User talk:Opcn/Archive1

Welcome to the Dollhouse! 03:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Traditionalism
Speaking of "people still upset, more than forty years later, about translating the liturgy into the vernacular", as mentioned here, it might interest you to read up on Traditionalist Catholicism. :) --Marty 07:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Traditionalists believe men look good in tiaras.

Sysopship
Welcome to the life of a janitor. The basic rules are, don't block anybody that is not a sysop. Use the vandal bin on vandals and only when they are actually making a mess of the site, page blanking etc. Don't delete or lock a page without first discussing it on the talk page, simple enough. We don't protect much so you won't need that. Hide/Show is only for hiding person information like home phone numbers, address etc. If you use it inappropriately you will here from me soon enough, I check over the log occasionally and yes I have that little to do. Don't edit others talkpage comments or remove threads without archiving, that includes this page which we are all allowed to defecate on. Please read RationalWiki:community standards and RationalWiki:sysop guide. A simple rule tell someone what you are going to do before you do it, so we are not all left wondering why you deleted the main page. Good luck. 04:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I lolled at your "new sysop instruction guide". 05:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In order to avoid the dreaded "Ping-ponging" I'll say thanks here, Thank you :). I also vehemently deny being or ever having been Colin James Hallock :) --Opcn 05:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I did however play a CJHallock on CP --Opcn 16:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"TK Blocked Me!"
Gosh, sorry! If only I had known it was you, a serious conservative/Christian person, I wouldn't have. But I am confident that you will be back again.... --TK/MyTalk|undefinedEditor 23:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello
I'm the booby vandal. I'm not quite sure why you blocked me? I thought this site appreciated funny things and I can't think of anything funnier than boobies. Am I wrong? 69.162.107.250 (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * While we do appreciate a good joke now and then, going through and writing "boobies" everywhere is not, in my opinion, very funny. Now, if you could find a way creatively to post that in places where it isn't just the same shit repeating over and over again as the joke, but rather something a little more intelligent, we'd actually laugh (or, at least, smile). 02:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What if I told you I am an admin here and I'm just using proxies to cause trouble? Would you revoke my admin privileges? 69.162.107.250 (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ABSOLUTELY!!! Seriously, I think I'm beginning to smell something nutty now. 02:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And, no, as I would classify this under "not funny" to "funny", as opposed to "unfunny". 02:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm bored now. I am an admin here but not one you would recognize (since everyone is an admin). You were the one who demoted me! 69.162.107.250 (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmmmm, you've got me intrigued! Reveal yourself, please!!! You have piqued my interest.  02:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I promise that you don't know me, so revealing myself would be a major disappointment. I'm just a troublemaker, that's all. 69.162.107.250 (talk) 02:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think he should be promoted for his vandalism, I think he should be promoted for his stupidity. How does any of this make sense? 02:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC)Troublemakers are good now and then. If you had actually revealed yourself, I'd have bowed down to you as God, lol. Since you won't, cheers anyways. 02:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Somehow, I'm disinclined to trust the word of a single BON as grounds for promotion. Otherwise, socks claiming to be admins would be vandalizing all over the place due to the petty vendetta du jour.  -- 03:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I only blocked anonymous contributions, you can log in or even create an account if you like. --Opcn (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Removing TK's name
I know you are a fan-boy of his and have been having your little chats, but it was agreed after a very lengthy debate that his name would remain in articles. 02:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * From the community stdards/privacy -
 * Personal information regarding a living person should be limited to information which they themselves have released into the public domain, either through their personal website or a website they are associated with, or other formal publications.
 * TK released his name formally to a newspaper in the public domain as a member of CP. Acei9 02:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There should be a footnote in the community standards then. I am not a fan of TK on CP, I think he has done a lot to destroy the place and made it unpleasant but no less meddlesome. However I think our rules should be applied consistently, I've been blocked on CP several times for seeking consistency.
 * TK released his name as a member of CP, the inference was drawn that he was TK, not released into the public record. --Opcn (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, bring it up on a debate page or in the Forum space before deleting things on a large scale. Acei9 02:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My big problem is you are doing something unilaterally that is against the community consensus on the issue. 02:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It was 23 page, mostly talk pages, his name is a tiny part of the wiki. I didn't know there was a consensus, I wasn't here when it was reached, I was never pointed towards the page where that consensus was reached, and there is no footnote on the community standards page. --Opcn (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The discussion was here. If you don't know what the consensus is, you should start a discussion before you begin editing multiple page with your own rule. 04:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * there is no footnote on the community standards page Why is a footnote necessary to retain information that was published consistent with the community standards? 05:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So, Opcn, you basically acted unilaterally on behalf of a troll that every other RW editor holds in scorn? Probably not the best tactic. Hell, Terry Koeckritz doesn't even know how to use commas.  05:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, if Terry was so upset about his name, he could always deny it. Officially, 🇰🇪 has not admitted to anyone that he is Ken DeMyer.  Had TK played it off and not tried to use it as a wedge to start shit over here, we couldn't say for certain that it was he.  As it stands, he was pretty much admitted it, and I have no problem with that.  05:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Best Conservative Words
I enjoyed your table of the Best Conservative Words (here). It's a typical example for a Schlafly statistic: Presenting some numbers & imagining the rest - even the doubling of the number of words per century is fishy, a ML-estimator gives 1.745, not 2. 11:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)