Difference between revisions of "Sysop:Talk/Archive 1"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Revert. This is an archive; not for adding new discussion to.)
(Removing all content from page)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
 
−
<center>'''''NOTE:  This archive is actually the page formerly located at Conservapedia:Sysops'''''
 
  
−
(This page was initially available to any editor to contribute, and the talk page was always available.)
 
−
</center>
 
−
 
−
== A hangout place for Conservapedia Sysops ==
 
−
 
−
(Sysops: please mark this page as watched)
 
−
 
−
You might wonder who our Sysops are.  We have 30 Sysops.  Only one of them is related to me, and we often disagree with each other. 
 
−
 
−
I first met the vast majority of our Sysops online through this website.  Except for a few students and one relative, I did not know any of our Sysops before they registered here.  Our Sysops reflect all political views, and nearly all time zones.  We have several from Britain, several from Australia and at least one from Canada and one from Mexico. 
 
−
 
−
A minority of our Sysops are high school and college students. 
 
−
 
−
Sysops are promoted based on initiative and merit, not ideology.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:49, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
: On May 7, 2007, I reduced our number of Sysops to 29.  This was a routine housecleaning that simply reflected inactivity by several Sysops for more than a month.  They are free to return and, based on new edits, seek again to become Sysops.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:11, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:: Two duplicate accounts have been removed, trimming the number of Sysops to 26 (also subtracting a duplicate account).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:07, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
: The Sysop count is 25 as of May 10.  We will be adding a new Sysop in the next week when we surpass 9,700 new entries.  The new Sysop will be the person considered to have the highest quality and quantity of edits.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:59, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
On May 16, two new Sysops were added based on merit.  Also, for unrelated reasons, Sysop status was removed from two other users.  The total number of unique Sysops remains at 25.  I do not know any of these four Sysops personally.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:36, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
On May 17, the Sysop privileges of [[User:Niandra]] were restored.  Welcome back, Niandra!  That brings our total of unique Sysops to 26.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:41, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
'''''NOTE:  There have been further changes since the above discussion.  See [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Listusers%26group%3Dsysop] for the current list of sysops.''''' <small>[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:46, 5 July 2007 (EDT)</small>
 
−
 
−
== Vulgar metaphors on the page [[Talk:Theory of evolution]] ==
 
−
Ladies and gentlemen, the debate on the above page is getting increasingly vulgar. Here is the latest example:
 
−
 
−
:Vulgarity TerryH?  Are you as clueless of the definition of that word as you are of evolution?  Please.
 
−
: In any case, both Dimensio and Murray are quite right (as was I): evolution does not give a rat's behind whether a god or gods exist or don't exist, it is utterly irrelevant to the theory. 
 
−
:Now, what Dawkins writes regarding theology is his own opinion and has no bearing on the science of evolution.  As Dimensio says, Dawkins is a piss-poor theologian and his arguments, poor as they are, are his own.  In my opinion, both theists and atheists, especially of the rabid variety (Benny Hinn and Richard Dawkins) are intellectual fools: as any deities would exist in the realm of the paranormal, there is no way to either prove nor disprove their existence -- arguing vehemently and vociferously on either side of the equation is a waste of brain cells.  Personally, I don't care if deities exist, I'm more concerned with being a good father, good friend, etc. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 07:42, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
Urine, ladies and gentlemen? And the pudendum of ''Rattus rattus''? And the saliva of hamsters, which was what I originally replied to and cited as vulgar? (In addition to User NousEpirrhytos, the other offender is User Dimensio.)
 
−
 
−
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm too close to this. But if someone is going to use vulgar metaphors, then I think perhaps some short-term blocks would be in order--perhaps for a day or two or three. But rather than take that action unilaterally (because it might appear to be self-serving), I now lay it before you all.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 08:17, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:"Pudendum - The human external genital organs, especially of a woman. Often used in the plural".  Explain yourself Terry.
 
−
 
−
:In any case the use of "behind" in "rat's behind" is a euphemism.  I would tell what we would say in Australia but I suspect it might cause trouble.  --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 08:28, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
::Perhaps I ought to have said "haunch." In any case, ought we to permit people to use metaphors that speak of urine and haunches and saliva? I thought that minors used this site.
 
