Difference between revisions of "User talk:MountainDew"

Revision as of 19:03, March 18, 2007 (view source) Palmd001 (Talk | contribs) ← Older edit		Revision as of 19:06, March 18, 2007 (view source) Cracker (Talk | contribs) m (→‎IRC) Newer edit →
Line 329:		Line 329:
	[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 15:03, 18 March 2007 (EDT)		[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 15:03, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+	:From my vantage point it looked like an honest mistake.  [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 15:06, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

---

Revision as of 19:06, March 18, 2007

Linux Article Protecting the Linux article may be a bit heavy-handed. I agree with your last edit, but the article still needs some corrections and could use more in-depth information. For example, Linux is 'open source' software, not free software, and the sentence 'Whilst desktop machines still overwhelmingly use Windows software...' should be 'Whilst desktop machines still overwhelmingly use Microsoft software...' --Todd 14 March 2007

I'll open it back up now. MountainDew 14:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, "open source" and "free software" are virtually synonymous, except "free software" infers sociocultural concepts. Geekman314^{(contact me)} 22:08, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, tip on deletion

MountainDew, thanks so much for quick delete. This is minor, but worthwhile: you might delete the content box so that the obscene contents are not broadcast further in the "Recent Changes" log.

I'll track down that contributor's IP address and post my action on Conservapedia:Abuse

Thanks again.--Aschlafly 19:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Due to your excellent contributions to Conservapedia, you have been made a SYSOP. With these new privileges, you can block any troublesome users by clicking the block button next to their username. You can also revert vandalism using the method described here. Please block users guilty of minor vandalism for a short period of time, such as a week or two. Obscenity and Offensive edits are reason for an infinite block without warning. Congratulations on becoming a SYSOP! ~ SharonS 20:21, 25 February 2007 (EST)

Your welcome! ~ SharonS 20:43, 25 February 2007 (EST)

Thanks for the welcome. Tmtoulouse 01:52, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Explaining reversions

When reverting as you did here, it is generally helpful to explain why you choose to revert. JoshuaZ 17:17, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I'll do that in the future. The user in question was obviously trying to be snarky, but that's nothing I couldn't have specified. MountainDew 17:27, 1 March 2007 (EST)

It didn't strike me as snarky. It seemed to me to be highly reasonable especially since there issues when we use the term "creationist" precisely what we mean, whether YEC or some other form. This is discussed briefly at creationism. Regardless, it doesn't make much sense to say someone was in a category when everyone in their time period was in that category. It would be like labeling Julius Caesar pagan. JoshuaZ 17:32, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I would dispute whether everybody was a creationist in 1841, but I don't think this is really worth arguing over, so if you wish to revert it back, feel free. MountainDew 17:35, 1 March 2007 (EST)

Good entry!

Nice entry on Henry David Thoreau! Thanks!--Aschlafly 15:16, 2 March 2007 (EST)

Thanks. I hope to expand on it eventually. MountainDew 02:32, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Tournament Chess Player

That's impressive that you're a tournament chess player! I liked chess but was never very good at it.--Aschlafly 17:24, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I never actually started taking the game seriously until high school. It just became an addiction for me. MountainDew 18:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Wow, you play chess too? What's your rating? Can I have your name to check it out on USCF.org? Good luck- Meekrok

Koronus

Don't worry I unblocked him to tweak his block. I found an obscene deleted article floating around . He is now blocked for 1 year. Geo. 01:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Edit reverted as vandalism.

Regarding [1] it was added by User:Conservative so I presume it was meant to be serious. JoshuaZ 20:51, 7 March 2007 (EST)

I think that at the very least, there shouldn't be a statement that implies that the existence of unicorns is definite. MountainDew 20:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Staying up Late

Does Jesus know you are staying up late on a Friday night standing guard over Conservapedia? Shouldn't you be out attempting to be fruitful and multiply?

Delete and block

Please delete Mecha Jesus again and block the user in question. Thanks. JoshuaZ 23:57, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Cheesy potatoes

I think it was a little trigger-happy of you to delete the article without saying anything in the discussion taking place at Talk:Cheesy potatoes. It's not too late to discuss it there now. I'm not suggesting you undelete it, but I think the creator of the article should be given a chance to explain.

Entirely guesswork on my part, but I think it was a good-faith if frivolous contribution by a youngish person. Dpbsmith 13:19, 10 March 2007 (EST)

P. P. S. At Wikipedia I don't believe this would have been a valid "speedy deletion" (one performed by a sysop without discussion). Dpbsmith 13:21, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Making conservatives look bad?

