Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive141

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 14 April 2010. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:
<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>
, (new)(back)

Uncle Ed's sympathetic side[edit]

Having your own group of diseases is a great way to get attention (and federal research funds). - Nice one Ed, nice one. Redchuck.gif Генгисmarauding 22:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"It refers to any disease which is spread by homosexual behavior, especially the sexual behavior of homosexual men" - By this definition, the common cold is a Gay Disease. --Sid 22:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Related (since it's Ed and Teh Gayz): Gay Identity and "risk"[edit]

Ed cites: "Men who were associated with the gay community were nearly four times as likely to have had more than 50 sex partners in the six months preceding the survey as men who were not associated with the gay community.10 This may imply that it is riskier to be 'out' than 'closeted.'"

Odd quote for CP, since it to me sounds more like "Getting out of the closet will get you laid. A lot." (And yes, Ed actually forgot to take out the footnoted "10" during his copypaste spree.) --Sid 23:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It's quotes like this that scare Ken even deeper in the closet. For shame, Ed, for shame. Vulpius 01:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
50? Oh noes! I can't even get myself 1 (and that 50 is in six months, and my 1 that doesn't exists counts at least 10 years). [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 02:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
The number of men, straight, in closet or openly gay or otherwise, having 50+ sexual partners in 6 months would be around ~0.000001% (my assumption is we are talking 4 or more standard deviations above the mean) so the difference between 0.000004% and 0.000001% is fuck all. - π 02:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone paid attention to...[edit]

The discussion of SPastel with Andy, the one right above the one where SPastel had with TK and Karajou? This is even more epic than the one below it. Andy is concerning about coping text (SPastel can't upload images, from the discussion with Karajou and TK) from copyrighted sources. I wonder how many of these are copied from copyrighted sources... Not that I would know, especially if the same group of people has the phrase "Fair use" for mostly everything they put on their site. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 01:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The entire SPastel thing was epic:
  • SPastel was extremely polite and cooperative. The template is so obviously inappropriate for articles on specific butterflies even Karajou has to be aware of it. He is clearly complaining in bad faith. Most people would have called him out on it, SPastel pretends not to realize he's being an asshat and calmly points out a select few of the many reasons the template is useless. The taxonomy box is completely ludicrous. Most other biologists would have told Karajou to shove it, SPastel meekly states there are "issues" with the box and asks for "imporovements to the template" to be discussed.
  • SPastel is exactly the kind of editor you would expect the Conservapedos to loves. SPastel does not talk, SPastel just writes articles. They are concise. They are genuinely useful. SPastel does not believe in evolution. SPastel takes care to cite an evolution denialist in every single friggin article, including articles he's not really topical in. SPastel dislikes "19th century materialism" and its attempts to shoehorn God's creation into schemes "made by man". It just doesn't get much more Conservapedian than that.
Did they take the axe to SPastel because they read RW and thought SPastel was me or something, or are they just completely nuts? Mountain Blue 07:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Completely nuts, yeah. I dunno what's going on here. Clearly they had it out for SPastel, but the strange thing is that they were so formal and polite(ish) about it. Normally they don't even bother with formalities--they don't like you, off you go. And then to delete all his work? Maybe Andy didn't believe the denials as to copyright, and asked The Boys to toss SPastel without making it obvious it was about copyright? Weird. Andy seems particularly concerned about (text) plagiarism of late--there's been a few times in the last couple of weeks when he asked contributors if their work was kosher. Makes a guy go, "hmmmm...".--WJThomas 10:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
It's really quite a nice summary of CP's new motto: "We don't really want editors." PubliusTalk 13:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
"to delete all his work"'- do we know SPastel is a bloke? I only ask because there's something about SPastel that says "female" to me, but I can't quite put my finger on it. Mountain Blue 13:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Karajerk's Brian MacDonald's (just in case he feels left out) on a roll - now he deletes Glenn Seaborg and [ Jeremy Paxman], both of which seemed to be ok. Ah, the site is growing rapidly. Between Brian and Terry (gosh, I almost see them as human when Iuse their first names) CP has probably had a net reduction in pages over the past few days. Terry Koeckritz's "Pop Culture" reason is still the best - don't forget to delete all the Disney stuff then, Terry Koeckritz. --PsyGremlinWhut? 16:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Since Atheistic means censoring religion...[edit]

(As Andy said) Has anyone asked Andy for his valuable opinions regarding how to make schools to become secular that respect other religions in the classroom prayers/commandments/what have you as well? (maybe sell this idea to Andy that if the classroom prayer can include other religions then it can be implemented since it is not endorsing a particular religion) I would like to ask but I lack the ability to form coherent texts. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 02:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Start the prayer off with "To Whom It May Concern..."? --Gulik 06:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Great suggestion, would that I could --Opcn 06:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
That reminds me, our much-missed friend Godless Liberal was supposed deliver a valedictorian speech when he left high school. Some suggestions were made that he should deliver a Pastafarian prayer. I don't think we got an update on this is as he withdrew from here to concentrate on his studies. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 07:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I Borked[edit]

I entered in the wrong number on the Obama healthcare poll, I fixed it now, sorry. --Opcn 06:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You are forgiven. I could make you toil in the fields for the rest of your days but I'm not like that. SJ Debaser 12:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Schlafly's apology[edit]

An apology of the Schlafmeister is like a kiss of death - at least for a common editor. How long will Lemonpeel survive? AFAIK, the last apology we reported at wigo let to two casualties... larronsicut fur in nocte 09:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not fair - anything you do on CP leads to wiki-death. ;) "You made too many edits - ban! You didn't make enough edits - ban! You discuss too much - ban! You discuss too little - ban! You broke the rules - ban! You followed the rules - ban!" --Sid 09:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
"To act fairly is to follow the rules. To act capriciously is to be the rules." --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 12:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The decline and decline of CP[edit]

It dawned on me last night just how rapid CP's decline has been. Think about it - on 1 January, Andy added 6 new sysops to the pool: RJJ, Terry Koeckritz, Addison, JPatt, Jessica and DuncanB. In addition, there were probably several other contenders (homeschoolers aside) - Bugler, RodWeathers (both of whom were in the running until the last minute), Taj, WesleyS, CPalmer, Jinx, and Foxtrot come to mind. Just over 6 short months later and Andy would be hard-pressed to find one editor to promote to sysop.

  • Bugler and RW came out as parodists, showing Andy up for the idiot he is (and probably resulting in no more promotions ever)
  • From the remaining sysops PJR, TimS, and Jessica resigned from CP, LearnTogether has fallen silent, DuncanB has made 5 edits since April.
  • Jinx might still be hoping for restoration of rights after Terry Koeckritz fucked him over, Foxtrot packed it in, seeming after Terry Koeckritz deleted the article which had been up for featured article nomination, Wesley's gone, Taj and CPalmer are sporadic at best.

Amazing just how effective Terry Koeckritz has been since 1 January (any attempt to induce an attack of apoplexy in that Navadan cunt by constantly repeating his name, is purely intentional.) --PsyGremlinWhut? 11:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The only other one is PhyllisS, purely to keep up the nepotism. But you're right that Terry Koeckritz has scared just about everyone else away. There are also probably a lot of people who would like to contribute but can't because Terry Koeckritz has blocked them. Rpeh 11:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Terry Koeckritz doesn't want meat handed to him on a platter. Terry Koeckritz wants to hunt. SJ Debaser 12:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
My leaving had nothing to do with Terry. Andy stating that liberals show false intelligence was my impetus to get out. Aboriginal Noise Oh, what a lovely tea party! 12:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I do think that we ought to use Terry Koeckritz's name more often around here instead of his typical online handle 'TK'. We debase Andrew Schlafly, Ed Poor, PJR and others by name, but we almost always allow him to hide behind his own handle. Those who know Terry Koeckritz and his routine destruction of online internet communities that form around forums, wikis and blogs should be able to search for his name, Terry Koeckritz (TK), espcially since Terry Koeckritz has recently been so keen to name those people here who he mistakenly sees as enemies of Terry Koeckritz. That Terry Koeckritz, aka TK, is an especially threatening emailer and sender of offsite communications to users of these communities is something that others may want to know about Terry Koeckritz. I personally have received threatening emails from Terry Koeckritz, known as TK, in the past, as have others, and Terry Koeckritz is most certainly not a pleasant individual to deal with. That Terry Koeckritz's goal is the destruction of Conservapedia is beyond doubt. DogPMarmite Patrol 14:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Should we be amending the Terry Koeckritz template to ensure that everyone knows we mean the computer security 'consultant' Terry Koeckritz who lives about 60 miles from Reno? Silver Sloth 14:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
When you say "about 60 miles from Reno", are you referring to Fallon, Nevada, home to one Terrance F. Koeckritz?--WJThomas 18:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
For some reason, I feel left out when Terry Koeckritz doesn't send me threats, because it looks like a sign of honor from my perspective. Didn't he mention working for Hilary Clinton at some point? lolz AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 14:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure CPalmer is legit any more. I think he used to be, but recently (after Jess left) I've been seeing work by him that seems like parody or veiled criticism. Also, he's been encouraging Andy slightly with the whole geometric procession thing and Conservapedia's Law, and he always struck me as too intelligent to truely believe that. EddyP 15:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Don't forget the Terry Koeckritz who allegedly guarded Nancy Reagan during the assassination attempt on St Ronnie (although every resource everywhere seems to neglect to mention that fact). Quick aside... thought I'd go to, to check if Terry Koeckritz was indeed around, and not a lying scumbag, when I received this warning: "Warning - visiting this web site may harm your computer!" it seems has malware - probably a virus that infiltrates your bank account and sends funds to South American guerillas. --PsyGremlinWhut? 15:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
PS Ken would be proud of me. A certain search engine beginning with G has me at no 3 for pages about Terry Koeckritz (ok, with a little help from Digg.) --PsyGremlinWhut? 15:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Isn't it interesting how there's no connection whatsoever on Google between "Terry Koeckritz" and Nancy Reagan, Ed Meese or Adrianna Huffington, all of whom are supposed to be close confidantes of his? Hmmmmmm. Must be the evil Liberal bias of Google, yeah. --Kels 17:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
There's a stronger connection between "surgical scrotum removal" and Terry Koeckritz than there is between Nancy Reagan, Ed Meese and Terry Koeckritz.
I'm too scared to click that link, especially after the last time I clicked a Terry Koeckritz link, I had to read about him being given a forced enema, whilst caged, on Borrelboards, or whatever it was. --PsyGremlinWhut? 18:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Mommy dearest[edit]

She that spawned him, no less. Corroborated here. Hi, Terry! --Robledo 18:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Links removed from comment. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's fair to out his mother. It's not necessarily her fault that her son is a prick.--WJThomas 18:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed - she looks a nice old duck. However, I have to love the irony of their predicament. Wasn't their beloved George Dubbya in the White House when the government crapped all over them? And ironically, she would probably stand to gain under Obama's health reforms. --PsyGremlinWhut? 18:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, leave mothers out of this, that's really uncalled for.--PitchBlackMind 18:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Although it will give him an idea of just how far web-stalking can go, if he wants to play that game. I can't wait to see his face when the maroon Pontiac starts circling his block. --PsyGremlinWhut? 19:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I am sure that dear old Babs is blissfully unaware of the malice in her son's (Terry Koeckritz) internet antics. So I do hope he's looking after with a cut of the fees from his high-powered political/public-policy/computer/car-price consultancy work. She seems to have had a rough deal so one would think that she would be behind Obama's plans for universal healthcare. Which side is her son (Terry Koeckritz) on now, is he still backing up Andy's every man for him self philosophy or did he vote to get a better dear for his dear old mom? Of course he could put Andy's charitableness to the test and ask for a small retainer to look after her seeing as he's doing such a good job looking after Andy's wiki. One last thought, does she look the type who could publish that story on the internet all by herself or did her computer genius of a son (Terry Koeckritz) do it for her? Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 19:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
It'd be cool if we had an anonymous, public account that anyone could access. That way TK wouldn't know who this stuff comes from. It would also give TK et al a great red telephone. I think it would all-around increase the paranoia, which I think makes for better lulz. — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 19:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Nah, it'd still be creepy and uncalled for. --Kels 19:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Nah, it'd be cool. — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 19:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out that I have sympathy with Terry Koeckritz's mother as she has obviously fallen on hard times. It's not easy losing a loved one to cancer and losing all your savings to medical bills. This is exactly the sort of thing that socialised medicine is designed to overcome. My own dearly beloved Mrs Khant had cancer and received tremendous treatment from the NHS including a £50,000 titanium arm prosthesis about five years ago. She's still going strong and it didn't cost us a penny more than what we already pay in our affordable social security/tax contributions. So go on JPratt, write one of your stupid essays about how bad the British NHS is (nobody is claiming it's perfect), just don't forget that the mother of your chum, Terry Koeckritz, was semi-impoverished through medical bills, that's how great the present system is in the USA. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 20:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Listen, TK doesn't have many fans over here, but it is completely unnecessary to bother with family members. Mrs. Koeckritz did nothing wrong. I know where you are going to run with that last statement, so don't!! Aboriginal Noise Oh, what a lovely tea party! 21:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't talk about this, this is sick, please. Stalkish. --Smg87 21:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Concur with parent. Fedhaji 23:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If you guys want to use your powers for good, how about setting up a fundraiser for Mrs. Koeckritz's medical bills? I'd chip in a few bucks just to watch TK's spleen rupture from the cognitive dissonance. --Gulik 23:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Just in case there's any doubt - dragging Mums into an internet debate is totally off-limits, sorry. Absolutely not cool. And just 'cos he might do it doesn't make it right. Let's maintain that moral high ground that we stand so mightily and resolutely upon. DogPMarmite Patrol 23:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree totally with DogP. About this and everything he has ever said or thought. Ace McWickedi9 23:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