−
 
−
::Oh, and one more thing: shouldn't this page be protected?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 08:44, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
::: Do you mean protected from me?  --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 08:49, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:: No obscenity is allowed, even on talk pages.  This is an absolute rule.  The user above is going to be warned of blocking, at a minimum.  Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:57, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
*Andy, the continued fighting there is permeating the site, and many are just growing weary of a few who just cannot stop arguing the issue.  Can't we just lock it all down until the Students come up with an answer? --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 08:59, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
 
−
:: TerryK, you never cease to amaze me.  --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 09:03, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
Really?  You should try my Gin Fizzes! --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 09:11, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
: I thought the evolution page was locked until the students address it (they have made progress).  If not, feel free to do so.  This page is now locked since it is a Sysop page.  User NousEpirrhytos has been warned of blocking, and I'll warn User Dimensio next.  Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:32, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
::FYI, the ''article'' is locked, but the ''talk'' page is not locked.
 
−
::And (*sigh*) I find this next report almost as distasteful as my earlier report on vulgar metaphors. But have any of you had a gander at [[Talk:Theory of evolution#The answer's simple...|this latest]] highly disrespectful side discussion? ''Il Unione Siciliano'', AKA ''La Cosa Nostra'' ("Our Thing")? Please. [[Logical fallacy#Argumentum ad hominem|Argumentum ad hominem]] is bad enough--but how much blatant disrespect for authority must we tolerate?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 10:01, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
The likely problem with this sort of thing is in deciding what is vulgar and what isn't.  I know that some things that Americans consider vulgar Australians wouldn't, and vice versa, and some things I consider vulgar other Australians wouldn't (Horace, I know what you are referring to, but personally I wouldn't use that term.  By the way, I didn't realise that you were another skip; have you seen the {{tl|Aussie}} template?).  Some terms there would be no question about, but other, more borderline ones, might genuinely be considered acceptable by some and not by others.  Is there any way of having a Conservapedia standard on what's acceptable and what's not short of drawing up a list of unacceptable terms?  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:09, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
: Guidelines would be fine, we do want to keep the rules and regulations to a minimum here, in contrast with Wikipedia.  Sysops have discretion and authority, and we do ban obscenity.  Generally unintellectual comments are disfavored.  A comment like "Piss-poor" wouldn't be tolerated in a good university homework assignment, so why should we?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:02, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
::I smell a [[Conservapedia:Standard]] emerging:
 
−
::*unintellectual comments are disfavored
 
−
::*good university homework assignment
 
−
::I'd translate this into a guideline as, "Avoid unintellectual article comments and strive to make articles of a quality which is on par with a good university homework assignment." I'll settle for a good high school homework assignment, especially when starting an article (see [[stub]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:52, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
== Namespace Filters for Contrib Pages ==
 
−
Ladies and gents, can't we have a namespace filter for the special pages on user contributions? How can we judge an editor's substantive contributions when, half the time, we can't even ''find'' any among the most recent fifty contribs, because that editor has spent so much time getting hot and heavy in the Talk or User talk namespaces? I realize that this might constitute a valid criticism of that editor--and I intend no [[special pleading]] on my own part for having begun in this project largely by engaging in futile and unseemly flame wars (for which I apologize). But in all fairness, we ought to be able to find the pages that any user has made substantive (i.e., non-minor) edits to, or better yet created, so that we can better judge the value of his contributions to the project.
 
−
 
−
I propose that when you look up contributions, you have the option of searching either all namespaces, or just the main (article) namespace, or any other namespace you want to pick. And if we have that capability already, I'd like to know what I'm missing, and suggest that the method appear on this page so that every sysop knows how to conduct such a filtered search.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 09:11, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
=== Directions Provided ===
 
−
Well, after publishing the above, I got the instructions--and from [[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]]. Give that man credit for a very helpful suggestion.
 