How am i making conservatives look bad? Scooter Libby is a pariah although liberals don't want to admit it... I thought this site was about the truth--PatRobertson2008 20:30, 10 March 2007 (EST)

The liberal media's already beating up on Gingrich!

Poor guy! They were making him look bad in 1995 and it's back again! We need to have his reponse here! I don't want a closet liberal like Giuilani or Mitt Romney to become president!--PatRobertson2008 20:33, 10 March 2007 (EST)

You'd rather have an admitted adulterer and hypocrite? --Sandbagger 15:03, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

What are you trying to say? And I've never endorsed any political candidate on Conservapedia. I am only trying to remove obvious vandalism. MountainDew 15:04, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Good block and revert

Excellent block and rollback, and locking of the Bush page. Very well done! As you did, when it is an obscenity then simply put on an infinite block. We don't want that block ever expiring. Thanks!--Aschlafly 20:42, 10 March 2007 (EST)

P.S. You're absolutely right about being suspicious based on the user id (or screen name). It's amazing how 95% of the time the user id is an obvious giveaway to the bad intentions.--Aschlafly 20:45, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Great move in protecting Ann Coulter. Thanks!--Aschlafly 15:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

why did you block me?

The first line of that article was entirely evolutionist, I was adding the American view. --Joseph84 19:33, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I didn't block you. Your entry was clearly sarcastic. I only warned you. MountainDew 19:35, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

"Sex" page

I just made a pretty little table on the page, and then protected it from editing. So the page does exist, but without any content but the table. --Hojimachong 19:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Not Sure

I'm not quite sure. Ask Andrew, he should know. --Hojimachong^talk 22:41, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

It seems as though you've figured it out. How do you do it? --Hojimachong^talk 22:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Facebook

Could you send me a Facebook invite? The Email this User link is active for me. Thanks, --Hojimachong^talk 00:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I can't get the link to work. However, you don't have to have an invite to register. I can send you the link to that actual page within the site if you register. MountainDew 00:29, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

OK, thanks for the info. --Hojimachong^talk 00:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Bad Editing

---

Look, I didn't delete everything written before as you allege. Compare the two and you'll see that. All of the previous contributions are there, minus grammar errors and POV stuff. Maybe you should read a little more before you jump to conclusions.... Romney4King

There are some differences, but they aren't as substantial as I thought at first, and I do see that your edits produce a well written article, so I'm going to leave it. MountainDew 15:14, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Multiple reversions without explanation

User Ank mangled my contribution, which was factual. Then you go ahead and revert both his mangling of it while deleting my contribution all together. That's not fair. --Ben 15:27, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I reverted everything he did because he vandalized about 15 pages and I couldn't look at all of them while keeping up with the current wave of vandalism. Feel free to re-incorporate your edits. MountainDew 15:28, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

You're the one being biased.

"Fair trade" is what the liberals use to cover up the stigma of the protectionism.

British English

I don't understand how British spelling is inherently biased whereas American spelling isn't. Perhaps you'd care to explain this. PraiseTheLard 17:54, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

President of the United States

Hi, I was just adding some details to this article, which you deleted. Don't you think there should be a bit more detail here? It just seems to me that, if this is to be an encyclopedia, it ought to have a more detailed account of how something like the Electoral College works.

Boethius 17:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

We both know the general goal of your inclusion of those statements, which is to imply that Bush's election was illegitimate. As this is a Conservative encyclopedia, we don't generally want half of the article of the Electoral College serving as a vehicle for these claims. MountainDew 18:01, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, I was trying to revise the article so that it would *not* imply that Bush was not properly elected -- it had been vandalized before I started editing it, and had statements in it about how Bush thinks he is a king. Look at the version just before the ones I edited and you will see that I was taking that kind of stuff *out*, not putting it in!!

Boethius 18:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Proceed ahead then. MountainDew 18:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Pi

Why did you revert my post. Please tell me where I misrepresented the Bible. Everything I added was properly cited and true. Can you prove to me that Kings 7:23 doesn't say Pi is 3? Isn't this a conservative and Christian encyclopedia? Thanks- Meekrok

Come on, we both know you're being sarcastic here. MountainDew 19:01, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I may have overreacted, but the page should at least mention the bible says pi is three. Censorship of the bible is definitely not what Conservapedia is about. Meekrok

As long as I can cite a Christian response to the claim (that holds to a 3.14.... value). MountainDew 19:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks

Thanks for dealing with that, MountainDew. I don't like it when people swear at me or on productive content.

