User talk:CPWebmaster/Archive2

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to CPWebmaster's (aka:Fearless Leader) talk page
This talk page is best viewed in Mozilla Firefox.
Archive1
Archive2

Intelligent design lock

hi, I tried making a suggestion for the structuring of the ID page about a month ago and listed my comments on the talk page. I haven't received any replies indicating problems with my suggestion (see Evidence -> Support). Can you update the main article please? --Propro 14:03, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Uploads

Dude, what is the deal with Special:Upload? I can never cause it to function appropriately. --Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 18:58, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Pic

LOL! Love the banner on your user page. Ames will be pleased :P. --Hojimachongtalk 19:58, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

User Boxes...

Do I understand yours to mean you have something against Poultry? I'm shocked! Were do you stand on Turkey and Chicken, Mr. Webmaster? Exactly. --~ TK MyTalk 20:00, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Love

I think the new look of your user page is simply fabulous!. Crackertalk 21:35, 12 April 2007 (EDT)


Sysop Pledge

As my good deed of the day I am requesting that you place this template on your userpage. Participating sysops will earn my respect and gratitude. --BenjaminS 23:55, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Sysop Pledge
As a Conservapedia Sysop, I will NEVER ARBITRARILY block anyone who is not in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments or related CP Guidelines.

Ben... you're a riot CPWebmaster 10:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Proposed Block Policy

There has recently been some disagreement over blocks, so I have created a proposed block policy Tell me what you think. --CPAdmin1 23:23, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Responded via email... dislike it. CPWebmaster 10:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
Gosh, that is so "un-wiki" like, a private response, I would have been insulted for doing that, lol. --~ TK MyTalk 04:01, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
Philip, could you please explain what you have against my policy. --CPAdmin1 09:32, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
Tim, I believe that this Wiki is something like a free-market. You have the supply (us editors) and the demand (people who want to use the site). What usually happens when a free-market becomes regulated? It is no longer free. Rules and regulations destroy the system. CPWebmaster 09:44, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
So you prefer Anarchy? --CPAdmin1 14:35, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
No Tim. Rules that are essential to the site such as no obscenity, etc. are the only rules that are needed. In the real world this would be comparable to laws against murder, stealing, etc. CPWebmaster 17:05, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Unblock Myk

I have agreed to unblocking Myk. Is there a function with which to do so? Karajou 01:09, 13 April 2007 (EDT)


  • Thanks, Karajou, I was supposed to message you too, but so much is happening it was delayed. I will do it for you, the unblocking.--~ TK MyTalk 01:23, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Change to the T-Rex page

CPwebmaster, why the change on the T-Rex page? The research was cited and just released. Did you happen to read it before reverting?--TimS 12:04, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't agree with TimS' edits (and I will explain why on the talk page tomorrow), but neither do I agree with the amount that you removed. In cases like there where there is obviously or likely to be disagreement, couldn't you at the very least explain your rationale in the edit comment or on the talk page? Philip J. Rayment 12:27, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes... I did remove too much information... fixed CPWebmaster 12:43, 13 April 2007 (EDT)


Missing Links

For the computer illiterate, like me, would you consider restoring the link to "Special Pages" on the left? It is missing on several pages I was just on, but shows here on your own page...... --~ TK MyTalk 06:33, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Good block

Good block this morning. The contributor has made many valid edits, so the one week time period is appropriate.--Aschlafly 11:24, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

request

I sent a letter of assistance regarding our abortion articles to right to life groups and I sent about 40 emails. Keep an eye on my user discussion page for people saying they are interested in being Admins/SYSOPS. Look at their edits and promote them to Admins if you think it is warranted. Here is my discussion page: http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Conservative Conservative 22:35, 14 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Could you please revert the macroevolution article to the way it was before it was submitted to the panel? I left you a diff on the talk page. I understood that this was the policy regarding the panel - at least that's how it was with evolution.-AmesGyo! 11:52, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
I really don't see why this should be done. The article in its present state is perfectly acceptable. Also, I don't know of the policy you speak of. Can you point it out? Thanks CPWebmaster 12:12, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

