the "known security risks"? maybe this idea has already been posted and shot down, but I thought I would try. Bohdan 02:10, 14 July 2007 (EDT)
Bohdan, we've actually talked about that but until we can get all the info in and the formatting done, we won't for sure what would be best. And, like TK said, if you have some insight on contributing to the article, feel free to join in on the fun. I could use some consensus support on a number of issues. :) Scorpio 10:37, 14 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Yes, a good place to ask, Bohdan. RobS and Scorpio are the primary editors of McCarthy, and have made it the excellent, world-class piece it is, and I am sure they both will see your post here, and perhaps you should add it to the article discussion, under a new sub header, and ask there as well! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 02:14, 14 July 2007 (EDT)
TK, by saying that my work is "excellent and world-class" are you really saying that my work is "garbage"? Is that code for "rotten work"? :p Ok, just kidding. Please don't block me. :p Scorpio 10:37, 14 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Thanks, lol. Needed some humour this this morning, Scorpio! I meant exactly what I said I did. Nothing less, and nothing more.....now, I am late....--Sysop-TK /MyTalk 12:03, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

Degreeofproof

Yo, think before you delete this and ban me. Why did you delete my debating topic? Was it because you felt it somehow undermined the stance of this encyclopedia (which is meant to be truthful and unbiased) or because it raised a logical fault with religion? And don't give me any nonsense about sock puppets, cause I wasn't (I was working from a public terminal) and that doesn't change the fact that the debating topic was entirely valid Therationalist 00:42, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Yo, it was valid to you, not to me. Pretty simple, no? This place isn't owned by some mob, and isn't run by one. Again, simple enough? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 06:23, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Personal issues

Do you have some issue with me personally or with my conduct? I've been going out of my way to stick to the rules, written and unwritten. I admit that I've stepped on a few toes because I didn't know the local customs, but I am trying my best.

If I've been anything but polite to you or anyone else, please bring the specific diff to my attention so that I can avoid that in the future.

I would much rather you criticize me openly and harshly so that I can learn what I've done to offend you, than have that offense go unvoiced. AManInBlack 17:37, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Part of the problem is, here at CP we have made a hybrid. Here it is mostly preferred that contentious issues be handled directly, via email or IM, rather than endless arguments that distract from getting a wiki off the ground and running, as we are here. Therefore true wiki-philes, like yourself, and originally Ed Poor, do what they are used to doing, and that isn't always met with the friendliest of responses from those of us used to handling disagreements privately...especially those having to do with administration, which generally is of no interest or business of all the editors. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 18:02, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Mmkay. I can understand this; wiki discussions persist and persist and persist and are constantly revived by people who don't really have a clue about what was going on before. This approach makes sense to me: CP has a central core of users, so they can bring people up to speed on old stuff that was resolved long before.

I admit that I'm a little unclear on the line between "administration" and "user" here. Am I correct in my inference the basic privileges are split instead of being grouped; you can get the right to block, protect pages, upload images, etc. on an a la carte basis? Is there a list of administrators somewhere?

How can I get a hold of people via IM? My two e-mail addresses are unreliable or inundated with spam, and e-mail is such a dreary way to conduct a dialogue.

Also, a random, silly question: why are so many pages semi-protected? What does that accomplish here? I thought anon editing was completely disabled. AManInBlack 18:15, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

  • My email is enabled through this wiki, and my AIM contact is listed at the top of my user page, right here: [[5]] I am most always signed in, sometimes invisible. I did IM you earlier on Yahoo, didn't get a response. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 18:20, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
    Oh, I don't use YIM. I used to spend a lot of time on AIM; not so much, any more, since most of the people I used to talk to drifted away from it. AManInBlack 18:22, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

USS Liberty

Hi TK,

At your convenience, would you please categorize USS Liberty as you see fit? Regards, Aziraphale 18:25, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Proably not, without some input. Do you have a prefered category for it? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 18:35, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
Well, it doesn't exist yet, but there seem to be enough ships to warrant a "United States Navy" category (as well as existing categories for auxillary ships and naval officiers that seem ripe for condensation). Right now I'm just trying to get categories on everything, after that I'll bring up re-structuring large swaths of categories with the admin team. Regards, Aziraphale 18:42, 16 July 2007 (EDT) <-lives in a Yellow Submarine...
Scratch that, I've gone and added it. :p Two articles later was United States Fleet Forces Command, which put us over the top imo. So yes, please, add it to "United States Navy". Aziraphale 18:46, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Did that, but USN shows up in red. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 18:56, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, even with members in a category it shows red unless the category has a description written. I wrote a brief one, as I figure it's a pretty self-explanatory category. Anyway, red-linking is fixed! Aziraphale 19:05, 16 July 2007 (EDT) <-...a Yellow Submarine...
  • Thank you for undertaking this task, it is really a good example of cooperation, Aziraphale! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 19:59, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
Thanks and back 'atcha, no reason we can't ignore areas of disagreement and just get stuff done. The areas of disagreement will always be there for when we're bored. ;) Aziraphale 20:09, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
  • I'm old, so you just might have to remind me of those areas.  :p --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 20:13, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
We'll muddle through somehow... Aziraphale 20:18, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

So... question

Hi TK,

There was a category that already existed before I started my jaunt, "articles proposed for deletion", that I took as a sign and started adding to. Obviously my additions are my opinion only, but I've tried to keep any political / emotional judgment out of it and simply include stubby, transient, or otherwise strange (or imo pointless) articles. My question is: am I accomplishing anything by doing this? I'm realizing belatedly that there isn't necessarily any admin presence checking the category or doing anything with the articles in it. Thoughts? Aziraphale 17:59, 17 July 2007 (EDT) <-a librarian but not an orangutan...


Well, we are actually in the process of revising the handling of AFD. Your thoughts and a link to them, would be appreciated, and if you want to be the offical handler of the page, go for it! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 18:08, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Sure, I'll whip something up...
On another subject, if I were to point you towards deleted & protected articles (you know, like zombie jesus) I don't suppose I could interest you in editing them to contain a "category:deleted articles" or somesuch, just to make them go away from the uncategorized list? It's not a big deal, it just irks me to see them on the list after I've tried to deal with them. (Like I said, borderline OCD :p) Regards, Aziraphale 18:29, 17 July 2007 (EDT) <- Yeah you know me...
  • Certainly, would be my pleasure! I can get it done tonight. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 18:32, 17 July 2007 (EDT)


hehehe you're faster than I am. ;) I'm about to sign-off for the day, but I'll put something together for you starting tomorrow. There wouldn't be any rush, I don't expect I'll have the uncategorized finished off for another 2 weeks or so (they're going a little less than 300 per day). Thanks, though. :) Aziraphale 18:38, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Cool. Where abouts are you? UK? EU? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 18:39, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
Nope, Seattle. :p Just didn't think I'd be back on today... clearly I was wrong. *sigh* Aziraphale 22:02, 17 July 2007 (EDT) <-Sleepless...HA! I kill me...
  • So, you can have that list for me!  :P --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 22:05, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, I can't hear you over the steam-cleaner. LA LA LA LA LA!! Aziraphale 22:15, 17 July 2007 (EDT) <- LA LA LA LA LA!!

