User talk:Sid/CP Archive 1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This is an archive of my CP Talk page.
I didn't update anything yet.

This is where you say stuff, yo.

A warning[edit]

Please read what I just posted at cp:Talk:Speed of light. I am giving you the same warning I gave to Tmtoulouse. I don't want to block you, please cease and desist. Conservative 21:47, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative

I replied. As per the Talk page you point to, I shall ignore the warning because it is baseless in my eyes. --Sid 3050 22:20, 9 March 2007 (EST)
I stand corrected. My apologies. Conservative 23:05, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative
I'm glad we could sort things out :) --Sid 3050 23:13, 9 March 2007 (EST)


I killed Scerpionboy! Hahahaha! Now he's dead! Hooohooohaaha! Now I'm going to get you! Hoohoo! CroMagnonMan 17:08, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

BEEEEELLLLLCCCHHCroMagnonMan 21:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

French Fries[edit]

have added to cp:Talk:French fries, you may like what i wrote. Sorry.--AustinM 10:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Sorry for the delayed reply, but I had been temp-banned. In the light of the recent events, my motivation to contribute content hasn't exactly peaked, but I'll keep it in mind. --Sid 3050 08:10, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Any idea why you were banned? I have a feeling it may have been accidental; might be worth asking the sysop in question, if you're in the dark as to the reason. Tsumetai 08:29, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Well, the ban happened with no reason being given. cp:User:Niandra, the admin in question did fiddle around with the Block tool, but she seemed to undo all non-intended blocks, so I have to assume that my block was on purpose. I might ask her today... --Sid 3050 08:32, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Most of my time online here is from 12am to 3am, so sometimes I do make mistakes. I will unblock users if I have made an error. My apologies :( niandra 08:46, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
My block was a mistake? And here I thought I was some sort of die-hard rebel. *sob* =P Thanks for the clarification, though :) --Sid 3050 08:52, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

cp:Bible article[edit]

Thanks for the response to the Bible article; my reply is in the talk page. I would call what you suggested "minor tweaking", which is what any page needs just to improve the small things, and this will be done as time goes my case less than a week! I've done a lot of editing for Wikipedia, and other than insisting on a straight layout of the facts, I like improving the over-all look and readability. With all the stubs that are article pages here, this is going to be a nice, comfortable challenge! Karajou 15:44, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, "minor tweaking" indeed. That's why I only left the note on the Talk page without slapping source tags into things. :) --Sid 3050 15:50, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
But still, tags are fine as far as I'm concerned. Just little blurbs aimed at good improvement!  :) Karajou 16:01, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Well, I'll see. Maybe I will add a few, but most of the time, I reserve tags for cases when I personally go "...are you sure?". --Sid 3050 16:06, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
You'll also notice within some of the writing where I sourced it from a book, the sentence ended this way: (Unger, pg 12). I go to Middle Tennessee State University, and the English teachers here make use of the Harbrace Manual, which teaches how to write well; and they insist on writing in source material in this fashion when credited, with the book cited at the bottom of the paper. That way the article in question is still covered, and if you see one of the tags replaced by that, go to the reference section. :) Karajou 16:09, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Great, just great[edit]

Now I'm covered with sarcasm juice! --Crackertalk 19:30, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I really, really couldn't resist. ;) *chuckles and hands you a towel* --Sid 3050 19:33, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
I hope they do put it on the main page. Crackertalk 19:43, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Can we just call you Swift from here on out?--Dave3172 19:52, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Me or Cracker? ;) And I seriously hope the article gets to the front page, too. It would be a shame if he did all this work for nothing. Besides, I think the article nicely represents the overall standard of the site. --Sid 3050 19:58, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Hi Sid[edit]

