Conservapedia talk:Timeline/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Formatting...would anybody mind...

I'd like to reverse the formatting to have the newest bestest stuff up top and the old crap below. I'm willing to do the "work" but I'll wait for comments and feedsback. ~~ CЯacke® 17:22, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

While at first I am inclined to agree (if you do all the work!), for instance, that is the way "best of" is set up so the fresh howlers are at the top and easy to get to, I think that "timelines" usually run from the past to the present. So I'll argue both ways ;). I have a slight preference for oldest first. Imagine a new visitor reading it, with the present at the top and the past last. Could they follow it? It's also not for the "bestest" stuff so much as milestones along the way, our little contribution to any reporter who ever really wants to write an in depth article on CP. OK, I made up my mind. I "vote" to keep it the way it is. The TOC will always get you to the latest months, anyway. human^{be in} 17:51, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

I'm trying it anyways...if it doesn't work I'll flip it back. Toe Tapping Republican 02:33, 12 November 2007 (EST)

I am against it for the same reasons as human. There already are Conservapedia:Best of Conservapedia and Conservapedia:What is going on at CP which are 'newest first'. IMHO, Timeline makes its point best as it is now, from past to present. I enjoyed reading it all a few days ago as it is, I wouldn't have enjoyed it as much if it were in reverse order. Just my about 1,4 €cent, Editor at CP 03:13, 12 November 2007 (EST)

Oh you already did it, read my "as it is now" as "as it was before". Editor at CP 03:15, 12 November 2007 (EST)

(Placeholder Headline)

I'm curious as to the nature of Shlalfly's edits to wikipedia. I know he claims to have made some edits to the evolution article but would like to be able to track his exchanges to see if he made a good faith effort or simply got mad and decided to create his own sand box.

Me, too. I've found two of his WP usernames - AndySch and Schlafly, I think - but all their edits are after CP started. --jtl^talk 13:53, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

Does anyone know how to find out how many people are able to edit CP? That is, users who are not blocked. Furthermore when were their last edits so that a number can be found for what may be considered active editors and not users who went once and have never been back since. I would like to know more about the relative numbers of chiefs, braves and general dogsbodies at CP. WhatIsG0ing0n 05:44, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

I'm not sure that's possible as such. The members of the different privilege groups can be seen at http://conservapedia.com/Special:Listusers, including the "specially trusted 'Edit' group". But I'm not sure if there's a way to distinguish the banned users from the active, but 'non-trusted' ones. --AKjeldsen 07:10, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

I was hoping for some way to subtract the banned users from the total number of users. That would assumedly give us the number of users. Which of those are Sysops or part of the trusted 'Edit' group is already known. Wikinterpreter has sort of established the proportion of recent Chiefs, braves, and dogsbodies. WhatIsG0ing0n 09:02, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

As of 11:01, 13 June 2007, I count 3278 infinite blocks. God's peed ^{Babel fish}ÅЯ†ђŮŖ ÐΣй†_{Now look here!} 10:11, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

Conservapedia:User Statistics might be useful here. --jtl^talk 14:28, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

Hey--anyone remember when the Richard incident occurred? Sterile 15:08, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

Disabling of special pages

About Andy disabling the 'Random Page' and other special pages, I think it was more to do with the titles of certain 'deleted protected' articles appearing on these pages, like Sid captured, and one I captured yesterday (pictured right). I don't know if some of these pages are lumped together so 'Random Page' has to be disabled with the others? Stevo 07:52, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

Under that reasoning, you could argue that Random Page might let users land on those pages, too. That's one of the reasons why they came up with the whole "Redirect to CP:Deletedpage" procedure to begin with... nice screenshot, by the way! :D --Sid 07:59, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, it's possible, though as you say, pages that were correctly redirected wouldn't come up in 'Random Page'. It's a shame that he got rid of 'All Pages' because I was planning to flood it with obscene entries! Stevo 08:09, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

Yes, but things that were not correctly redirected would show up in the Orphaned Pages, All Pages, Old Pages (etc.), and Random Pages. --Sid 08:14, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, sorry, I wasn't really arguing with you. BTW I've uploaded a 'Before' shot of the special pages for reference. Stevo 08:37, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

"new" news overwhelming "old" news

This article is in danger of getting "recent"-heavy. While the older entries mark mostly big highlights and changes, now it is beginning to accumulate hourly reports on the state of the software over there (what if RW was only documented by what it looks like when IceWedge is experimenting?).

