Siteadmin, Upload, Automoderated users, edit
2,144
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
New page: ===Explaination of edit=== Could you explain [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=72955&oldid=72743 This edit] please? It's taken from the same source as...
===Explaination of edit===
Could you explain [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=72955&oldid=72743 This edit] please? It's taken from the same source as the quote in from, and is just has valid. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 05:33, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
== Please note ==
SYSOP Hojimachong is trying to put in a "evolution is fact" book in the recommended books section of the [[Theory of evolution]] article. I thought you should be aware of this. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:50, 30 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:Right. Lets forget the fact that the book in question (''Biological Evolution'', DJ Futuyma, 1979) is one of the most relevant if not ''the'' most relevant to the actual content of the article (evolution, not [[why evolution is wrong]]). And the author, DJ Futuyma, has a B.S. from Cornell, and an M.S. and PhD from UMich. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 17:52, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
==CWilson==
It wasn't a threat as much as a desire to protect Conservapedia from a possible back-door attempt at damaging the site, as Richard demonstrated during the past week, and others before him, as well as right now. Talk of banning him and my intentions was first done in private with Aschlafly, and my ultimate answer was posted a few minutes ago on his talk page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:34, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
== Rob Pommer ==
I believe Rob's edits to the Welcome template were accidental; if you take a look at [[User_talk:Sersabian]], you'll notice that the 'edit' link at the top right, which you'd expect to be for editing of the talk page, actually takes you to edit the template itself. That user was working on the [[Pork Chops]] article, so the link Rob added to the template was relevant to the talk page. Given that, I'm going to reverse his ban. I'll also see if I can figure out why the edit link is misbehaving; might be that the welcome template needs some modification. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:53, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
== Yes, I saw the edit... thanks... not at this time. ==
Oh, I saw the edit the first time... I've been glowing with pleasure but trying to think about how to respond. I hope nobody will be offended if I continue to demur. If, at some point, there is something I need to do, that I think is important for Conservapedia, that I can't see how I can accomplish without being a sysop, I'll ask for it.
First, I really do appreciate the offer. A lot of the value in being a sysop is the compliment. Having received the compliment, I don't need to receive the thing itself.
Second, with regard to protected pages, there are five thousand unprotected pages and some of them are as important as, and need as much work as, any of the protected pages. On controversial pages, tweaking the balance, wordsmithing the language of individual paragraphs, trying to find consensus language for emotionally charged facts is interesting and important... but it doesn't require sysop status. I can always make suggestions on the talk page. If they're good, the community will agree and someone with sysop status can add them. In other words, I don't see a compelling reason for personally needing to edit a protected page.
Third, less creditably, I want to feel a certain sense of... irresponsibility. There is a danger in getting drawn into thinking that one is responsible for all of Conservapedia and getting all hot and bothered and going on some harebrained mission to remove all British spellings, or something like that. I'm joking about this, but it's not a joking matter. I'm willing to bet that Andrew Schlafly wakes up worried about what might have happened to Conservapedia while he was asleep. I want to keep a certain detachment, so that I can relax, shrug my shoulders, and accept that fact that things here are not under my control. (Or any else's). You know: hey, it's not ''my'' article. With regard to controversial articles, I have whatever influence I have, based on how good a case I make and what people think of me... regardless of whether or not I'm labelled as a sysop. Being a sysop gives an ''illusion'' of control; it's an illusion I shouldn't want and don't need.
Thanks for repeating the offer. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 07:03, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
== Revert war over maintenance ==
(sigh) Requesting sysop assistance because [[User:TK|TK]] is creating a double redirect:
*[[TKarchive1]] -> [[User talk:TerryK/TKarchive1]] -> [[User talk:TK/TKarchive1]]
I have attempted to fix this double redirect two times, and both got reverted by TK. I assume he sees my routine repair as an attack on his User Talk page, so I need sysop authority to get the permission to fix things. The page is now also protected in its broken state, so I definitely need a sysop now.
So: I officially request the opinion of sysops [[User:Aschlafly]], [[User:TK]], [[User:Conservative]], [[User:CPAdmin1]], [[User:CPWebmaster]], [[User:Ed Poor]], [[User:David_R]], [[User:AustinM]], [[User:Geo.plrd]], and [[User:Tsumetai]] to get a poll of roughly 33% of all sysops for this undoubtedly critical change to a User page.
All replies should be left at [[User_talk:Sid_3050#Double_Redirect_Poll]] for easier evaluation of the results. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 09:50, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
== Pages that need work ==
I note on your user page you list the Natural Selection page as a page that needs work. What did you have in mind? I have an interest and would be happy to be involved. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:00, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
I think that it currently portrays evolution using natural selection as fact, when it should be stated as theory, and I didn't see much on arguments against it. (of course this is all tied up with the panels decision on the theory of evolution page.) --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 21:04, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
I note that in the introductory section it does make mention of opposition from proponents of Intelligent Design. Otherwise I think your observation is correct. The page should, of course, be chiefly about natural selection, rather than about arguments against natural selection. But there is always a place for criticisms of any concept. I am concerned though that the article not become a joke page like the theory of evolution page. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:10, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
== Blocking tip ==
Uncheck the "block anonymous users only" box to obtain a more complete block. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:I know, I always do it. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 23:07, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
== Re: Planned Parenthood article ==
RE: [[Planned Parenthood]] article.