−
 
−
In case anyone hasn't seen it yet, whenever we search ''any'' page for user contributions, keywords, or whatever, we can select either all namespaces, or any particular namespace. The filter appears immediately below the set of links to various logs. The minor edits still present a problem--but such filtering is a powerful tool indeed.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 09:49, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
== Debate Topics Falling Into Main Namespace ==
 
−
I hate to tell everybody, but prefixing "Debate:" in front of various debate-topic titles succeeds only in throwing it back into the Main namespace. Somebody needs to create a new, specific namespace for debate topics. The chief benefit would be to allow people to search for debate topics more readily (in case they didn't get added to the Debate Topics page), and to allow those of us who want to judge people's contributions, to separate article edits from debate postings and judge these separately.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 12:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
More on this issue, from Sid3050:<blockquote>The problem is not just that the debates are currently bleeding into the mainspace, but also that they will become inaccessible if we create a "Debate"/"Debate talk" namespace set right now. Check out [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Custom_namespaces this link] for reference (just under the first blue-border box).<br><br>The explanation (from what I gather) is: Right now, we got an article with the full name "Debate:Blah". If we then create "Debate" as a namespace, calling "Debate:Blah" will actually show "Blah in the Debate namespace" instead of "Debate:Blah in the Main namespace" - two quite different things.<br><br>So a sysop will have to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=move&user=&page=&limit=100&offset=0 revert those moves] ''before'' the new namespace is being created. Good news is that there's a "revert" link next to each move. Bad news is that there are many things that have to be reverted.</blockquote>
 
−
 
−
Something else to consider...--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 13:42, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
*Yes, quoting Sid, and getting help from him, is a real good idea. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 13:48, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
::He at least provided good links. As long as I've checked out his information, and found it sound, I'll stand by my recommendation of it. If we allow his record to disqualify anything he says for no better reason than that he said it, then we commit [[ad hominem]] and [[non sequitur]]. Not to mention nasal self-amputation.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 13:54, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
*Well, it at least sounds clever. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 14:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
== Novel Cover Art ==
 
−
User [[User:Additioner|Additioner]] has been uploading some book-cover images to Conservapedia. Now I don't have a problem with that, so long as we restrict the use of those images to articles about the books themselves. Under [[United States]] law, such use constitutes [[fair use]]. But the uploader ought to state that explicitly in the image summary when he does an upload.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 17:24, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
*Agreed!  There are many images, seemingly belonging "nowhere". --~ [[User:TK|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 17:33, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:I would suggest putting the images on watch. Don't delete yet, someone may be working on articles for them. <font color="FFD700">[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]</font><sup><font color="000000">[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]</font></sup> 17:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
::Yes, especially images of "donuts"! --~ [[User:TK|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 17:38, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
 
−
== Blocked Users ==
 
−
 
−
Please take special care to protect the pages of blocked users, to prevent vandalism and such.  Especially if the ban isn't infinite.  Additionally if not protected, it seems to be a posting spot for socks, etc. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 18:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
 
−
==Sock Ring==
 
−
 
−
If you review my [[Special:Log/block&user=Tsumetai|recent blocks]], you'll notice a large number of accounts with names on a similar pattern; generally six characters long, first and fourth characters capital letters, the rest random letters/numbers. Each of these accounts shared an IP with at least one other in the same group. If you notice a similar username in the [[Special:Log/newusers|User creation log]], it might be an idea to run them through [[Special:CheckUser|CheckUser]]. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:48, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:What is the "check user" function? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 05:41, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
::CheckUser allows sysops to see a list of IP addresses used by any given account, and a list of accounts which have used any given IP address. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:46, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:Update: That makes '''30''' accounts in the last three days. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 09:18, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:This might sound kind of crazy, but I think we're being raided again. Or someone's trying to prepare for a raid and you just shut them down heh.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 9:20, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:: Very well done, Tsumetai!  I had not caught that myself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:50, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
==Proposed Block Policy==
 
−
There has recently been some disagreement over blocks, so I have created a [[User:CPAdmin1/Proposed Block Policy|proposed block policy]]
 
−
Tell me what you think. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 23:23, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
Plase Vote on the Policy [[User:CPAdmin1/Proposed Block Policy/Vote|Here]].--[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 10:12, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:I think you had better start communicating.  I think if you did, it would be explained to you, so you won't embarrass yourself further. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 23:30, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
::I am Attempting to comunicate here, i am proposing a block policy to make things '''easier''' for everyone. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 10:12, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:::This is the best thing to come along about this topic/problem/issue which I've seen since I got here. Regardless of whether or not this policy proposal gets elevated to a guideline, it's an excellent effort. It's also a creative masterwork of compromise and negotiation and balance. It's what *I* wish I had come up with, but I am frankly not a good enough writer to do it. I may not agree with every jot and tittle, but it is '''certainly''' something I can live with; I've already started to try to conform my actions to it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:52, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
::::Thank you for the compliment.  If there are any changes you would propose please post them on my talk page or the talk page for the proposed policy. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 20:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
 
