User talk:CPAdmin1

From Conservapedia

(Redirected from User talk:TimSvendsen)
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to CPAdmin1's talk page
Post your message below
Archives
1
2
3
4

Contents

Talk

Pyrenees deletion

Any reason for this deletion? Ajkgordon 12:08, 4 February 2008 (EST)

Do you have any reason for putting it in? It seems to be a questionable statement to me. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote for President 12:22, 4 February 2008 (EST)

Any reason? I thought this was an encyclopaedia. It's knowledge and is one of the defining characteristics of the Pyrenees - they are old but look young and this is the reason why, i.e. hard granite and little glaciation. The Alps are comparatively young but are worn and therefore look older. It's interesting. Ajkgordon 12:27, 4 February 2008 (EST)
What proof is there for the Pyrenees being older? How old are they? How are they supposed to have formed? --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote for President 15:03, 4 February 2008 (EST)
Ah, this is a YEC thing, right? I can't argue against religious beliefs so I won't. Suffice it to say that geologists have plenty of evidence that the Pyrenees are older than the Alps but I doubt that would convince you. Normally in these cases on this site, such as articles on cosmology or the sun, the orthodox scientific viewpoint is given as much space as the YEC viewpoint. Rather than simply deleting the line about the Pyrenees being older, you should give the alternative YEC view. If you want sources, then Google "Geology Pyrenees age Alps" and have a read. It might not fit your theology but it demonstrates the accepted geologists' consensus. Ajkgordon 16:18, 4 February 2008 (EST)
Yeah, you could call it a "YEC thing". Why don't you find a source, and cite it, saying something like, "many geologists believe..." I don't have a problem with that. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote for President 16:34, 4 February 2008 (EST)
Thanks. Done. Ajkgordon 16:51, 4 February 2008 (EST)

Talk Page

Thanks for the help with my talk page. Appreciate it. -DrSandstone 15:24, 4 February 2008 (EST)

No problem, it is really easy for an admin. I see that you were a TK victim, which means you were probably treated a bit harshly, what were you blocked for? --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote for President 15:26, 4 February 2008 (EST)

I'm not really sure about the specific reason, but TK and myself got into some heated discussion and I got blocked. I don't remember now what the given reason was. Oh well, it's in the past. -DrSandstone 15:30, 4 February 2008 (EST)

Clepprep template

As you chose not to document the clepprep template, it has been deleted. Philip J. Rayment 20:54, 4 February 2008 (EST)

That is fine, it was only temporary anyway. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote for President 22:55, 4 February 2008 (EST)

What do you think you are doing?

Why did you delete my debate page? Conservapedia has a number of such pages. What do you mean: "Try to make a point not a debate?" --CarolineMilton 00:06, 5 February 2008 (EST)

Your "debate page" was really just created to say, Andy Schlafly is lying to try to convince people that his views are correct. If you want to make a point like that, a debate page is the wrong place. If you want to have a debate, then keep attacks like that out of it. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote for President 00:40, 5 February 2008 (EST)

Whether Andy Schlafly is a liar is, no doubt, a matter of interest to those who read some of the pages on this site. However, the debate question was a good one independent of any question about Andy's ability to twist the truth. The question of whether one can to a little bad to do a greater good is an enduring and difficult question that has engaged many very intelligent people over many years. I thought that the editors of this site might be up to discussing it. Clearly you have decided that it is likely to cause embarrassment to Andy. You might be right there. I just don't think that is a good enough reason to stifle the debate. --CarolineMilton 17:17, 5 February 2008 (EST)

Unblock

Thanks, I'm going to see if I can work on the code for the bot with Philip. --MakeTomorrow 13:02, 9 February 2008 (EST)

Question

Who is the developer for Conservapedia? I'd like to help update the interface a little bit because I have some experience with the mediawiki software. Please let me know, Wahrheit (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2008 (EST)

Talk to Andy or User:CPWebmaster --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 16:35, 22 February 2008 (EST)
Okay, thank you. Wahrheit (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2008 (EST)

Question

Hi, I was wondering why (go into edit form to see it) was deleted. It is a scientific name for a female dog and it redirected to the correct article. Thank you, Wahrheit (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2008 (EST)