May I humbly suggest that entries be kept shorter, and keep an eye on them to be sure they actually mark real "changes"? For instance, the 'special pages' being gone - it might be a 24 hour glitch while Ashfly learns to do what he wants to do, and so it's not really important down the road. Whatever changes he insititutes, however, will be. So perhaps the daily observations should take place here in talk, and if they "stick", move a synopsis to the main page? (example - the editing privilege thing - our second entry on its own made it seem like a draconian change, when it was an opening up of the previous lockdown.)

Anything that deserves more than two or three sentences to describe it (like the dirty word lists?) probably deserve articles of their own. Just my 0.02... and, of course, as usual, I may be completely wrong. By the way, "MediaWiki:Usernameblacklist" was created on May 9, edited on May 11, and dormant until 6/16 when Ashfly edited it ten or so times. Its introduction should be noted, as should yesterday's massive editing (if he made any interesting changes, at least). human^{be in} 13:05, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

I agree - I've just been looking for users whose memories stretch back that far. --ויִכִּ נתֶּרֶפּרֶתֵּר ^{שְׁלֹום!}

I dug through various logs and added a few details I thought were salient. There are still more highlights needed, such as a few dates on the "Richard" incident (account creation, notorious activity, account deletion?). What we have here is like a "history" with "news" appended after the article was started. It's not bad, though, really. Just a risk of making it hard to wade through. This "special page deletion" thing is bizarre. Taking away "random" really messes up a wiki-pedia, and leaving the link on every page makes a bigger joke of it. human^{be in} 13:22, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

Very good point. At least the Special Pages thing should definitely should be exported (so it can be properly formatted and documented, should things change - a change on that scale deserves it, I think), but I'd at least leave a link to it on the June 16 date (kinda like the Knight of the Blunt Knives thing). --Sid 13:25, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

I think we need a place to gossip about recent happenings at CP. It's only with hindsight that we can assess the importance of any particular event. Maybe there should be separate page, or this discussion page, where the short term stuff can be kept and archived while the main article is kept concise for stuff over, say, two weeks old. God's peed ^{Babel fish}ÅЯ†ђŮŖ ÐΣй†_{Now look here!} 13:32, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

Highlights to look for

This is a todo list. Please strikethrough or archive when found and added, add anything you think we should try to find. human^{be in} 13:27, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

• Creation of "deceit" article"
• First use of "godspeed" by ashfly
• First "ashfly statistic" use?
  • Does "wikipedia six times more liberal than the American public" count here? --Stevo 14:09, 17 June 2007 (CDT)
• Actual dates for the domut war? (does this matter?)
• Details and times of "Richard" incident?
  • Don't know when his account was created because the logs don't go back far enough, but his first edit was the 12th March[1]. He was made a Sysop at 23:52 on 13th March. [2]. He was outed on the 27th, as is already in the timeline, (some discussion here [3]) and was banned by Karajou. He was then unblocked but blocked again on the 10th April by Ed Poor. [4] --Stevo 14:25, 17 June 2007 (CDT)
• Sid's banning and sate of Sid UXB creation?
  • Charmed, but I'm not that important, I think. A link to a heavily revamped and moved version of User:Sid/Bible Ban Chronicles (which I'll tackle next week) would possibly be fitting, though. Whole bunch of people got banned then for ridiculous reasons while the other sysops simply watched or made idiotic comments with even more idiotic excuses. --Sid 13:42, 17 June 2007 (CDT)
    • As I recall, the "supports unbanning Sid" UXBs were the beginning of Andy's freakout over "userbox activism", and are thus quite meaningful. You just get stuck being famous for being the abject object of our passion. And I remember when the box was deleted, and I had to make my own private version. human^{be in} 16:14, 17 June 2007 (CDT)
      • Seriously? Wow, that's neat! :D --Sid 16:33, 17 June 2007 (CDT)
• Date of first use of "cabal" - [5], although this is earlier, it's used against CP. --ויִכִּ נתֶּרֶפּרֶתֵּר ^{שְׁלֹום!}
  • 1st link does not go anywhere? try this - but these are "other" uses than "our" cabal. Still worthy of inclusion the cabal article I think. human^{be in} 13:36, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