Zombie jesus was deleted and protected back in April. Sometime since then we've been turning such pages into (protected) redirects to Conservapedia:Deletedpage. Being a redirect prevents it showing up as a Random page, etc. and would also stop it showing in the Uncategorised pages list. So instead of putting a "deleted article" category on these pages, it would be better to turn them into redirects to Conservapedia:Deletedpage. Isn't that correct, TK? But this only applies to articles which new editors are likely to want to re-create. Otherwise, simple deletion would do. Philip J. Rayment 05:01, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

I would think so, Philip, especially with the changes made to it, format wise, which stops it from being seen in the list, I think it was? On that other matter we were discussing, Ed Poor had some thoughts, and I will share them with you via email. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 05:48, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
Ok, so if I'm following this correctly, I should still provide TK (or whoever, but he seems to be my contact admin on this) the deleted articles that are showing up as uncategorized, but he'll be doing some other voodoo than the voodoo I do to make them go away? Suits me. :) Regards, Aziraphale 10:50, 18 July 2007 (EDT) <-does a mean version of "Fever," too...

Talk:American Football Conference

Could you please see this page? I'm just curious as to the original source. (Similarly with National Football Conference, although I didn't put anything on that discussion page.) Jinkas 13:01, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Hard to remember, as it is such a minor article. However I dug deeper, and it seems I took the information from answers.com, and have made the appropriate citation. On second look, it appears answers.com is a Wikipedia "mirror". Arrgh! Please feel free to improve the article! If not, and your only motivation was to try and somehow call me out, embarass me, you have failed. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 14:06, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
My only motivation is to keep to the Conservapedia Commandments. My past changes demonstrate that I have begun to clean up information that shouldn't be here, as per the first commandment. I will be deleting the introductory paragraphs on American Football Conference and National Football Conference, as I have been instructed to do. Jinkas 14:09, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
  • So we are quite clear, adding something was a Wikipedia copy, when not everyone knows about "wiki mirrors" is disingenius. I will block you if you persist. Fix it, don't delete, and do not make unfounded personal attacks and slanders against others. Are you clear on this? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 14:18, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
My practice for an article copied from Wikipedia is to simply delete it, so that somebody can start again. Philip J. Rayment 20:16, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
  • And instead of emailing, you are posting this here, repeating a bogus charge for what reason? My source was from what I know know was a Wikipedia Mirror, which I didn't even know anything about until very recently. So the reason some editor removes the material and makes the charge it was plagiarized by a Site Admin is what?
The discussion is already here, I did not repeat any charge, bogus or otherwise (I merely pointed out what I do in situations like that being discussed here), and I haven't seen an editor making any charge of plagiarism, although perhaps I haven't seen the page on which such a charge was made. Philip J. Rayment 22:00, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Maybe you should have checked before quasi-valadating what the blocked user said, eh? Or maybe even emailed. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 22:06, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
Should have checked what? And what did I "quasi-validate"? Philip J. Rayment 22:39, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Please no longer post here. Thanks. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 22:51, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Would you please categorize...

...the article Essay:Boy Scouts Rout ACLU? As the protecting sysop I know you like to be the one contacted about any changes. I suggest the category "essay." Thanks! Aziraphale 13:09, 18 July 2007 (EDT) <- Ese...

Sorry for the new subject, but...

... I thought this comment might get lost if I appended it to our earlier conversation. ANYWAY. If you follow this link User_talk:Aziraphale/categories#The_Zombie_Jesus_Memorial_Hall_of_Deleted_Articles_to_be_Re-Directed you will find the list in progress of articles that need the redirect treatment that Philip described above. Feel free to strike through or otherwise mark articles that you deal with. Please don't delete them - I like to have a record of things. :) Aziraphale 16:50, 18 July 2007 (EDT) <-my carpets are beautiful, thanks for asking...

  • The voodoo we do, with articles to be deleted is delete them! Why else would they be candidates for deletion? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 16:54, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
He meant please don't delete the references to them in his list, not please do not delete the articles. Philip J. Rayment 19:34, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Thanks for being a mind reader, Philip...I am a failure there. Did I do the procedure correctly? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 19:45, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
Hey TK. Since Zombie Jesus and xxxx (now THERE'S a name for a punk rock band) are no longer in the uncategorized list, I'd say you were a rousing success. :D Thanks very much for taking the time... Aziraphale 20:29, 18 July 2007 (EDT) <-Time after time...

Per Our Conversation Last Night...

... I've created a new section in my category page for protected articles that need categorizing. Here it is: User:Aziraphale/categories#The_John_Schlafly_Memorial_Hall_of_Protected_Articles_That_Need_Categorizing. So far there's only the one article, so there's no rush. Next to each article I will list a suggestion, but feel free to categorize as you see fit. Thanks! Aziraphale 11:41, 19 July 2007 (EDT) <-round hole...

Funny (imo at least)

Dianetics has the deleted-and-protected template on it, and I have dutifully added it to my list. However, it is not actually protected. *grin* Oopsie... Aziraphale 12:28, 19 July 2007 (EDT) <-Daisy...

waterboarding

I ain't touchin' it. :p I left a comment in the discussion area, as that's appropriate, but since the categorization that immediately comes to mind for me is "torture," I'm leaving it alone. Please categorize as you see fit. Aziraphale 14:11, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

  • LOL...that was sooooo easy, I came up with three! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 15:20, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
That's why you're the heap-big sysop, chief. Aziraphale 15:23, 19 July 2007 (EDT) <-not a fat joke...
  • That would be Ed Poor or Geo...I only "work" here. ;-) --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 15:29, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

Unblocked

Ok, Andy lifted the IP block for me. Now almost everything seems to be in working order (my talk page is protected, though). I had some things I wanted to clear up before I started editing again:

  • What is the policy on {{fact}}, {{uncited}} and {{expand}}? I'm pretty sure all {{stub}} tags should be removed, as I saw an edit comment by Andy that indicated such, but I'm not sure about those three.
  • Is it ok to move large portions of questionable text to the talk page? (For instance see here). What about sections which, as written, do not fit in the article, but could be if someone put a lot of work into it? Would it be better to move that kind of section to the talk page until I or someone else finds time to put in all the work that needs done, or should I leave it on the article as (poorly) written?

Thanks, Jazzman831 16:58, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Sorry was out for a bit...I am signed into AIM and Yahoo now, and I think we chatted, but don't remember your user name! :( --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 17:14, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
Um...? We never chatted on aim, which is probably why you can't remember it :) We've only talked over email. Jazzman831 17:30, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
  • I emailed you, question away. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 18:39, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

E-mail

Aziraphale 19:37, 20 July 2007 (EDT) <- just like the cool kids!

Help template

Is there any special reason that this has been locked? I only ask as Philip J. Raiment always nags me if I haven't documented a template properly and this prevents me adding new stuff to the list. BrianCo 11:11, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

I've corresponded with TK on this, and it is now unlocked again. Philip J. Rayment 11:20, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
Philip, the nags wasn't meant in any nasty way, OK?  ;) BrianCo 11:26, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
You changed that just in time! I clicked the edit link to say "it 'was'?", and started typing that, when I saw that you had changed it! Philip J. Rayment 11:51, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
  • It would be helpful, BrianCo, if you would but do some checking before just creating templates and slapping them up. We prefer fewer, rather than more here, as you should be aware of. I don't want to stifle creativity, and would hate to ask that the wikimedia settings be changed to enable only admins be allowed access to do so. Perhaps just a note added as to which sysop approved the additions or the need you saw for them, when you make them? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 14:28, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

Edwin Meese

He needs to be sorted, but it's protected. Jazzman831 00:29, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

I jumped in and did it. Bohdan 00:50, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
Thanks Bohdan. I was kinda stuck in the middle of Harry Potter :) Jazzman831 12:20, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

How can you update/expand what is in the spam filter?