I hope to keep doing good to this site!

In Him, --Zach^{send me a message} 02:14, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for calling my attention to that! There's a lot of people who want to hurt this site and we need to do all we can to combat it. MountainDew 02:14, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Reverting Pages

How do you quickly revert pages without having to manually fix all the changes? ColinR 05:12, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

If you're a sysop, you go to recent changes, and click on "hist", then click the "revert" button. If you're not, click "hist" then the date and time of the entry which you want to edit, then click "edit", and save. MountainDew 05:13, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Vandals

Has it been like this all day? I was having to deal with this for 4 hours this morning.NSmyth18:17, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Yep. I don't even have time to write articles anymore. I'm spending all my time dealing with this. MountainDew 18:18, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Let's block more quickly, and lock more pages that are repeated targets of vandalism.--Aschlafly 18:36, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Bob Dylan

Just saw your changes to Bob Dylan. While it's true he has not recorded an explicitly Christian-themed album for some years, he continues to perform the songs of this era, such as "Saved" and "In the Garden", and as far I am aware his faith has not changed or diminished during these years; indeed there is considerable evidence to the contrary; see:

http://web.utk.edu/~wparr/IsDylanStillChr.html

which has a number of direct quotes, including a recent concert at which Dylan dedicated "In the Garden" to his hero, Jesus Christ.

I don't want to get into a debate, but I think you will find this stuff reasonably solid and compelling -- if you do, would you please revert the change you made?

many thanks,

Boethius 18:22, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Feel free to revert it. You seem to know more about Dylan than I do. MountainDew 18:23, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks

Thanks for taking care of those articles I flagged.--Elamdri 18:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Blocking and locking (protecting)

MountainDew, please feel free to block more quickly, and to lock ("protect") pages that you find yourself repeatedly reverting. Thanks.--Aschlafly 18:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

MountainDew, do you recall the name of the other conservative college student? Should we make him a SYSOP? Can you recommend others for SYSOP status? The person needs only be responsible and we are not limiting this to conservatives. I just made Elamdri a SYSOP. Thanks.--Aschlafly 18:56, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I think you may be thinking of Daniel B. Douglas, who seemed trustworthy but who joined several days ago and hasn't come back. You might also be thinking of ColinR, who was a big help for me during a wave of vandalism last night. I think he would probably make a good SYSOP. MountainDew 18:59, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I understand why you blocked the "Kangaroo" page. But could you fix the last paragraph so the scientific and religious explanations aren't co-mingled? It reads funny. Thanks. --Dave3172 19:01, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

AwaitingTheRapture

Did we get everything?--Elamdri 21:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I think so. I think the Conservapedia:Abuse was the last one that didn't say "rollback" by his name. MountainDew 21:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Salright!--Elamdri 21:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm still new to this and I'm not sure exactly how the page moves work. MountainDew 21:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Me too. Basically, I move the page, and one I move the page, I go to the offensive redirect page and delete it. That way there is no redirect page.--Elamdri 21:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Spoof text on Family Friendly

Hi, just a note to let you know that some spoofed or vandalistic text has been created at Family Friendly; this should be removed/changed and the user informed.

Boethius 22:07, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Wow! User:Hojimachong caught that already! talk about fast.

Boethius 22:08, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Page Move Vandalism

This is a serious problem; how should we go about dealing with the page-move vandals (I assume the latest three were all the same person), and how do we get the IP from the server? Conservapedia's ban-hammer needs to turn into something more like a "ban-nuke" --Hojimachong^talk 22:20, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Same guy too. We need to ban his IP quick. Karajou 23:01, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, Suggestion

MountainDew, thanks for all your blocks and cleaning up of the obscenity. Liberals are great, aren't they? We're starting to track IP addresses to report these vandals and I've posted the jail time imposed by federal law for such obscenity, so they should decline. Also, I've created more SYSOPs to help.

One little tip. When you delete an obscene entry, you might erase the message box on the reason for deletion before confirming the deletion, so that all that filth does not show up on the Recent Changes page. Otherwise the first part of the content shows up there. Thanks again.--Aschlafly 00:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Terrorism

What was wrong with my edit to terrorism? I know Madonna thinks the IRA wasn't a terrorist group, but the UK Government disagreed.