1. I'm surprised, disgusted even, to see that the link that starts this section is still there. 2. Ditto that no one is even discussing memory-holing it. It's personal information about an innocent bystander who never did anything to any of us in any way at all. Insertions like that are the only reason we have whatever version of oversight-light that we have here. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead Human, I second burning this thread and apologise for anything I may have written which could me misconstrued. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 23:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I also second burning this thread. I considered doing it myself, but I've been sysop for less than a week and hadn't yet figured out if I would have violated convention. Mountain Blue 23:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I have dealt with Robledo before (the offending poster) and found him a cunt. Perhaps admistrative action is in order? Ace McWickedi9 00:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
We don't need to burn the thread, just the edit that started it (and perhaps add "personal information deleted"?). Trouble is, since we do it so rarely, I can't remember/don't know how. I'll go read the help files and see what's there. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely. Time to bring in our own Oversight Whammy Bar. Blast it to bits Human. DogPMarmite Patrol 00:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Human: Thanks. Mountain Blue 00:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Welcome. I followed all the instructions, so why can I still see the edit & its links? (With this edit I overwrote it without links). Anyone ever practice "hide revision" enough to tell me what I might have done or not done wrong? ħumanUser talk:Human 00:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I find it heartening that anyone here would have difficulty burning an edit. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svgUser:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 00:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I desysoped Robledo. Anyone disagrees they can reverse. Ace McWickedi9 00:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
No I think you are right Ace, also can we get on top of this shit faster in the future I had to hide over 50 edits. - π 01:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Really glad I got back home to find everyone else found this as distasteful as I did. You stay classy RationalWiki. --PitchBlackMind 02:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Distasteful, but something I'm not going to lose sleep over Terry getting a taste of... — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 02:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for disappearing the link. As Mr. T says, "When you're putting down one mother, you're putting down mothers all over the world." Corry 03:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't dare put down my mom. She just retired from the Toronto police force this year. --Kels 05:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Meh. She'll be fine, and Terry deserved the tweak. And, Ace, you just keeping rocking that wannabe HST t'ing - it's a winning look. Trust. --Robledo 18:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Bahahaha Robledo, you have no idea. But I'll play your game. Yes, why not eh? So then what would HST do right now? Since that is my "winning look" I better maintain appearences after all. So I'll call you a "rabid pig fucker" and accuse you of killing Jesus. Then I'll make some sort of allusion towards me feeling like Horatio Alger then burn off in my great red shark of a car, turning the steering wheel with one hand and drinking Chivas from a snowcone like glass with the other. OK then? Good. Ace McWickedi9 22:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Eventful morning over there...[edit]

Jacob Koustoulis returns. Turns out all he wanted to do was talk SPastel into helping with some project of his: some kind of wiki-based anti-evolution encyclopedia. A lot like the CP, only with competently written articles. Obviously even the average crackpot by now sees the CP as a lost cause. Anyway, Karajou deletes fucking everything. Then he deletes SPastel's talk page, presumably because he doesn't like the celebrity it has recently gained. Oh, and he blocks Jacob again, this time for an even more bizarre reason than last time.

I have some screenshots, but they are crummy. Someone please explain that capturebot thing to me. I want to be able to make screenshots like the big boys. Mountain Blue 18:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Look at CaptureBotII's user page and "Project Woodshed" linked off my userpage for how to set up your own sandbox to grab screenshots without necessarily having to write WIGOs for them. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svgUser:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 18:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
"Anti-evolution" and "competently written" aren't really terms that go together. --Kels 18:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
"Moderately scientifically literate blogger XYZ put up a very competently written post today blasting the entirety of the anti-evolution lobby" --Opcn 18:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Kels: I disagree. You don't have to be insane to have difficulties emotionally accepting the idea that pure dump chance could have built so many organisms so intricate and beautiful in so many different ways. There's is difference between being able to reason about something and being able to really embrace it and resonate with it. Your rationality can be completely overwhelmed in one specific area but fully functional in all others. I can easily picture someone who happens to unable to bring himself to believe in evolution but is completely sane and competent otherwise. Remember how it took some pockets of physicists fifty years to really accept relativity. Remember how an entire generation of geologists had to literally die out before continental drift stopped being controversial. Remember there is at least one credentialled and successful biologist who happens not to believe in evolution.
An anti-evolution site with the likes of SPastel could actually go somewhere. It would probably contain a lot of genuinely useful hard facts in addition to some amount of proselytizing. Spastel's butterfly pages were anti-evolution only in that they cited d'Ambrera. Except for that they were completely neutral. They even linked to the Tree of Life site, for chrissakes. Mountain Blue 18:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Thinking about it, isn't it all a bit weird that he got booted over taxonomy? Surely, young earthers don't believe in taxonomic classification since no species is in any sense related to any other. Surely they ought to have baraminoboxes instead? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Taxonomy does not necessarily imply phylogenesis. It could be purely morphological, like the one Aristotle did. Mountain Blue 19:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Ouch. I thought that taxonomy is compatible with old Earth creationism... guess not. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 19:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Wha? The concept of "taxonomy" as such is compatible with pretty much anything. "Taxonomy" by itself just means "we stick things into a pyramid of nested categories". It's only when you talk about specific criteria things get hairy. Modern biology tries to categorize by degree of kinship. Creationists obviously can't do that, but they can still categorize by degree of phenotype similarity. You know, four legs vs six, life birth vs eggs, brushlike antennas vs straight ones, shit like that. Mountain Blue 19:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
That's how Linnaeus started, so watch out creationists, in another couple of hundred years you'll have caught up, assuming the Rapture doesn't happen first...and why should it, it's 2000 years late as it is... Totnesmartin 20:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

An intelligent and reasonable anti-evolution wiki is possible. Just look at ASK. Oh. Err. Nah. Forget it. Editor at CPOh, Finland! Why? 20:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


Aw! poor little John Patti (seeing as we're exposing full names) got all butthurt and banned me from following him on twitter, because I told him his spelling sucks. jay_pe on Twitter if you can stand his drivel. --PsyGremlinWhut? 19:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You're like a little girl that can't get her way. Didn't mommy suckle you enough? When will you ever learn that God is not on your side? We win because of Him! I will not post Trent's full name or Ames full name, for now -Jpatt
Aw! Innit cute! I got my own personal non-sequitur from CP's Master of Disaster(ous writing). Hey, fuckhead - um, I'm not sure what exactly you're winning, looking at your White House, Invasion of Iraq, getting pwned by Iran and North Korea. Maybe your god has taken a couple of eons off? --PsyGremlinWhut? 10:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Quick, ban him Terry Koeckritz, he's a member of a vandal site! Z3rotalk 19:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Is that the real Mr X-Ray of Ohio who has visited us or someone taking the piss? Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 19:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
It's a BoN. Fedhaji 21:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
But is it actually Jsplatt? The comment seems right down his alley. From thought to type. AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 21:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait, wait, wait. I am confused.........when did it some how become a meme over at CP that I some how give a shit if they post my full name? If I gave a damn about it none of you would know my name. I have never hidden my identity not even a little bit. tmtoulouse 21:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

have never hidden my identity not even a little bit. tmtoulouse 21:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Still looking for the word Trent in that post --Jpatt
Er what? Because my user idea doesn't include my full first name I am in secret internet hiding? Its on my damn user page, and the use of my last name gives a lot more away than "Trent" does. tmtoulouse 00:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
On a completely unrelated note, when did the word meme become so popular? Of all the words that have gained in popularity in recent years, I hate meme the most. Z3rotalk 21:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a completely new paradigm. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 22:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
You should be happy, it's almost entirely displaced "zen". --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I think "Meme" became a popular term after Dawkins' The Selfish Gene popularized the idea. The Internet gave it the ideal medium to flourish in. --Gulik 23:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Why does CP even suggest that you use your first name/initial or whatever? First off, that discourages users who do want to create an account, secondly, it is only half assedly enforced and half the sysops don't even do that. If I were to do that, it would come out to DNajib. (yeah, I have an African last name does TeamKiller actually read this page?) Yeah, I know everyone knows this, but I have exams tomorrow, too much Lebneh to eat, and I think I lost 2 of my cats. I can't find them and now I have to look for them but don't want to. My friggin head hurts too.... Fuck finals. My rant. --Beishanlong grandis 01:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The contradiction! Its Buuuurns![edit]

Classic Andy here, it's a common flaw of liberal thinking to insist that because someone is good in one academic field, he must be an expert in another. Is that so Andy? Are you sure about that Andy? Ace McWickedi9 22:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Contrary to the deceit proffered by liberals, physics has almost nothing to do with mathematics. Meanwhile, paleontology has much to do with astronomy. Deny this and lose all credibility. — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 02:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
And being a Conservative instantly makes you infallible on ALL subjects. --Gulik 18:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Time for an easter egg hunt[edit]

In one location on CP there is a criticism of a physics theory that Andy doesn't like, a quote from a physicist that cannot be censored. On another page there is a quote from a different physicist used to criticize a physics theory that Andy doesn't like that says exactly the opposite about the other theory. If you have been paying attention you should be able to find it pretty quickly, keep your answers to yourselves, meerly enjoy the experience. --Opcn 23:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Mucho laughs, even for a chemist like me.....-- 23:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

TK invents his own statistics[edit]

TK claims the percentage of liberals has not increased since 2004, according to the gallup poll, despite the graph clearly showing it is now 2% higher, whereas the percentage of conservatives is exactly the same as it was in 2004. Jammy 23:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I want to know how this squares with Andy's "Geometric Fit". He/She (TK I mean) says in the mainpage that the number of people identifying with conservatism hasnt changed since 2004. Ace McWickedi9 23:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh there's just so many ways that TK (Terry Koeckritz) is avoiding the real truth here. 35% moderate+21% liberal=56% self-identifying as not conservative, a powerful majority, especially considering only 40% self-identify as conservatives. 73% of Republicans are conservative vs. Democrast being 40% moderate and 38% liberal clearly means Republicans run a less inclusive, 'smaller house', as distinct from the broad political balance across Democrat supporters. Likewise the rest of the figures he's twisted so much they look like a pretzel. More Terry Koecritz lies. DogPMarmite Patrol 23:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Well gallup did it wrong of course! They collected the data and then drew conclusions. As we all know from Andy's 'conservative terms' you're meant to do it the other way round! Jammy 23:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Aww, Terry's bored. Hi Terry! I see what you did there! Have fun with the trolls who smell the bait! Most of all, thank you for showcasing what ignorant cowards Andy et all is absolutely priceless. — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 02:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
And how does that bode for CP's common stance of "You're not really a conservative just because you say you're a conservative"?HollowPsycho 03:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Damn. You beat me to it (curse this requirement for sleep). When I posted the link to that blog post in the saloon bar yesterday, I guessed CP would pick up on it. It's typical conservative deceit: when it suits them, crow about how many people are conservatives; when it doesn't claim that they aren't conservatives at all. Rpeh 04:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ken singing[edit]

"Conservapedia has learned that the Canadian creationist community is going to put a greater focus on the refutation of atheism on the internet. Oh, Canada! God keep Canada gloriously freer of atheism! Oh Canada, the Canadian creationists stand on guard for thee! Next stop for creationists putting a greater focus on the refutation of atheism, the UK? Please stay tuned for future details!"