How can you update/expand what is in the spam filter? Conservative 14:04, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

  • The simple answer is, you cannot. Simply post on the Sysop page what it is you want, and why. That is the fastest/easiest way. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 14:15, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

Unlocking Adolf Hitler (again)

Hi TK, You locked the Hitler article, and I'd like to edit it. It still contains a quote by an Austrian economist that is out of context and unrelated to the rest of the paragraph it appears in. It can better be removed. Give me a hint if the article is unlocked. User:Order 23 July

  • You can discuss your reasons for wanting it changed, and why, on the articles discussion page, eh? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 03:27, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

I did at length with RobS. RobS has editing privileges, I don't. The statement in there is still bad style, but as long as Rob keeps it in there, and the locking Sysop won't enable an edit, I guess it will remain like it is. User:Order 24 July

Hi TK, it seems that you edited the Hitler article, today. Could you please give me opportunity to edit the article has I outlined before. It has been a few days since my last request, and it seems that in the mean time nobody had an objection to my suggested change. User:Order 29 July.

  • Well, I am not really inclined to open it unless RobS gives his okay. Did you check with him? Your ideological ideas that I read on the page seem pretty odd. Since I don't have a whole lot of experience in dealing with you, I am not at all confident in unlocking it for you. --Sysop-TK --Talk 2 Me 21:37, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

I edited before, check those edits, if you distrust me. The history will tell you that I had every time to fight hard to get a small incorrectness corrected, because my credentials were deemed insufficient, but once I managed to make a change, it typically got accepted without discussion. You might want to consider that as my credentials.

And what are my "ideological ideas" you object too, if I may ask? If you complaining about my attempt to keep ideology and Nazi apologetics out of this piece, feel free to join the discussion. But this seems just like one editor is tries to hold the hand over protecting over the hand of the others inappropriate edit. User:Order 29 July 13:45

  • I find any attempt to make it appear Nazi's are right-wing, abhorrent. Aside from that, get off the conspiracy jag when posting to me, okay. What in the article is apologetic of the Nazi's, and are you saying RobS added apologist content? What is the "inappropriate" edit? Please link me. Did you post on RobS's page, as I did, asking him to open it? --Sysop-TK --Talk 2 Me 00:07, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
Maybe he wants to compare Hitler to GWB? Liberals like doing that. I would be wary of unprotecting that article. Bohdan
  • Hahahaha! Yes, they do! I took Andy's precedent of unlocking for a Liberal. Nothing that cannot be undone. Did you get my email, Mr. Bohdan? I have some other items for you to see as well. --Sysop-TK --Talk 2 Me 00:16, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
I got it, but that stuff is beyond me. I think I understood the final point though. What else do you have? Bohdan 00:18, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Simply reply to the email, letting me know you got it, and asking about anything you don't understand. Surely you can spare the time from your pwnning elsewhere! --Sysop-TK --Talk 2 Me 00:21, 29 July 2007 (EDT)


OK, read the discussion page carefully, and you will see that I repeatedly say that it is PLAIN wrong to cast the situation in the 1930 in terms of current US politics. Repeatedly. Why is the only reaction you guys are able to produce seem to be the knee-jerk reaction that I must be a liberal, for claiming the accepted obvious fact that it were ordinary, white male germans who were commiting most Nazi crimes? So Bohadan, I challenge you to read the discussion page, and find a single instance where I compare GWB to Hitler. And also, please count the time that you made a valuable addition to this article, and the time I made an addition that is still in there. User:Order July 29 14:22

  • Well anything can be undone. Order, it is open. Let's see if your ideas pass muster. --Sysop-TK --Talk 2 Me 00:26, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
I sent the email for clarification. Wow, order certainly doesn't seem to have a sense of humor. Remind me never to joke with him again. Bohdan 00:30, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
The Thrid Reich is not really a laughing matter, and you should be careful to not cater to apologists. And I have the additional handicap, that Andy has prohibited me from ever making remarks with funny intentions again [6]. User:Order 29 July 14:50.

Problematic is the Hayek statement which is in there any relation to the rest of the article. Not, sure if it is intended by RobS, but proper context it reads like blaming socialists for the Nazi movement, and not the Nazis. This is historically in adequate, since it was exactly the anti-semitic and anti-communist groups that paved the way for Hitler. User:Order July 29

  • Well, RobS is correct, so far as it goes. Socialist were a big contributor to the Nazi movement. Leftist's always adopt that (sub)human reasoning. Dredging up junk from months ago, Order? I am not your enemy, not that I am aware of anyway. Unless you want to make me one. I suggest you un-clinch and lighten up some. --Sysop-TK --Talk 2 Me 01:45, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
Socialist weren't big contributors to the Nazi movement. As far as contributions go, the Nazi party got most from its members, often disillusioned WWI veterans, but also a fair share from industry and banks. But to be fair to banks and industry, they were just hedging their bets, and gave more to the conservative parties. When it come to ideology, the Nazi's copied indeed a fair bit from how the communists and socialists were organized. In some the means they used Nazi were "progressive" or "revolutionary" just as the socialists, and adopted similar strategies. But, that doesn't mean that they were socialists, nor that socialists were Nazis. Fact remains that the Nazi's were violently anti-socialist, as were their supporters. User:Order 29 July 17:55
  • I have no objection to unlocking Hitler, but the Hayek quote stays. I would encourage User:Order to review Economic planning and Fascism; right now Corporatism redirects to Fascism, but perhaps a seperate entry can be made for Corporatism. There are few cites and external internet sources on some of those pages, and I am in process right now of developing more.
We will also have to decide what to do with other terms, State Planned Capitalism for example, which perhaps can forge the link of leftists attempting to pin fasism as some sort of conservative, right-wing movement. This must be done in its historical context however, and not as some contemporary propagande ploy to impugn modern American conservativism as having some sort of facist roots or kinship, of course. RobS 14:39, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
Excuse me, if someone here tries to phrase everything in terms of modern American political categories then it is you. You stare like a scared rabbit at the Third Reich, and hope that no-one will blame you. But why should they? If you wouldn't repeat this "Don't blame me" all the time, it wouldn't cross my mind to blame you. If you think that there is any way to mistake your type of conservatism with nazi-ideology, I have to assume that you know better. I didn't think so; it is you who suggests this all the time.
It also seems that RobS ignores facts such as the open letter "Die Sozialisten verlassen die NSDAP" from 1930 by Otto Strasser, which marked the end of the socialist faction within the NSDAP, 3 years before the seizure of power. Sure, the Nazi introduced, especially in the run up to war a planned economy. But they respected private property (if it was owned by Germans), and industry did good business. All big powers at the time of WWII had planned economies, but only few were socialists. The Nazi didn't nationalize private companies, and when they took companies away from Jews, they sold them cheaply to Germans. I am not sure if you remember but in the 90s Americans demanded from many German companies to pay restitution, to slaves that were rented by companies from the Nazis. Companies that existed before, during, and after the Third Reich. User:Order 30 July.
  • I've been rereading The Roosevelt Myth the past few weeks; it seems Americans who quit thier jobs for instance, because of wage & price controls mandated by the economic planning board called the Office of Price Administration were called "fascists", and there are numerous examples of New Dealers doing this in every field.
And the relevance of what people in some remote American town called each other is? User:Order
I just left out a citation from Vice President Henry Wallace to Martin Dies of HUAC suggesting Dies should be on Hitler's payroll. RobS 00:55, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
And the relevance of what new dealers called other people is? User:Order 30 July, 15:15
  • 1930 ...marked the end of the socialist faction within the NSDAP
Simply not true. You will recall, it was that artistocractic faction (by aristocratic we mean "bourgeois," or to use its American/DNC equivalent, "the rich") led by Count Claus Philipp Maria Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg (sheesh, that's a filthy stinking rich uppercrust blueblood name if there ever was one...the "von" is a dead giveaway...) who tried to assassinate Hitler in 1944. (See Klemens von Klemperer or Heinz Höhne, Der Orden unter dem Totenkopf and others). The Socialist faction was alive and well in the purge that followed July 20 1944 attempt, and took revenge all these blue bloods and their families. And if you wish to pursue, I got plenty of evidence of the doctrine of class warfare at work throug the whole Nazi period.
Oh, there is a lot of class rhetoric in Nazi speech. No doubt about it. They distinguished wanted to distinguish by race. Their class rhetoric of course was understood to be racist. And just because the Nazi did kill Stauffenberg, doesn't mean that they were socialist. What kind of reasoning is this. User:Order 30 July, 15:15
  • ...Nazi didn't nationalize private companies...
Ever hear of Volkswagon? one of the great Nazi success stories, and still with us today. Do an internet search, you will see there is now some private talk and pressure being put upon Volkswagon to open its archives and examine some of the records from its beginnings, before it became a privately held stock organization. RobS 22:16, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
I have heard of Volkswagen. It wasn't privatized, it was founded by the Nazis. And it was indeed a government company. And was for a long time, even after WWII. But what does this prove? Nothing. US postal service is also government owned, while most European countries have privatized postal service. By you logic the US must be socialist. But, lets take a look at it from the other side, the side of privately owned companies. What about Siemens? What happened to Siemens? Krupp? AEG? IG Farben. They did great business, while according to your logic they operated in a socialist dictatorship. Can you guess how long these companies would have existed in any other socialist dictatorship of that time. Or did you know that during the great depression Banks were nationalized by the German government. And guess what the Nazis did? They reprivatized them. It is not just me who needs to get his facts checked. User:Order 30 July, 14:22
  • I quite agree. I know we both value Order's contributions, but it is possible for honest men to disagree on the evidence. Hopefully he will read a bit further and understand where we are coming from, and remember this is a Christian/Conservative friendly encyclopedia, and realize we are not striving for NPOV where Socialists, Communists, Nazi's and Facists are concerned. --Sysop-TK --Talk 2 Me 16:59, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

