User talk:Tim at aSK

From RationalWiki
(Redirected from User talk:CPAdmin1)
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives

Inasmuchas the above template is obviously lying[edit]

The French revolution thing: wrong! I tried with & without quotes 250+ (stopped looking) with, 200 exactly without. I'm in the UK. Toast s.png (with butter!) talk to Toast 10:40, 15 January 2009 (EST)

I don't know how google works. Do you get different results in the UK? Is it possible that US google searches will give it at #9--CPAdmin1 12:47, 15 January 2009 (EST)
Dunno, sorry. I only know that clicking "next" got right on my nerves while I was doing it. Toast s.png (with butter!) talk to Toast 12:57, 15 January 2009 (EST)
Thanks for the help. If you look at my recent contributions, I've been trying to reform. You really should come here more often- you have the capability to maintain a neutral standpoint here. I think that we need more people like you- as a matter of fact, the world needs more people who are capable of actually coming up with such a logical decision. Thanks, and rusty-spotted catspeed. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistorRusty-spotted catspeed! 21:14, 28 January 2009 (EST)
Yes, google.co.uk will throw up a different ranking. I tried several experiments with different versions of google and it depends not only on the google country but also what your IP is. I got different results for exactly the same search if I used a proxy in another country. So the Ken's claim of a high ranking for some articles may be true but only from a US viewpoint. By the way, I thought that you'd retired from RW and why do you still maintain your old CP name when over there you've been forced to relinquish it by Andy? Redchuck.gif ГенгисGum disease 18:43, 31 January 2009 (EST)
Rub it in his face. But thanks for not completely retiring. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistorRusty-spotted catspeed! 18:43, 31 January 2009 (EST)
Because a forced name change at CP doesn't mean I have to change it here, because more people here know me as CPAdmin1, because I am not here enough to care what my name is, and because if I remember correctly, there is already someone here named TimS. I'm trying to completely retire, but it hasn't worked yet. --CPAdmin1 18:49, 31 January 2009 (EST)
Yes, you'll always be CPAdmin1 to us. Even though we know your name is Tim. It is nice having you around, even if mostly at the inactive lurker level. CUR really appreciated your popping up on his behalf, and quite probably, so did the rest of us. It was very nice of him to thank you, I think, and nice of you to chime in at his trial. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:23, 31 January 2009 (EST)
I'm carrying on in CPAdmin1's name. Sort of. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistorRusty-spotted catspeed! 10:26, 1 February 2009 (EST)
CPAdmin1, I always felt you would end up leaving CP, you are too rational, too reasonable for that place. Their loss. Refugeetalk page 15:21, 7 February 2009 (EST)

postnote - I did not see the "retired" template at the top of your page saying "this user has requested that their pages be archived and protected from editing" before I posted. Apologies for the comment. Refugeetalk page 15:24, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Sysopship[edit]

Why do you not want sysopship? Evil wisest Phantom Hoover! 15:05, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Because accepting sysopship indicates a position of being "part" of the site, and generally supportive of the goals of the site. I do not consider my self to be a RWian. I come here to discuss things sometimes, but I disagree almost completely. --CPAdmin1 15:54, 7 February 2009 (EST)
But sysopship here is the second level of autoconfirmedness. Evil wisest Phantom Hoover! 15:57, 7 February 2009 (EST)
There is no benefit for me to become a sysop. And as I said, it indicates a certain level of "belongingness" which I do not want. --CPAdmin1 15:58, 7 February 2009 (EST)
How do you feel about Discordianism? Because you're one of our many Popes now, whether you want to be or not. --Gulik 15:59, 7 February 2009 (EST)
I know next to nothing about it, and from that page it seems rather strange. (parodic?) I'm no pope of anything. --CPAdmin1 16:07, 7 February 2009 (EST)
It's a joke, but a joke you can take seriously. And it's not optional--you are now a Pope. If you want to be a Card-Carrying Pope, you can get the Pope Card here. If you're utterly dead-set against it, you could excommunicate yourself, but that's a complex, messy ritual that requires a safety harness, three gallons of Cool Whip, 2 AA batteries, and a live emu, and it only has a 57% success rate. (And a 78% survival rate.) --Gulik 01:07, 11 February 2009 (EST)
(EC)Fine, but I'm getting fed up with seeing the red exclamation marks on recent changes. Evil wisest Phantom Hoover! 16:00, 7 February 2009 (EST)
Look at me, Tim. Look at me. I'm a therian. I hold all sorts of irrational opinions- and are pround of them. I disagree with many sysops- and for Darwin's sake, I can't even disagree politely, it seems. You are much more 'part' of this site than I am. But look who is the sysop. Sysopship only means that we enjoy having you around. Where Wikipedia has editors, we have sysops. --"CURtalk 16:09, 7 February 2009 (EST)
You at least agree to some extent with the purpose of the site. You disagree with something here and something else there, and tend to make yourself annoying to alot of people here, but you still want to "be a part" of the site. I don't want to be a part. I do not agree with much of anything on here. And I don't want to be an "editor" or a sysop. I just comment from time to time. --CPAdmin1 16:13, 7 February 2009 (EST)