That may be true, but it is unnecessary. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 00:12, 24 February 2008 (EST)

User:Iconoclastbeggar

Hello. Please look at that user's page. It does not look appropriate as it is an attack. Thank you. Wahrheit (talk) 18:42, 29 February 2008 (EST)

Adding material to articles like Intelligent Design

I'd like to add material to the Intelligent Design article, but I see that it's locked. Should I place a proposal for additions in the page's Talk? Jinxmchue 12:33, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Irony

Irony indeed. DanH 04:21, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

Spelling

Dimension was originally created with non-American spellings, and there was no reason to change them. Philip J. Rayment 11:33, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Ta. Philip J. Rayment 21:58, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Polls

When are you going to add a new poll or two? I enjoy them. DanH 02:03, 10 June 2008 (EDT) Sometime when I get around to it. I haven't had much time recently. I'll try to do one this week sometime. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 02:07, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Help

Could help me on coding User:Deborah/Template:Stub --  Deborah (contributions) (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

The problem the template causes can be seen at User:Deborah/absolutism --  Deborah (contributions) (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I'd help, but I am terrible at coding templates. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 00:14, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

you might be interested

in this. HenryS 18:25, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Please consider signing. To me moving the articles perfect sense, and right now I am one of the only non blocked users/socks to sign. HenryS 21:13, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Your username

This may be a strange question, but I'm rather curious where you got your username... it had always led me to believe that you were a founder of Conservapedia, but that doesn't seem to be the case -- is it? Confused, Coas 20:50, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

I have been around since the beginning of CP. I changed usernames because I didn't want to use my real name. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 14:51, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

User:Bugler

I'm just copying my most recent response on User talk:Bugler because I realise it's not appropriate to have a conversation with someone on a different person's talk page. I'll repeat what I said here.

What do you mean by "dissenting information"? Dissenting from what? The changes I made were purely factual. Once was to change a line talking about a Wikipedia article (the article no longer says what Conservapedia says it does) and the other was to remove a statement which was not verified by the references given, in contravention of the Conservapedia Commandments. Please could you clear up this whole "don't edit some articles without checking" thing. My understanding was that this was a wiki, and that it was intended to be a collaborative effort, like Wikipedia but from a Conservative point of view. Is that the case? Daphnea 11:53, 24 June 2008 (EDT) 
Daphnea 11:50, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
I'm going to reply here for a little more privacy. If I understood your most recent post correctly, you are saying that anything posted to an article that User:Aschlafly doesn't agree with will be reverted, whether or not it is correct and whether or not it conforms with the rules of Conservapedia. Is that actually the case? Daphnea 15:02, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

OK, maybe a less controversial question. What's the process for getting an article deleted? Daphnea 11:18, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

There is no official protocol. I tried to create an AFD protocol, but that didn't stick. Ask a Sysop and post on the talk page. If it is obvious that it needs to be deleted, it will. If it is not so obvious, there will be discussion, and someone will make a decision. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 12:02, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Miami Dolphins

Thank you for deleting that picture, I was going to get to that, but needed a Sysop to upload a picture. I've found a good picture] It comes from a detail of a belt buckle, and I could find no copyright issues on the page that would get the site in trouble. I would also ask that you delete Template:Miami Dolphins/Roster It appears to have been copied entriely from a similar template on Wikipedia. Thank you for your time Sir. JDavidsonLeave a message ::BEEP:: 22:48, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Picture done. Either you gave me a bad link, or the template has been deleted already. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 22:52, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
Found it, and done. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 22:56, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
Thank you, it looks great :) JDavidsonLeave a message ::BEEP:: 23:10, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Thanks

Thanks for backing me up over the block on the LDS page. I appreciate that. Ultimahero 04:43, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Blocking

Hi Tim

You seem to be a sane and rational man. Yesterday I was blocked for adding Richard Nixon, Scooter Libby and Enron to the list of examples in Deceit. The excuse was that these are "insignificant" examples of "alleged" deceit, an assessment I don't think any sane person will agree with. My question is this: is this action you personally approve of? Does it fall within the rules of Conservapedia? I know the argument that "Aschlafly owns it so he can do what he likes", but is that an attitude you really want to be associated with? I appeal to you as a man of reason. Take a stand, even if it's just to say to those in charge "you're breaking your own rules". Daphnea 19:54, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Daph's block