• Date of cabal UXB creation; date of cabal UXB vandalism by a CPer.
• Dates of various logos, especially the defaced one. Link to Conservapedia:logo history.
  • The first one was added on the 18th March, which I've added to the timeline. I've uploaded the image but don't know how to link to it instead of showing it on the page? I'm working on the details of the others --Stevo 14:42, 17 June 2007 (CDT)
    • Shoot, I didn't read - I also uploaded it, and thumbed it on the timeline since it fits ok. Feel free to delete one image if you like. human^{be in} 15:55, 17 June 2007 (CDT)
      • That's cool, I actually had it wrong first time round and thought it was the fireworks one that was added on the 18th. I'm glad you had that constitution logo because I couldn't find it! I'm trying to figure out whether it was the 21st or the 22nd when the hidden message was noticed. Also, can't ATM find when the 'wavy flag' logo was added (or the pic) - that was my favourite. Does anyone know why it was replaced? --Stevo 16:23, 17 June 2007 (CDT)
        • For future reference: Link to images via [[:Image:Cp logo constitution.jpg|Logo]] (results in Logo) for example. Same way can be used to link to categories: [[:Category:Conservapedia]] gives Category:Conservapedia. --Sid 16:33, 17 June 2007 (CDT)
        • Cool. Thanks Sid --Stevo 16:42, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

Deletion?

jtl, why did you remove my entry on the date Conservative was made a sysop? --Kels 13:41, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

Because I'm a doofus. I think I was on an earlier version of the page when I hit 'edit'. Should all be fixed now -- sorry! --jtl^talk 13:47, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, I caught that in the other edit summary. No harm, it just seemed a bit random. --Kels 13:49, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

I "think" I fixed it - looked like an (unreported) edit conflict, so I rolled back and pasted jtl's 4/1 entry back in. You might both want to check it again... human^{be in} 13:53, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

Looks fine to me, I only entered one edit anyhow. --Kels 14:32, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

• It's because he is actually doing Andy's work here. He doesn't want to help bring him down here, just wants to come here vandalise you know when I came here, terrorist blackmailer is. LMAO!!! Sysop-T.K. _/MyTalk
  • You bastard! You stole my troll-starving mockery technique! Nice job, though... human^{be in} 18:57, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

Student Panel

What date did they finally make their dramatic "it's fine the way it is" decision about ToE? And have they actually made any decisions since? --Kels 15:31, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

It was actually April 9th and I've corrected the timeline there. Trying to find out when the first mention of them was --Stevo 15:51, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

The first mention I can find by Aschlafly was March 22nd. The tool I'm using doesn't deal well with renamed pages, so it's possible I'm missing something, but I doubt it. --jtl^talk 16:04, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

Yep, just added it --Stevo 16:14, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

TK Cooperating with Rational Wiki

Where is this discussion going on? I've looked around and can't seem to find it. And I can't believe it took them this long to figure out that TK was a double agent. Stile4aly 17:54, 1 July 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, all in private it seems. And I'm not sure what TK thinks he's gaining by blanking all his talk pages -- Stevo (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2007 (CDT)

team contest

Needs at least three dates - initiation of idea (6/20 or so?); finalizing of teams/start of race; and end of race/outcome. And links to pages there and the one here on the contest. human^{be in} 18:07, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

On it... --Sid 18:22, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

Done. I didn't include the "team finalization" step (technically, July 9) since it's not really major and potentially not final (Conservative is still so-so, but Andy said that he can't quit unless there is a replacement). --Sid 18:29, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

"The contest began as a way to divert sysops from fighting each other (see, Events of the July 3, above)." - Did it? The timeline says that the whole TK gig started one day after the announcement, but that might be due to timezone clashes and/or inaccurate pinpointing of the first event in that chain. It's a very plausible explanation, so I left it in, but it might come with one or two question marks in my eyes. --Sid 18:33, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

I came here to ask the same question. I thinks it's just Andy trying to grow his, um, blog's size. Can we delete that comment as we have no evidence? Also, can we use a "follow the excitement here" link rather than a footnote for our article, as I added to the announcement mention on 6/29? human^{be in} 18:35, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