[[CP:RFA]]

Someone needs to periodically update this, and take the appropriate course of action for the applicants, and you seem to be a likely canidate. Thanks. --Hacker(Write some code) 21:53, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Anti Gun

I'm anti-gun, however I like to play devil's advocate sometimes. I do not believe that academic discourse can progress without competing ideas. --TrueGrit 20:30, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

That is awesome! It's great to see some thinkers around here. CPWebmaster 20:33, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Edit War with Conservative

CPWebmaster, I was upholding the decision of the panel. See the discussion on Philip J. Rayment's talk page here. The Panel approved a version of the article with the free online text of "The Origin of Species", though Conservative removed the link merely eight minutes before the Panel made it's decision (Conservative removed book at 18:21 April 9, decision made 18:29 April 9); clearly too short of a time, as the panel had been deliberating for quite some time. Andy has also made his anti-censorship view very explicit. Other sysops had also supported the inclusion of the book, as it is the single most relevant book on the topic that exists. The pro-inclusion sysops provided their reasons and justifications, though Conservative kept reverting without any justification, or discussion (except for an attempt to draw the conversation off topic at Talk:Theory of evolution). Perhaps you should warn Conservative to not work against what has been made explicitly clear. --Hojimachongtalk 19:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Where does the Panel's decision state that the ref's cannot be changed? It doesn't. Please do not get into any more revert wars with Conservative or any other user. Thank you. CPWebmaster 19:58, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Here is where the panel says that addition of references and further reading books is acceptable. And please, warn the other party in this edit war as well, as he is equally guilty. --Hojimachongtalk 20:02, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm talking about the revert wars in general, not so much this specific case. CPWebmaster 20:06, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Forgive me, but it is hard to avoid an edit war when you cite justifications for your edits, prove that you are undoubtedly correct, and the other user provides no justification and runs from answering any kind of question. --Hojimachongtalk 20:07, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

What other revert wars is Hojimachong engaged in? Rob Pommertalk 20:14, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
None, at the moment. --Hojimachongtalk 20:16, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
You're dodging the bullet. Please just don't get into any revert wars. They waste everyone's time. CPWebmaster 20:17, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
I fully understand that edit wars are bad to engage in, and should be avoided. But I think you are missing my point as well; There was evidence to back up a specific view, posted on the talk page, and told to Conservative even before he removed the books (He asked Philip J. Rayment about removing the books. Philip said he shouldn't; Conservative did it anyways). I think Conservative needs to be reprimanded in some way, shape, or form; I don't see him being warned for the edit war. --Hojimachongtalk 20:19, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Once again, Conservative made a change against the panel, consensus, and Andy. When is this vandalism going to be taken note of? --Hojimachongtalk 22:02, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

CPWebmaster, I want to highlight two things that you said:

  • "I'm talking about the revert wars in general, not so much this specific case."
  • "You're dodging the bullet. Please just don't get into any revert wars. They waste everyone's time."

Okay, perhaps Hojimachong has been involved in other edit wars; I haven't checked. And if true, and if that is not true of Conservative, then perhaps you do have a defence for what is otherwise a prima-facie case of favouritism. But you also seem to be "dodging the bullet" yourself. On Wikipedia, both editors would have been given blocks twice over for this particular incident, and both editors are "wasting everyone's time". You also said:

  • "Where does the Panel's decision state that the ref's cannot be changed? It doesn't."

That's precisely the point. I "changed" (added) some references (books for further reading), and Conservative started the revert war (in the sense that he made the first reversion) by removing them on the grounds that they were against the Panel's decision. You have here acknowledged that they are not against the Panel's decision, indicating that it was Conservative who was in the wrong, yet it is Hojimaching that you are warning.

Just to avoid any misunderstanding, I agree with Conservative's worldview, and disagree with some of Hojimachong's. And it was Conservative that first suggested that I be a sysop. It pains me to have to take a stand against him on this, but I believe that truth and justice warrants it in this case.