−
:*Well, I am happy Ed, you were asked for input.  ''Not all of us were''.  That is the problem I have with it, same as Andy. And, since it has already been moved to vote, it is '''disingenuous and corrupt''' to make changes after people have voted. Since I am their primary target, and they refuse to communicate with me, but just post public charges and defamation's here, and privately denigrate and disrespect me, I have told Andy I will be fine with it, if he feels the need to remove me, or ask for my resignation. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 20:59, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
Here is what I just posted on the talk page for the proposed policy.
 
−
::I posted on the [[Conservapedia:Sysops]] Page asking all of the sysops '''including you''' for input [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia%3ASysops&diff=103781&oldid=102137| Here], and I asked you personally for input [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACPAdmin1%2FProposed_Block_Policy&diff=105523&oldid=105515| Here]. I meant to post the first message on your talk page when I posted it on others, but I accidentally missed you.  I am doing my best to try to involve you in the development of this policy, but all you have offered so far is insults.  Please make suggestions. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 23:18, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
Regardless of what you think of my proposal, do you see recognize the need to have a block policy? --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 00:38, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:*'''Yes, I do.'''  One considered by Andy, Bureaucrats and Sysops and hashed out at least a bit, before springing it publicly.  That way keeps people from feeling they have been backed into a corner, Tim. You are so snide!  I posted several times in the beginning about needing some codified rules of procedure for Sysops, before and after being made a Sysop.  Ask Ed Poor, it is a constant subject of our conversations! Since you only communicate with other "elites", you wouldn't know the great lengths I always go to before blocking others.  I check with other Sysops, via IM or email, or in IRC.  I check with Andy.  And then after all that, along comes "Elite CPAdmin1" and Benjamin,  making a snide remark in the summary, and undoing it.  And if that wasn't enough, you denigrate me to others, questioning my mental state.  You messaged with others about drawing up the "proposed" rules, but excluded others.  That is not exactly bridge-building, or being fair. And through all these dozens of posts, you still refuse to make contact, and resolve it, as Ed Poor suggested to you.    --~ [[User:TK|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 03:18, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
==Malicious Redirect==
 
−
 
−
Someone has set up right-wing-masturbapedia.com as a redirect to conservapedia.com; take a look [http://forum.scotchandpolitics.com/viewtopic.php?pid=7008#p7008 here] for more info. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:35, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
I don't think there's anything we can do about that... [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 23:21, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
No, there really isn't.  If they want to spend $5 a month just to do ''that'', I could care less.  --[[User:David R|&lt;&lt;-David R-&gt;&gt;]] 23:29, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
:This is defamation. i will bring this to Andy's attention. <font color="#F90404">Geo.</font>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:14, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:: I think the redirect simply sends us new visitors.  As said above, if they want to spend their money and time doing that, albeit in an offensive way, I'm not sure why we should care.
 
−
 
−
:: Thanks to User:Conservative for blocking one of the perpetrators promptly from this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:28, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
''It means that, hopefully, someone will some day find a Conservapedia page on Google that points to a right wing masturbapedia URL.''
 
−
Copied from blog entry by owner. <font color="#F90404">Geo.</font>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:34, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:That's already happening. The redirect is showing up in various Google searches on 'conservapedia + (something else).' One would think DreamHost would have a policy against this. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:56, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:: I'd just ignore this.  I think it simply attracts attention to Conservapedia.  The perpetrators are defeating their own purpose, which even they will realize eventually.  That "something else" in Tsumetai's message is probably something our legitimate visitors would not type.  Over time Google will drop it also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:::Sorry, I should have been more clear. That "something else" could be anything at all, or even nothing. Their content is our content, and Google's bots are crawling their URLs. So ''any'' Google search which returns one of our pages ought to return one of theirs too. The only question is how high up their results get. I've already seen a couple on the first page of a search. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:11, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:::: I don't think this is the first time anyone has thought of this.  I would expect Google's search engines to recognize this scam and filter it fairly soon.    But if not, the perpetrators are using our name without our permission and I think that violates our intellectual property.  We'll have them explain themselves to a judge if they want to persist in this.  Also, we can tell their ISP and it will stop intellectual property violations that use its machines.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
::::::I believe the website was illegal and the website is down now and it appears as if it was created by Jason Terk who lives in Somerville, MA  See:  http://forum.scotchandpolitics.com/viewtopic.php?id=87&p=17 and  [http://right-wing-masturbapedia.com/ here] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:54, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
== Pop celebrity pages ==
 