Range Block

Any idea what country those IPs are from? Where can one find this info? Д^ιЯɖі$ɧ _ɥοםЄʟ^{βЯƏакĐΩωΝ} 08:06, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

It's a range of Canadian IP addresses. You can use this site or many others like it to trace IP addresses. Amusingly enough we had someone posting anonymously on here yesterday (89.240.235.126) who appears to be from my neck of the woods. And I thought all Yorkshiremen were relatively sane...XD _liessmoke^mirrors 08:12, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

Cool thanks. and there i was thinking that all 89.xxx.xxx.xxx IP addresses were ireland. How long before they block all IPs save those from the bible belt...Д^ιЯɖі$ɧ _ɥοםЄʟ^{βЯƏакĐΩωΝ} 08:27, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

Probably only a matter of time before all heathen IPs are blocked. Methinks that the wiki format for that site was a bad idea...XD _liessmoke^mirrors 08:33, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

Part of me does want to block 4294967296 IPs just for the sake of it. Even for a minute. maybe... Д^ιЯɖі$ɧ _ɥοםЄʟ^{βЯƏакĐΩωΝ} 11:40, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Bush article

The Bush article has been unlocked a couple of other times since then. DanH 00:22, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

Sort of. But most of us don't include a few hours to allow for one editor to make changes, nor do I include "sysop-only" editable articles. Let's face it, CP is afraid of letting people edit its pet articles, and this must be one of them. Here's the log. [6] I see about 11 hours in 5 months that it was open. That's not really open editing. Sterile^{blah, blah, blah} 07:29, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

FBI?

It looks like this article has been pretty much ignored for a while, but shouldn't the FBI incident be mentioned somewhere? DickTurpis 10:07, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Sure, why not? Do we have a date for the reporting? "A. Schlafly, Esq., wastes the U.S. governments time by reporting an anonymous wandal who offended him on his blog." or some such. human 10:55, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Thank you

Too many editors of this article to thank them on their Talk pages, so I wish to thank you all here for this article. It really made my day. Editor at CP 07:31, 11 November 2007 (EST)

On behalf of the rest of the mob, you're very welcome! We are glad you enjoyed it. human 13:53, 12 November 2007 (EST)

TK

I've been in and out recently so I missed it -- what happened on December 5th? Lurker 20:17, 9 December 2007 (EST)

I don't get it

Did GL retire from CP? Lurker 00:57, 20 February 2008 (EST)

No, I think GL got permabanned on the Night of the Blunt Knives. Is this an issue relevant to this article? human 01:01, 20 February 2008 (EST)

However, he has also been editing there under the user name Issac Duan. Genghis ^Marauding 03:31, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Damn. You spoiled it. He was teasing that he was Collegerepublican or Helpjazz. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:44, 20 February 2008 (EST)

As in the "Iduan" of the easy-to-find sig? I wondered if he was real or not... human 13:35, 20 February 2008 (EST)

I can never tell if you guys are kidding or not. Human, to very belatedly answer your question I was talking about the latest addition to the timeline. Lurker 16:47, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Hmm, that doesn't belong on cp:timeline, it has nothing to do with CP. It should be at rwikiwiki, perhaps. He also didn't really "retire", he's just gonna be very busy. human 17:02, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Lurker - just so you know I'm not GL, or vice versa. Obviously I don't have much credibility in this, but I don't think I've amassed a reputation as a lier. I worked with GL once (when I thought GregLarson was truly on CP), but otherwise I haven't had too much to do with him.--Iduan 00:13, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

OK: confusion. To me, "GL" is ex-CP and RW user Godless Liberal. So I probably confused everyone if they were talking about one GregLarson. ħuman 01:28, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Refs

Is there any way we can get the references not to jumble altogether like they're doing? I tried the <small> tags but some of dem are pretty goddamned long. CЯacke® 23:55, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

It was 3 or 4 missing </ref>s btw a lot of the cp links are defunct! (surprise!)   ^Contribs_Talk 00:17, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

A lot of those refs were better as plain links, on this article at least... I think... ħuman 01:39, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

formatting

Apparently, Mr. Pi is very happy with the new formatting he is slowly using over the whole article. However, this is creating an ugly "ragged edge", since the colon does not indent the same distance as the various date numbers. Usually, before we reformat an entire article, we discuss it in talk... ħuman 01:06, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

How about using the ";:" definition type thus:

;21st Jan :went mad :sobered up ;23rd Jan :bought fish :slept

produces this:

21st Jan

went mad

sobered up

23rd Jan

bought fish

slept

  ^Contribs_Talk 01:13, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Nice idea, but nah - the problem is that many days have only one entry (which is simple). On multiple entry days, we used to bullet them all below the date. Now Pi has put the first one after the date, and use the colon to indent any others. While this is all very arbitrary, the ragged left margin makes the result, in my opinion, less intuitive to read. Examples:

21st - Ken sucked

22nd - Ken sucked again

23rd -

• Andy sucked back
• Everyone else puked

Vs.