I think in light of this edit, the block was justified. That's just stirring up trouble. Jinxmchue 15:17, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

CPAdmin has not had to deal with User:Daphnea to the extent that I had. She was undoubtedly a parodist and faux-ingenue. Bugler 15:45, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
I disagree, I did deal with User:Daphnea, and there was no evidence that she was a parodist. A parodist would be acting like they agreed with Andy on everything. Parodists don't fight against the law, they join it, and act even more extreme than those in charge. You should know that. She did nothing to deserve getting blocked, especially infinitely. The edit that jinx points out does not justify a block either. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 15:51, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
I disagree entirely with that assessment of Daphnea. Her incessant questions - false naivety - were destructive in intent. At the end she showed her true colours; Jinx is quite correct. CP would be better if you applied yourself to combatting infiltrators and troublemakers, rather than, as it seems, defending them. Bugler 15:54, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
If she is a "troublemaker," than please point out to me where she has caused trouble. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 15:56, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
She has caused me trouble, she has caused Andy trouble; she is, beyond the grave, causing you trouble. How come Jinx can see it but you can't? Bugler 15:57, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
I didn't ask who she caused trouble for, I asked where. Please supply me with an example. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 15:58, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
*raises hand* I thought I just did. Encouraging someone to "test the system" (i.e. vandalism) and defaming CP and Andy certainly is troublemaking. I've seen people blocked for much, much less. *shrug* Jinxmchue 16:00, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
She was warning another user to be careful. She was not encouraging vandalism, she was giving an example of how she was reverted because some people disagree with her. Just because people have been blocked for less, does not mean they deserved it. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 16:06, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

[To Jinx: Thanks] Go and find it for yourself. That should be within the scope of your talents: you won't have to look too far. Hint: start on Andy's talk page and carry on from tehre. Bugler 16:03, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Don't tell me to find your evidence for you. If you want to claim something, then it is up to you to back it up. I've looked, and I didn't find anything. If there is something, and you know where it is, then it shouldn't be to hard for you to find it. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 16:07, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
So. You unblock a troublemaker without examining the evidence; you refuse to examine the evidence - to which you are directed - unless it it given to you on a plate. Your credulousness astounds me; and if I were you I would be considering whether my continued participation in this project as an administrator is justified or, indeed, justifiable. Bugler 16:11, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
Actually, if you read my post, I did examine the evidence, and I found nothing causing trouble, or deserving of a block. However, you claimed that there was evidence, so I asked you to show me. I do not appreciate you telling me that I should not be an admin. Especially because I am an admin, and you are not. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 16:15, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Your reviewing skills must be as thorough as those of the PNAS, or you would have found the section where she accuses Andrew Schlafly of dishonesty (in running sockpuppets) and further accuses me of being such a sock. As for I do not appreciate you telling me that I should not be an admin. Especially because I am an admin, and you are not, well, you are certainly not immune from criticism. Bugler 16:18, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Ok, she so she accused you of being a sock of Andy. That might be worth a short block. Certainly not infinite. And while I am not immune from criticism, telling me that I don't belong on this project is over the line. Criticize me all you like. Tell me what you think I am doing wrong. But there is no reason to tell me that I don't belong here. That is between me and Andy. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 16:32, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
Bugler is most definitely not here for the good of this site. I think it is time for people to open their eyes to something very obvious as this is getting tedious. Kacey G 17:59, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

This is just a note to support Tim's comments here. He asked Bugler where the evidence was, and Bugler effectively told him to find it himself. Some things Bugler has done and said have been good, but others not. I had to ask him about three times myself for evidence, because I kept getting misleading (even if inadvertently so) answers. Philip J. Rayment 11:45, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