This is surely clinical. Funny, but clinical. I hope you folks will warn me before I ever reach this stage. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I doubt Ken has the drink to keep himself sane. What he really needs is a good, run-of-the-mill vice. - π 06:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
A good run of the mill vice like sex with strange men? --Opcn 06:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
No, like biting his nails, or watching reruns of Rosanne. Fuxkcing strange men isn't "run of the mill" quite yet, let him take baby steps. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't that be run-of-the-Windmill-ministries vice? Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 06:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Ye gods. When I first read that I assumed it was a piss take of Ken, not something he had actually written. Even the other CP sysops must be getting embarrassed of Ken by now? Rpeh 07:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
See, Terry? We don't need fake screenshots! You guys are already ridiculous enough!-- JArneal 07:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Terry? Do you mean Terry Koeckritz? Rpeh 07:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Why, yes! Terry Koeckritz! I figured leaving out Terry's surname (which is Koeckritz) would be okay, but I had forgotten about our recent obsession with calling Terry Koeckritz Terry Koeckritz! Silly me. I hope Terry Koeckritz can forgive me. Maybe if I just type his name over and over I'll remember to do it next time: Terry Koeckritz Terry Koeckritz Terry Koeckritz Terry Koeckritz Terry Koeckritz. All better. Won't make that mistake again. Sorry Terry Koeckritz! -- JArneal 08:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Does repeating his name like that work like saying Blood Mary over and over again? Watch out or Terry Koeckritz may appear before you and destroy your website like so many others. :) --BoredCPer 08:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah good. I assumed you meant Terry Koeckritz, but I wanted to make sure you meant Terry Koeckritz instead of just assuming you meant Terry Koeckritz. With hindsight it was fairly obvious you meant Terry Koeckritz so I apologise for wasting your time asking you to confirm you meant Terry Koeckritz rather than simply operating on the likelihood that you meant Terry Koeckritz. It's good to know that you'll remember to say Terry Koeckritz whenever you want to mention Terry Koeckritz in the future though. Rpeh 08:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Can we change the TK* template to his full name, which is Terry Koeckritz? (*TK stands for Terry Koeckritz) 11:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Speaking only in full names is making this start to sound suspiciously like a series of Chuck Norris jokes, i.e. Terry Koeckritz doesn't block your IP, he blocks your soul. / Most people banhammer by clicking a mouse. Terry Koeckritz uses an actual hammer. / Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and Scooter Libby are all Terry Koeckritz. Kalliumtalk 15:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't get the joke. Aren't all those things true? I have personally heard all those things about Terry Koeckritz...and more...I have heard that when Terry Koeckritz jumps into a pool of water, Terry Koeckritz doesn't get wet because the water quickly recoils in fear from any contact with the concentrated dark matter that composes his skin. In fact, I heard that Moses was able to use Terry Koeckritz to part the Red Sea (Terry Koeckritz is immortal, don't you know? There are some even the reaper will not touch). Kaalis 17:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
The reaper just wants to avoid being banned from CP so he can fix his redlink. Kalliumtalk 18:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

By "The Canadian Creationist Community", Ken's probably talking about Denyse O'Leary. She runs about 400 Kenyan babies blogs, all of which use each other as references, to make herself look much bigger than she is. There are the whackos out west, of course, and our "Science" Minister seems to be one of them (yet another reason to get the Cons out of office), although he got publicly spanked about it so he's probably less than enthusiastic about having another round. Most Canadians outside of Alberta really don't take creationism terribly seriously. --Kels 14:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Is Alberta like your Southern US? I never knew that. --PitchBlackMind 16:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, we would have had a Bible belt, but we thought vertical stripes were more slimming. --Kels 19:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Thought pretty much everyone outside of larger cities in Quebec, Ontario, NS, and BC were major hillbillies, no? And reverse-vampires too. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svgUser:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 16:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Lies! Lies and slander! Except the reverse-vampire bit, of course. --Kels 19:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Awwww, but I AM happy and feeling a warm arse glow at seeing Kenny's back to Gentlemen messaging. Ken, this one is JUST like your old ones, and we were worried about you, so welcome back, and thanks for going with the old trustworthy tried-and-true "Faster, stronger, higher" version. You can start felching flexing your creativity again later. DogPMarmite Patrol 18:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked IPs and Range Blocks[edit]

An idea of Mountain Blue - and a very helpful hint by JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site - lead to a new set of pics, visualizing the blocked IPs and the range blocks at CP (and for comparison, at wikipedia) in a map of the world.


On wikipedia, there are ~90,000 blocked single IPs - as wikipedia allows for anonymous editing, this doesn't seem to be excessive. Range blocks are used sparingly. As we all know, on conservapedia, range blocks are en vogue, even though you have to lock in to edit. Strange, strange world.... larronsicut fur in nocte 12:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait one frakkin' minute! These look like biological warfare maps: coincidence? Jimaginator 13:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I so love this. I crap some half-baked idea onto someone's talk page, some other dudes work out the details and make it happen, and LArron gives me top billing for the whole thing. I, meanwhile, haven't even followed through on those charts I promised a week ago. Anyway, it just so happens I have a new idea: there should be badges for people that get IP ranges banzored, a la Science Scouts. Instead of "Level I" and "Level II" and so on we'd obviously have "/24" and "/16" or some such. Now someone make it work for me. Mountain Blue 13:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Here you go, unless someone can think of a good image to put in the center to represent... an IP address. Science Scouts is cool. PubliusTalk 15:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Badge 16.pngBadge 24.pngBadge 32.png
Thanks a million, Publius. The /32 is ballsy. Mountain Blue 18:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
These are great... although I'm a little confused - 'cos I thought CP had something like 3x the blocks of WP, yet these make WP look worse?--PsyGremlinWhut? 13:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
CP has easily a couple thousand times the blocks of WP per contributor, or per article, or per edit. Maybe a couple tens of thousands. I'm sure LArron will be happy to provide hard numbers. Also, keep in mind that on these maps the typical WP block (which blocks one address) looks exactly as bad as the typical CP block (which nukes a campus, a medium ISP, or a small city). Mountain Blue 13:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the red dots are just one address - it's the yellow dots which you want to look at, as they're the /16 range blocks. EddyP 14:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh shame on you Portugal. Not a single IP blocked on CP. JoeDuffy 14:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
What we need (and I fear may be beyond even LArron's skills) is a population-scaled map, like so, allowing a /16 to be 65 thousand times larger than a /32. PubliusTalk 15:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the same effect could be acheived by having different dot sizes for each range size. Jimaginator 20:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I suspect the above comment has just added an extra dot! StarFish 15:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The UK is getting buried beneath the dots, except for northern Scotland...come on Inverness, you're letting the side down! Jammy 16:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


Happy now? larronsicut fur in nocte 17:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Tenk yew! (Actually, I might have mentioned this before, but you rock!) Is it just me, or do those badges above look suspiciously like ecstasy pills... er... you know, the pictures you see on the warning posters. --PsyGremlinWhut? 17:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Wow. Anyone else thinking of the movie Wargames right now? Kaalis 17:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Our eyes don't respond to color the same. Maybe... convert the color of the land to white #FFFFFF. Then have a each range be -#0A0A0A. So a /32 would be #F5F5F5 while a /31 would be #EBEBEB. This way those big /16 ranges would be black dots while the /32 would be barely noticeable contrast shifts. Using a value rather than hue would give a better idea because our eyes respond differently to different hues of the same value and saturation (#00FF00 seems to be brighter than #FF0000 or #0000FF though all have the same value and saturation). In the meantime, go play with gapminder for other fun visualizations about the world. --Shagie 18:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your ideas - and this gapminder site seems to be fun larronsicut fur in nocte 18:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that it works that well. And it transports a wrong impression as the change of contrast is linear, while each range block covers twice as many numbers as the next smaller one.
If I try to put this information into the size of the circles - doubling the area for two neighbouring ranges - I get some very black regions :-) larronsicut fur in nocte 23:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Another idea would be to change it so that the short term warning blocks are not shown. Remove blocks that are due to expire in less than... say, one month. That would give a better picture of the "no editors from..." mindset. --Shagie 19:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
No Chilean blocks? C'mon, TK, you got work to do. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 18:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I CAN SEE MY HOUSE FROM HERE!!!!!! Bjones 18:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

LArron, I don't normally comment on your graphs, but bravo. I think the extra large /16 block circles perfectly represent CPs "nuke 'em" block policy. Z3rotalk 18:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I love the little tiny one on Fairbanks, Alaska. Whatever happened to Icewedge?

Extraordinary, you've outdone yourself this time Laaron - you really are The Man. It's incredible how you just keep churning this crap out?! Genius. DogPMarmite Patrol 23:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I made the pics into an article - and I'm thankful for input. larronsicut fur in nocte 23:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
You'll love this one - "Broadband users in SCANDINAVIA"....DogPMarmite Patrol 23:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Just to show my ignorance....can someone explain the /2, /8, /16 stuff to me plase? I guess it's something to do with the number of IPs blocked but don't quite get it. Feel free to put it down to my age and advancing senility. Mick McT 07:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
It's the number of bits of an IP address that must match the blocked address to also be blocked. In that last example (, only the first 16 bits (the two non-zero octets) have to match, thus blocking the 65,536 IPs starting with those two numbers. In a /24 block, the first three octets have to match, only blocking 256 IPs. A /32 block would be identical to an individual IP address block. There's a good help page here. Rpeh 07:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
This is a better link: Idiot's guide to range blocks -- Nx / talk 07:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Are you (correctly ) calling me an idiot!?! I'm forced to take that as a compliment! Thanks for the link - I think I get it now. Mick McT 07:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I think I figured out what TK's problem with Scandinavia is. Mountain Blue 08:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Lemonpeel Shoutout[edit]

Email me Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svgUser:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 02:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone seems to have made an appeal to TK, but I doubt it will work, I suspect that if Lemonpeel is a rat ;) he can come out and say it --Opcn 04:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Lemonpeel was first blocked under another name last year. After that, he came here and made one edit before vanishing again. I don't think he has ever had a lot of time for us or particularly interested in contributing here much. I have no idea why he went back a second and third time. Opcn, you don't get this whole idea behind socking do you? - π 04:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Everyone socks in there own way, I prefer argyle, that said I'm working on a plan, and not outing anyone or eating up proxies, so all in all I think I'm doing alright. --Opcn 06:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Making it obvious who your sock is in not much of a plan, unless having us think you are the world's worst sockpuppeteer is part of an amazingly complex plan. - π 06:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, yabbling about it here is in bad taste anyway. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Make that second worst. Don't forget CUR. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 06:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Given that CUR's mummy sowed his named into his sock he was incapable of making puppets out of them anyway. - π 06:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
My latest sock is already gone, so yabbling isn't that bad (cool word BTW), but yes there is a daringly complex plan behind it all, I won't lay it out here, but it involves three live chickens, a few inflated balloon animals, and 36 and a half ounces of Anal lube. --Opcn 15:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, reminds me of when I joined the Masons. --PsyGremlinWhut? 15:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Is "Anal lube" a brand name or do you think there is a lube specifically made for the anus? We, Ourselves, prefer "Astroglide®", original formula only please. The Triune God(s) 17:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I actually was lectured by the owner of a sex shop on what different brands of lube were good for. Apparently Probe is really good for anal. --Kels 14:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
He finally noticed that I was using the EXACT SAME IP ADDRESS --Opcn 21:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Wigo - Now with (blue) BALLS[edit]

Excuse the programmer art. Any improvements are welcome -- Nx / talk 10:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the update/notice. I was wondering why WIGO had suddenly developed blue balls...--WJThomas 10:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Nice one Nx, as ever I'm in awe of your l33t skilz (have I got that right?). In particular the total votes thing gives insite as to whether a low vote is either disinterest of a tug of war between rival opinions. Silver Sloth 11:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
1337 is more common now. - π 13:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me or are the balls are completely unnecessary (unless for some reason you change your mind about wanting to vote on a particular wigo, which makes very little sense)? — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 19:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't just you. If you changed your mind or accidentally clicked the wrong arrow, you could just hit the other one and flip it. It's hardly necessary. --PitchBlackMind 19:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
It makes sense. It's a "zero" vote. "Flipping" up to down changes your +1 to -1. Having "zero" votes allows for tallying percentages more accurately, it lets people vote "meh" if they want to. PS, Nx, do you mind if I change the image to a blue zero? Where locatest it thou? (Guess I could just check the source...) Last thought, can the "best of" widget report not just the net but the +/0/- totals as well? ħumanUser talk:Human 19:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Wait, can you vote "zero" ("reset") without voting up or down first? ħumanUser talk:Human 19:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
This ain't Chicago. You don't vote early and often. You vote once. -1, 0, or 1. Once! Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svgUser:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 19:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
You can vote zero. Make sure you ctrl-r because the javascript has to be updated. Image filename is located at Mediawiki:wigoresetvote, if it's a gif, you don't have to change that, just upload to File:wigoresetvote.gif -- Nx / talk 19:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Glad a zero vote is possible. Can you change the mouseover text to be "vote zero" instead of "reset"? I made a "0" gif, I might also change it to black from blue for a more neutral appearance. Thoughts on that? Any thoughts on my last question above? It would be cool to know, sometimes I suspect fairly neutral scoring polls may get a lot of votes, but they split... ħumanUser talk:Human 20:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I was about to crack a joke about human being the only one who thought the WIGOs important enough to be indecisive, but I started doing something else. Seriously, dude, you're a tool. — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 20:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
(ECx2) Oh, I think I see where the confusion comes from. Yeah, you can vote zero first, because instead of actually removing your vote I instead decided to record a zero vote using the existing functionality (in fact wigo can be expanded to allow any numeric vote, not just up or down - I'm probably going to use the same system for the new Aotw voting, once I get around to that). After EC: the tooltip is MediaWiki:wigotitlereset (see first post for the rest). As for the +/-/0 totals, I can do that too. -- Nx / talk 20:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Human, please make the new 0 image a mini-goatse. That is all. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svgUser:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 20:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
↑=↓ that's confusing! Better would be ↑ ↔ ↓ larronsicut fur in nocte 21:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
(EC) Here's an example with Wikipedia's voting icons. With that in mind I changed the image to a grey equal sign, and the tooltip/alt-text to neutral, as IMHO equal fits in better with up/down
With Wikipedia's icons
-- Nx / talk 21:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, how's it now? -- Nx / talk 21:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks like a bed+breakfast :-) The encircled symbols of the pic would work nicely, I suppose --larronsicut fur in nocte 21:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