21st - Ken nuzzled

22nd - Ken muzzled

23rd - Andy snuggled

- Everyone else gagged

ħuman 01:30, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

ħuman 01:30, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Must be my browser setting I didn't get the ragged edge. I could make a table which would could rid the problem. Although this would take sometime. $\approx$$\pi$ 01:52, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

I don't mean to be rude, but I might suggest simply slowing down. You aren't just reformatting, you're adding many comments, quite a few of which were loaded with grammatical/spelling errors. Your alteration of direct links to refs may be a good idea, but you haven't discussed it with anyone - even the people in the section above who were repairing mistakes you made. I don't see any real need here to do more than add important events as they occur and keep following the existing format. There's a lot of history in this article, and "rewriting" it seems inappropriate. That said, your use of "cp:" linking probably saved a few bytes... Please don't make any more radical changes to this article without discussing them here with other interested editors first? Is that too much to ask? ħuman 02:01, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Okay if you want to leave it more as a record. It just seemed to me that it had changed a little over time and would look better if it was all written the same way. I also have a dislike of those little arrows in the middle of sentences. As for the spelling errors I am trying to correct that (I started using an update version of Firefox) $\approx$$\pi$ 02:10, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Normally, I would agree about the ref style thing. But this article will eventually have hundreds of links... most of them work better in-line. As far as changes in style, why not take the later ones and make them conform with the earlier style instead? Also, what is frustrating, is that you aren't just reformatting, you're changing text & such. Maybe I am a bit attached to this thing - it was a lot of work building the first version mostly from memory and searches - but it is/was a very clean, pure documentary of the changes CP has gone through. I thought the Lenski additions were a bit WIGO-ish, but, heck, it was a big deal on the blogosphere, etc., so they belonged. But this is really supposed to be a "major changes" (logos, policies, and I guess sysoprics, etc.) listing. Anyway, we're discussing now, that's all that matters. Hopefully one or two other people will have opinions about my opinions and yours, and we can work this all out reasonably well. ħuman 02:20, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

I don't know about Lenski being WIGO-ish it is looking to get worse before it goes away. I was actually say the the last additions in April were of a different format then the first addition of December 2006, there had been a slow drift in the style. $\approx$$\pi$ 02:22, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

My table idea is a bit like this

1st	- Ken was an idiot
12th	- Ken was an idiot again
	- Andy finally did something about Ken
30th	- Ken continues being an idiot anyway

Vs

21st - Ken sucked

22nd - Ken sucked again

23rd -

• Andy sucked back
• Everyone else puked

Vs.

21st - Ken nuzzled

22nd - Ken muzzled

23rd - Andy snuggled

- Everyone else gagged

As we get a staggering over a month because the dates are different lengths. $\approx$$\pi$ 02:45, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Hey, Pi guy... sorry to take a couple days to get back to this. The way I figure it, you've put in a lot of work, you meant well (and did well?), so let's not worry about undoing any of this. If you would like to implement the tables, I'm all for that, wiki- or html-style. Actually, I'd like that. If you do it, two requests - one, can you "fix" the leftward column width (the one with the date) to "x" % or pixels, so it is consistent over the months, and two, make it so the tables are "inside" the monthly headers (this makes editing and previewing easier for people)? Otherwise, sorry I jumped all over you, I realize you didn't really change any text, except to "ref" style the links. Now, if we want to put the links "in line" but we hate the arrows, we could use the "plainlinks" span tag thing to get rid of the ugly arrows, and just link from the text. Thanks for taking the trouble to humor my cranky old self :) ħuman 02:04, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

follow up

Lookin' good, Pi guy! Sorry about jumping all over you... ħuman 20:43, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