Philip J. Rayment 23:10, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Well spoken, Philip. For me, this all fell under the "two wrongs don't make a right" consideration. Those who have been around more than a month know I have publicly disagreed with Sysop Conservative many times. Not on ideological or political grounds, but because of this absolute unwillingness to engage others, or even answer their questions. And I don't agree with blocking people without some explanation, if only to fellow Sysop's. He has gotten much better at responding, however. All of the points above, raised by everyone don't make engaging in a squalid public fight over editing, conducted by Sysop's, right. It is hard to preach to editors not to do something Administrators are constantly doing, eh? No matter if it is reverting each other's edits, or reverting blocks, it is the same principle; "Do as I say, not as I do". I think that is more what the Webmaster's point was, knowing full well the danger of supposition. ;-) --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 03:10, 19 April 2007 (EDT)


small favor

I permanently blocked someone and it was by mistake. I think I fixed it but I am not sure. Please make sure Bill_M can edit. 00:04, 22 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

He's not blocked. CPWebmaster 00:06, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Please vote for me

Please vote for me here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Request_for_Bureaucratship Conservative 19:38, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Changing User Name

It would probably be best to just create a new account. CPWebmaster 23:10, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Any bureaucrat can handle a name change for you. ColinRtalk 02:09, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

My contributions

I think there's something wrong with my contributions, all edits prior to today seem to have vanished link. Would you be able to look into it for me? Thank you and God bless. Aschlafly 13:17, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

No there isn't. Look back in the recent changes for the creation of a new 'User:Aschlafly'. --Wikinterpretertalk?
Here. --Wikinterpretertalk?

So is it possible to ban the fake ASchlafly and the fake Conservative before they do more damage to the site and to the reputations of the real things?--Steve 13:25, 1 May 2007 (EDT)


Sure, as long as the person doing it know what they are doing and pays attention. Oh................well...........it would normally be possible but after all SYSOP promotion here has little to do with understanding what the heck you are doing. Tmtoulouse 13:28, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
I don't know. No mods seem to be currently active. --Wikinterpretertalk?

thank you

thank you for fixing my talk page. --Will N. 10:34, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

you're welcome CPWebmaster 11:31, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Edit to wombat

Please see the talk page and explain your reversion. Thanks. JoshuaZ 11:16, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Image libs

Are we using GD or ImageMagick? --Liπus the Turbohacker(contact me) 15:33, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Merge

Thanks for this merge. [1] What other maintenance tasks can we do together? --Ed Poor 12:04, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

It seems that there are a lot of templates that are not being user and/or are worthless. Going through those would be good. Thanks for the help! CPWebmaster 12:07, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
I deleted 4 unused templates. --Ed Poor 12:17, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
Could you also remove them from help:templates please? Philip J. Rayment 19:38, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
I was addressing that request to Ed, but thanks anyway. Philip J. Rayment 00:26, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Actually, a few of those deleted templates were either in use (although in only one or two pages). Also, a few were designed to be used with Subst:, which means that they aren't "in use" but may still be required. Philip J. Rayment 00:43, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

MediaWiki stuff

I have two suggestions:

  1. You really should install interwiki links to Wikipedia, it would make life easier.
  2. Extra namespaces, i.e. "Debate:" would also be helpful. Currently, all debate pages reside in the Project namespace, which, to a techie like myself, is physically painful :).

--Liπus the Turbohacker(contact me) 20:23, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

What's the point of the interwiki links if we are normally not supposed to link to Wikipedia anyway?
I agree with the second suggestion.
Philip J. Rayment 00:29, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Yes, I agree with Philip. Another Sysop on Friday found several pictures linked to article pages here, from WP. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 01:53, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Kewl. Thanks. --Liπus the Turbohacker(contact me) 11:05, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Once more thing: for a wiki of this description, Oversight might be quite useful. For instance, if Icew*dge decides to use an edit summary of "F*** F*** F*** F*** F***", it can be hidden, so people won't stumble across it. --Liπus the Turbohacker(contact me) 17:47, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Oh yes, and you should add a licensing menu to the upload page. --Liπus the Turbohacker(contact me) 16:20, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Spam Filters...

