Difference between revisions of "User talk:Geo.plrd"

Linus

Thank you. I had missed the page of his parole. Leopeo 05:21, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

P.S. Thank you also for deleting the page I had created by mistake! Leopeo 07:20, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Notice

Please read this: New Sysops Training Page

Conservative 21:25, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

You're not conservative

How come you are on here, your political compass indicates that you are center to center-left. I didn't think other moderates were allowed on here. --UncleJalapeno 10:47, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

• Check out his subtle vandalism here, Geo: [1] Nice, sly changes, Jalapeno, and you being so "new" to CP! --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 16:53, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

Pleistocene

I see that you gave this a definition coming from "evolution". I would have put it down as a term from "geology". I don't want to edit it in case you think I pushing a POV. I would like to know what you think. BrianCo 12:23, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

Sci-Tol

It's not possible - the article has been put in a deleted articles category or something to prevent subsequent re-creation. Dunno why, I guess they have their reasons.Fantomas 12:52, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

I was just adding on that I saw you're a SYSOP. With a big "Ooops!" to go with it!  :-) Fantomas 13:17, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

test

Geo.Site Sheriff 14:08, 18 May 2007 (EDT) Site Sheriff(Sysop)Geo. 14:10, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

Felicitaciones

GRACIAS

Your template(s)

Philip J. Rayment 05:58, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

• Yes, please ask me to delete it for you, or Philip, Geo...if your hands are broken! :p --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 06:04, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

(The message previously said to ask a sysop to delete unwanted templates, but I've altered the message to no longer say that.) Philip J. Rayment 06:34, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

• Yes, I saw the earlier ones, and got my humor in before you caught it!  ;-) --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 08:19, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

Geo, thanks for putting them on the template list, but they also need to be documented on each template's page. I've done {{ClayPin}} for you as an example, although I'm not sure of a couple of points, so please review that one as well. Philip J. Rayment 22:56, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

AIM?

Aim! Please message. Read my posts there. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 13:33, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

Apologies, but I am not near a IM client right now. I will hopefully be able to IM you when I get home in a few hours. Site Sheriff(Sysop)Geo. 21:53, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

• Paint ball?  ;-) I will forward on to you a recent email about all this. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 21:55, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

blah

Moon and the Times

This fact is clearly stated in our entry for the paper - why shouldn't it be in the Moon entry? Guitarplayer 21:02, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Sorry - my bad. Guitarplayer 21:03, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Uncyclopedia

Look, can you unlock the Uncyclopedia article? There's hardly anything on there and more is needed, but we can't edit it because you've protected it! Why did you protect it for? There's no reason to. Please unprotect Scorpion^{Vote for Pedro} 18:54, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

When and if you make it back, Scorpion, Geo might be able to answer you, or not. This isn't WP. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 19:13, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Uh, I don't know what "When or if you make it back" means. I'm still on here. Any Geo, here's the material I'd like you to add:

Uncyclopedia, despite being a parody of Wikipedia, supports much of the same material that Wikipedia does. They take an obviously liberal stance, and much of their humor is directed at Christian and Conservative values. In particular, their article on Conservapedia is composed mostly of hate speech, labelling Conservatives as "retards". In addition, they attack creationism via a "pro-creationist" article, which mocks creationism by phrases like "evolution will get you sent straight to hell" and "Darwin was a **** Satanist". At any rate, it is clear that Uncyclopedia hates Christians and creationism, and aims to destroy Conservativism. Scorpion^{Vote for Pedro} 09:50, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Scorpio

User:Scorpio has been blocked for one week for twice removing discussion page comments from RSchlafly'es page.

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:RSchlafly&diff=217145&oldid=216629

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:RSchlafly&diff=prev&oldid=217848

I believe we have evidence of a meatpuppet attack on me after a "chat" with TK. The removal of comments from RSchlafly's page were critical of TK.

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:TK&diff=prev&oldid=211850

Geoffrey, you can begin examination of the facts right here, and determine if User:Scorpio has become a meatpuppet of TK. TK offered to block Scorpio on the discussion list (available in the Search engine) and privately. Since the Conley email, it appears TK contacted Scorpio, and TK has further intiated other actions that have no transparency.

