User talk:Geo.plrd

Geo.plrd

Archives
1 2 3 4 5

(geoplrd on AIM/geo.plrd At yahoo.com) Current messages 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) Hello Geo.plrd. You were the creator of the {{ClayPin}} template, and perhaps others also. Since late May 2007, Conservapedia requires that all templates be properly documented. Please see Creating templates for instructions on this. If the template(s) are not documented, they will be deleted. Thank you for your co-operation in this. Alternatively, if a particular template is no longer required, please delete it. Thanks for that. 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 --Geo.Complain! 17:49, 18 June 2007 (EDT)Copyright Violations 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 ScorpionVote 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. ScorpionVote 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."--TerryHTalk 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.--TerryHTalk 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) I would appreciate your support Dear Geo, I am sending you a note about the uncited template and how it can substantially increase web traffic to Conservapedia. The Conservapedia article on homosexuality is now ranked in the top 10 of http://www.google.com searches. I estimate that the Conservapedia article on homosexuality is giving 300-400 people new people a day to know about Conservapedia who wouldn't otherwise know about it. When the article is in the top 5 of the search engine rankings it will bring in SUBSTANTIALLY more as the top 5 entries get the lion's share of the internet traffic. Now a main reason why the Conservapedia homosexuality article is ranked in the top 10 is that the search engines highly reward articles with footnotes that link to other internet websites. Accordingly, since our uncited template is successful in getting people to cite their material as Andy Schlafly stated, I made note of the uncited template in the following Conservapedia articles: Conservapedia:Commandments: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Commandments Conservapedia Manual of Style: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style Conservapedia:Footnotes - technical help http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Footnotes_-_technical_help Currently about 50% of Conservapedia articles are completely uncited and a high percentage of articles that are cited are poorly cited. If this persist, not many people are going to know about Conservapedia as our articles will be poorly ranked by the search engines. However, I strongly believe that the uncited template will make a substantial difference. Accordingly, I would appreciate your efforts in supporting the uncited template. Conservative 15:29, 29 July 2007 (EDT) Conservative, around here, it is the practice of all Sysops, except you, to discuss changes before implementing them, and asking for support. The Commandments may only be changed upon direct approval from Andy. You did not receive this direct approval, no? Kindly try and act like a mannered person, post your proposals to the Sysops and Andy, then be prepared for discussion and support, not the other way around. I could support your idea, except for the encouragement of placing templates without limitiation. We have far too much clutter already, and your failing to limit template placement, by stating some guideline for what a minimum number of citations is, will lead to chaos and endless debate as to how many are too few and how many are "enough". Thanks. --Sysop-TK --Talk 2 Me 15:59, 29 July 2007 (EDT)