That's okay, I didn't feel jumped on. $\approx$$\pi$ 22:51, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

Thank for making me feel better. I did kind of jump on you (in my mind) and then spent a few nights sleeping on it. I really appreciate your work on this article, thanks! ħuman 22:56, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

April 2007 needs to have the "trusworthy" logo illustrated; and the one in Sept. 2007 has an odd caption. Did these get mixed up in the tabling? Or were they always a bit whack? ħuman 20:06, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

That's the way they were when I found them. I only just added the trusworthy one. $\approx$$\pi$ 20:52, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

Thanks, I thought it was already there. And the other caption makes sense, of course, in the typographical sense... ħuman 20:56, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

November 08

The link for TK's prodgal son welcome home is now memory-holed. Did anyone get a screen cap?  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 06:00, 26 November 2008 (EST)

Less like WIGO, more like real news pleez?

Entries like this:

Andy finally loses all sense and gives TK block rights. Couldn't he do this in one go instead of spreading it out so much and making this go on so long.

Just seem pointless - and the "little font" comments lower the level even more - IMHO, of course. Surely we can at least condense the TK-shenanigans (return, rights acquisition) into one short line? Try to keep these things minimized to "events" we might want to track ages from now. That doesn't include spats between sysops, etc. I'm not sure I see even one entry in November that is worth tracking, OK, maybe TK's return and two "retirements". If they stick.

NathanG blocks Andy, Foxtrot and Karajou. Andy desysops him for blocking Koward. - this isn't even a good WIGO. What's the point? </whinge> ħuman 21:09, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Hmmm, I think the problem is we have been adding things as they happen for once, so it is hard to judge whether something is going to be important or not. I have always though comings, going, promotions and demotions was what this kept track off, unfortunately Andy has dragged the TK promotion on as long as possible. Maybe we can condence it down to its conclusion on the December the 1st. - User $\pi$ 22:11, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Yeah, it's tougher to sit back and decide when events are worthy of including here. Most c,g,p, and d aren't very interesting, really it's for "major" events - new logos, news appearances, you know, that sort of thing. Although a little lower-level stuff is fine as long as it doesn't drown out the important milestones. What we need is a new contest to keep track of on its own page! ħuman 23:11, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Joaquin Martinez joins the "let's block Philip Rayment for fun" party.

Phil Rayment finally loses his cool after Andy, TK, Bugler and RobWeathers tag-team calling him a liberal. Why does Andy think Phil's a liberal, you ask? Because Phil thinks there may be something to gun control, and doesn't think Obama's a Muslim (Ed Poor, though, is a Muslim). Remember, "liberal" is a slur to these people.

I have clipped these two but saving them here PJR has been through a lot of shit so unless he quits over this it is not worth being in the timeline. - User $\pi$ 23:21, 1 December 2008 (EST)

I am also thinking of moving the Dawkins stuff to Ken, as it hasn't blown up in his face the way the PZ Myers stunt did. - User $\pi$ 23:22, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Thanks, I really appreciate your efforts on this. Yah, the Kendoll/Dawkins thing probably is not timeline worthy, although, as with what you copied above, a quick "note" here might be good (in 2012 someone asks "when did Hitler get onto CP's mainpage and why?" and we can tell them when and why ;)) ħuman 00:11, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Kotomi

I know that some people are in love with Kotomi at the moment but I pulled this;

Kotomi issues a remarkable appeal to CP. Sanity? In Andyland? Doomed. DOOMED!

A lot of people have pissed into the wind at CP so unless this changes things or she get stripped of her rights and blocked for it it is not actual a major timeline event. Her article covers this so leave it there. - User $\pi$ 19:00, 15 December 2008 (EST)

So sorry... Me!

Graffiti

Can anyone tell me what was in the background of the first CP logo? I can't find anything, myself.--Iduan 16:19, 2 January 2009 (EST)

Place it over a dark background, and the words "Fuck this bullshit neocon propaganda" appear as if by enchantment. Johann 07:48, 9 January 2009 (EST)

Wow. Dude that's obscure - how did they ever find that out?--Iduan 23:11, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Header box thing

Where did that come from? I like it... ħuman 20:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. I am happy 4 more days and nothing worth mentioning will have occurred in May, unless we add Jessica's retirement. - π 01:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)