(Block log); 16:49 . . Bugler (Talk | contribs) (blocked User:Daphnea with an expiry time of 1 month (account creation disabled): False accusations)
Bugler seems to be a man of action - Daph didn't make a single new contribution since this discussion started. I didn't read Tim's "That might be worth a short block." (emphasis his) as "Go ahead and block her for a whole month"... --KevinM 16:58, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
Tim agreed that her behaviour was worthy of a block. I was worn out by the unneccessary conflict last night, but now the block has been imposed. Bugler 17:03, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
He said that it might be worthy of a short block, and only because of the sock accusation (which you never provided a diff for, btw.). Saying that he "agreed that her behaviour was worthy of a block" is quite misleading, especially when you consider the parts above where he said that he "found nothing causing trouble". --KevinM 17:12, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
CPAdmin1 said that he had found nothing, because at the point he said that, he had not yet seen the sock allegations. Her allegations merited a block. CPAdmin1 agreed this was so. This has been imposed. CPAdmin1 said he thought infinity was too much. Therefore I have blocked for one month. Bugler 17:15, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
Well, I still haven't seen the sock allegations because you consistently refused to simply link to them. Your refusal to present evidence is quite suspicious in my eyes. If the evidence was so easy to find, you could have simply provided a link after Tim's first request. Instead, you keep handwaving about the truth being out there, so to speak. However, this will be my last post in this issue since my only goal was to inform the others of your actions. --KevinM 17:28, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
my only goal was to inform the others of your actions - rather than to advance this project. Most enlightening. Bugler 17:34, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
Sigh Can this get put to rest now? Let's just put this down and get to productive editing. DrSandstone 17:33, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
I agree. From now on my keyboard is sealed ;) Bugler 17:35, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

No, DrSandstone, that can't be it—because that's not an accusation, just mentioning a possibility that others have suggested.

When Tim said that "might be worth a short block", that can be taken to mean "that might be worth a short block if the claim is true", but as the claim has yet to be demonstrated to be true, that can't be used for support.

But then the block is academic anyway, given that Daphnea had already resigned.

Philip J. Rayment 10:24, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Philip, here is the relevant quote by Daphnea. I haven't worked out if you actually buy in to the "Andrews Schlafly owns the site so we must do everything he says" view or if you actually have some idea of how dishonest the things that go on here are. Unless of course you are simply AS under a different name, as some people seem to think. Daphnea 11:14, 30 June 2008 (EDT) Since my word is obviously not to be trusted, please go to my talk page and see it for yourself. And, in anticipation, please don't tell me that this wasn't an accusation. You are too wily a bird to be taken in by the old 'as some people say, but not me of course' routine. Bugler 07:43, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
It's a bit late to be telling me not to say that it wasn't an accusation. This is what DrSandstone linked to and of which I have already said is not an accusation, and I stand by that. As for trusting you, well when you misrepresent stuff like this and other cases we've discussed, I've good reason to not trust your word. Philip J. Rayment 11:59, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
That is an outrageous completely unjustifiable slur on my reputation. What Daphnea said is an accusation, dressed up in weasel words, and I stand by that. You owe me an apology. Anmd admins who are incapable of dealing with subversives, vandals and troublemakers should at the very least not interfere with those who have the interests of Conservapedia at heart.

Bugler, you are wrong here. Philip is right, and he owes you no apology. And speaking of accusations, I am "capable of dealing with subversives, vandals and troublemakers" and I do have the best interests of Conservapedia at heart, and I know that the same is true of Philip. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 15:30, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

I disagree entirely with your last post. I am right, Philip is wrong, and so are you if you believe Philip's statement rather than mine. It is plain to the meanest intellect that Daphnea was making an accusation. Philip has accused me of misrepresenting this issue, providing no evidence for this - as, indeed, he is incapable of doing since none can possibly exist. He certainly owes me an apology, and if you hold that Philip is right in saying this, then so do you. As for your capacity for dealing with troublemakers, all I would say is that on the Daphnea issue I have seen no sign of it. Bugler 15:51, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
So anyone who disagrees with you owes you a apology? --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 16:06, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
No, just anyone who unjustifiably accuses me of bad faith or untrustworthiness. Bugler 16:54, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