I can't see what is family friendly about confusing Nazi's with Communists and Socialists. I'd say you better know the ideologies you oppose. And did you really say that you don't want to NPOV when it comes to Nazis versus Socialists? I reckon that you don't want to pick sides. At least I hope so.

What I try to do is to read your and RobS entries on these matters through the eyes of a German neo-nazi, and if I read the old version, saying that the socialists killed democracy in the Weimar Republic, do you know what a German neo-nazi would say? He'd say: "Great, I knew that it were those Jewish socialist bastards who did it, and not true Germans; even the Americans say so in their encyclopedia." As Conservapedia I would be very careful to be NPOV when it comes to Nazis, because otherwise you might end up with friends, who are describing themselves as right-wing, but are anything but conservative. User:Order 30 July.

Ok, so this question comes down describing the "left-wing" as "enlightened" again, and "right-wing" as wanting to preserve the existing order. Schlesinger himself says the Nazi's did not wish to preserve the existing order (beginning with the Versailles Treaty, one would suppose) and the Nazi's were indeed revolutionary advocates for change. You say, "better know the ideologies you oppose," and "you might end up with friends, who are describing themselves as right-wing, but are anything but..."; this begs the question again, is there such a thing as an atheist conservative? Yes, possibly. Perhaps 24% of Americans who describe themselves as "conservatives" may call themselves "rational conservatives" to differentiate themselves from the so-called "Christian Right," but I don't see a large movement of skinheads, kkk types and other assorted advocates of genocide among them (this 24% would consititute no more than about 7 or 8 percent of the voting age population anyway, is perhpas upper income and well educated, some gay Republicans probably even belong to this group). The question you raise of brainwashed youth in modern Germany is nothing new; it's been going for probably a century or century and half now, and this has always been the danger that avowed leftists took on when they decided to smear anyone who doesn't agree with thier views as a "fascist", that one day people may actually become enlightened, open thier eyes, and see the leftists have done little more than promote lies, God knows what only for. There truelly is a limit to how much abuse a person can take. RobS 22:46, 29 July 2007 (EDT)


First, you might want to read what I said, rather than make stuff up. Where do I say that "left-wing" equals "enlightened"?

Then, I said repeatedly, even on this page, that the Nazi considered themselves to be "revolutionary". And I said repeatedly that is a folly to apply modern US political schemes to the situation of Germany in the 1930s. Or US divisions from the cold war. So, what do we argue about? All I say is that the Nazis weren't socialist. You conclude, that they I therefore say that must have been conservative. But that is your own interpretation. Listen, for someone who argues that the political spectrum theory is flawed, I am amazed that you argue like there exist only one political dimension, on one side socialism, and on the other end conservatism.

When I said that you should be careful that you don't raise the impression of Nazi apologetic, I meant exactly that. I didn't say that you are a Neo-nazi, but that your arguments can and will be mistaken by Neo-nazis, if you continue to blame socialists for the Third Reich. And I said already a few times that you can't compare modern conservatism in the US with the Nazis. You keep denying something which I never accused you of. User:Order 30 July, 15:13

request

Andy, wants me to make hate crime a top search engine entry. To do that I need to raise the Google ranking of the homosexuality article. The homosexuality article is ranked #12 by http://www.google.com . I want to put it it on the front page of Google so it is ranked amoung the top 10. Pics definitely help. Would you mind downloading some pics for me. Conservative 16:16, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

  • No problem. I assume you know how to place them on the page? Just give me the list, email them if you want. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 16:20, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
I will send you a page with all the pics when I have them all assembled. However, I have one that was sent me that is in a email. I will email that to you. Please place that pic in the Louis Sheldon article. Thank you. Conservative 16:22, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Just checking back....I never did get an email from you about the pictures. --Sysop-TK --Talk 2 Me 00:08, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

My banning

TK, can you please direct me to which of the Conservapedia_Commandments I violated in order to justify my banning? "Being weird" is not mentioned at all in the Commandments, and "being argumentative" is not only not banned, it's a necessary part of forming a quality article. If we can't discuss things, this encyclopedia might as well not be an open-edit source, because it will encourage monolithic advocacy for one wing of one range of opinion. Inserting citation tags into articles where opinions are presented as facts is not a violation of any commandment. I'm standing up for the quality of this encyclopedia, and you're saying that these opinions being presented as facts do not need to be supported. That IS a violation of a Commandment--#5. As an ex-SYSOP (and the ONLY reason my status was removed was because I was inactive for a few months), I'd expect to be treated with a bit more jurisprudence. If you indeed banned me for a reason other than the Commandments, you also have violated the Sysop Pledge. Template:Sysop pledge

Thank you. --John 16:25, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

And I will, in deference to your position as a SYSOP, refrain from editing until you reply to me here. --John 16:27, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
  • I blocked you for all of ten minutes, John. You have been rolling around CP today, slapping templates onto anything you personally disagree with, and not just disagreeing, but being rather snide about it as well. What is up with that? And, BTW, obviously you haven't read the CP Guidelines, which are adjunct to the Commandments. Otherwise you wouldn't have pasted that pledge deal here, since it was me who changed it from what it was before. Jeeze! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 16:30, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

You don't have the right to block me for the reasons you specified. I'd also direct you back to your high horse before you proceed: "Unlike Wikipedia, we do not block for purely ideological reasons." --John 16:42, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

  • No but I can block for someone being a argumentative jerk, John. I suggest you go cool down, and email me later, if you wish, or get me on AIM. I don't suggest that you continue to argue with me here. Enjoy your afternoon! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 16:45, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Here are the pics you said you would download for me

Here are the pics you said you would download for me: http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Conservative/pictures4populararticle

Did you get the email with the Louis Sheldon picture?