−
Ladies and gents, user {{user|ILikeCookies}} has been making some edits, the wisdom of which I seriously question. These pages concern pop culture celbrities like [[Britney Spears]]. My objections are threefold:
 
−
# Pop culture is by nature ephemeral, and I'm not sure that we want to offer that kind of, for lack of a better term, ''fluff'' in our encyclopedia.
 
−
# Some of these celebrities conduct themselves in an inappropriate manner, and having articles on them might appear as though we accept their behavior.
 
−
# They are living persons, some of whom are in and out of courts of [[law]] all the time. Can't you see the [[lawsuit]]s, [[subpoena]]e, ''et cetera ad nauseam''? [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]], you're an attorney. You know what I'm talking about.
 
−
 
−
For these reasons, I am recommending virtually every one of that user's new pages for deletion.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 09:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:You raise a good point. We need to decide whether or not such articles are within the scope of the project. I don't think we need worry about points 2 and 3, however. On point 2, we have an article on Hitler, after all. And on point 3, public figures are generally fair game; we'd have to really cross the line to open ourselves up to a lawsuit. I don't think edits which were promptly reverted would count, either. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 09:51, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
::The problem is that the particular public figures involved, routinely hire Dream Teams of lawyers and can be quite vindictive. We deal here with celebrities who spend most of their time attacking one another, often viciously--too viciously to type here. We don't want to get caught in any legal crossfire.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 11:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:::Lets just stick to hard facts, (DOB, movies, songs, etc.), rather than losing all the knowledge. I will refactor Britney Spears as an example.<font color="#F90404">Geo.</font>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 13:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
::::Is all knowledge profitable for instruction and education, just because it ''is'' knowledge? In my day, if I brought TV-show merchandise into class and played with it, it would be confiscated. Class was class and pop was pop and never the twain did meet. And more than that: I maintain that you cannot mention the name ''Britney Spears'' in the company of minors without first saying, "This person comports herself in a deliberately immodest manner, and that strictly for shock value. Parental judgment and discretion are advised." What is Conservapedia coming to?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 14:15, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
*I agree with some of everything here. Funny, Dew and I were discussing deleting everything by this (hopefully) 12 year old, Sunday night.  Terry, yes she is she mostly inappropriate?  Of course!  Encyclopedia's routinely drop references to such "celebrities" who do not keep some relevancy.  See Marylin Monroe and James Dean as examples of those who have. They should have articles, with a picture so the uninformed about pop culture (like me) will possibly connect the name to the face, and agree with Geoplrd as to what the articles should be like. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 15:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
There's a difference between Britney Spears and Cookie Monster, Big Bird, and Homer Simpson, all of which this user has created articles on. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
::Indeed. If very young, all topics of interest to them, eh?  We have many very young users, and they are indeed pop culture icons, no? Like I said, I agree with most of the above.  Judicious pruning never hurts as well! --~ [[User:TK|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 15:44, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
== Templates ==
 
−
I've created a [[help:Templates|page listing all Conservapedia's templates]] as a ready reference for editors wanting to know what templates are available and what they are for.  It is very rough and ready and the page could do with some improvement, but my main concern at the moment is that there are a number of templates in existence that are likely against the rules and/or guidelines, or which we don't want to encourage people to use.
 
−
 
−
Could sysops (or others) have a look through the list and cull out (of existence, not just from the page) any templates that we should not have.  Now that I've created the page it should be easier than before to see what's there and take action accordingly.
 
−
 
−
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:55, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
*Absolutely super!! :-) --~ [[User:TK|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 19:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
----
 
−
Following discussion between some sysops, we plan on insisting that anybody who creates a template also properly documents that template, with the penalty that it will be deleted if they do not do so.  I will shortly be preparing a template that can be posted on the user talk pages of people who fail to document their templates advising them of this requirement.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:54, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:I have created the [[template:TemplateDocRqd|template]] for user talk pages.  There are two versions, but this is the standard one for new templates:
 
−
::{{TemplateDocRqd|TemplateDocRqd}}
 
−
:I have also created three templates for use in documenting templates:  {{tl|TemplateDoc}}, {{tl|Parms}}, and {{tl|Parm}}.
 