I liked your moon article a lot. Very nice. There is one point though which I thought I'd rather raise here than on the rather heated moon talk page. I note that we talk about this and that "theory" of the moon's origin. If we were being strictly scientific shouldn't we really say "hypothesis"? Or do you think this is to picky?--British_cons (talk) 13:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks! And hmmmm... the sources use "theory", "hypothesis" and "model". I'm not sure if they make a clear distinction when to use which term, though. Wikipedia says that the GI Hypothesis is a scientific theory, so I'm even more confused.
Since I'm not sure here right now, I'll leave it be for the moment. I guess a few "theory"s can be replaced by "model" or "hypothesis" to avoid repetition, but that's more style and less science. If you have more details on when to use what, please feel free to make corrections or just point me to some sort of help/guide that describes the finer notions and usage. --Sid 3050 13:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Well my understanding of the scientific definition of "theory" is something which has been repeatedly tested and accepted by the scientific community - whereas "hypothesis" is more like - say - speculation which needs to be proved. The Theory of Evolution is a theory in this scientific sense - it's been tested and accepted. However "theory" is used in, shall we say, normal language, to mean "unproved idea" - the concept that would be "hypothesis" in scientific terms. Technically, as none of the moon landing errr "ideas" have been tested and accepted none of them should - strictly speaking - be called a theory in scientific language. To add confusion to this scientists don't always differentiate clearly between the two meanings anyway - this is one of the reasons that creationists get away saying evolution is "just a theory". Mmmmm -- I wonder if that's made my point clearer? Have fun. --British_cons (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Quite interesting point, and well explained! I'll do the changes and maybe occasionally use "model" (where fitting) to avoid overly unneeded repetition of "hypothesis". --Sid 3050 17:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Done. Took longer than anticipated, thanks to the distractions that happened (see article history). I also fixed a few minor issues along the way. --Sid 3050 18:22, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Hope your article survives--British_cons (talk) 04:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)!
Awesome job on the moon article ... It's nice to finally see an article that makes sense and strays from "the bible is absolutely right, you're wrong" mentality. Jrssr5 09:16, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Thanks! I just hope it survives more than a few days =P --Sid 3050 09:21, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
I’ve just this mo finished some editing on Moon article, and I was a little concerned about the use of hypothesis, theory and model in close proximity. (I get concerned easily). First point: yes, hypothesis suggests something that is little more than idea, a theory is a hypothesis that has received some corroboration, tho as we all know from Karl Popper scientific theories can never be FORMALLY proved. I think there is something wrong with Popper’s arguments here, but I’m not sure I can put my finger on it. Models are primarily illustrations of processes and structures, and in themselves they make no claim to being true or false, they are just things to look at.
One of my pedagogical bugbears is the use of “elegant variation” in any writing that has a technical component and is primarily intended to explain something. The naïve reader frequently does not know if the closely parallel words are meant to convey important and subtle differences in the process described, or if they are just synonyms used so the prose does not become tiresome. Recently, I read an article in Scientific American that, in describing a certain kind of moving apparatus, used the words “turn”, “spin”, and “rotate”. Eventually, I saw that the writer was making use of “elegant variation”, but for quite a while, I was wondering if these were quite different aspects of the experiment. After all, English is famously (notoriously) the most synonym-rich language, and yet there are very few EXACT synonyms. As they nearly all have subtly different shades of meaning, their introduction into any kind of material that is taking the reader into new territory, should be avoided, WHERE POSSIBLE. In that, as in other scientific ventures, it is bring out Occam’s Razor. “Thou shalt not multiply entities without the need to do so”. Of course, if you’re writing a novel, go for your life. MylesP 8 April, 2007 AD. (and I've finally got the hang of that hyper-link thing. In "another place" they give you 4 tildes to click)
Mh, yes. Excellent points, and I'll try to stick to them. I'll admit I'm mostly a fiction writer (although I also have to write scientific, non-fiction stuff every now and then), so I'm pretty much against the use of one word over and over again. It indeed is not accurate in cases like this one, but like I said above, the sources also do that occasionally (even though two wrongs don't make a right, of course). It's a bit of a problem to find a middle path between scientific accuracy and readability (especially when the issue is not apparent to a casual reader).
And the four tildes work here, too. The button is also there (left of the "horizontal line" button and right of the "Ignore Wiki format" one). --Sid 3050 16:13, 7 April 2007 (EDT)


thanks, that is indeed what I meant. The idea that "Conservatives version of Christianity, evolution, and creationism is the ONLY view of Christianity, evolution, and creationism" is somewhat disturbing. --Hojimachongtalk 18:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