Conservative 17:02, 23 July 2007 (EDT)


I forgot to mention that I would like you to put the pics on my user discussion page so that way, I would get a notice that they arrived. Conservative 17:19, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Sorry for the delay...stupid meetings! I have placed it on the article. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 20:44, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
Thanks. No problem. Are you going to download these pics to my user page? I am speaking of these pics located here: http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Conservative/pictures4populararticle Conservative 20:57, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
  • I received one email from you, along with the request about Sheldon. You didn't mention any others. I will go look. The Sheldon pic is now on the article page! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 21:54, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Per Conservapedia:User rights...

... I'm approaching "a sysop who is familiar with [my] work," in hopes that you will "recommend to a bureaucrat that [I] be granted additional rights." I just want after-hours editing, no uploading or admin privileges. I seem to lose access around 10 or so my time, and sometimes I'm online later than that. No hard feelings if I don't qualify, but I thought I'd ask. :D Aziraphale 00:19, 24 July 2007 (EDT) <-up past his bedtime...

  • Better by email, but these kinds of posts seem to be your "way". I have told Andy I don't think you pose any risk editing at night. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 00:29, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, me and Sinatra are like "that." Thanks for passing along the request. :) Aziraphale 00:35, 24 July 2007 (EDT) <-o/~Regrets, I've had a few... o/~
Hey neat, thanks! :) I set this personal goal to get them under a thousand tonight, but I wasn't going to make it. But NOW, muaahahaha... Aziraphale 01:02, 24 July 2007 (EDT) <-more "Robot Chicken" than "Frankenstein"...
  • Just let me know if you have more work for me. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 01:04, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
Er, whoops! My mistake, I thought you were watching my categories page and just hadn't been in the mood to work on it. :/ Sorry about that! I do, in fact, have more work - deleted articles to be redirected, protected articles to be categorized, AND misspelled article names. Boring stuff, I know; thanks for your help! Aziraphale 01:10, 24 July 2007 (EDT) <-starting to think his name is "tilde"...
  • Link? Can I get there from your user/talk page? Not all that organized here, you know...but don't let on! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 01:14, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
[[7]] Thanks again, seriously - I may run on at (extreme) length, but I really do appreciate you helping to burnish and buff the categorization.
Speaking of which, it really does look like we'll be done with the easy (ACK!) part of this by the end of the week. After everything has a category on it, the deep-cleaning portion begins: checking for category accuracy and bringing some order to the category list. FUN times. :p Anyway, that will definitely require more sysop input, since large swaths of categories will be transformed.
Just to give you one example.. oh ok, it's probably the BIGGEST example, take a look at the various "religion," "Bible," and "Biblical" categories. A lot of duplicates, a lot of over-generalities... Still, should be fun. :) Aziraphale 01:27, 24 July 2007 (EDT) <-categorically insane...
  • Yes, and now, apparently, "Maintenance" has sub-categories! I mean! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 01:32, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
I didn't do that one! I promise! *whine whine whine*
Seriously, though, that was already there when I started. Granted, I've quintupled the size of it ;), but that's definitely one that will get moved around. Or, hopefully, just emptied out so it won't exist anymore. :D Aziraphale 01:35, 24 July 2007 (EDT) <-a boy can dream, can't he?
  • Mr. Wiki, Ed Poor, my alter-ego, wants to keep maintenance, however isn't averse to doing away with sub categories for it. Sometimes too much specialization isn't helpful. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 01:40, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
Y'all want "maintenance," obviously you can have it. "conservapedia maintenance" might make more sense, but...meh. As for the subcategory, as it stands there's already an "AFD" category, but since that seems to be a semi-official category I appropriated the "articles proposed for deletion" category for my own use. Once AFDs are straightened out I'll just use that one.
And yes, I know you asked for my opinion on that a week or so ago.. I've been on a roll with this thing, figured I'd keep at it. ;) Aziraphale 01:45, 24 July 2007 (EDT) <-master of winks...
  • Cool by me. AFD needs to be a place that will show proposed articles for deletion, have a place for comments, and thats it. We will have no votes, as here me or my alter ego, will decide, based upon input from our fellow sysops. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 01:49, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
Sounds about right to me. I'd probably have 3 admin types (you, Ed, and whoever else) to have simple yes-no votes privately, after allowing 2-3 days for comments from people. But yeah, just decide them and move on. 99% are going to be easy-peasy ones.
Anyway, CP's at 992 un-categorized articles, so me = going to bed. See you later. Aziraphale 02:04, 24 July 2007 (EDT) <-alligator...
  • See? I do the impossible, and get you editing imdediately, and what do you do? Go to bed! For what you are being paid, I should think an all-nighter was in order! :p --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 03:08, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
*thpt* I did ~175 after the usual black-out time. Slave-driver! Aziraphale 10:26, 24 July 2007 (EDT) <-comin' for to carry me hooooooomme...

Contacting You

Is there a place I can get your e-mail address? Stryker 08:27, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

In there "toolbox" in the left column of this page, there is a link to "E-mail this user". Philip J. Rayment 08:36, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
Thanks Philip (how did I miss that one?!?!?) (edit to add: Since my userpage is locked, I'm adding here that I'm in the process of confirming my e-mail account, so there might be a short delay) Stryker 11:50, 24 July 2007 (EDT)


Stereotype

Could you unblock the article? It's been three months. Maestro 00:28, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Perhaps you are confused as to why we lock articles? Some will never be "open" in the WP sense of the word. Our procedure here, is to post on the articles talk page with what you want to change, for locked articles. Do you have something in mind you believe needs to be changed or added? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 01:10, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
  • For starters, there's not a single reference. I thought that was a big CP no no. Maestro 18:07, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Margaret Sanger protection

Could you please unprotect Margaret Sanger? I didn't even see the one user replacing the category; it was an edit conflict where he reverted my rewrite of the lead for unspecified reasons. I even commented on the talk page on the subject of the category.