(UI) I think I'll whack together an upanddown arrow but I'll get opinion before further replacementing. Also maybe a leftandright arrow as suggested above. How about a poll system that uses ♠ ♣ ♥ ♦ ? J/k... ħumanUser talk:Human 23:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Terry Koeckritz[edit]

This section has been moved to Debate:Privacy clusterfuck

I have moved this. - π 12:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


Say, does anyone know what the "Agnosticism" WiGO has to do with Agnosticism since the only link in it doesn't say anything about the subject? --Kels 01:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I was just reading that going, what the ...? I'll check someone hasn't changed the link or something. - π 01:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Link was right, but the poll number was wrong. That is why it is stupid but has so many votes. - π 02:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

TK's enemies of civilization WIGO[edit]

No, no, no. Okay, so it's just TK trolling, but the WIGOer missed his point. It's not that liberals are enemies of civilization (that's a given), it's that, lumped together as enemies of civilization along with dictators, domestic terrorists, international terrorists, killers, cop killers, mass killers, baby killers, strippers, and common criminals are...(wait for it)...welfare recipients! TK puts a lot of work into his insanity (it just comes naturally to the rest of them), so if we have to acknowledge his efforts, let's get it right.--WJThomas 11:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

TK and big fucking grey zeros[edit]

This section has been moved to Debate:Privacy clusterfuck

I have moved this. - π 12:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Should the perception by Ed...[edit]

that the Phillips Curve is not in plain english be included in the WIGO? I don't seem to have problem understanding it with little economics background, although it may as well be just me. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 16:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

CP's CK WIGO[edit]

About that Calvin Klein news item, why the hell do CP and christianwire (which they linked from) keep talking about children? It's a sexually provocative billboard, but it's a bit disturbing that the first thing they think off is naked children... The article CP links to is pretty disturbing too, like this quote: "When I saw that, I purchased an 18-foot ladder, climbed up the billboard and stapled a huge orange blanket over that naked woman's body. I don't want some sexually depraved pervert getting off on ABC's dirt, and raping and murdering my wife or daughter."

So apparently it's Almost Nude = Nude = Sex = Sex aimed at Children = Some guy is prolly going to rape your wife and/or daughter... --GTac 04:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You know, CP stands for possibly Conservapedia or child pornography (and the entries are, suprisingly, next to each other) in the same category in the WP disambiguation page. The rest are left for your enjoyment using your own imagination. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 05:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
"Won't someone THINK OF THE CHILDREEEEN?!" is pretty much the tactical nuclear weapon of Conservative discourse. --Gulik 08:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Who came up with such abbreviations for Conservapedia anyways? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 14:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I almost shot coffee out of my nose when I got to the end of the article. The part where Ray says "Mr. Klein..." just smacked of the celebrity Jeopardy! sketches on SNL. I could just imagine him saying it with that smarmy "Sean Connery" look in his NZ accent. Priceless. The Foxhole Atheist 14:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I love the Isaac Newton quote in the header... "Atheism is so senseless." - Isaac Newton. Wow, that shit is deep. Einstein, Newton and Hawking...such a blatant attempt at appeal to authority. — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 14:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Bit late, but sorry about forgetting about the link. I hate it when people do that myself. --GTac 19:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Why all the hate?[edit]

As a long time lurker here, i'm mildly astonished by all the hate towards TK. I mean, by now its blatantly obvious that he is a troll/parodist, and a great one at that. Of all the vandals, he doubtlessly is the most responsible for CPs slow, agonizing demise - which I thought was RWs goal. So why the hate?

If you've been a long time lurker then I'm mildly astonished you haven't realised that we're basically here to laugh at CP not destroy it. Conservapedia has no influence in the conservative universe (in fact it's an embarrassment) so there’s no virtue in trying to bring its destruction.. TK is hardly a parodist (where's the parody?) but he is trying to surreptitiously drive people away with the subtlety of a farting elephant. Matt oblong 11:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
He still provides for moar epic lulz than most others.
IMO it's an error to think that the end justifies the means. Especially when the end is a little bit fuzzy: TK has claimed to have quite a few ends over the time, according to his public.
I think his aim is to be the only one to have fun, and then with CP depredated he'll spread malice elsewhere..
Really, even I get carried away. And the worst thing: He makes me pity Andrew Schlafly, who maneuvered himself by sheer stupidity into a position where he depends on TK for shielding him from reality.
larronsicut fur in nocte 12:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
"...[why] all the hate towards TK?" Because he's...hateful? The enemy of my enemy (or object of ridicule in this case) is not my friend by default. --Kels 14:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Terry Koeckritz (I'm talking about Terry Koeckritz) entertains me for at least an hour today. I'm very thankful for that. — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 14:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Because he's a mean cyberbully, a liar, a drama queen, a decent portion of why CP is the smouldering wreck that it is, and generally a lousy excuse for a human being. --Gulik 16:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm late to this. Is this a discussion about Terry Koeckritz? Or is it not about Terry Koeckritz? If it's about Terry Koeckritz, fine, then I haven't misunderstood. DogPMarmite Patrol 18:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Conservapedia is planning trouble for UK'ers[edit]

This is from the Main Page of Conservapedia.

Conservapedia has learned that the Canadian creationist community is going to put a greater focus on the refutation of atheism on the internet. Oh Canada, the Canadian creationists stand on guard for thee! Next stop for creationists on the internet putting a greater focus on the refutation of atheism in the UK? Please stay tuned for future details!

— Unsigned, by: Proxima Centauri / talk / contribs

This was mentioned about 2 days ago, look under Ken singing. - π 12:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Ken has already smeared some shit on the front page about tapping into the UK creationist market... he spouted his usual "stay tuned" and absolutely nothing about it was ever mentioned again. 13:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Those Brits have a special place in the heart of conservapedia - in contrast to wikipedia:

Blocked Ranges at CP
Blocked Ranges at WP

larronsicut fur in nocte 13:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It fills my heart with pride to know that one of those circles over Edinburgh is me. Bastard bastard Hoover! 14:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Just tread carefully or you'll end up getting me blocked as well ;) Worm (t | c) 15:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC) (in the Borders)
I can see my blocked house on this. If any of those Conservapedians come over here and try and convert me or some shit, I will fart in their general direction. SJ Debaser 15:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, Monty Python. We still need them. I fondly remember the U.S. General in the Mr. Neutron sketch checking his armpits and ordering three full-scale nuclear alerts or some such. We should paste Andy's head on him...Jimaginator 15:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Dublin before Belfast+Derry? Does it mean they support the UK in the northern Ireland problem? J/k. He might as well block the planet for all he cares. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 17:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The thing about London is that if you get one Pret a Manger's free WiFi blocked there's always another one 200 metres down the road.Toffeeman 20:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Page views[edit]

2 things come to mind:

  1. Is it at all possible to estimate what fraction of page views on CP are caused by us? (Yes, we do double viewing by the capturebot as well, and if they count log viewing, I am sure LArron's API to get numbers from the log would be a major contributor on the page views.)
  2. How often is Andy updating the boast on pageviews? Three significant figures seems to be a lot.

Comments? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 17:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's put it this way. I know that, personally, I account for at least 3m pageviews, and RW has often come together as a community to support Homosexual Obsession (et al), Portsmouth, etc. A conservative (haw-haw) guess would be half of all CP traffic, what with WIGOs, parody, general laughter, and referring people to it. A majority of the remainder would be other individuals laughing at it, and a full 9m page views are Ken furiously rereading his pages. PubliusTalk 18:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
A. Schlafly updated the number 355 times from June 27, 2007 until June 17, 2009 (687 days), an average of 3.6 updates a week. (see: File:Cp-aschlafly-brags.png).
Intelligent software should exclude questioning the api from being counted, but OTOH we're talking about conservapedia... larronsicut fur in nocte 18:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Damn LArron, you've got numbers on everything! ...I have some good figures, do you want my number too? --GTac 19:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

the July 4th push then boycott[edit]

I think we should try to push it to 100M by the 4th of July. --Opcn 18:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Not by, on. PubliusTalk 18:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
After which we should have a period as a control as we have much lulz as page views plummet. The Triune God(s) 18:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
So how do we do this, I can do a few thousand pageviews a day at most, I run Hardy heron on a webbook so all of my old macro stuff is useless. Should we make a page to coordinate this effort? Is this something y'all would like to do? --Opcn 20:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
100M on the fourth of July would be epic. What a great gift we could give to Andy. It would make his day week month year decade (ten years) life. — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 20:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Right now they have 94,574,304 views, so thats 16 days to pull out 4,525,700 views, 283K per day. If we wanted to save bandwidth and run their noses in our awesomeness in an extra awesome way we could make all of the views be of an article like Law terms D. Does the Meta wiki software keep track of the pageviews after a page gets deep burned? IE when Terry Koeckritz wipes the slate clean will we loose all of our progress towards 100M page views? --Opcn 20:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
If we already know at least half his pageviews come from us, why do we need another boycott to prove it? --Kels 20:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I prefer hitting homosexuality-related articles, but Law Terms D is one of the best. I don't think it resets when they delete a page because I've never seen the numbers go down and they've lost millions on certain articles. — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 20:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
We aren't boycotting to prove it to us, we are boycotting to prove it to andy. I don't know who is doing what, but right now they are getting about 150 pageviews a minute, and to reach our goal they need about 200 page views a minute. --Opcn 21:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
And Andy will care...why, exactly? Rather than just trumpet on the front page how many page views he's getting and not care where they come from, same as always, that is. --Kels 21:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I can't find a greasemonkey script or program that will Shift f5 or Ctrl Shift R automatically. I've asked about this before and just spent hours looking. Someone please help me privately. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svgUser:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 01:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) There are clicksites designed for online games like this and this (there are loads more examples) if anybody really wants to do it. Registering at each site would boost pageviews by an extra few thousand per day. The regular pageview update is a sure sign of Andy's insanity. He obviously believes that xx million people have been converted by his blog, when it's more a case of people coming to laugh at his strange alternate world. I probably contribute 100 or so hits a day, but I still think the entire idea of "gOD" is a joke. Rpeh 21:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

To back up Kels, as per my forever binding promise, boycotts don't achieve anything. Enough people ignore them to ruin the value of causing a drop in activity over there, the only result being that WIGO CP is shut off and traffic to RW takes a nosedive. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Since when have we cared about our traffic and pageviews? I like the sound of that, might clear some of these CP only editors out for a bit. We could get some real work done for once and it would be quicker without them hogging up bandwidth and CPU time. - π 01:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
94,629,936 pageviews, looks like a good pace to me, if we can keep it up we should be set.--Opcn 01:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
94,695,531 and I think we might have a problem, CP has been buggy for me, probably for others too, I think we should try to run scripts at night when traffic is low, we don't want to DDoS them. If you are looking for a program to run on a pc look into autohotkey, takes a bit to program but rally rally works. I'm running iMacros on firefox (an addon) and it clicks the random page link every 1-3 seconds --Opcn 07:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Ha! Clear out the CP-only users? That would leave... me? But yes, Human is right, the boycotts do nothing, we're not the only CP central site, a lot of their spikes in traffic come from 4Chan or Uncyclopedia etc. and when they jump on it, it completely drowns out RW sourced activity. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 11:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

TK is such an odious turd[edit]

... that he only has to be away for a few hours for people to start enjoying themselves again. Looks like editors at CP are actually, um, editing instead of cowering in fear of the banhammer. And what's this? Someone creates a debate entitled "Should we act like Jesus is real?" and instead of blocking the user and deleting the article, Ed Poor formats it!

Dr. Peter Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.

Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical"?

Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff.

Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.

Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!

Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...

Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!

Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svgUser:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 21:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Enough; I get the point! Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 21:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Bah, the whole article is obviously a trap for the unwary. Anyone posting under NO will be banned. Broccoli 22:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
That's what'll happen. Anyway, I gotta split, the Mayor has to rap with me... SJ Debaser 11:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm what[edit]

Does anyone have any idea what the fuck Andy is talking about? What's Hitler business? Ace McWickedi9 00:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Part 1: special pleading (at 2 sections lower. Ironic, I know) for the case saying such argument (linking Hitler and evolution, therefore Evolution is wrong) is not a logical fallacy
Part 2: blasting evolution before understanding what the scope of evolution is. The technique is described here
Hope that helps. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Even more, he's missing a simple fact: Just because a theory might lead people to do horrible things doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong. If some ethically bankrupt scientist discovered that eating the pineal glands of toddlers could cure male-pattern baldness, it would be horrible, but it wouldn't be any less true. So, yeah, Andy continues to Fail Logic Forever. --Gulik 02:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually Gulik that was Andy's point; that there is some special circumstance where if people believe in a theory and do things they see in accord, then the theory is likely wrong. This coupled with TK rejection of ad hominem shoots apart any pretence that anything they say is based on logic rather than their own prejudices. - π 02:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I found just as atrocious Andy's other edit, which marginalized "moving the goalposts" as an argument used "almost exclusively by evolutionists." That's not exactly fair, as libruls also use it to back up their deseetful claim that Obama is an American citizen:
I'd like to see someone add the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy to the list, claiming that it's a term used exclusively by a certain vandal site to poke holes in Schlafly Insightz™ like the geometric expansion of conservative words. Junggai 03:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
That's because people who actually move the goalposts don't realize that they're doing it. Oh, wait, yes they do. And of course it's only argued against by evolutionists- moving the goalposts is only done when an existing argument has been demolished in an attempt to evade admitting defeat (*couKent Hovindgh*). Antievolutionists can't make accusations of moving the goalposts as they haven't fulfilled the first goal: any empirical data that are actually verifiable and actually data. Of course that's the problem- we typically assume they understand that that data we request must be data. So we don't move the goalposts, we just on occasion have to explain what goalposts are, I suppose. Kalliumtalk 04:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
OOoh lookeee. Andy made another spelling mistake! Hitler and his top aids justified heinous crimes by applying the theory of evolution Redchuck.gif Генгисunbelieving 08:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I remember using one of my socks to add ad hominem, ad hitlerum, guilt by association and a couple of other fallacies that conservapedia blatantly commits to the "Common Fallacies" article. Nearly all of which were removed, because, as they themselves admitted, it was clearly an attack on Ken. It's funny how those guys actually do know that they're wrong, but try to cover it up anyway. Bil08 09:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
For fuck's sake. The whole creationist goalpost thing is my biggest gripe with those morons. Now Assfly has gone out of his way to piss me off even further. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 09:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Right before the server crash I went through and repaired the whole damn article, replaced all of the examples with examples that fit the fallacies, cut the excess chatter out and had it looking much better with 4 hours of work in one day, then it was gone. --Opcn 15:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
At least with the second part of his edit, Andy confirms that a) he's an idiot and b) he has no actual clue about the theory of evolution. It has nothing to do with the origin of life, but merely on how species evolve and adapt to their environments, thus it is no a logical question to ask, but rather one asked by the ignorant and biased. --PsyGremlinWhut? 15:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Alleged duplicate[edit]

wigo2104 and wigo2105 uses the same difflink. someone mind merging the two? Thanks. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 17:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

For anyone who misses DeanS[edit]

(which is probably just me) this is probably why he hasn't been around lately.

Don't know if you'll see this, but my most sincere condolences to you, Dean. — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 18:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, my heart goes out to you, Dean. Aboriginal Noise Oh, what a lovely tea party! 19:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Sincerest condolences as well, Dean. AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 19:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll toss in my sympathy as well. That sucks pretty bad. --Kels 19:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Aw, man, that's a downer. :( My condolences as well. --Sid 19:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Damn, that sucks. I hope he has plenty of friends and family around to support him in what must be a difficult time. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Major bummer. Czolgolz 20:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
That ain't good. I guess this far down the word's will have lost their effect, but anyway, I offer my sincerest condolences. EddyP 20:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Mee too. Mountain Blue 20:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Sad, sad news. Toffeeman 20:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I send my condolences too. I believe she actually posted on CP once or twice - "the wife of Crocoite" I think she described herself. Redchuck.gif ГенгисGum disease 21:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Sad news indeed. Sorry for your loss. FlareTalk 22:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
That's a lovely card. I hope he sees it. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Deepest sympathy, Dean. RW and CP are always at daggers with one another, but at the end of the day we're all in this together. SJ Debaser 10:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont know if Dean reads here but I'll let him know that because I am facing something and I know how he must feel. What is helping me is havings friends and family to lean on so Dean, make sure you keep yourself supported. Big love, Ace McWickedi9 23:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Dittos. Keep the faith. CЯacke® 00:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

My condolesces, even if I am not exactly qualified to comment on the loss of spouse. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 01:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I would think this qualifies for a simple WIGO, as in, "RationalWiki editors would like to offer their condolences to Conservapedia editor DeanS, whose wife died recently.". Any thoughts? 07:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree. In fact, if it ain't already there, I'll add it. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm a little late to this, but my sympathy as well Dean. When feuding on the internet, it's easy to forget that there are real people on the other end. I wish you well in this time of pain Dean. SirChuckBObama/Biden? 2012 09:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for your loss, Dean. --Edgerunner76Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? 11:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think the WIGO on this looks like we're making fun of the situation, considering it's on a page listing all the things we find stupid and amusing on the site. I vote to take it down, and just to express sympathy here. Crundy 12:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
It has always been our communicating with Conservapedia, I think it is a nice and touching. I was a little teary as wrote it. Everyone should vote it up as a show of our solidarity with Dean at this time. - π 12:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
That's weird, I thought I added it, and included the difflink. Hmmm. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Condolences from me too. Rpeh 12:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
If everyone votes the WIGO up, it will show up in Best of CP in the future. I don't think that would be appropriate.-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 13:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Couldn't we just then remove it from the list? Aboriginal Noise Oh, what a lovely tea party! 13:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I thought the list was automatic - that's the problem. I could be wrong though.-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 13:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
It is there now climbing the list. Wouldn't it be nice if the highest ever WIGO was one that showed our common humanity rather than our differences? - π 13:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
My condolences too. --PsyGremlinWhut? 14:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never interacted with you much, but my condolences as well. Sterile love 03:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

So very sorry to hear of your loss... wishing you strength through this difficult time, and brighter days in the future.. my sympathies to you Refugeetalk page 03:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I like how it reads (as of now): "165 RationalWiki editors would like to offer their condolences". Never thought the number would be part of the sentence... ħumanUser talk:Human 03:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Firefighter values[edit]

That would classify as "obvious parody", thus a pointless WIGO. Kalliumtalk 02:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Convergent observation found in his other edits. Perhaps a better question is how long will the actual user last? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 02:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Violation of our "don't expose parody" policy --Opcn 02:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Should we "NO PARODY" in huge flashing red letters on the WIGO page? By pointing it out to ask how long it will last, you guarantee that it will disappear. Such edits are in a superposition (meta-edits, if you will) such that once acknowledged here, they cease to exist there (it's quanTum mechanicKs, you see). Kalliumtalk 04:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Basically, if an edit is made by a recently joined editor then assume it's parody and therefore not WIGOable unless one of the sysops picks it up and runs with it. It's not just about not exposing the parody, it's also that the parody on it's own is not funny unless it comes from a known loony. Otherwise who are we mocking, just some drive by editor who is not representative of CP? Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 08:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Генгис is exactly right. Acknowledging obvious trolls is not just lulz poison, it's completely pointless. They're not actually funny unless and until the cranks actively embrace them. Mountain Blue 10:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
And when they do, it's comedy gold. Such as when RW tried it's hand at completing the article matrix and almost suceeded, and seeing them flail about when they realise it was started as a parody and wonder whether to keep it or not even though they agree is amazing to watch. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 10:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, how amazing, that was so surprising. Aren't we clever how we're able to predict deletion of a page openly criticizing Andy shortly after we advertise its existence? Kalliumtalk 13:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Should I be offended that someone posted that to CP? It's of a higher caliber than what could be found at CP. Bad parodist! Bad! --Irrational Atheist 14:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Although it wouldn't be a bad idea to recreate it and build on it in a serious tone as an example. It was terrible to put on CP or WIGO but would fit nicely here, I think. Kalliumtalk 02:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Sheeeee's Baaaaaaaaaack[edit]

Kotomi San, you disappoint me!

I'd have gone back as well to revert that, though. And Addison gave us a nod for our condolences! Thanks Addison! Aboriginal Noise Oh, what a lovely tea party! 18:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Where? ħumanUser talk:Human 19:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Here. Maybe he was trying, but the little fucker still got it wrong. There was nothing liberal about that, Addison. — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 20:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. "13:13, 19 June 2009 AddisonDM (Talk | contribs) blocked JRichmond (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) ‎ (Liberal vandalism: even the unmentionable website offers their condolences!)" I think the LV part was just from the drop-down, they don't have a plain "vandalism" one... ħumanUser talk:Human 20:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that was gross, but I'm disappointed to see that she's been lurking...Hi Addison! — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 18:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
We lurk all the time! Aboriginal Noise Oh, what a lovely tea party! 18:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and we're very disappointed in us. --Kels 18:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know who Kotomi San is and I don't completely understand what's going down here, but this JRichmond edit was fucking disgraceful. Whoever did this should be ashamed of themselves, seriously. Crap like that is way beyond the pale. Mountain Blue 19:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Kotomi = JessicaT — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 19:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
That JRichmond edit is unreal. Indescribably disgusting. I suggest - with all respect to the Conservapedians actually, no, since a blocking comment was "liberal vandalism", so fuck you Addison - that you get TK to burn that. SJ Debaser 19:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Holy hell. I had to look around for it, and once I saw what page it was on I really didn't want to click on it. Ugh, that's really awful shit, I hope that isn't anyone from here. --PitchBlackMind 19:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
If it turns out it is - which I'm sure it isn't, but you never know with the anonymity of the internet - that cunt should be blocked for about a month at least. SJ Debaser 19:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
If it is someone from here, they should expect some sanctions. Most of the RW community will have your ass. As for "liberal vandalism", well, ugh. Not a big fan of that. Aboriginal Noise Oh, what a lovely tea party! 19:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Where else would they likely be from? As soon as I can find an IP address they haven't blocked yet, which is no longer really trivial in this city, I'm going to sign up over there as Mountain Blue and apologize to Addison on behalf of whoever did this. Mountain Blue 19:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
We're in no way responsible for that (I hope and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise), so I wouldn't go apologizing, but knock yourself out. It will make us look culpable. — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 19:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Not personally, no, but I wasn't going to imply that. I'll think of something appropriate; it's not like I could really do anything from where I'm sitting right now. Mountain Blue 19:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely despicable. Sorry, just fucking completely out of line. Whoever you are, I fucking hate you. DogPMarmite Patrol 19:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Addison's a moron for citing it as "liberal vandalism", so I wouldn't bother apologising. Anyway, I'm sure they know that our condolensces are sincere, and even if that person was from here, he/she in no way represents anyone else from this site. SJ Debaser 19:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
That's probably precisely what I'm going to tell them. Yes, it's just for the record, but this is exactly the kind of thing that has to be on a record somewhere. Mountain Blue 19:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
It's entirely possible that it could be just a random. I was vandalizing CP long before I knew about RW. But sadly, it is likely it's someone here, if at the very least a lurker.--PitchBlackMind 19:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
TK is not to be outdone. Who's the bigger asshole? EddyP 19:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, well TK just managed to show an equal amount of disrespect to DeanS with that one. What a sick fuck. --PitchBlackMind 19:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yup. TK's certainly glad he has that to put on his page. EddyP 19:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
It was probably Terry Koeckritz to begin with. Sick fuck. — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 19:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations Terry Koeckritz, for lumping a bunch of innocent users with some mindless prat while simultaneously disrespecting a fellow Conservapedian by re-producing a disgraceful comment. You must literally have shit for brains, haven't you? SJ Debaser 19:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Unbelievable. And I have emailed him to say so. Ajkgordon 20:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe even he could sink that low. I'm not signing on to the belief that it was Terry Koeckritz that made the original post, but by re-posting it rather than oversighting the original, he's not much better than whoever did post it. Rpeh 20:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Just waiting for TK to accuse some random internet persona and doing a personality hit job. Whatever his ulterior motives are, there's a line and he crossed it. If, as it seems, he is a publicly identifiable figure, he really ought to be a lot more careful. That's not a threat, by the way. Just a recommendation. There are plenty of people out there who are perfectly capable of building a vendetta and taking it beyond all reasonable reaction. Ajkgordon 20:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
He definitely won't oversight the original, since he preserves a link to the diff in question. Etc 21:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
If anybody has any doubts about whether or not Jpatt is a parodist or not, simply have a look at his block log on CP. Not overly impressive, but a 90/10 from Andy, DanH blocked him for calling a sysop "a loser for life" and the now-vanished Fox blocked him for parody (although Jinx unblocked him - fat lot that helped him in the long run). This is somebody who probably went along to mess around, and then decided to play the long-game, once he'd seen what tickled Andy's fancy. That said, his early entries (which are all debates) are full of the same - but slightly toned down - wingnuttery. Luckily Obama came along to give him some focus. --PsyGremlinWhut? 16:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

"Oversight in action"[edit]

<- User:Mountain Blue tried to follow his plan. He asked TK to oversight the comment. And man, did TK oversight...