No problem. I only noticed it myself because the Moon Theory article is the one I worked on today, so I would've noticed Conservative's ownership there =P
And yes, I agree. It's somewhat troubling that the whole "give full credit to Christianity" (whatever that means) deal suddenly became "turn everything into Young Earth Creationism and whatever else suits him". Even more troubling that the few people who could do anything about this change (Andy, Webmaster) actually applaud it.
It's not even Christianopedia anymore. It's just plain Bible-literally-pedia. Noah building the ark (and God creating the universe in a week) is accepted as fact, but scientifically researched things are little more than musings of highly confused in his eyes. --Sid 3050 18:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)


Hello, You recently expressed your opinion at cp:CP:AID. After voting, it has become obvious that the first article to improve is cp:Germany and any related articles. Details will be posted soon at cp:CP:AID, check there tomorrow for details. Thanks! --Hojimachongtalk 15:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The Lock List[edit]

Hey Sid, thought you might like this: cp:User:Myk. Keep it updated. Myk 04:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

How ironic, I've just started going through cp:Special:Log/protect myself. Actual articles only? Or also things like the Conservapedia Commandments, the Main Page and Examples of Bias? --Sid 3050 04:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Just articles... locking the main page is plenty reasonable. I also left out the people that might be family members of editors here. I can respect that. Myk 04:38, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Got it, and yes, that's sound reasoning. --Sid 3050 04:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Wait. The obscene or "obscene" words, too? --Sid 3050 04:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
I figured those would be a seaparate list... and one that could not, of course, be hosted on this site. Myk 04:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Did I do something to you?[edit]

I happened to see on ASchlafly's talk page your attacking me. Did I do something to offend you? I have made many substantive edits to Conservapedia, and I stand by my record. I've been lately working on longer articles. I'm trying to write an GOOD article on every book of the Bible and on every President. If you want an example of my work you can see cp:Leviticus which I am most proud of. I hope otherwise there isn't any reason you have a grudge against me.--CWilson 16:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Please point out where I attacked you. Failure to do so will result with me copying your accusation to the discussion on Andy's talk page, where I will repeat the question. --Sid 3050 16:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
You implied that my edits were insubstantial and had no merit without looking. Maybe attack is a bit strong, but it seemed very unfriendly. I am not an "ideological ally" of Conservative--we probably differ on a lot.--CWilson 16:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
No, I said that I haven't seen you around much. Which happens to be the truth. I simply don't recall seeing you anywhere other than the instance/instances (not 100% certain and somewhat work-intensive to check) where you praised Conservative's edits right below people voicing their extreme disagreement with the way Conservative handled multiple articles by now. I will admit, that cast you in a not-really-awesome light in my personal book. Checking some of your edits shows me that you insert creationist material here and there. If you have noticed my own edits here and there, you will see that I'm not exactly supportive of that (even though the site is biased in favor of it - without ever making it an official policy). So don't expect me to go all "Wow! Super!" at you.
I meant everything I wrote on Andy's talk page the way I wrote it. Don't go looking too deeply for hidden meaning, I usually make my point clear or use obvious sarcasm. My comment on the talk page there is me giving you (and especially Conservative) a chance to show why you would need the rights to block users, delete pages and protect pages. That's an honest request. I admit that I don't actually expect a satisfying reply, but I still give you two a fair chance to surprise me. We currently have 31 sysops, and vandalism seems to be under control, so I don't see much reason to make anybody a sysop right now, unless it'd be to do something quite specialized (other than "I want to edit locked article X", which is the only reason why Conservative was made sysop - and you see how happy the general crowd is with the results...). --Sid 3050 17:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
I do not usually like getting into the silly arguments on this site. Partly I can't really follow what they're about. So have I been trolling talk pages? No. I think more value can be made in substantive edits. Sorry if you don't like that. I'd like to be an Admin because I think I represent the Conservative and Christian point of view on this site but deal fairly with the liberal editors. I try to put in every article where it is relevant that there are differing views. The Earth article I worked on is an article representing a fair array of views, I think. I don't like the fact that you pass judgement on nme without looking into my record, is all. Also, since I am working on long articles on all the books of the Bible (which is most vandalized) I would like some editorial control, since I think I am probably among the best of experts here. Don't close your mind on me just because I am a biblical literalist. We might have a lot of views in common, even!