I have asked some pro-life people to help make our "abortion articles" better. Hopefully, they will be signing up as new users. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:58, 4 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
== Deleted Page ==
Why did you move the deleted page template to the mainspace? <font color="FFD700">[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]</font><sup><font color="000000">[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]</font></sup> 16:25, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:They never once said move the deleted page template to the mainspace. Now the template won't work correctly and people will see the deleted page "template" when they hit random page. I'm putting it back in the template namespace. We can have the template redirect to a page from there, but the template needs be there. <font color="FFD700">[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]</font><sup><font color="000000">[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]</font></sup> 16:30, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Okey dokey, I think I got it. From now on, any time template <nowiki>{{deleted page}} or {{deletedpage}}</nowiki> are used, they will redirect the page to [[Conservapedia:Deleted_and_Protected]] which should not appear in the random page since it isn't in the mainspace. Look good to you? <font color="FFD700">[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]</font><sup><font color="000000">[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]</font></sup> 16:43, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
== Unlocking pages..... ==
Per the terms of the applied template to locked articles, agreed and worked out by Ed Poor and myself, Sysops are required to contact the locking Sysop before unlocking. This does mean you. Foremost among Conservative values is mutual respect. You cannot get it if you don't offer it. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 19:02, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
== Alleged Bible Contradictions ==
Would you please explain [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Alleged_Bible_contradictions&curid=13291&diff=88076&oldid=88074 this] edit? Conservative had just insisted on deleting a large chunk of unsourced, uncited material. I objected, saying that it was in the Conservapedia: namespace, and doesn't need citations. In his typical fashion, Conservative reverted without reasoning. Following in his style, I deleted a large chunk of uncited material. Why is some uncited material allowed to stay, while other isn't? Either it all should stay, or it all should go. Right?--<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 19:04, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
== request ==
Dear CPAdmin,
I would like to converse with you via email or phone. Please send me a email address if you are interested. If you are afraid of spam you can quickly make up a email account at hotmail or yahoo.
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:07, 6 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
== Tomt ==
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Talk%3ATheory_of_BUTTFUCKING×tamp=20070324160525 Here] you are. <font color="#F90404">Geo.</font>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 22:07, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:i will unblock immediately. <font color="#F90404">Geo.</font>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 22:17, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Thank you for pointing this out to [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.plrd]], it is much appreciated! --[[User:Tomt|TomT]] 15:15, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
Could you explain [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=72955&oldid=72743 This edit] please? It's taken from the same source as the quote in from, and is just has valid. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 05:33, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
== Please note ==
SYSOP Hojimachong is trying to put in a "evolution is fact" book in the recommended books section of the [[Theory of evolution]] article. I thought you should be aware of this. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:50, 30 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:Right. Lets forget the fact that the book in question (''Biological Evolution'', DJ Futuyma, 1979) is one of the most relevant if not ''the'' most relevant to the actual content of the article (evolution, not [[why evolution is wrong]]). And the author, DJ Futuyma, has a B.S. from Cornell, and an M.S. and PhD from UMich. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 17:52, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
==CWilson==
It wasn't a threat as much as a desire to protect Conservapedia from a possible back-door attempt at damaging the site, as Richard demonstrated during the past week, and others before him, as well as right now. Talk of banning him and my intentions was first done in private with Aschlafly, and my ultimate answer was posted a few minutes ago on his talk page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:34, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
== Rob Pommer ==
I believe Rob's edits to the Welcome template were accidental; if you take a look at [[User_talk:Sersabian]], you'll notice that the 'edit' link at the top right, which you'd expect to be for editing of the talk page, actually takes you to edit the template itself. That user was working on the [[Pork Chops]] article, so the link Rob added to the template was relevant to the talk page. Given that, I'm going to reverse his ban. I'll also see if I can figure out why the edit link is misbehaving; might be that the welcome template needs some modification. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:53, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
== Yes, I saw the edit... thanks... not at this time. ==
Oh, I saw the edit the first time... I've been glowing with pleasure but trying to think about how to respond. I hope nobody will be offended if I continue to demur. If, at some point, there is something I need to do, that I think is important for Conservapedia, that I can't see how I can accomplish without being a sysop, I'll ask for it.
First, I really do appreciate the offer. A lot of the value in being a sysop is the compliment. Having received the compliment, I don't need to receive the thing itself.
Second, with regard to protected pages, there are five thousand unprotected pages and some of them are as important as, and need as much work as, any of the protected pages. On controversial pages, tweaking the balance, wordsmithing the language of individual paragraphs, trying to find consensus language for emotionally charged facts is interesting and important... but it doesn't require sysop status. I can always make suggestions on the talk page. If they're good, the community will agree and someone with sysop status can add them. In other words, I don't see a compelling reason for personally needing to edit a protected page.