Oversight in action
pre oversight
post oversight

larronsicut fur in nocte 21:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

At least TK is consequent: Since all edits by Mountain Blue were oversighted, he officially never made any edits. Thus, Jpatt is a mind reader. Nevermind, he was talking about Jessica. --Sid 22:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Phenomenal. He's been oversighting away ever since he got his powerzorz, but the one time we'd ALL agree oversighting was essential, he actually copies the text, refers to it, and difflinks it on his own page and ensures that he doesn't oversight it. If that's not sloppy sysoping, I don't know what is, and Andy might take a dim view of it. If Andy didn't have his head shoved far up his own arse, that is, of course. DogPMarmite Patrol 00:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this is TK being helpful? If the anon who asked "Why all the hate?" about TK earlier still needed an answer, TK just gave one. Rpeh 00:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
And with that he goes from a little annoying to purely disgusting. All the more reason to place a permanent moratorium on TK WIGOs, or better yet to ignore him altogether. If they continue to be posted, we will not simply be fueling a power-hungry sociopathic narcissist, but advertising and indeed promoting the actions of what we now know to simply be a despicable human being. By the way- that "despicable human being" part applies equally to whomever made the post in the first place. It may have even been TK himself- it's just the kind of manipulative thing he would do. Kalliumtalk 01:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Not so much "power-hungry" as "chaos-hungry". He wants to see the ants scurry as he sets them on fire, not be their leader. --Kels 05:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Well put. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused. I know I commented not just on TK's talk page but on Addison's talk page as well, but the left screenshot only shows the former comment. Oversighting in two installments? Also, is there a screenshot of the comment itself somewhere? I neglected to make one. It was 6:30 in the morning, I'd been up all night, and there was a plane I needed to catch. Mountain Blue 06:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I lost mine by reloading and ignorance. Maybe your version is buried in a cache somewhere? Open page in browser, dig back through history? ħumanUser talk:Human 06:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I had just read the comment on Addison's talk page and refreshed the RC. I couldn't find your comment any more in the list, but at least TK's revert
  • m User talk:AddisonDM .. (-439)..TK(Talk|contribs)(Reverted edits by MountainBlue(Talk) to last version by Addison DM)
Three minutes later, even this entry was gone - as was your contribution to TK's talk page, your comments had never happened.
It was pure chance that I had a tab with the old RC and could make a screenshot.
larronsicut fur in nocte 06:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, but how do we know it's not you making fraudulent screenshots to make poor little Terry look bad? After all, he said we would do that on his user page (but only after getting oversight, of course) </snark off> --PsyGremlinWhut? 10:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

She's gooooooooonnnnneee[edit]

Whoops! EddyP 19:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

uhh...Terry Koeckritz, have you lost your fucking mind? Addison (or anyone else who reads us) for Christ's sake DO SOMETHING. — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 19:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Jpatt, not TK. I think I've guessed what's going on. EddyP 20:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Whooops... So wait...what is going on? — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 20:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm really not sure, but my current (and likely wrong) guess is that Jpatt is finally outing himself as a parodist. Calling someone a Hitler apologist for questioning the "Darwin caused the Holocaust" claim? Really? --Sid 20:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
We pretty much know and have verified who JPatt is irl...if he turns out to be a troll, I will go out, buy a hat and eat it. — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 20:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm also 99% sure he's no parodist (mostly because no parodist would also maintain such a hyperactive, anti-liberal Twitter feed), but there's always hope... --Sid 20:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
For my money, he's a parodist. If he ever outs himself, I'll post the tidbit that makes me think so. Fedhaji 21:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think he's a full-on parodist. He probably believes most of what he writes, but also enjoys laying it on nice and thick from time to time.-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 22:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
TK completely backs Jpatt's decision: "You are a mind reader!" --Sid 22:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
MOAR!!! She's now an un-person for being a "Sock of vandal site administrator". Rpeh 23:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry... but I just realised what she's been made an un-person for: reverting the obnoxious comment that TK posted on his user page. You know, even were I to catch a violent bowel disease, I would consider it an insult to my asshole for it to be compared to Terry Koeckritz. Rpeh 23:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I just read the above and took a look - Unbelievable!!! Kotomi/JessicaT removes an awful comment on Dean's page, so TK banned her for it and deleted her page. Just unbelievable. Refugeetalk page 03:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to link the image, here, at least. It's ugly, but it's also reality. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thought of the day[edit]

One cannot say the most inhumane and vile things about a person hundreds of times, and publicly, then turn around and state they have sympathy for that person, or extend condolences. If you made policy criticism personal, you cannot go back. Trying to do so smacks as the worst kind of deceit. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:29, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

Tell me, TK, what was your reaction when Obama's grandma died? Good riddance? larronsicut fur in nocte 21:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I made it to a wigo - though it disturbs the somber note of the previous wigo... larronsicut fur in nocte 21:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Given his previous actions, especially regarding calling people's place of employment, he lacks the ability to seperate what happens on the web from real life. Oh, and that he has no empathy whatsoever. Prick. Z3rotalk 21:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Well if I remember rightly Terry/CP's reaction to the death of Obama's grandmother was to say "it's awful when someone dies to further another's political career (cause Obama euthanised her guys!)" So Terry at least isn't being hypocritical here, rather he is being perfectly consistent with his usual attitude of feigned empathy/outrage providing a thin cover for brutish and utterly distasteful attacks. I'm sorry, but the whole "yeah but he's a parodist! the greatest ever!" defence just ain't good enough, TK is an appalling human being. JRichmond was a parodist. Bil08 22:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Not being able to comprehend the possibility that sympathy is extended to someone disliked is a pretty succinct self-portrait, Terry. You can't stomach a display of decency in your "enemies" but that doesn't make it impossible. Now go sing "Stars" and jump off a bridge. 21:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The lack of empathy is one of the big reasons I say he reminds me of sociopaths I have known. That and the whole "my amusement and to hell with others" attitude. --Kels 22:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Is it just me or does the TK read like someone who has realised that he crossed the line but isn't man enough to admit it? (Of course Kels might be right about the sociopathy) "One cannot..." Yes we can and that is exactly what we have done. We, generally, think that DeanS has behaved very badly...on a wiki. It's not life or death. Life and death, of course, is. We offer our condolences. That might be of some miniscule comfort to DeanS. On the other hand he might not care at all. It doesn't matter, they're just there if he wants them and he need not accept them if they are unwelcome. As for preserving that vile edit on your talk page, words fail me. Toffeeman 22:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
You mean, "lady enough to admit it" ;) don't you? ħumanUser talk:Human 05:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
TK fails to grasp that we haven't given him a free ride on what he has done to CP, we aren't pretending we now forgive him, we are just expressing our sympathy --Opcn 22:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
What he can't grasp is that we are capable of expressing sympathy for our enemies. He is capable of no such thing. Actually, with the preservation of the JRichmond comment on his page, TK (I can't use his real name, it makes him seem too human) has shown that he is incapable of expressing sympathy for his friends. Or at least, the people who are supposed to be his friends.-- JArneal 22:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I think Toffeeman is right. TK realises he's gone too far but feels he can't retract his earlier comments. This reminds me of a conversation I had recently about Margaret Thatcher. Non-Brits may not know that she recently broke her arm. Her policies were awful and (redacted 94 pages of vitriol). On the other hand, she now suffers from dementia and just broke her arm and I'm a decent enough guy to wish her luck in recovering from both conditions. An acquaintance of mine, however, commented "If only it had been her fucking neck", and then berated me for going soft on Thatcher hatred.
I disagreed with him in abrupt terms.
In this case, I disagree with most of what DeanS said and did on CP but I have absolutely no hesitation in extending to him my deepest sympathies for his loss. TK's inability to realise that this might be possible is more damning than almost anything else he has done. Rpeh 22:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I hope nobody minds that I poked the OP post to fix the link. --Sid 22:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I assumed that TK had made some kind of comment about Obama's Grandmother in the past and that this was a response to that. Having searched around a but, I can't find anything. If he did, please can I have a link? If not, this is trying to put words into TK's mouth and as much as he might be an obnoxious twat, doing that smacks too much of Schlafly tactics. A more appropriate WIGO would surely be to highlight oversighting of RW's sympathies and the way in which TK has chosen to keep the quote around. Rpeh 00:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed the pointless speculation, TK's words stand just fine on their own. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

TK and the red telephone[edit]

I guess he doesn't know the usual protocol is to create a sub-page with a really long title when he wants to message us. [1] Note that there is a missing revision between his two edits... he's really one to the manor born when it comes to oversighting.

For those too disgusted with him to go to his talk page, "If only that were so, it would nicely fit in with how you vandals wish to make things appear. But since they are not, you are still vandals, and still thought Nazi's." The amusing thing about this oversighting business is that now CP sysops are seen replying to the ghost of Banquo all over the place. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It was actually a direct response to something I wrote to him there, but he oversighted it fairly quickly. --PitchBlackMind 00:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I know that. I had the diff, and when I reloaded it was a database error. Hence the highly literary and show-offy reference to Macbeth... ħumanUser talk:Human 00:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Well of course, anytime you can make a reference to speaking to Banquo's ghost, you've gotta do it. --PitchBlackMind 00:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm just disturbed that he titled a revisionimgrevert troll's post and managed to delete the condolences of Ajkgordon and BenP. larronsicut fur in nocte 00:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
No. He reinstated them shortly afterwards. Ajkgordon 10:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Weren't there Thought Nazis in Babylon 5? --Kels 01:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

True Pageviews[edit]

As CP's wiki software does not update the count when articles are deleted, I wrote a little program to tally up the # of pageviews manually. Result:

  • 31318 content pages
  • 70,169,653 hits, a full 26% lower than CP:Statistics' 94,835,633, which claims a nigh-identical 31329 content pages.

PubliusTalk 00:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice work! Maybe that will put an end to the silly "get Andy some fireworks for the Fourth" crusade? PS, I think I might have written fourth of july on CP... ħumanUser talk:Human 00:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Going by my monitor's statistics, we can't seem to run the clickers fast enough to meet the deadline without borking up Andy's server. Oh well. Fedhaji 02:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
How the frak do you lose nearly 25,000,000 page views. --Opcn 04:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
By deleting and recreating pages via copy/paste, mostly. Think of all of Ken's shoutouts. Viewed by the cringing evilutionists on the internet, but deleted... ħumanUser talk:Human 04:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Except that they are in User space and don't count. PubliusTalk 04:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
It was an example. They do the same thing in the article space, remember when Ken's homosex stuff was all in the top ten viewed pages? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
How did you include the Special pages in your manual recount? E.g., cp:Special:RecentChanges attracts numerous hits, though this page has no counter... larronsicut fur in nocte 06:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I... didn't? Are these included in the wiki software's total tally? Because that would utterly throw off any real "page view" total. My tally is a sum of every page listed on CP:Popular Pages, which includes everything in the Main and Essay space. PubliusTalk 16:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Moratorium on TK wigos[edit]

The issue has been raised in so many ways. The reality is, he patrols our RC and especially talk:wigocp obsessively. Should we make it a policy to ignore the fucking asshole demented pervert or not? Because I, at least, think we should. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

As long as Andy keeps blindly endorsing him, he's valid WIGO material, in my opinion. Why do you advocate cutting him out of WIGOs? Fedhaji 03:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I thought about this earlier today too. The last time it was brought up I was against it, but the recent stuff he's pulled has been especially sick. It's a tough call, but I think it might be a good idea for a while. --PitchBlackMind 04:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
@Fedhaji, did you read what I said? TK lives for the fame we give him here. He loves to see his handle on line. He's a whore for attention. I say, cut it off at the source. Also, most TK wigos suck and drop in the polls anyway. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I have been away a couple days but after reading this shit, on this page, I say ignore the fuck. He is not worth it and is a vile human person who is not worthy of my phlegm. Ace McWickedi9 05:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd say keep 'em. They're stuff that happens at CP. And ignoring him won't make him go away. --Gulik 05:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it might. We are the lifeblood of the leech that is TK. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
TK is not an attention whore, he's a distress whore, he's pulled this sort of thing before without (I presume) a meeting place to share and discuss his antics, as such, ignoring him will actually bring joy to him as long as he thinks we're doing it because he's a destructive monster. Now, what we should do, I don't know. FlareTalk 05:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
If we successfully ignored him, how would he know we were "doing it"? OK, so let's call him names. TK is a dongle-plugger, and not a very good one at that! ħumanUser talk:Human 06:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
The silence would be deafening. Meh, just go ahead, I'd like to pretend he doesn't exist, either. FlareTalk 06:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
If you want to stop validating him, ignoring him is the best tactic; it doesn't make him "win". Sure, he can gloat over "causing RW to go silent on TK", but that won't last long; he'll get bored. Fedhaji 07:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree that TK does what he does because he feeds on distress but also power, and I think us WIGOing and discussing him gives him a sort of power over RW as well as CP (I'm sure he's getting off on this right now). That said, I don't care if ignoring him will feed him or "weaken" him, and I don't think this should be about the effect the moratorium will have on Terry Koeckritz. This idea has come up before, and I've never been a big fan of it in the past, but his most recent actions are so beyond the pale that I think it would be beneficial to us to ignore him, as opposed to detrimental to him. Though he is undoubtedly "what is going on at CP", his brand of evil is something I don't think we should associate with, even tangentially. That's obviously just my opinion, but I do encourage everyone to focus on the effect it would have on us, good or bad, rather than the effect it would have on him. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 08:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
On the other hand who is watching if we aren't? It is clear that Andy doesn't care. Maybe it is time to except CP is dead from corruption with in. With TK oversighting everything even mildly embarrassing, the last vestiges of any accountability is gone. - π 09:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Human. Unless they're really notable, I've been routinely voting all TK WIGOs down for weeks. Andy, Ed and JP are much more fun.-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 09:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
One problem with our demonisation of TK is that he uses that to show Andy and his fellow creeps that he must be doing a good job because we hate him so much. Redchuck.gif Генгисmutating 09:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Definitely go ahead with this. Will we also be commenting out TK wigos? Afterall, he'll probably sock up and wigo himself just to fuck with our moratorium, cunt that he is. 12:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually he has already done that quite recently. Redchuck.gif Генгисunbelieving 15:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Andy's Talk Page WIGO[edit]

Err... it's not his talk page, it's the talk page for the article about him. Rpeh 06:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I fail to read --Opcn 06:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Condolences WIGO[edit]

I didn't think the first WIGO was a very good idea to start with, but with another on top of it where we're making fun of the way TK makes fun of the way someone else makes fun of Dean's dead wife, is just tasteless.