There's no real potential for an edit war, here, as I didn't intend to revert the removal of the category, but I'm curious why we're lumping her in with people who actually campaign about abortion or participated in some sort of debate about it. AFAICT, she subscribed to the then-universal sentiment that abortion was an unqualified evil, justified only to protect the life of a mother. AManInBlack 01:12, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

On top of that, you protected the version that says she "publically discoursed for[...]the extermination of the African Race," something the references cited doesn't support. I was under the impression she wanted to marginalized and sterilize southern and eastern European immigrants, but I was looking to see if I could find some more references. AManInBlack 01:15, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

I will reopen it, but do not remove categories placed by Administrators, okay? I expect you to work well with PheasantHunter, you are both very bright, and capable of it. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 01:22, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Could you help me out on the talk page, if you're backing the cat by fiat? I'm having trouble finding anything useful about Sanger's view on abortion, pro or con. Most of her mentions of abortion are in passing (and along the lines of "birth control will obsolete abortion"), and I'd be interested in hearing the opinion of anyone who's already done some research in the area. AManInBlack 01:30, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Categories

I think it is fine for me. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 17:25, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Thank you my friend! Email me any thoughts or suggestions you might have. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 17:54, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Removing articles

Can you remove the articles created by hypnotoad starting with family values. I blocked him, but I can't remove articles. Thanks! Learn together 23:55, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Same with Accuracy in Media Learn together 00:12, 26 July 2007 (EDT)


emailed regarding categories

Aziraphale 10:39, 26 July 2007 (EDT) <- meet the news Az, same as the old Az...

  • Responded, some time ago! :p --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 18:14, 26 July 2007 (EDT)


question

Robs and I have gotten the homosexuality article to where it is consistently getting 800 views a day. We want to keep the momentum going and he is working on something now.

Are you able to download two pics right now or are you busy? Conservative 15:07, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

I can do that! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 15:13, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Nevermind, i figured out how to upload oictures

Nevermind, i figured out how to upload pictures. Thanks anyways. Conservative 15:35, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

  • HOORAY! I told you if I can do it, anyone can! ;-) --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 15:37, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Crop circle

Just like that? Withpout waiting the end of the discussion that is in process! --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 15:36, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Yes, my friend, just like that. Communication, email is the key, as I have said many times. You also have access, like me and everyone else, to the Sysop posting area. I suggest you at least be willing to communicate there as much as you do on talk pages, and that will go a long ways in improving communication. Fair enough? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 15:40, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
Fine, you may go ahead. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 15:44, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Re:Crop Circles Comment

 :) I can relate to him...I'm sure you can too! And about the whole crop circles article...obviously he was trying to write something and he was having a hard time writing it the way he was thinking it...he changed it like 5 times before "finalizing" it. Just ask him what he wanted to say, and try writing it for him! Then you'll both be happy :) DeborahB. 00:01, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Deb...it wasn't me who edited it, it was DanH! I did email Joaquin, offering to help, and saying he could post his concerns in the sysop area, but he never responded. In any event, I am sure Andy would agree, it is better to keep criticisms and such of other sysops in the private area, or in email. On another matter, I am glad you and everyone else finally got the scores! You have a great weekend! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 00:08, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Oh...sorry for the mess-up! And I wasn't critizing you personally, or actually any of the Sysops, for that matter...just relating to him and agreeing with him. And yes, I'm glad I finally got the scores too! Now I can stop annoying people and being curious (wait...competitive :) DeborahB. 00:15, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Citation Template

Replied on my talk page EQ 23:44, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

Email

FYI, I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 14:27, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Thanks for the notification. It was received. --Sysop-TK --Talk 2 Me 15:15, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
I haven't recieved a reply email and you don't seem to have acted on the email. If you don't intend to unblock the user in question I'd appreciate being given some further explanation. JoshuaZ 15:27, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
  • This isn't WP. You are not entitled to any. Godspeed. --Sysop-TK --Talk 2 Me 15:32, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
Clarification: I didn't say I was "entitled" to any, I said I appreciate an explanation. However, your comment makes clear that you aren't interested in giving one, so never mind. JoshuaZ 15:37, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
  • We do not give explanations to people whom you described in your email as totally unknown to you, anymore than the police in your city would release information to someone walking in from the street, or a corporation would give information on its employees to co-workers. Your posts here are tantamount to a set-up, introducing something not even addressed, namely I was not interested in giving you a response, trying to make a negative attached to me. You wrote me by email, which was only read by me less than 30 minutes ago, and I always respond to every email I receive. Further involvement by you, in a matter regarding another editor here, that you are not involved with, will result in you being blocked. Do not mistake praise for helping from Andy as some kind of exemption. I have never heard from the editor involved, by the way. Interesting. --Sysop-TK --Talk 2 Me 15:46, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Online

Are you online right now? DanH 23:11, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

IM

Can you jump on AIM quickly? Jinkas 14:16, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

I know how to fix the template. Jump on IM and I'll tell you. Jinkas 14:17, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

I am online on AIM. --Sysop-TK --Talk 2 Me 14:18, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

Nat King Cole

TK, could you unprotect this article. It is hardly a controversial topic and it needs categorizing. BrianCo 17:25, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

  • It was protected by a Sysop due to vandalism, so it was protected for good reason. I won't make a judgement that it wasn't important to do so, because it was in my opinion. I am fairly certain it just fell through the cracks, and the Sysop just forgot to unlock it. In in event, it is now unlocked.  :-) -- --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 18:08, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, I didn't mean to impugn anyone's judgement. BrianCo 18:28, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

 ?

TK, a.... vandal? It can't be true!! I reverted your pwn. Bohdan 18:08, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Hey, it looks like your signature got mauled. Bohdan 18:19, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

New Signature

Just thought I'd commeyour new nt on signature...cool! But of course now I have to get one, too, because I'm competitive and you can't have what I don't. Lol :) But I have to ask...how do you get those different letters on your computer? Do you have a special word program or something, or can you do it on any computer? Thanks! DeborahB. 20:06, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Other sites have them ;-) CP hasn't enabled the language and symbol character sets yet. :-( If you want the same name, perhaps I can fix you up with some to choose from? You could email me through the board, or use my aim email: exculpatory1@aim.com --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 20:13, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
WOW!! Thanks a lot!!! I'll play around with them for a while...see what I can come up with...you can make one for me too, and maybe I'll use that after I'm tired of thinking of my own :) DeborahB. 21:56, 31 July 2007 (EDT)\

Ah!!! I can't get my "talk" link to work on my signature!!! It's very aggravating...any idea why? DeborahB. 18:36, 1 August 2007 (EDT)


  • Took mine a day to work! And the color is "iffy". It's all Hoji's fault!! Let's get him! :p --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 20:41, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
Deborah, excuse me for addressing you here but your talk page is locked and you don't have email enabled. I think you may be caught by the "Talk Page Gotcha" - if you are trying out your signature on your talk page the link will never work. You have to do it from another page. Hope this helps. BrianCo 02:55, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Creation and evolution compared

Hi TK, I don't know what the point of this article is, but you're involved in some fashion - would you mind categorizing please? Thank-ee! Aziraphale 12:25, 1 August 2007 (EDT) <-waka waka...