Third, less creditably, I want to feel a certain sense of... irresponsibility. There is a danger in getting drawn into thinking that one is responsible for all of Conservapedia and getting all hot and bothered and going on some harebrained mission to remove all British spellings, or something like that. I'm joking about this, but it's not a joking matter. I'm willing to bet that Andrew Schlafly wakes up worried about what might have happened to Conservapedia while he was asleep. I want to keep a certain detachment, so that I can relax, shrug my shoulders, and accept that fact that things here are not under my control. (Or any else's). You know: hey, it's not ''my'' article. With regard to controversial articles, I have whatever influence I have, based on how good a case I make and what people think of me... regardless of whether or not I'm labelled as a sysop. Being a sysop gives an ''illusion'' of control; it's an illusion I shouldn't want and don't need.
Thanks for repeating the offer. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 07:03, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
== Revert war over maintenance ==
(sigh) Requesting sysop assistance because [[User:TK|TK]] is creating a double redirect:
*[[TKarchive1]] -> [[User talk:TerryK/TKarchive1]] -> [[User talk:TK/TKarchive1]]
I have attempted to fix this double redirect two times, and both got reverted by TK. I assume he sees my routine repair as an attack on his User Talk page, so I need sysop authority to get the permission to fix things. The page is now also protected in its broken state, so I definitely need a sysop now.
So: I officially request the opinion of sysops [[User:Aschlafly]], [[User:TK]], [[User:Conservative]], [[User:CPAdmin1]], [[User:CPWebmaster]], [[User:Ed Poor]], [[User:David_R]], [[User:AustinM]], [[User:Geo.plrd]], and [[User:Tsumetai]] to get a poll of roughly 33% of all sysops for this undoubtedly critical change to a User page.
All replies should be left at [[User_talk:Sid_3050#Double_Redirect_Poll]] for easier evaluation of the results. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 09:50, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
== Pages that need work ==
I note on your user page you list the Natural Selection page as a page that needs work. What did you have in mind? I have an interest and would be happy to be involved. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:00, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
I think that it currently portrays evolution using natural selection as fact, when it should be stated as theory, and I didn't see much on arguments against it. (of course this is all tied up with the panels decision on the theory of evolution page.) --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 21:04, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
I note that in the introductory section it does make mention of opposition from proponents of Intelligent Design. Otherwise I think your observation is correct. The page should, of course, be chiefly about natural selection, rather than about arguments against natural selection. But there is always a place for criticisms of any concept. I am concerned though that the article not become a joke page like the theory of evolution page. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:10, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
== Blocking tip ==
Uncheck the "block anonymous users only" box to obtain a more complete block. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:I know, I always do it. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 23:07, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
== Re: Planned Parenthood article ==
RE: [[Planned Parenthood]] article.
I have asked some pro-life people to help make our "abortion articles" better. Hopefully, they will be signing up as new users. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:58, 4 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
== Deleted Page ==
Why did you move the deleted page template to the mainspace? <font color="FFD700">[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]</font><sup><font color="000000">[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]</font></sup> 16:25, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:They never once said move the deleted page template to the mainspace. Now the template won't work correctly and people will see the deleted page "template" when they hit random page. I'm putting it back in the template namespace. We can have the template redirect to a page from there, but the template needs be there. <font color="FFD700">[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]</font><sup><font color="000000">[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]</font></sup> 16:30, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Okey dokey, I think I got it. From now on, any time template <nowiki>{{deleted page}} or {{deletedpage}}</nowiki> are used, they will redirect the page to [[Conservapedia:Deleted_and_Protected]] which should not appear in the random page since it isn't in the mainspace. Look good to you? <font color="FFD700">[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]</font><sup><font color="000000">[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]</font></sup> 16:43, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
== Unlocking pages..... ==
Per the terms of the applied template to locked articles, agreed and worked out by Ed Poor and myself, Sysops are required to contact the locking Sysop before unlocking. This does mean you. Foremost among Conservative values is mutual respect. You cannot get it if you don't offer it. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 19:02, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
== Alleged Bible Contradictions ==
Would you please explain [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Alleged_Bible_contradictions&curid=13291&diff=88076&oldid=88074 this] edit? Conservative had just insisted on deleting a large chunk of unsourced, uncited material. I objected, saying that it was in the Conservapedia: namespace, and doesn't need citations. In his typical fashion, Conservative reverted without reasoning. Following in his style, I deleted a large chunk of uncited material. Why is some uncited material allowed to stay, while other isn't? Either it all should stay, or it all should go. Right?--<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 19:04, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
== request ==
Dear CPAdmin,
I would like to converse with you via email or phone. Please send me a email address if you are interested. If you are afraid of spam you can quickly make up a email account at hotmail or yahoo.
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:07, 6 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
== Tomt ==
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Talk%3ATheory_of_BUTTFUCKING×tamp=20070324160525 Here] you are. <font color="#F90404">Geo.</font>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 22:07, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:i will unblock immediately. <font color="#F90404">Geo.</font>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 22:17, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Thank you for pointing this out to [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.plrd]], it is much appreciated! --[[User:Tomt|TomT]] 15:15, 8 April 2007 (EDT)