In the meantime, I await you forwarding me any and all transcripts of discussions on processes. Scorpio will remain blocked for information destruction from RSchlafly's page. RobS 19:41, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

Geo, you're approved as our first judge for the contest. There will be additional judges also. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 00:57, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Greetings, fellow judge!

Hi, Geo. I have accepted the team captains' appointment as a judge.

Thus far, I've put in for the consideration of having our own namespace so that we can "retire to chambers" as we weigh the "evidence."--TerryH^Talk 09:31, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Welcome, Geo, as a Judge! I've created a new namespace that only Judges can access. I can't even access it. You might create a page in it like Judges:Contest (note that I cannot even create that page).--Aschlafly 12:36, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Geo, as you can see, the chambers is now open. Thus far you and I are the only two Judges. I assume that that will soon change.--TerryH^Talk 13:47, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

McCarthy mediation

Geo, I invite you over to the McCarthy Discussion page for a mediation issue that I'm hoping you can resolve. Thank you. Scorpio 22:56, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

I agree 100%. The disturbing thing is that Rob removed this from the intro paragraph:

He was noted for claiming and subsequently proving that there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the federal government.

It was fine the way it was but Rob changed it without discussion. I have no problem changing to what you suggested. How should we proceed? Do you want to make the change or me or Rob? Your call. Scorpio 23:22, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Ok, I'll do it but please be prepared to unblock me and the McCarthy page after Rob gets upset. :p Scorpio 23:34, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Geoff, Rob has reverted the work I did as per your orders. I informed him that he is in contempt of your status as Mediator. I await your further instructions. Thank you. Scorpio 00:25, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Geoff, thanks for making the change but there is an extra "period" in the new sentence so I'm going have to fix that. Also, I don't think there was a need for a new section for the "Moynihan" info since it's essentially related to the Venona info and should be included in that parapraph. Would you mind terribly if I simply reverted back to the latest changes which you authorized me to do last night? It would make the flow of the article more concise. I would appreciate that. Please let me know. Thank you. Scorpio 10:24, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

The key word we need to place in the Intro is "conspiracy." For one half century (and still today) teachers in classrooms at all levels, junior high school through Graduate School, maintain McCarthy was a right-wing paranoid conspiracy theorist whose crusades produced nothing. The U.S Government Secrecy Commission in its Final Report in 1995 gave McCarthy a clean bill of health with "The first fact is, there was a conspiracy..."

So, we have two statements. Scorpio has inserted extensive quotes from what is commonly known as McCarthy's "conspiracy of infamy so black" speech, which needs to be contrasted with the exoneration from the Secrecy Commission findings.

A big concern I have with Venona documents is, that in no way they be misrepresented to say something other than what they say. Hence, we need to place exoneration from the Secrecy Commission in the Intro, and not represent Venona as something other than what it is.RobS 10:28, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Rob, again, you refuse to address MOS which forbids what you propose. The new intro as placed by Geo does in fact do what you say needs to be done without going into elaborate detail. The detail is in the appropriate sub-section. The current format is more in line with MOS than what you had there before and does the job adequately. The only thing I suggest is that the new section be changed from "Declassified Soviet Files" to "Declassified Soviet files & McCarthy vindication". There are still many things that need to be done to this article in order to present pertinent info but as you may have noticed, I have stopped adding anything further until these ridiculously simple matters are resolved. I've got lots of great stuff to add but we are getting bogged down in procedure. Scorpio 15:33, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

I'm involved with the contest right now (as Geo is too), so I haven't really been able to engage all that needs to be discussed. As per the MOS, I need to discuss with the MOS author what historiography of dead persons vs bios living polticians should be, because that recommended format you cite is intended for living persons.