It's just a matter of time before TK finds a way to twist the second WIGO as well and starts blocking people for being members of a "dead wife attack site" or something like that. If nobody objects strongly, I will remove both WIGOs. Etc 10:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I object strongly. By offering condolences, RW shows that it is willing to treat everyone with basic human dignity. Furthermore, simply quoting TK's own words hardly constitutes 'making fun' of him... merely pointing out hypocrisy. Finally, if TK wants to block more people, more power to him. The more he ruins Conservapedia, the better. The blood is on his hands, not ours. Zaku 11:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Our "condolences" might as well be perceived as sarcastic. I care as much about Dean as anybody else here, but bringing it up on WIGO throws it into all the CP nonsense.
If you want to support Dean, send him a private email. The votes on the WIGO just represents that a number of random people that usually makes fun of him, now feels sorry for him. That will cause him more pain than not doing anything at all. Etc 11:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Please don't. However someone wants to "perceive" it, we are not being sarcastic or nasty, but sincere. It's a terrible thing to lose a loved one, and from the people I've worked with, it's harder to lose a husband or wife than almost anything else, moreso if you've been together a long time. Now Dean might not care, but I hope that he would be able to see our sincerity and not look for malice where none exists. As for the second one, sometime down the line, another WIGO pointing out CP antics will have to be posted, there's no point it redacting one just because it looks bad. SirChuckBObama/Biden? 2012 11:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe Dean even reads WIGO, at least not for now. TK is the one who does, and he sees only malice, and he uses it excellently to hurt other people.
I'm not saying showing condolences is a bad thing, this is just not the right way to do it. We should rather close down WIGO for some time (like when the last boycott was) and/or put a banner saying something like "Please refrain from making fun of Dean today out of respect for his loss". Some time later, we would resume as usual.
As it is now, when you search the WIGO archives, you'll find great gems such as the Lenski affair, Bugler's outing, PJR:s rebellion etc, and in the middle of it all, there's the story about Dean's wife. It's just not the right medium.
Again, whoever wants to tell him you care, please just send him a private email. Etc 11:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Couldn't there be a banner or something at the top of the WIGO page, something separate to the rest of the article? --Smg87 12:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello! I am glad this topic is being raised, as I thought I would share a bit of a love letter from TK, defending his use of that disgusting message:
I speak to Dean via telephone often, and he approved my posting the comment so all could see what RatWiki and its users are all about, and he disapproved of passing on any personal information about him or his family to your fellow Rat’s, whom he finds despicable. The only reason I didn’t oversight it was I discovered it too late, and the Rat’s were already talking about it. I have added him to those getting this lovely note from you, just in case you decide to claim I am lying.
Now, I for one find it hard to believe that Dean would trivialise his wife's death in such a manner and TK being the security expert he is claimed to be, might very well have ways of not sending that e-mail to Dean. But either Terry is lying (which is a given anyway, as I know from dealing with him) - yes, you rats were talking about it, but roundly condemning it from what I can see, which is good (and bravo for removing the link to his mother too). And the fact that you have discovered other comments never prevented him oversighting those, right? Anyway, I thought I would put this out there, because TK has done enough hiding behind the scenes, I think. If it is true, then I think I have seriously misunderstood the American conservative mindset, because nothing in my world justifies using family this way. --TokyoRose 12:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
The only way TK could be blameless in this situation is if Dean phoned him demanding that TK preserve that hateful message on his userpage, without any prompting from TK. Otherwise, either TK phoned Dean intending from the beginning to get permission to use his wife's death to wage a petty vendetta - disgusting in its own right - or he never phoned Dean to ask. EddyP 13:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I suggest changing the entire page, for a week, to a condolence note. With no voting. And shut down this page too. Put both of them someplace where people who know their way around can find them, but not out in public. As it is, by responding to TK's garbage, we are just letting him manipulate us.
We need a moratorium anyway. CP has degenerated to the point where no one needs our help to see their insanity. Anyone can just look at their recent changes and see what a dysfunctional piece of garbage the place has become. Maybe our new WIGO page should just say something like "Want to know what is going on at CP? see for yourself. Gauss 13:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello TokyoRose, thanks for your input and it's nice to see you back here!
I also find it hard to believe that Dean would approve of TK:s comment. It's all about not crossing the line, and not making CP nonsense interfere with real life problems. No matter how we put it, TK will use our "condolences" as another pawn in his silly game, which is what I want to avoid.
But please don't see TK as anything representative of CP, and CP as anything representative of Conservatives in general. I am myself raised in a typical Christian conservative family, although not American, but I still disapprove of virtually everything that's going on at CP. Etc 13:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree - we've made our condolences known and TK (and that idiot who wrote on Deans page - probably TK anyway) have spat in our eyes for it. Maybe move the WIGO, noting the number of votes, to Dean's sysop page. And ignore TK completely from now on. Remember the opposite of love, isn't hate - it's indifference. If we ignore him, then either he'll go away, because nobody is pointing out his actions, or he'll wind himself up into such a frenzy of destruction over there, that Andy will have to take notice. Both ways, we win.--PsyGremlinWhut? 13:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Although, having to rely on Andy to do the right thing is ... a disturbing thought. Etc 14:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm good point. Andy's record in that department is far from stellar. Then again, he did manage a moment of lucidity once before that was long enough to get TK booted out. --PsyGremlinWhut? 14:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
That one lucid moment was after TK had gone on a spree of destruction and opened SDG to the world betraying Andy's personal confidence. I would add "and embarrassing Andy" but given Andy's other comments I'm not sure if Andy can be embarrassed. The key point there is that it is betraying Andy's confidence that resulted in his dismissal - not so much the spree of destruction. As long as TK keeps Andy's emails and conversations private it is unlikely that he will be kicked out again. --Shagie 15:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
The truth, which I have added to the TK article, is that he swore at Andy in a private email and that is what lead to his dismissal. TK only opened up the SDG after that in an act of revenge. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 16:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
A few notes about the cited mail and Andy dismissing TK: All "dead wife" business aside, please don't forget that Dean is an asshole. He's the guy who started the whole "I make up my own rules and banhammer anybody who breaks them, regardless of what the actual site rules say". MYOB, anybody? Mhhh? Yeah, that was his idea. "Reverting an admin is vandalism"? His idea. The whole "You will be blocked if you try to make sysops follow the same rules as normal editors" business? Has a spot on his page. The "Don't add fact tags!" rule? Also there. And people here are surprised that Dean doesn't believe us? Did you all go on a drinking binge while I wasn't looking? Did anybody here somehow expect Dean to go all "Aw, thanks, guys. It's good to see that beyond political issues, we're still fellow human beings"? HAH! When I expressed my sympathy for his loss, I did it in the knowledge that he would shrug it off on all but the most basic human levels. I knew exactly that he would never acknowledge it in any way. This man would rather bite off his own tongue instead of directing anything but hate against us or anybody else who stands in his way. I welcome DeanS to prove me wrong. This is one of those times where I would love to be wrong.
Oh, and for all those who think that there is any chance in Hell that Andy will throw out TK: HAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! SUCKERS! TK can get away with murder on CP. He was caught copypasting multiple times (both here and on CP), and nothing ever happened. In fact, sysops like Ed Poor and fellow copypaster JM instantly rushed to his help and even attacked the people who brought up these issues. Or just look at the end of the SDG: TK opened the group for all to see and posted a long rant. He was blocked, but NOT for opening the SDG or abusing Andy's trust, but because he announced he wouldn't return. He was unbanned less than two months later at his own request, and he kept pulling strings via Ed and Geo (...who also happened to be his parole officer later on...) until he regained his rights. The worst consequence of swearing at Andy and revealing months of private discussion was losing his sysopship for a while. (Comparison: Jessica lost her sysop rights for opposing TK about the block reason list.) And he regained his rights at a steady pace and was recently (and repeatedly) showered with user right gifts and praised by Andy.
Right now, TK is more powerful than ever. Even bureaucrats like Jallen kiss his feet whenever he snaps his fingers. Do you think it's coincidence that anybody who ever opposed TK is now banned for all eternity? TK has more control over CP than Andy ever had. --Sid 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Whether or not someone is a jerk has absolutely no bearing on their suffering. Dean's wife is dead and unless we've personally lost our spouses we cannot imagine the grief he's dealing with. That grief and the sympathy we can express for that grief transcends other disagreements. It's not a free pass or forgiveness for past transgressions, nor will he change his opinion of us I expect. I wish Dean the best as he deals with his own personal Hell that he'll be going through as he moves forward with his life. Stile4aly 17:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Not 100% sure you're replying to me, but I'll assume so: You're right, being a jerk has no bearing on their suffering. But at the same time, their suffering doesn't make them less of a jerk. I was among the first to offer my condolences because losing one's wife is a horror, no matter how much of an asshole one is otherwise. I'm perfectly willing to express sympathy when an "enemy" suffers through bad times. I was and still am very sorry that Dean lost his wife, and I sincerely wish him the best in these hard times.
My posting now was mostly aimed at what struck me as assuming that TK was lying or that he must have talked/tricked Dean into this. I won't magically assume good faith just because of Dean's loss. Tragedy or not, Dean has a long record of being a jerk and of openly assuming the worst about us. Did TK push Dean's buttons? Possibly. Did Dean have those buttons readily available for anybody to push? Yes, most definitely. Baiting Dean into expressing (or greenlighting) bad things about us is about as hard as baiting Andy into saying something bad about liberals. --Sid 18:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
(EC)While it's undeniable that Dean is an ass on the internet, a dead spouse is not in the realm of the internet; it's in real life, and thus our response should be the one we would give were we to meet him in real life - to give our condolences. I doubt that he's such a twat at home. I, personally, would not be surprised if he did not accept our condolences and sympathy (his blog didn't give us a glowing review), but I would be surprised if he's actually letting TK use his wife as a propaganda tool.
I agree with what you say about TK, however; he has more power than ever, he is openly raping the talk pages of other administrators, and many of them will rally round him at the slightest hint of trouble; it is he, after all, who protects them from daily embarrassment. EddyP 18:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Sid, the fact that somebody is a jerk on the internet, or even in real life, does not make a difference. Show respect to the guy mourning his wife, period. Etc 18:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Sid. DeanS has been an unpleasant person in his role at CP, and while it is not meet to revel in his loss it is also not incumbent upon us to engage in messages of sympathy. It's not a case of what we would do if we met him in real life because we are not, and probably never will be, engaging with him on that level. If you do meet him in real life then fine, offer your condolences but people are dying all over the world all the time and we can't take the responsibility of sending flowers to all of them. Also I do not subscribe to the idea of an internet persona. Since he ditched the Crocoite moniker the mask has effectively come off and he no longer hid behind an anonymous alias. Yes he may have been a good husband and father but that is no the sum total of an individual's humanity. It would have been better if the subject had never been aired here because whatever we said would either be dismissed or twisted. A dignified silence on the topic was all that was required from us. Too many people here are getting involved up with the personal lives of those at CP. TK's mom was none of our business and neither is Dean's wife.  Lily Inspirate me. 18:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Etc, I did show respect. Was among the first to do so, even. And I completely meant it. It's a damn shame that his wife died, and I sincerely hope he will recover from this blow. But that doesn't mean that I'll suddenly forget two years of him being an ass. It also doesn't mean that I'll assume artificial good faith when forming an opinion about what is more likely: That TK lied or manipulated poor Dean (who was so far one of TK's allies and who would so fucking rip TK a new one if he realized he had been manipulated - and Dean is not dumb, so he would have noticed), that Dean assumed completely bad faith and lashes out against us (just like he did every fucking time so far), or that it's a mix of both. I paid my respect to him, and I will continue to do so, but I won't give him carte blanche just because of that.
And people are way too quick when it comes to extrapolating internet opinion posts into real life behavior. I think Dean's an asshole based on what he did on CP. To me, Dean The Real Life Guy is completely separate from CP Sysop DeanS. When I normally talk about Dean, I mean the CP sysop who openly announced that he would ignore the official rules and that he would hand out bans if people broke his rules. I don't share the whole fascination about people's identities or private lives. Who gives a shit where some people live or work? I don't know Dean The Real Life Guy. At all. Do you? No, you fucking don't. All I know about him is that he's called "Dean" and that he recently lost his wife, which is a crying shame. Maybe I'd get along with him in real life! Who knows? I sure as Hell don't! Just because I think that CP Sysop DeanS is an asshole (an opinion based on roughly two years of keeping an eye on his CP behavior) doesn't mean that I dislike the person behind the online name. --Sid 21:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Afterthought note: I do apologize for my harsh tone in this discussion and especially in the post above. Quasi-drama like this always rubs me the wrong way, and it's been a shitty week for me, so my trigger threshold was extra low. I know that that's no excuse or justification, but I offer it at least as an explanation. However, I stand by the points I made while dropping those F-Bombs - I just wish I had made them in a more... elegant way. --Sid 23:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I undid Etc's unilaterally commenting out the two wigos in question. I also object to being told what to do if I sympathize with Dean's loss. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