Thanks for the opportunity to edit a bit

Thanks for the opportunity to add to "Christianity!" What a blessing! I just did a bit to get it going, just off the cuff. You might want to "close" it up as you had done before! There's always alot that can be added, but it needs to be true and accurate.

There is no greater ministry this Conservapedia can do than this!! I'm so excited for you!! Maintaining the truth of the Bible, the truth about Jesus Christ and what He has done for the world, is going to be challenged by Satan's minions the rest of our lives here. We will always have this battle. We fight our sinful flesh and our fellow Christians' sinful flesh, and the enemy. We have to make sure that what we write corresponds to what is God's written Word in Scripture. and His offer that whoesoever hungers or is thirsty, can come to Him for living water and the Bread of Life.

May the Lord bring souls to knowledge of Him through Conservapedia! May the Lord provide for the finances needed, the administration needed, so that truth can prevail. May there be no fighting amongst true Christians, but let real Christianity shine forth, the Word of God proclaimed. May the Enemy be put to flight, and my hungry hearts and open ears and minds read the words God places here, and be fed by Him. We ask this in Jesus' precious name, Amen!!

Iraq War

I think you need to revert a couple of versions back. To the one where the Second Gulf War note was added. Affirmlife did heavy editing of items that were properly sourced--Dave3172 13:22, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Great Wall

Just changed the name of it... it's still there. I kept the one with the picture. Sorry for the confusion!

Ahhh... gotcha. Thanks. MountainDew 15:48, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Vandals and Preachers in Christianity

Last night there was a lot of activity in the Christianity section. Someone replaced the entry by a very opinionated sermon which denounced many Christian denominations other than the author's. On top of this there were a fair amount of vandals active that replaced the entire bit by obscenities. It might be an idea to lock it up again. And maybe warn the vandals. --Order 15 March:00 (AEST)

There is again a lot of vandalism going on at the Christianity entry. It is probably time to lock it for a while. --Order 6March 10:40 (AEST)

Vandals messing up fox news and many of my edits

MountainDew,

First of all, I want to thank you for your excellent diaries. Second, I need help. I found out about the site a few days ago, and I started contributing. But Vandals are including obscenities in the Fox News entry, and some one deleted facts from another entry that I made.

What should I do?

Thanks in advance, --Octaviohpaz 14:24, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, for the answer. I only raise the issue because I fixed it yesterday, and today it was changed again. But I think that you can decide that, and I will back you up. Thanks again.--Octaviohpaz 14:42, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

AmesG

Thank you. --Dave3172 16:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Reply fallen angels

I put it up for deletion at the request of User:WhatWouldJesusEdit. Though I don't really think that it should be deleted, his camplaint was valid. Therefore, I thought it reasonable to put the article up for deletion so as to get some disscusion on the matter. --BenjaminS 00:37, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Hillary Clinton

You undid one of my edits, saying "whatreallyhappened is not an acceptable source". But it wasn't cited for anything except to note that "there were allegations of a coverup." And there certainly were! And the link provided many, many pieces of evidence to explain why those allegations were so widespread. I'd understand the edit if I'd claimed that the link proved that there was a murder and a coverup, but that wasn't the claim. In fact noting that there were allegations of a coverup is so un-controversial that I could find an MSM citation noting those allegations. Would that be preferable over citing a site with a conservative bias? Bwilliston 21:48, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

US Senate

I had to undo a couple of your edits on the US Senate page. Just as an FYI, Lincoln Chafee is no longer in the US Senate. And the Democrats aren't considered to have the majority because Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman are more liberal than average, they have it because those two Senators caucus with the Dmeocrats. The Democrats offically have the majority of the Senate. Oh, and there are two senators from each state, not 50. Myk 22:18, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

CP:AID

Your participation would be welcomed at the newly created Conservapedia:Article Improvement Drive. Please contact me with any questions, I think this can be a great idea! --Hojimachong^talk 22:59, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

IRC

Greetings, MountainDew,

Cracker and User:Linus M. have set up an IRC channel for Conservapedia at, originally enough, #conservapedia. Apparently you can send systemwide messages, so we would like you to assist us in getting the word out. Thanks! --Hojimachong^talk 12:31, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Please stop redirecting obscenities to my page, or I will ask you to be removed. Thank you.

Palmd001 15:03, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

From my vantage point it looked like an honest mistake. Cracker^talk 15:06, 18 March 2007 (EDT)