He doesn't want it. We have to live with exclamation points. End of story. TheoryOfPractice 16:14, 7 February 2009 (EST)

(EC)Thanks --CPAdmin1 16:16, 7 February 2009 (EST)
I know. It was CUR who started it again. Evil wisest Phantom Hoover! 16:15, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Retired[edit]

So, TK retired you at CP, too? Somehow sad... l'arronsicut fur in nocte 02:41, 9 February 2009 (EST)

I kinda asked for it this time. --CPAdmin1 02:45, 9 February 2009 (EST)
I found it petty - and so, I wigo'ed it :-) --l'arronsicut fur in nocte 02:47, 9 February 2009 (EST)
Well, congratulations; the powers at Conservapedia have declared you a liberal now! This basically means you're a good person. EddyP 13:05, 9 February 2009 (EST)
I'm sure they'd welcome you back if you performed the appropriate contritions. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:38, 9 February 2009 (EST)
Doubtful. He's a filthy stinking librul now. Welcome to the legions of the Unperson Tim! ENorman 22:26, 10 February 2009 (EST)
he can haz librul amounts of cake and beer now Hamster (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
While playing TK in that other place. Editor at CPmały książe 16:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Uh, he's a close-minded creationist, not a good person. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 16:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Playing TK? How so? --aSKTim 16:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Checkuser for example. Editor at CPmały książe 17:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Is there something wrong with Checkuser? You are the one socking up to get around your block. --aSKTim 17:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Nothing wrong, as there is nothing wrong in how TK behaves. I made one sock with two edits, both of which true, and one of them even factual - both reverted. And tell me, on what grounds is my one week (!) block justified? Editor at CPmały książe 17:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't the one who blocked you originally. If you want to appeal the block you are welcome to do so. You know perfectly well that socking up to avoid a block is not accepted behavior. (maybe it is here, but not anywhere else.) Equating me with TK for blocking your sock is perfectly ridiculous. You say "there is nothing wrong with how TK behaves," but I don't agree with that statement, and I doubt you agree with it either. At least one of the edits you made with the sock was wrong. (redirecting parodist to User:OscarJ?). I'm not going after any user unless I have reason to. If you didn't notice, I defended your sock on Oscar's talk page, until I found the deleted edit. After that, I used Checkuser to determine if the user was a sock. I'm not just going and Checkusering anybody I come across. Only when I have good reason. --aSKTim 18:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Tim 1) appealing my block, how, as I am blocked? Sorry, but I am not giving my e-mail to people who use Checkuser. And what results would it yield? 2) I said you play TK as you used Checkuser and blocked a good-willed editor for an infinite amount of time. Maybe he just shared my IP address. You might not find anything wrong with Checkuser, I - and I am not alone - do. I hope you realize what direction aSK is going towards, and I hope you don't agree with it. Well, Checkuser is one step. There is a reason why RW - which isn't as bad as Bradley says - doesn't use checkuser. "only when I have good reason" is *not" a good reason. 3) That edit was not wrong. Do you seriously believe he is for real? (sorry for outing). And what about the other edit, something wrong with that? 4) socking up is not accepted behaviour? Where is it written? And are Oscar's or Bradley's recent blocks and user page and user talk page deletions accepted behaviour? Editor at CPmały książe 18:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
(Email/Checkuser) why not? It would probably result in discussion among the senior members as to whether the block was justified, and whether the length was appropriate. Actually I only blocked for a year, not infinite. You just admitted that it was you, so don't tell me it was someone using your ip. I understand why you think that aSK is heading in a CP-like direction, and I don't want it to go CP's direction. 3) why should I believe that Oscar is not for real? As for the other edit, I defended the user until I found the Parodist->OscarJ redirect. 4)Are you telling me that you assumed that socking up is an accepted way to get around blocks? Doing so only makes you look like the one in the wrong here. I'm not going to discuss other Admin's talk page deletions here. --aSKTim 18:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)