Mainstream Media

OK, I saw that coming. I can't agree that locking the page is the correct way forward. I removed none of your content, greatly improved the article with references, gave a little balance without opinion, delinked an acronym for the term, and yet you changed it to suit yourself and locked it? I juust spent an hour working to improve the article! Please explain your motivation. BrianRobertson 15:05, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

  • As you were warned by another Sysop, we do not allow editors, especially new ones, to decide what is re-directed, and what is re-named, and we especially don't allow new editors to take the work of an Administrator and gut it. What wiki have you used that does allow that? --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 15:07, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

I was not warned by anyone, and Crocoite agrees that MSM, being simply an acronym of Mainstream Media, should be a redirect. Would USAF not be a redirect to US Air Force? BrianRobertson 15:10, 2 August 2007 (EDT)


Inquiry about redirecting rule

Hi, may I ask why permission is needed to redirect a page? Editors DO have a redirect button (or at least I do). I know that it could be controversial in some instances, but most redirects I've come across are simple edits designed to prevent confusion, like Schroedinger's Cat --> Schrodinger's Cat and James Clerk Maxwell --> James Maxwell. Besides, it seems like editors could resolve anything that comes up themselves, without adding another layer of bureaucracy. Also, the sysops wouldn't be bothered with as many inane things to do.--Bayes 15:11, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

  • Re-directing removes the talk page comments and editing history from view, and so we do prefer, in most cases to simply move the page to the new one, so the history is not lost. Surely you are not arguing that we shouldn't be as transparent as possible here? Surely you cannot be arguing in favor of hundreds of re-directs being added to this wiki monthly! Yes, most editors, such as yourself, have the maturity and common sense to know when an article needs to be moved. But not all do, right? And we do have a high degree of vandalism and parodist working the site, and that is why, mostly for your own protection, to document such things, we ask that you involve a sysop. Now, for a self-created (and for example mis-spelled title) you could re-direct. Then ask an Admin to delete the other. But wouldn't you rather keep the entire editing history of your creation, and simply have it moved? --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 16:00, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
Ah, I see. I didn't realize history was affected. Thanks for clarifying!--Bayes 16:04, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
  • No problem. Moving an article (and its discussion page) to a new page keeps intact all of its editing history. Thanks for all your valuable contributions! --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 16:23, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

And believe it or not TK, I too greatly appreciate your clarification, and now I understand. It would have been good to know this right away. Can you help me put back these histories into the article, or do you want to redo the redirect? BrianRobertson 16:12, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Redirects of articles should be relatively rare, and becoming more uncommon all the time. Now we have a tendency to catch them quickly when they're first created. Learn together 16:20, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Brian, you wear me out with your hyper-frenetic posting! Please, pick just one page to converse on (your choice!) and let me know here where that might be. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 16:24, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
-) I'll do my best! BrianRobertson 16:33, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Page Move Request

There is a request Talk:Henry II for some kind of page move that I don't know how to handle. It might require a disambiguation page. Bohdan 01:28, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

I am seeing no page move request! Of what are you talking of? --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 00:28, 4 August 2007 (EDT)
I figured he wanted the article itself named "Henry II of England" to avoid confusion. Bohdan 00:32, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

Ahhh! Well some are always confused, eh? --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 00:33, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

Too many, I fear. Bohdan 00:36, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

Thanks

Thanks for unblocking, sorry if I was rude in the email.... I was just shocked to be blocked when I'd hardly made any edits even!! I see where you were led to it by the IP situation.... Pandeism 22:07, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

Question

I noticed that your last edit had small references. I have also seen that on a few articles, mainly ones with many references. Is that preffered? I haven't checked the manual of style yet. I have seen quite a few articles with many links and references, should they be made small? Bohdan 00:11, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

  • Yes, especially where the references/links whatever are approaching the size of the article itself! It is a more "clean" look for the page, and in many cases, like "McCarthy" cuts the scrolling in half! It is also something approved by you know who. ;-) --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 00:20, 4 August 2007 (EDT)
It seems like a good idea. Bohdan 00:26, 4 August 2007 (EDT)
  • In that case, the cars have been called back, and are no longer outside. A wise choice, comrade! --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 00:27, 4 August 2007 (EDT)
Good heavens. It's about time. He has got to go after Garry Kasparov. Bohdan 00:31, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

Kasparov! He is traitor! It is luck for him the Secret Police are now no more in Democratic Russia, no? --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 00:34, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

Temporary unlocking

TK could you unlock the following pages so that I can add the 2008 Presidential election nav box?

Fred_Thompson
Hillary_Rodham_Clinton
John_McCain
Barack_Obama

Thanks, BrianCo 15:40, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

  • Done. Thompson, BTW, is not a declared candidate, and should not be included yet. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 16:26, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

Birdses

Would you kindly explain what you mean by "foul language"? And why didn't Terry himself respond? Does he perhaps think badly of me for whatever reason it is that you said (which I don't even know) ScorpionVote for Pedro 18:38, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

  • Scorpion, I am watching well over 1200 pages. Please send me an email, through the board, or IM me, and let me know what it is you are posting about, okay? Sorry for the non-memory, but that is part of the aging process, lol. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 19:16, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
You said on User talk:TerryH that I need to watch my foul language. What on earth are you talking about? (What's your IM address, BTW?) ScorpionVote for Pedro 16:28, 6 August 2007 (EDT)
  • The S_B part. Some are very particular about cursing, especially my namesake. Wasn't looking to be stung!  :p --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 16:56, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

Template locking

Hi TK,

I was wondering if you could temporary unlock the NBC Nightly News anchors template? I want to fix the order, color, and the link on the header. Also, this template can now be locked now.

Thanks,--Tash 15:25, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

TK, these templates are navboxes not infoboxes. BrianCo 16:23, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

Page Move

Hey, TK. Could you move the page Cellulosic Ethanol to Cellulosic ethanol for me? Silly me got excited and capitalized it. Thanks Jazzman831 14:56, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

Errrr *runs to check various pages of the site*
I didn't know articles were supposed to be upper case. I could have sworn I saw a sysop somewhere moving a page to the lower case version. And I can't find an official word one way or the other. Now I'm officially going crazy! Jazzman831 16:52, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
  • We adopted the American custom in this case, not the global one. I know its harder with technical things, as Ed Poor pointed out once. I think I posted about Caps on your page, one of them? Heck, I can't remember! :p --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 16:53, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
Meh, I don't remember anymore either, but I don't think you ever told me that. It's ok, because I like it better with all caps. It really sets off the OCD when I see it the "global" (no caps) way! Jazzman831 17:02, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
The reason that lower case is preferred is that the wiki software will handle it better. This way the page cellulosic ethanol would also be linked without having to do some funky wiki tricks such as [[Cellulosic Ethanol|cellulosic ethanol]] to get the proper capitalization within a sentence. The only reason to have it in the style it is now would be if it was a proper noun and would always be linked that way. --Rutm 18:05, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

Sysop namespace

Just so you know, normal users can read the sysop namespace by using specific mediawiki features. You might want to move your private deliberations off wiki, especially when posting checkuser data like you did at Sysop:User blocks#Block. NiGHT 21:15, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

  • Well, all that is important is that the intent to keep them private was there. If vandals and terrorists wish to exploit the Wikimedia software, that isn't our doing, nor does it make what they do moral, right? And if someone knows about that exploit, and alerts others to it, perhaps they should also be communicating what it is exactly, and perhaps offering a "fix". At least that's my opinion. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 21:34, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

Abbrevs.

Sorry our conversation got cut off. What about US and U.S. and United States, again? --Ed Poor Talk 05:00, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

IM

Please see the recent IM message that I sent you. Thanks. Learn together 16:27, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

Brent Hartinger

He's a fine author and a personal friend. Some of his books are about homosexuality. Others are not. If you feel this is important, feel free to mention it in the article. Again, this is your site, not mine. Maestro 17:19, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

Yippie aye yo ki yay! The number one search engine in the United States ranks our theory of evolution article #5 out of all articles written on that subject

I just found out that the number one search engine in the United States ranks the Conservapedia Theory of evolution article #5 out of about 26 Million articles written on that subject. That is why the article is likely getting the traffic it is now getting.