−
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:37, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
== TimSvendsen? ==
 
−
 
−
Isn't this CPAdmin1?  Are we all getting two accounts now? I kinda like the idea! --~ [[User:TK|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 19:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:Yes, he changed usernames. <font color="#F90404">Geo.</font>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 20:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:Another memo lost! I gotta get a file system going. I have both names on my Sysop list, but I posted about it here, because I saw a block by TimSvendsen, and usually he uses CPAdmin1.  Maybe Andy forgot to deactivate one of them? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 20:53, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
::Tim doesn't use [[User:TimSvensden]] anymore. Indeed, his user and user talk pages redirect to CPAdmin1. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 21:02, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
*Hmmmm, odd, I could have sworn that name did a block quite recently<s>....maybe someone has hacked it!</s> Maybe I ran across it looking at old blocks....on a project I am doing...that must have been it!  --~ [[User:TK|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 21:05, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
== Edit etiquette ==
 
−
 
−
I've created an [[help:editing etiquette|editing etiquette]] page, and linked it off the help page.  I wish that there was some way of notifying all editors of things like this.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:14, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
== Useful links template ==
 
−
I've add a {{tl|Useful links}} template that users can include on their user page.  I've also prettied-up the {{tl|welcome}} template and included {{tl|Useful links}} in the {{tl|Welcome}} template, as you can see here:
 
−
<div style="background: #ffc; width:95%; border: 1px solid blue; padding:0.5em;">
 
−
{{useful links|background=off|float=right}}
 
−
'''<big>Welcome!</big>'''
 
−
 
−
Hello, <<newcomer>>, and '''''welcome''''' to [[Conservapedia]]!
 
−
 
−
We're glad you are here to edit.  To the right are some handy links, some of which you should read as soon as you can.
 
−
 
−
<small>(You can include these links on your user page by putting {{tl|Useful links}} on your page.)</small>
 
−
 
−
Thanks for reading, <<newcomer>>!
 
−
</div>
 
−
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:46, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
 
−
 
−
== Desysoping inactive users ==
 
−
 
−
try
 
−
*[[User:ChrisS]] - not active since 17th April
 
−
 
−
*[[User:Sarah B]] - most recent edits displayed below:
 
−
 
−
<blockquote>
 
−
# 04:33, 24 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Hillary Rodham Clinton (→Criticism)
 
−
# 04:31, 24 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Kangaroo (→Reproduction)
 
−
# 04:03, 23 January 2007 (hist) (diff) m Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true? (→Evolution is a Racist Philosophy)
 
−
# 04:03, 23 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true? (→Evolution is a Racist Philosophy)
 
−
# 04:02, 23 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true?
 
−
# 03:59, 23 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Theory of evolution
 
−
# 10:36, 1 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Ronald Wilson Reagan
 
−
# 06:15, 1 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Ronald Wilson Reagan
 
−
# 05:52, 1 January 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Sarah B
 
−
# 05:56, 19 December 2006 (hist) (diff) The Mona Lisa
 
−
</blockquote>
 
−
 
−
*[[User:PhilipB]] - inactive since 29th March
 
−
 
−
*[[User:AustinM]] - not active since 7th April
 
−
 
−
(list created by CPAdmin1, expanded by Niandra)
 
−
 
−
== question about blocking ==
 
−
 
−
Sharon posted to Bohdan:
 
−
 
−
Great job blocking!  I'm not sure if anyone told you this yet: when blocking vandals, uncheck the "block anonymous users only" box.  The block is more secure this way.  Thanks, ~ [[User:SharonS|Sharon]]<sup>[[User talk:SharonS|Talk]]</sup> 20:58, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
 
−
Why is this so if it is true? 
 