My talk page, somewhere on it is the ice name, and spam filter is not allowing me to save my changes with it on there.....--Sysop-TK /MyTalk 08:05, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Fixed it. --Liπus the Turbohacker(contact me) 11:44, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Now, now, you fixed it on my page, but don't the filters need tweaking really? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 12:01, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
Just put I**W*****. We really don't want them to be able to post that anywhere on the site. CPWebmaster 12:19, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
Unless that is case-sensitive and excludes spaces, I can easily imagine that having too many false positives. By the way, you beat me to ban the latest incarnation of said vandal by a very few seconds! Philip J. Rayment 12:36, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Our two Philip's are like dynamos today! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 13:45, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
I used Unicode… --Liπus the Turbohacker(contact me) 16:19, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Something has indeed changed, for I cannot remain logged in as I used to. I didn't change my comp settings, but now being idle for 15 + minutes, I must log in again. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 19:01, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Changing Signature

I can't figure out how to change my default signature and decided you would be the most appropriate person to ask.--Favor 19:41, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Go to Special:Preferences, or click the "my preferences" link at the top of the page. --Liπus the Turbohacker(contact me) 22:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Problem with spam filter

It is now impossible to post in a section that contains the signature of a certain vandal who's signature I cannot post because the spam filter wont let me.--Favor 00:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

What I recommend you do it go ahead and remove all instances of that name on said page. DanH 00:29, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes, replace all instances with I**W*****. CPWebmaster 10:00, 14 May 2007 (EDT)


Why did you delete the article on "Why South Africa Sucks"

Please comment on my talk page. Did you delete it, or did you move it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John99 (talk)

I hope you won't mind. I created another article of "Why South Africa Sucks". The reason being that there is to much information available on this blog to warrent further expantion on the South Africa article. This website may be used as a source of information on South African Issues. --John99 12:48, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I NOTED THE FOLLOWING ARTICLES WERE DELETED:

Thanks for your understanding. All these articles were sabotaged on Wikipedia.

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis is incorrect

CPWebmaster, the Homo sapiens neanderthalensis is not the correct name for the neanderthal. It is Homo neanderthalensis. Neanderthalensis and Sapiens are different species. Please correct.--TimS 11:05, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

That is incorrect, they are not different species. CPWebmaster 11:08, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
CPWebmaster, you are wrong. Please provide your proof. According to Taxonomy they are different.
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/neand.htm
http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/homoneaderthalensis.htm
--TimS 11:12, 14 May 2007 (EDT)


Both of those are false, biased sources of information. Read this please. Thanks CPWebmaster 11:22, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
AIG is unbiased? You are saying that AIG is more valid than the Smithsonian Institution? Homo sapiens neanderthalensis is a contraversial subspecies of the Homo sapiens whereas Homo neanderthalensis is the accepted species for the neanderthal. The correct way of listing taxonomy is genius and then species not genius, species then subspecies. So by your way of resoning this should be listed under Homo sapiens. Anyone one with a little biological taxonomy traning would see this as a farse.--TimS 11:33, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
When it comes to origins, AIG is obviously more valid than the Smithsonian. I am aware that Homo neanderthalensis is the "accepted" species, but this is merely hopeful thinking by evolutionists. In reality, Homo neanderthalensis is HUMAN. I placed it under a sub-species because I did not want it to conflict with the human article. CPWebmaster 11:49, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
If homo neanderthalensis is human as you said above, then why not list it with Homo sapiens? CPWebmaster, I can not understand why you would perceive AIG as more valid than the Smithsonian. There are thousands more scientists working and submitting to the Smithsonian than AIG. This provides a more critical environment for research. AIG struggles to have PhDs write articles within the scope of their discipline. How many times have you seen a physicist write about biology at AIG? The point is that if you plan to use taxonomy to describe an organism then you must follow taxonomy rules to describe the organism. Meaning if you wish to say that Neanderthal was a subspecies of Homo sapiens then you need to list Neanderthal as Homo sapiens. Otherwise you need to place it back with homo neanderthalensis.--TimS 12:01, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Your source is also overstepping its bounds by claiming that Neanderthals and humans are both able to speak in the same manner. This is a mater still under debate by most physical anthropologists. There are also many skeletal differences between the two species. Prof0705 12:18, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Do I even have to mention that based on a taxonomy the way this article is listed Neanderthal is of the same level as European, African, Asian, ect. If this is the case then why did they die out while Europeans thrived?--TimS 13:19, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Are we going to have an answer from you about this? We are still waiting for your explination.--TimS 11:34, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