Here is some background:

"Yahoo is considered the number one search engine above all other search engines. Yahoo search queries make up approximately 28% of all search engine traffic. And just in raw traffic reported by Alexa rankings, Yahoo! demolishes competitors such as Google and MSN." taken from : http://www.seochat.com/c/a/Yahoo-Optimization-Help/Search-Engines-and-Algorithms-Optimizing-for-Yahoo-Search-and-AltaVista/

I found out from Google Ad Words that the phrase "theory of evolution" is about the most popular term to find information about that subject. It is way more popular than the word "evolution". Here is www.google.com ad words: https://adwords.google.com/select/KeywordToolExternal

As you can see can see Yahoo ranks our "Theory of evolution" article #5: http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=theory+of+evolution&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

Conservative 18:45, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

I responded to your last post on my discussion page.

I responded to your last post on my discussion page.Conservative 19:58, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

User:Order

I made my point, and I defer to your superior wisdom. ;-) --Ed Poor Talk 20:13, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

  • LOL...sorry, as your spokesperson, I am most certainly culpable of poor communication! :p --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 20:48, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

Title

Could you please capitalize the "straw poll" in the title of the Iowa Straw Pollarticle and also redirect Ames Straw Poll to the Iowa Straw Poll article, its named both. Thanks, ----Tash 21:02, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

  • Sorry, Tash, I am not finding an article with the title Ames Straw Poll. I did however, create the Iowa Straw Poll with caps, and redirect the former one. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 21:38, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
Thanks!--Tash 21:47, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

Global warming

Hi, TK. Please see my comments at Talk:Politics of global warming. I thought over what you said and made an outline of a plan. --Ed Poor Talk 09:16, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

My article

  • Mike, I restored the article, please edit and follow the guidelines I inserted, okay? BTW, your email, you must check the boxes on your preference page as well as enter your email address. Then you must respond to the confirmation email.  ;-) --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 14:31, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Terri Schiavo edit

TK, I reviewed the Manual of Style, and I'm not clear how my edit didn't meet the guidelines. Can you give me some more detail as to why the inclusion of Carla Iyer's affidavit wasn't acceptable? SSchultz 21:14, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

  • I was speaking of the website that you included as a source. Please do not obfuscate here and say it was about something else, okay? --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 21:22, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
I'm not meaning to 'obfuscate', I just didn't see anything on the manual of style page to suggest that a particular website would be unacceptable, provided that the website is family friendly? How about this copy of the affidavit from Renew America [9]? Here's a newsmax article discussing it as well [10], and a wnd article [11]. Would these match up better with the CP Manual? SSchultz 21:29, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
  • NewsMax is an acceptable source compared to religious group's posting board, yes. Sorry for the confusion. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 21:42, 12 August 2007 (EDT)


Here is your chance....

The people at RW don't like the Conservapedia material in regards to liberalism, homosexuality, and atheism as can be seen on their article on Conservapedia. I enhanced the article on atheism today and removed the uncited material. Now the article on atheism needs to be expanded as the uncited material was removed. Here is your chance to be more hated by RW than me. I suggest atheism and ethics as a new section. I also think the atheism and communism section should be expanded to mention Stalin and Mao. Also the atheistic persecution of Christians and other theists should be mentioned and cited. I am also sending this message to RobS. Conservative 19:58, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

I also recommended some additional improvements to the atheism article at: Talk:Atheism. Conservative 20:22, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

Horizontal CSS

Hey TK, thanks for the message I brought this fairly innocuous proposal up on the main page's talk with no response - so given the ease and lack of impact from it, I've (as you might have seen) been asking around for users to edit MediaWiki:Common.css or MediaWiki:Conserv.css to add a following class. --Iduan 00:16, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

/* Style for horizontal UL lists */
.horizontal ul {
  padding: 0;
  margin: 0;
}
 
.horizontal li { 
  padding: 0 0.6em 0 0.4em;
  display: inline;
  border-right: 1px solid;
}
 
.horizontal li:last-child {
  border-right: none;
  padding-right: 0;
}
TK - have you had a chance to add this yet?--Iduan 10:43, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

Delete and Protect

[[12]] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Learn together (talk)

Wait what - no I didn't do that.--Iduan 12:46, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

According to the diff it was User:Learn together.--Iduan 12:50, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

  • If you have AIM, jump on it. My SN is on user page, top. If not, I will email u. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 12:56, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

Whoops! Sorry all, in my haste I didn't "sign" my work ;-) Learn together 13:13, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

TK, re: template

I posted a reply in regards to the iduan template on my discussion page. Conservative 15:16, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

HPC

Why, exactly, was User:HPC blocked? He only made one edit, which, as far as I can tell, violated no rules. I don't mean to be rude, I'm just wondering. Masterbratac 17:59, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

  • Was he your sock? Hmmm..I think I better do some digging! Thanks for alerting me. Bless you, Godspeed! --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 18:04, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

I'm not entirely certain what you mean by "email link is required." My e-mail address is in my profile, and other than that, I can't think of anything else you might mean. Clarification, please? Masterbratac 18:41, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

  • Aside from putting in your email address, one needs to actually check the boxes lower and to the right, that enables email from users/admins. ;-) But what about HPC? Is that your Cousin? --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 19:09, 14 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Nope. I don't know him/her, at least as far as I know. Masterbratac 22:15, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

uncited template placement

TK, I am glad you are using the uncited template. However, I don't think putting them at the bottom of articles is their most effective use. They may not even be noticed by people. Secondly, if I was a "unciting offender" I don't believe putting the template at the bottom of my creation would give me as much impetus to cite the article as if the template were at the top. Also, if a person likes a topic if they see the template on top of the article they may feel a stronger urge to cite the article for the offending person or parties. Conservative 19:04, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

  • Sorry, but the template clutter has always been a big concern. You know the proper place to discuss these things now, right? Please avail yourself of it, ok? --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 19:10, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

Possible vandal

Could you check out the recent changes to the Hawaii article? It seems like there's too much emphasis on "white American" vs. "American"... could he be one of those "get off our island you evil white invaders" crowd? Thanks. Jazzman831 21:25, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

  • I don't see a problem with the most recent editor's edits...but I do agree it needs some work, and your point about "White America" is well taken. Fix it! --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 21:27, 14 August 2007 (EDT)
Ok, thanks. I couldn't really tell if it was an issue or not, so I wanted a second opinion. Off to make some changes! Jazzman831 21:28, 14 August 2007 (EDT)
Heh, that makes my job easier! *pats hands clean* Jazzman831 21:36, 14 August 2007 (EDT)
  • It does? Where are the pretty pictures? Where are the statistics? GET TO WORK!! :P --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 21:41, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

Vandalism

Good job on ridding off the newest vandals, but I must ask you, why do you have to refer to them as "subhuman"? Those ideologies are inherent to Nazism and Hitler, and I would expect it at Metapedia, not here at Conservapedia!-Tir

  • Well, that I would suppose is all in a persons mind, their own personal interpretation. Around here it is sort of a inside joke, about people who pass themselves off as "human" in a rather ostentatious manner, but are really full of hate and deceit. They spend their entire time online making fun of others, plotting to deny the basic right of self-expression to others, and trumpeting their so-called superiority. You know, like socks and trolls do. The (sub) is to let them know they are anything but human! --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 22:12, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found
Personal tools