−
 
−
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:10, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:That's what Mr. Schlafly and the Webmaster said.  I'm not sure exactly why. ~ [[User:SharonS|Sharon]]<sup>[[User talk:SharonS|Talk]]</sup> 21:29, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
 
−
::Good enough for me!  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:33, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
::: Checking the box narrows the block to anonymous users only.  Uncheck the box and it applies broadly to anyone, including already registered sock puppets, I suppose.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:53, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
 
−
:::: Only if those socks are using the same IP, and are not accessing the site via proxy. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 22:34, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
(developer note) I suggest we set the defaults for those checkboxes to the way we want them. That way, we don't have to take the extra time and mental effort to "remember" one more niggling little detail. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:16, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:Agreed. [[User:Niandra|<font color="#4d4d4d">JustineA</font> <small>--sysop--</small>]]<sup>[[User talk:Niandra|talk]]</sup> 09:27, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:*Agreed! --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 15:21, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
== Please direct new Sysops to this article ==
 
−
 
−
Please direct new Sysops to this article: [[New Sysops Training Page]]
 
−
 
−
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:54, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
==[[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]]==
 
−
Is there some reason why AtheristKathryn's pages were'nt deleted after she was blocked infinitely? I just want to make sure that I should delete her pages.--[[User:BethanyS|Beth]]<sup>[[User talk:BethanyS|Talk]]</sup> 09:38, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
 
−
:Kathryn is not blocked at the moment. She has been unblocked since sometime in April. [[User:Niandra|<font color="#4d4d4d">Niandra</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Niandra|talk]]</sup> 09:45, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
Oh. It didn't say she was unblocked in her block log. Thanks!--[[User:BethanyS|Beth]]<sup>[[User talk:BethanyS|Talk]]</sup> 09:57, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
'''    * 07:30, 27 April 2007 Hojimachong (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "AtheistKathryn (contribs)" with an expiry time of 15 seconds (insulting donuts)
 
−
    * 14:48, 12 April 2007 TK (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked AtheistKathryn (contribs) (Asked for second chance. Promises not to be insulting to users anymore)
 
−
    * 11:14, 11 April 2007 TK (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "AtheistKathryn (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (Insults/Disruption)
 
−
'''
 
−
[[User:Niandra|<font color="#4d4d4d">Niandra</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Niandra|talk]]</sup> 09:59, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
== Breaking News ==
 
−
 
−
''(Transferred from Andy's page on 7/1/07)''
 
−
 
−
I added the following articles from [[Michelle Malkin]] to the Breaking News section you might be interested in: '''[http://michellemalkin.com/2007/06/22/what-liberal-media-yeah-that-liberal-media/ What liberal media? Yeah, that liberal media]''' and  '''the forgotten victims of [[Planned Parenthood]]''' [http://michellemalkin.com/2007/06/21/the-forgotten-victims-of-planned-parenthood/] here [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Tfa&curid=3894&diff=205142&oldid=205117] [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] <sup>[[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]]</sup> 10:24, 22 June 2007 (EDT)<br>
 
−
 
−
I also added this one about [[liberal]]s don't like being called "liberals" - they ''prefer'' the term '''progressive'''.  [http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070622/NATION/106220098/1001 Liberals adopt name for 'progress']. Even though this is old news, this article is great entertainment... "It's about spine and dogma and a certainty of movement. It's a way to counter conservatives." More fun - "The word "progressive, ... goes beyond the traditional concept of liberalism, which we also subscribe to, and it has an emphasis on empowering people in the political and economic sphere." Enjoy! [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] <sup>[[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]]</sup> 22:12, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:I think we should have a few articles on the main page with pics, and the rest be moved to another page called [[Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News|Previous Conservapedia Breaking News]] with a link from the '''Breaking News''' section on the Main Page. This would shorten the news section (so we can see the '''Today in History''' section), and give a place to archive the previous news articles. I could even organize and archive them by topic. Crocoite 17:13, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:I got a head start on this including the link from the Main Page. Crocoite 20:25, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
*"Getting a head start" isn't exactly ''discussion'' and approval is it?  --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 20:55, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:: It's not necessary to get approval for everything, and nothing Crocoite's done can't be undone.  Having said that, it is a bit odd to ask about doing something then doing it without waiting for an answer.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:59, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:::Yes, it was a bit odd. Sort of like, praying for patience, and asking the Lord to give it to me NOW. :-( Crocoite 01:03, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
I trust Crocoite with the front page. He's done a wonderful job keeping it current and fresh and I trust what he'll do in the future. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 01:10, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
 

Revision as of 13:11, August 4, 2007

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sysop:Talk/Archive_1&oldid=260319"