And many other people also object to being told what to do on this wiki. If you want to express your condolences send him a pesonal email that he could actually read first hand, it would count for a lot more. It's what I did.  Lily Inspirate me. 20:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
How exactly am I supposed to send him an email? Is his address on his user page? ħumanUser talk:Human 21:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm with Human, though maybe not for the exact same reasons, I dunno. Showing sympathy on-wiki and in a timely manner sent a strong message. TK's efforts to twist and warp it (I'm not saying that he was the troll on CP, but it sure was convenient, and he instantly made the most of it to smear us) show just what potential it had. I agree that sending a mail would be more direct, but I think that especially in this case, it's good to have something "out there". Additionally, most people (especially the RW1 generation) have made extremely bad experiences contacting CP sysops in private, so I don't blame anybody for not using that route, even in this case. --Sid 21:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm a bit surprised this hasn't been discussed much, but here you can see a little bit of what miss Patricia left behind.
Also, I agree with Sid, though I really doubt Dean knows that TK's using the event to score political trolling points. FlareTalk 22:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
You can find his email quite easily, it is in the SDG if you have not previously had contact with him on CP (which I have). Personally I'm not sure what message has been sent at all as few others besides TK and JP regularly read our pages and probably don't believe it to be sincere anyway. Mentioning it here in the first place only gave rise to the disgusting post by JRichmond (whoever s/he is) which has been turned against us and the WIGO now has the embarassment of having had ambiguous down votes (which may or may not be genuine). Sympathy was expressed for PJR's wife when she was ill but it was never made into WIGO vote.  Lily Inspirate me. 22:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I can find it easily? So easily you didn't even link to where you think it is... the background behind my point, of course, is I can't just log in to CP and use the "email this user" function for, um, some reason. Also, asserting that it was our mention that "caused" the ugly post on CP is baseless without a statement from whoever did it, and I doubt they'll pop in here for a chat about after its reception... ħumanUser talk:Human 23:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Well without going into detail I'm sure you have your own ways of finding it Human if you really cared enough, after all there have been sufficient links posted here that people have found through simple Google searches, and I personally didn't link because you have been so vociferous about posting personal details, but I don't want to make it a personal issue. My point is that by enaging on a personal level as a group we send out conflicting messages. Do you think Dean even wants our condolences after we have slagged off and mocked everything he believes in? No, I believe the mass show of sympathy is more a self-congratulatory message to ourselves than a message to Dean. Trying to prove that we "liberals" are somehow more caring just because a bunch of people clicked on a green arrow while CP's main page has been strangely silent on the matter. No public announcement of sympathy for one of their leading administrators? That is much more telling than our effort. In my counselling work I have learned that it is the response of your friends and family that really means most in times of trouble rather than random platitudes from strangers or even worse those you dislike. So having now extended your condolences to Dean I wonder how much grace you are now going to give him if he returns to editing CP in the near future; none, a week or a month? When are we allowed to start mocking again someone whom we've just commiserated with? Who is going to make themselves look a heartless prick by putting the boot in first?  Lily Inspirate me. 08:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Do we really want this on Best of CP?[edit]

Currently this is third on Conservapedia:Best of Conservapedia, and while a nice gesture, I don't think it should be there. I can move it under a different poll id which won't show up on Bestof while preserving the votes. -- Nx / talk 20:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I can live with that. Then in a week or so remove it from WIGO and move it to his article, with voting closed? ħumanUser talk:Human 20:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter where you move it, it will still show up on bestof, since the votes have already been recorded in the database. And I don't think using the voting system was a good idea to begin with - what about those people who voted down? Are they glad she died or what? -- Nx / talk 20:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Move it to "preserve" it since it won't turn up on searches for wigocp after you change the poll id. Down votes? Could be people who didn't think it was a good wigo? ħumanUser talk:Human 20:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Hm, ok then, I'll move it to a different id. The down votes question was more like what TK could interpret them as. -- Nx / talk 20:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I really don't give a shit what TK "interprets" things as. Is that the new standard here? Also, why did you comment it out again? ħumanUser talk:Human 20:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Never mind my question, I see what you did now. Thanks. I think we should move it to the DeanS page a on the 23rd or so. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, if you want to close it (i.e. hide the arrows), just add closed=yes like this: <votecp poll=something | closed=yes>text</votecp> -- Nx / talk 21:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
This is much better. Although, I would prefer if we just didn't mention this at all. Etc 22:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
And yet, 170+ people thought it was a good idea (more I suppose if there were down votes - where is the actual breakdown?). ħumanUser talk:Human 22:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
This is always one of those things I don't really understand. People seem to be conditioned to these empty, meaningless displays of sympathy. None of us ever met the woman, and many of us aren't particularly enamoured with the man. My thoughts certainly aren't with him this or any other day, nor I suspect are those of most of the people who clicked "up." As for "prayers", most of us are fucking atheists for the love of Christ! This ought to be one of the things the community standards against off mission personal information prohibits. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree. This sort of mawkish sentimentality has no place here or anywhere really. I'll not say more or I'd be seen as offensive. LateralQuercus 01:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
So, I'm not the only heartless bastard round here.  Lily Inspirate me. 08:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The "prayers" part got commented out (thanks, it was weird here). "Mawkish sentimentality"? I dunno. RW is obviously, or tries to be, a community. One aspect of what we do is spar with CP and their denizens. On line. Do we "like" DeanS? Not really, for many reasons. Do we sympathize (ok, not "we", "some of us"?) when someone we don't like is going through a personal crisis? Hell, we wish Ken had a better doctor, or at least would stick to his meds. The sysop on CP known as "DeanS" is a dragon we seek to destroy. The real life person just lost his wife, fer chrissake. We have long-time editors battling cancer, would we reject condolences if we lost them just because they were expressed on CP? You know, the internet is just fun and typing and stuff, but we all have lives outside it (except me), and I don't see how respecting that "outside the ring" is "mawkish". ħumanUser talk:Human 02:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Dean is a total douche, but that would never stop me from extending such a basic common courtesy. Y'all are over thinking this way too much. It's pretty fucking simple. I almost feel like I know the guy. His wife died. I feel for him. If you don't, just shut the fuck up. You fucking whiners. — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 08:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Aptly put. - π 08:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad the "prayers and thoughts" thing is commented out -- when I proposed the WIGO I certainly wasn't praying and I haven't thought about it once the whole day. So I felt that was a more than a little hypocritical (from my viewpoint, I absolutely don't want to suggest anything about whoever added that bit). One the other hand, it felt right and humanly to offer condolences. It's the usual thing to do, and it shows a measure of respect for a fellow human being, however I disagree with his viewpoints. Well, so far for the rambling. 09:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, I have no connection with the person in question, I doubt any of you lot do, other than piss-taking on the interweb. Expressing sympathy for an anonymous death is rather pathetic. If it (and the announcement used the third person) affected you more than the thousands who die every day then send a personal message. It didn't of course. So bloody delete the whole embarrassing episode. TheOldGrouch. LQ 16:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's kind of like how I say "bless you" when people (even complete strangers!) sneeze, even though I don't believe in blessings or the demons that are trying to enter their brainz. Again, you guys are fucking whiners, and if you don't have anything to say to Dean, just shut the fuck up. Douche. — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 17:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Negative WIGOs[edit]

I don't think I've seen so many WIGO entries with negative values before. Are people losing their touch?  Lily Inspirate me. 19:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I never claimed to have any (It takes time and practice to develop, wouldn't it?), perhaps that might explain a bit. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 19:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
It's a good question. My guess would be that it's sort of a meta-ish issue: People are getting fed up by always seeing the same CP idiots doing the same CP idiocy. It also shows on the talk pages - over time, we've had discussions to boycott Ken (or rather, his Red Telephone), Ed and now TK in WIGO simply because they tend to produce 99% of the current entries when they're on a roll. And I also think that our personal Lulz Standards have grown right along with our aversion against The Usual Suspects. For example, my semi-recent WIGO about the Minor Edit definition was an extra unfortunate combination of TK-during-TK-Season, not-spectacular-lulz and maybe too little work on my presentation. It currently stands at -32, which is likely my personal worst. On the other hand, nicely observed things like the Triple Breaking News (most recent WIGO as of now) earn better marks because it's, well, nicely observed, well presented and featured off-season people. So I think our touch is still okay (this sounds unnecessarily dirty, but I'm too lazy to fix it, so have some lulz at my expense :P), but we want better entertainment and not "shooting fish in a barrel" cases. --Sid 20:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Another factor is that people here have (mostly) learned not to expose parody. There's still an awful lot of hilarious stuff over there that would get high positive ratings in WIGO, but then would quickly disappear forever.--WJThomas 23:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Andy's inconsistency[edit]

This is taken direct from the RC:

  • (Block log); 13:18 . . Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) blocked Annclovis (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (autoblock disabled) (Please recreate your account with your real first name and last initial)
  • (Block log); 13:17 . . Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) blocked Hilljoyt (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (autoblock disabled) (Please recreate your account with your real first name and last initial)
  • (User creation log); 13:11 . . Hilljoyt (Talk | contribs) New user account
  • (User creation log); 13:03 . . Annclovis (Talk | contribs) New user account
  • (User creation log); 12:46 . . Wtayloriii (Talk | contribs) New user account

Why did he spare Wtayloriii?  Lily Inspirate me. 19:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Because William Taylor the 3rd is a southern gentleman, a paragon of chivalry and American virtue. PubliusTalk 20:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I'd overlooked that ridiculous dynastic thing.  Lily Inspirate me. 20:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
What's inconsistent about this? He's just implementing their policy of blocking 2/3 editors right out of the gate. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svgUser:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 20:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
For some really odd reason Clovis has never been a surname in andy's realm. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Might simply be due to his habit of skimming through everything though: maybe he simply overlooked that account. --Just passing by 09:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
That has to be the weirdest skimming algorithm I have ever heard of. Wtayloriii for some reason looks a lot more natural than Annclovis. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 11:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
What, since when is ADHD an algorithm? --Just passing by 16:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Mayhaps Andrew knows this "iii" person in Real life? Warren Terra 16:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Lord's Prayer at high school graduation[edit]

Regarding the thrice-broken story on CP's main page about the graduation ceremony interrupted by students loudly praying the Lord's Prayer [2]: I never understood this sort of thing. Why do these people, who profess themselves to be Christians, insist on violating Matthew 6:5-6 by praying where other people can see them? Or do they not care about the difference between, as Roger Ebert put it, "horizontal" versus "vertical" prayer? It's as if they think that pushing Christianity is more important than following Christianity. I don't suspect these kids would have been as patient if someone had tried to disrupt the ceremony with a non-Christian prayer. I hope they all get punished for their disruption. - Cuckoo 21:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The US is one place where you won't see faith relegated to a place of quiet devotion. Protestants here re-envision our history to place open displays of faith as the norm, where I don't believe that's at all borne out by the facts. Nobody's going to get punished for the disruption because to do so would at least superficially smack of censorship of religion by a government institution and, more importantly, anyone in this country who thinks the way you do with half a brain better be deathly afraid of advertising it to a mob of rednecks from the panhandle of Florida. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svgUser:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 21:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Standing up and loudly say your prayers during a ceremony? A brave and responsible act of protest agaisnt oppression and bullying from the ACLU. Silently turning your back while wearing a headband? "I'm not sure they're mature enough to graduate." FlareTalk 21:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
To Nutty, I really love Matthew as it relates to modern Christians.... Jesus' teaching in Matthew, written with the second groupings of the gospels, has some wonderful stuff that people just ignore completely. Namely the whole "love they enemy, turn the other cheek, anything you did for my brothers, no matter how humble, you did for me." But my personal favorite is "Not a letter, not a stroke shall be removed from the (Jewish) law." When's the last time you saw a modern Christian keep Kosher? To NightFlare, always remember, my protest are an exercise of my Constitutional rights, your protests are disruptive attempts at Censorship. SirChuckBObama/Biden? 2012 21:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I find how selectively Christians read the bible astonishing. Matthew 6:1-6 emphasize modesty and a private relationship with god over prideful boasting:
Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svgUser:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 22:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Ya'll are forgetting that those passages you're highlighting are not the original words of Jeezus, but are instead the work of liberal vandal monks. Or something like that, according to Andy.--WJThomas 23:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Andy should finish his bible retranslation project (from English to Andyish). When he's done with it, it will read pretty much like a Terminator movie script. With 120% of your RDA of Hell. --Just passing by 09:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
What like this? 11:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Sort of, but without that long-haired guy. --Just passing by 16:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)