No, I made my case, that's what I'm sticking to. CPWebmaster 11:37, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
So you are going to use scientific naming (taxonomy) without following taxonomy rules? This does not make for a very reliable article then. You are misrepresenting a classification system.--TimS 11:39, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Creating a new path....

Help talk page....[[2]] Would you help that guy out? Thanks! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 14:30, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Why the reversion on the "Jesus Christ" article?

I'm sorry, was there something wrong with my edits? I was trying to give the article a more neutral tone...I mean, it's not like Jewish or atheist conservatives believe that Jesus was the son of God.--M 15:16, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

I could think that 2+2=6, but that does not make it true. Conservapedia presents the truth first. If you would like to add a section to the bottom about how Jews do not accept Jesus as the Son of God then go ahaid. Thanks, CPWebmaster 15:37, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
I was under the impression that Conservapedia presented the facts first, not any given religion. Stating blankly that Jesus is the Son of God is a pretty darn unsupported assertion, isn't it? Isn't the whole point of faith-based religion that we'll find out for sure after death?--M 17:27, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
Personally, I believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God. The Bible says that Jesus is the Son of God. Therefore, it is a FACT that Jesus is the son of God. I have no doubt in my mind that He is, I don't have to wait until I die to know for sure. CPWebmaster 17:45, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
The fact that you believe something to be infallible does not make it so. You cannot accurately say that Jesus is the Son of God; from what you said, you can accurately say that you BELIEVE that Jesus is the Son of God, because you believe that the Bible is God's infallible word. I can say that I believe that "The Once and Future King" is literally true, but that wouldn't justify my claiming that Arthur IS the true king of England.--M 10:26, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

Deletedpage

I didn't delete it; I haven't touched it, except a locking (for obvious reasons) when it was created, on April 15. According to the log, TK deleted it in his rush to get the vandals, I'd let it go. --Hojimachongtalk 17:19, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Looks like Hojimichong protected it. DrSandstone 17:21, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Australia

Hi, why did you revert my edits to Australia? --Incognito 21:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

I was wondering the same thing. Philip J. Rayment 22:54, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Too much use of the word football? He must be a soccer supporter.Hannibal ad portas 12:51, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

notice

Please direct new Sysops here: New Sysops Training Page

Conservative 21:20, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Editing quirk

Apologies if this is not the right place but is there a setting I need to change to avoid automatically going into edit mode when I click on a user's name to see what they have done? BrianCo 13:07, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

Please ignore, it seems to have stopped now. BrianCo 13:09, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

Template Request

I was wondering if you would create me a template. I really have a difficult time creating them. Thanks. DeborahB. 21:27, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Sure, what did you have in mind? CPWebmaster 21:30, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
Same as the grey box at the top of this page, except instead of "Biology Terms", "U.S. Senate terms". Thanks! DeborahB. 21:46, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Bug in edit conflict

I noticed that Niandra has changed "cartwheels" to "carts" on the front page discussion, so I'm guessing that she had the same problem that I've had a few times the last couple of days.