As an uninvolved user who has reviewed the situation, I say unblock Daphnea. HenryS 16:52, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Why, Henry? Daphnea was clearly a troublemaker who accused ASchlafly of running sock accounts. Bugler 16:58, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
I didn't see anything to warrant a block. The socking comment was harmless. Unjustified and without evidence, but not blockable. HenryS 17:04, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
Well, we have different views. I saw it as a libellous insult to the founder of Conservapedia. The accusation about me didn't matter. Anyway, as Dr Sandstone said above (only for the issue to be raised again by a third party), this should be laid to rest. You and I at any rate should be contributing to the success of CP not wrangling over the degree of Daphnea's delinquency. She is gone, thankfully, so unban her if you wish. Bugler 17:09, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Without any other mitigating factors (which I'll come to), there's two ways of looking at what Daphnea said. When a suspected criminal is caught, the mass media are banned from making any accusations against the person, lest they be held to be in contempt of court. So a reporter who says, "Joe Blow, who robbed the bank, was arrested today", the reporter would be charged, because he has accused Joe Blow of being a bank robber. So instead he says, "Joe Blow, who was wanted by police in connection with the bank robbery, was arrested today". Now of course everyone "knows" that Joe Blow is the bank robber, so you could argue that the reporter has made "an accusation, dressed up in weasel words". In that sense, Bugler, you may be right about Daphnea. However, the reporter will not be charged, because he has not actually made an accusation. And in the same way, neither did Daphnea.

Now to those mitigating circumstances. If you count weasel words against her, you might have a point if Daphnea was the one who raised the possibility that you were a sock of Andy. However, she was not the one who raised that. That claimed possibility had already been raised on another web-site. Therefore, her comment was nothing more than "covering her bases" and acknowledging that her comments did not apply if that possibility-that-had-been-mentioned-elsewhere was true.

As for providing no evidence, first, I didn't say that you deliberately misrepresented the case; merely that you had misrepresented it. Second, I did supply evidence, this case being one, but I also mentioned that there were other cases. One other case was when you initially blocked the wrong user for something (and then corrected it, but the point is that you got it wrong to start with), then when I asked what the other user (the one you blocked second) had done wrong, your reply was he had done what you had originally accused the first person of doing, which was mostly incorrect, and you had actually blocked the second user because you thought that he knew of wrongdoing before you corrected it. In another case I asked for evidence of what someone you had blocked had done wrong, to be told by you that the offensive comments were in e-mails, only to subsequently learn that only one part of the conversation was in emails. So that is my evidence, and why I don't just "take your word" for things.

Applause

Just wanted to applaud your attitude recently and your respect for the "peon" editors.  :--) Thank you! --Jareddr 20:07, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Any way to completely wipe an edit from an article's history?

If so, this garbage doesn't need to be on CP even in revision history:

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Japanese_animation&diff=prev&oldid=490031

Jinxmchue 19:42, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

Why did you delete my stuff from the "liberal myths" article? All I did was fix the spelling and add references.

John Edwards

You deleted my entry about John Edwards on the ‘bias in wikipedia’ page [1]. This story is a noteworthy and obvious example of wikipedia’s liberal bias. Could my text be modified in some way to make the entry acceptable to you? Thanks! Sjay 13:21, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Seeing as we criticize them on that page for allowing gossip such as that story. It is illogical to then turn around and criticize them for not allowing it. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 15:24, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
The page in question is primarily about wikipedia’s bias. Thus, it's worth mentioning that wikipedia allows gossipy stories with no credible sources about McCain because he is a Republican, but censors a similar credible story about Edwards because he is a Democrat. Is there a way the entry could be reworded so that it is acceptable? Sjay 18:29, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Since the templates are being targeted

Perhaps they should all be protected. Just a thought. (Of course, maybe they'll see we're on to them now and won't target them anymore.) Jinxmchue 12:17, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

SamHB

(This is being communicated to ASchlafly, CPAdmin1, and Ed Poor)

Andy, Tim, and Ed:

As you may be aware, there was an enormous blowup about a month ago, relating to educational articles about math and science. A considerable amount of damage was done to CP's educational offerings in these areas, and a number of people (including me) were blocked for various periods of time. You might want to look at my user page (and feel free to comment there if you wish.) SamHB 20:07, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:CPAdmin1"
Personal tools