As to the substance of "conspiracy', this is in keeping with your original idea in the opening which was edited out, "subsequently proving"; McCarthy didn't prove conspiracy, but the Secrecy Commission did. As to the new subtitle, we should probably discuss the overall structure once I'm available after the contest is over, cause I'm a bit uneasy about putting ==Venona== under ==US Senate==. RobS 15:46, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Full IP address?

I am concerned about the publishing of the full IP address of users. Does this conflict with Conservapedia:Privacy policy. Is Conservapedia:Shame in conflict with sharing private information with the world? I am not sure if that page is what is being used to report vandalism to the authorities. --Mtur 17:54, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

• There is no expectation of privacy on the Internet, we are constantly told. Also, an IP address doesn't narrow down a user's location to such a point where they are easily identified anyway. So what is this concern? Is someone forced to come here and vandalize? Please stop with the Red Herrings. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 18:14, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

contest

Who is winning at this time? Or are you not allowed to say? Bohdan 01:12, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

• It is sad, is it not, that you don't have anything funny in your signature, no? --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 01:20, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Me? Geo.^Complain! 01:21, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

• No, the other, he should have something fun in it....I am thinking. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 01:22, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

^{Click here for ban!}

Hahaha! But I can unblock myself!  :P --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 01:35, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Scores

Just wondering if you know and could tell me the final scores of Team1 and Team2...Aschlafly and I are trying to figure out how close we came, and it would be a lot easier to just have the final numbers! Thanks, DeborahB. 17:42, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the response! And yes, Aschlafly definitly deserves that honor...he was on constantly contributing for his team! DeborahB. 23:27, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

categorizing articles

Hi! :)

Thanks for adding a new article. Please, though, categorize your articles when you create them; while there are those of us who will go through and clean-up the uncategorized articles, you know your subject better than we do.

For a list of categories, go here: Special:Categories. To add a category to your article, type two open brackets, then "category:" followed by the category you want. Just add two closed brackets and you're done! You can add as many categories as you feel are appropriate. Thanks! Aziraphale 20:41, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

• Geoffrey is on vacation, so just let me know what is needed. Thanks. --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 21:23, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

I categorized the article for him; this is just a boilerplate reminder I leave people to help encourage them to categorize their own stuff. I don't necessarily mind doing it, but often times the author will have a better idea of the appropriate category than I will. Das all. Aziraphale 21:29, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

• Actually, they usually have a worse idea of where to put it than you do, but hey, I understand your tact. --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 23:16, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

Well yes, exactly. ;) I could be hit by a bus or something... Aziraphale 10:44, 17 August 2007 (EDT) <-look out!!!

Well, "accidents" do happen.....

--şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 22:19, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

New McCarthy article block

Geo, is there any way that you can arrange it so that these blocks do not prevent me from working on the McCarthhy article? I realize that the the newest block was put into place to protect against vandals but unfortunately this also affects my ability to add to the article and I don't think my additions are an issue. Can you please work with me to find a solution to this matter? I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. Scorpio 10:30, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

Geo, one thing that would be great is if changes and edits to the McCarthy article be limited to those done by SysOps. Which would require me to ask if someone would please elevate me to that level. Any thoughts on that? Scorpio 13:50, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

Flanders role on McCarthy Page

The talk page is locked on the Joseph McCarthy page. So, it's difficult to address any issues pertaining to the page. To wit, there are unsubstatiated statements in italics referring to Senator Flanders's initiative to censure the Senator from Wisconsin:

While, over the past few years, Senator McCarthy withstood countless biased and unsubstantiated attacks by Liberals, Communists, etc., the organized effort to remove McCarthy from his Chairmanship and officially condemn him began in the Spring of 1954. It was started by fellow Republican Senator Ralph E. Flanders of Vermont at the behest of a coalition of Communists, Liberals, and Eisenhower Administration officials. Flanders told the Senate that McCarthy's "anti-Communism so completely parallels that of Adolf Hitler as to strike fear into the hearts of any defenseless minority"; accused McCarthy of spreading "division and confusion" and saying, "Were the Junior Senator from Wisconsin in the pay of the Communists he could not have done a better job for them."[97] Flanders had obtained his list of charges against McCarthy from a left-wing group named the National Committee for an Effective Congress.