When submitting an edit, if I get an edit conflict, when I try to submit the edit again Conservapedia gives an error message to the effect that I've run foul of the filter, specifically because of the word "wheels".

I have got around this by starting the edit session over (copying and pasting my edit), so I guess the problem could be due to the fact that in submitting an edit from an edit conflict, one is effectively submitting the entire page, not just the section, whereas most of my edits are just of sections of a page.

P.S. I got the same error message in submitting this, with no edit conflict involved, so it is clearly simply rejecting any submission with the word "wheels" in it.

Philip J. Rayment 06:19, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Me too. Several times. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 06:53, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
Ok, it'll work now. CPWebmaster 09:01, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Greasemonkey

Do I have to have you look over greasemonkey scripts that I want to use? I know you check all userscripts, but greasemonkey is pretty different. --Mschel 18:56, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

L.A. Times interview request

Hello --

I'm writing a piece about Conservapedia for the L.A. Times and would love to talk with some of the more frequent writers and editors. Unfortunately, have to wrap up interviews fairly soon -- by Wed. morning, June 13. If you (or anyone reading this) have a few minutes to talk before then, please drop me a note at stephanie.simon@latimes.com.

Thanks! Stephanie

Before you think about telling this individual anything, it would be good to look at her writings. [3] Karajou 12:35, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Oversight

Could this be installed? I have a rather… nasty edit comment on my talk page. --SimonA 16:56, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Hey...

Know how to archive much?  :p

WB, btw.....--şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 01:00, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

Philip,

The new logo is very nice. It is clean and professional, and the slightly muted colors are comfortable on the eyes. Great work!

~ SharonTalk 20:42, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

Thanks! See you in class. CPWebmaster 11:03, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

It looks AWESOME! Great Job!(You're such a computer wiz) :P --BethTalk2ME 15:05, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

Please confirm

You recently requested to join a new group? --şŷŝôρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 20:26, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

Reason Blocked

Can you please tell me why you blocked me. I was unblocked and you wouldn't respond to my emails, and you didn't list a reason for my blocking, can you please tell me why? thanks Lukecorlando 18:17, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Well, for starters, Luke, you made some numerous silly and stupid edits deliberately, such as this one: [4]. You want to contribute, then get serious about it. You want to behave like a child, then the romper room is down the street; we don't need you here. Karajou 18:22, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

That was one edit that i was working on fixing when it was deleted. it was pasted incorrectly from my research, and for that i apologize. i can recall no other edits that were negative. The Lance Armstrong edit was my very first edit, and i later learned hoe to cite webpages, hence i then fixed the edit. i apologize for my image as a troublemaker, but i have never vandalized this site, and i have made many great contributions. looking at those edits you probably wouldn't say that im not needed. i always do my best, and do not deliberately do anything wrong. Lukecorlando 20:28, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

What is going on?

Jallen has specifically been given permission to alter the Main Page, it's design, colors, layout by Andy. This has been ongoing for several months. FYI. --şŷŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 11:06, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Did you unblock editing for me?

If so, thank you! Jinxmchue 14:44, 2 December 2007 (EST)

welcome back

--Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 17:27, 16 January 2008 (EST)

It's good to see you editing again! ~ SharonTalk 17:37, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Main page style

Good work on the front page. It looks a lot cleaner. BrianCo 17:49, 16 January 2008 (EST)

I too really like it.-MexMax 17:53, 16 January 2008 (EST)
Yes, it is very nice. Would you be the one who changed the site design also? Or is my browser doing stuff with it? --Liam Spencer 18:08, 16 January 2008 (EST)
Thanks for the complements everyone! Liam, I did change the whole site style slightly. CPWebmaster 18:11, 16 January 2008 (EST)
Ah, well, good work, it all looks great! --Liam Spencer 18:28, 16 January 2008 (EST)
A couple of very small criticisms, the "search" title is too narrow on my browser, and I think the titles "master control", "search" and "edit console" could do with a little indentation. Otherwise, nice! BrianCo 19:10, 16 January 2008 (EST)