  • Sorry for the year, I thought it was infinite. Not that it changes much. I don't give my e-mail to people who use Checkuser for privacy concerns.
  • You didn't know for sure it was me when you blocked, but didn't care.
  • I appreciate what you say about aSK and CP. I hope you'll do your part for that.
  • Regarding Oscar, I have no Checkuser but other methods. But it should be transparent if you check his IP address edits (the strike is kidding).
  • The other edit, you might have defended the user, but you didn't reinstate it.
  • Tell me if there is a rule forbidding socks. I didn't find any, though admittedly I'm not good at reading rules. I know myself and my values, so I don't care so much if I "look in the wrong here" (though, I care more in your case than in that of PJR or Bradley). You might not want to discuss other Admins' actions, but as you realize, these two matters are related. If someone acts like an idiot to you, it's just human to rebel like I did. After all I created a sock, I didn't start vandalizing pages (like some aSK's admins). Editor at CPmały książe 18:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
How else do you expect us to go through block appeals? If not email then what?
I had a reasonable degree of certainty that it was you, and I didn't block the ip, just the account.
As for Oscar I haven't seen evidence of parody. If I see it I will deal with it appropriately. (And I can usually tell when a strikethrough is meant humerously.)
No, I didn't reinstate it. I was not a part of that conversation, I did not look closely at whether the edit deserved to be deleted or not, and starting an edit war with another admin would not have been the way to go about it.
Whether there is a rule forbidding socks or not, I am not positive. I think there is somewhere, but if there isn't there should be. What I am saying is, if you get blocked, should you automatically assume that it is fine to make a sock and keep right on going, or does a block mean that you aren't supposed to edit for the specific amount of time? I find it hard to believe that a person would really assume that a block was only for the specific user account, and that the person who was blocked was free to create more.
I understand that the matters are related, but I refuse to come here and discuss other's actions. It isn't fair to them or to me. I understand that it is human to rebel, but it being human doesn't make it right. As for vandalizing, the parodist redirect was debatably vandalism. At any rate it had no place existing on the site. --aSKTim 19:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

Just wanted to say hello to you here, since you're sadly no longer at CP. It's a shame you never got to make your additions to my Heaven/Hell essay - I might look at John's Gospel myself when I get time.--CPalmer 05:52, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Unprotect?[edit]

Someone want to unprotect my userpage for me? --CPAdmin1 (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. Want a sysopship, too? --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 00:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Nope. We've had that discussion before. At least twice. --CPAdmin1 (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
And if you insist on my being a sysop I can always just retire again. --CPAdmin1 (talk) 00:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
This guy refuses to mop? What a lazy bitch. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 18:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm cool with you retiring again. When is that going to happen? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 19:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Something you may find interesting[edit]

Message 78 (bca8) of the Zeuglodon Blues, assuming you have it. EddyP (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I was not in the group at the time, so I do not have it. --aSKTim 15:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Bastards, the lot of them. Wisest bastard Phantom! 16:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)