The citable literature suggests that Flanders felt that McCarthy's emphasis on possible Communists within our borders distracted us from a much greater menace of Communist encroachment abroad. The literature shows Flanders to be a conservative marching to his own drummer and not supported (except for one note from Eisenhower after his March speech) by the administration. Given Flanders's professed enmity towards the Roosevelt administration, it is remarkable to suggest that he would be in collaboration with the National Committee for an Effective Congress. Instead, he consulted with Senators Cooper and Fulbright to develop articles of censure that were consistent with previous actions.

I request that the italicized statements be either deleted or substantiated with proper references.

User:Norwich 10/21/07

• I demand you post to the main editor there, RobS. If you do not, I will block you for being a coward. --şŷŝoρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 17:44, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

• My goodness, a little friendly advice would have sufficed before threatening a new member with names. I have followed your helpful advice. Sincerely, Norwich 13:57, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Judging

I will be traveling today and I'm not sure when and if I'll have internet connection, but I should be back by 10pm (as long as I don't spend another night in an airport...). HelpJazz 11:11, 25 November 2007 (EST)

Any comment? --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 20:24, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Ok, Geo, I wrote our agreed ruling on the Contest3 page. Look over it to make sure I didn't mess anything up and sign it, then we can tell all the players that we are done. HelpJazz 21:57, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Contest4

Hey - I have created Conservapedia:Contest4 and I've set up the talk page to discuss everything that you guys mentioned in your analysis of Contest3 (everything besides what I had already done to the scoring itself). If you don't mind it would be a great help to me if you took a look and made any changes you thought necessary.--IDuan 11:44, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Uncyclopedia

Hi, I'd like to add a bit to that article including other examples of Uncyclopedia's attacking conservatives. The page is protected and you were the protecting sysop. Could you please temporarily unprotect it so I can work on it? Thanks! SkipJohnson 19:04, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Thanks! All done now. SkipJohnson 21:53, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Unlock

Hey Geo, can you unlock Saddam Hussein for me? Thanks--IDuan 22:46, 5 February 2008 (EST)

Could you please?

Could you please unlock the Phyllis Schlafly article for editing, if you haven't noticed it is rather incomplete.--ElliottRosewater 12:36, 17 February 2008 (EST)

priest values

What Commandments did this article breach?

Also, how was it a parody? It was well-cited with accurate information.

Don't censor something simply because you don't like the truth. That's what Andy says. --SashaT 16:42, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

SashaT created a duplicate of that article called some priest values --  User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Nobody likes a narc. --SashaT 17:03, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Shut up you are vandalizing this encyclopedia, that is why I am telling on you--  User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

This user just vandalized my user page can he/she be blocked?--  User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Deborah would like a little cheese with her whine. --SashaT 17:08, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Request

Dear Geoff, I am currently trying to get night edit rights so that I can better contribute to Conservapedia. As a sysop who has had experience working with me, I would like to ask for your support. If you feel that I deserve edit rights, please say so here. If you do not think I deserve them, I fully understand and I thank you anyway. Sincerely, HelpJazz 01:19, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Liberal tools

It needs a really close look. The original author was banned for some very strange vandalism. DanH 03:10, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

He was banned for adding, letter by letter, the word "conservatives" to causes of nausea. [2] I suspect that article is parody. Bohdan 03:14, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Oh, I was only looking at the most recent 50! Oops... DanH 03:25, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Andy created the original article, and it stayed intact until the vandals started in on it. It was meant to be a companion piece to his other "liberal" article efforts. Why can it not be restored? I doubt Andy made it as parody. --₮K^/Talk 08:03, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Opinion requested

Could you please weigh in on the discussion here? We're looking for more opinions and hope to arrive at some sort of style definition. Thanks. Jinkas 19:40, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Vandal

There's a vandal around, please get rid of him. WilliamH 19:53, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Never mind, that was already taken care of, but thanks anyway! WilliamH 19:55, 23 June 2008 (EDT)