Judge not, that ye be not judged. (Matthew 7:1)--CWilson 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I never said you're trolling or anything. Like I said: I barely even know you. I'm not passing any judgment here. If I did, I would say on Andy's page "That guy shouldn't be made a sysop.". I'm of the direct kind, so you WILL know when I judge somebody. You're reading WAY too much into an honest request and the fact that I'm no big fan of YEC.
You quite correctly observed (as I strongly hinted at) that I don't know your full record. That's why I asked for good examples in the first case. I wanted to know what reason Conservative had to nominate you. As a reply, I get you accusing me of attacking you. Oh yeah, that gives me the impression of a good admin.
"Editorial control" is a VERY tricky issue in a system that was designed to let everybody edit. The whole "lock page and become practically its sole editor" gig is not really what people understand under a wiki.
Now, I'm still not judging you, but your various assertions, implications and accusations made me like you a whole lot less than before. Well done. --Sid 3050 17:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

All I asked was if you had a reason to dislike me or had a grudge against me. Seems like so. If it was a honest request why not just explain it instead of getting nasty and defensive? I guess you've got your own reasons for disliking me (parse it however you will), but I'm not going to pretend they're good ones. Is this just about YEC? I don't want to lock pages at all, just revert vandalism and the like to my articles. I may not be all that smart, but its pretty clear to me that a lot of the contributors here are not on this site to make Conservapedia better. I don't want to fight with you, so I'm just going to stay clear of you from her on out until you learn to be more civil.--CWilson 18:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Um, look. You come to my talk page and accuse me of attacking you. You said that I'm accusing you that your "edits were insubstantial and had no merit". Then you implied that I accused you of trolling. Then you asserted that I'm judging you. Then there's the bit me being potentially closed-minded. Now I suddenly have a grudge against you.
Okay, if you don't like me being "defensive", then here's me being a tad more direct: You can revert vandalism without admin powers. You can write good articles without admin powers. If you don't want to lock articles you author (one of the few things you said that I approve of), then you also don't need admin powers for that. The only thing you might do is blocking vandals a bit faster than they're being blocked now, but that would be a feat, judging by how the current 30+ admins handle things.
I tell you the same thing I told a few admins in a few articles already: RE-READ WHAT I ACTUALLY WROTE.
It all started with a simple request. You could have just made a quick collection of your best edits/actions, plus a few lines of reasoning, and I might've been happy. Instead, you chose to take the route of confrontation. --Sid 3050 18:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

What is your problem? All I did was ask you why you were denigrating my contributions and if you had some sort of grudge against me? (I admit I supected you did from the beginning because of your hostility to Conservative.) I just wanted to clear the air. You, instead of doing that, have just gotten increasingly hostile. I've read what you wrote. You apparently have not read what I wrote. I said that I DIDN'T troll talk pages like a lot of the users on this site, so if that's what you look for then that would explain why you haven't seen my edits. Also, I did show you a good edit of mine to show you the kind of long and thorough articles I like to produce rather than 100 useless stubs or mindlessly debating on talk pages. If you had really been interested you could have clicked "User contributions" to see more but I felt that you were just being hostile to me because of my beliefs, and I asked you not to pass judgement on me without finding out more about me! Maybe I was over-sensitive. Maybe I was wrong. But you certainly haven't dispelled that notion in your subsequent posts. You have been hostile and snide. I have tried to be friendly to you. I tried to clear the air with you. But you just seem to want to fight. --CWilson 19:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Here's a tip for the future: Next time you want to be friendly, don't start the first contact with "I happened to see on ASchlafly's talk page your attacking me." - especially not when there was no attack.
My entire reason for asking for examples was that I didn't feel like reading your numerous diffs. YOU want to be admin. So when somebody asks for a good reason, it's up to you (or your sponsor) to supply one.
My reason for not putting on the velvet gloves with you or Conservative isn't because you believe in YEC. In Conservative's case, it has been shown again and again that he's completely immune to opinions or criticism and simply stonewalls anything that doesn't fit into his view. In your case, it was your extremely poor start right here. Sysop ambition or not, going to a Talk page and starting to fling around unbased accusations is a Bad Idea. Same goes for replacing it with another unbased accusation when you're being called on it.
All of this could have been prevented simply by you going to Andy's talk page and asking "Could you clarify that? It sounded to me like [...], but that may just be a misunderstanding." --Sid 3050 19:27, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I thought that's what I was doing in private on your talk page. My perception was that you were attacking my record. This isn't worth arguing about. If you are sincere in that you were not using a grudge and that I was perhaps just being oversensitive then I will take you at your word. A tip for you--your language is very caustic and comes off as snide at times. If you do not mean this I think in the future there could be future misunderstandings. I am sorry if I overreacted to false perceptions. Perhaps I was to slow to heed my own advice:

Judge not, that ye be not judged. (Matthew 7:1)

and too ready to assume you were being attacking when there was not yet proper cause to believe that. If so, then you may judge me as such. It seems we are rarely online at the same time, so we will likely not interact much, but as a matter of practice I like to have a clean slate with people, so I apologize for my part in any misunderstanding and will think henceforth that you are acting in good faith unless I see otherwise.--CWilson 19:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I think things may have gone differently if somebody other than Conservative had made the proposal (not even to mention his claim for more power while other sysops protest against his behavior). Not sure.
Like I said, I have nothing against the basic YEC position (I may not agree with it, but I don't have anything against it), and I welcome having two positions in an article. If you check my own edits, you will notice that I frequently support balance in articles when it comes to science and religion. But my good faith in some people got WAY damaged when articles get "fixed" in a way that consciously misrepresents science. And when such behavior is not only tolerated, but applauded by the YEC-Conservative admins, it associates very bad emotions with terms like "conservative" or "YEC".
It's this sort of association that worked against you, and I'll be the first one to admit that it's not exactly fair. That's why I asked for examples and reasoning in my initial post. If there are good reasons and such, then sure, why not. I don't have to agree with every edit every admin does, after all. But the association (and Conservative's personal power-boost request) certainly influenced my behavior. You have my sincere apologies for that.
My comment on the originating Talk page has been modified to reflect the outcome of this. :) --Sid 3050 20:02, 23 March 2007 (EDT)


Oh, ty. I didn't know you could do that with templates. Ty.--Elamdri 13:44, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

No problem, glad I could help. :) And thanks to you for noticing it in the first place!
The ability to redirect templates isn't exactly well-known or well-documented, if I remember correctly. I only know of it myself because of a few fairly desperate wiki-experiments early on =P --Sid 3050 13:48, 25 March 2007 (EDT)


If you weren't aware, "Chupacabra" means "goat sucker" en Espanol. --Hojimachongtalk 15:12, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I actually didn't know that, but I have heard the term often enough to know that it's not what anybody calls Pokemon (if just due to brand identity reasons). =P

Sarge: Hey, Simmons. What's the name of that Mexican lizard? Eats all the goats?
Simmons: Uh, that would be the Chupacabra, sir
Sarge: Hey, Grif. Chupa-thingy, how 'bout that?

(From "Red vs. Blue", which I really haven't watched in a long time...) --Sid 3050 15:15, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
It's actually usually depicted as an alien-like critter :\. And RvB is the single funniest machinima ever, bar none. --Hojimachongtalk 15:18, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
It totally is! I seriously have to ask my friend if he still has the old eps (last time I checked, he had archived all episodes so far)... --Sid 3050 15:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Busy template.[edit]

Thanks, I like the new busy template. I hadn't thought about doing that. ColinRtalk 18:01, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Quite welcome! :) --Sid 3050 18:02, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

fun Facts[edit]

Gee, I must be one of the harshest sysops. My name appears in four out of five blocks. :) Geo. 23:48, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd say the harshest sysop is the one who bans the most people (not counting the obvious vandal accounts). You are the guy who introduced the most humiliating ban lengths, though ;) --Sid 3050 08:38, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

30 years is the maximum possible. You may need to update this as of tonight, though;) MountainDew 03:15, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservative away[edit]

  • What's with the template "Conservative" ? --~ TerryK MyTalk 10:18, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
You mean the "I am away" template on Conservative's page? --Sid 3050 10:18, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Duh! Yeah! --~ TerryK MyTalk 10:20, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

It breaks the layout (at least in Firefox 2, other browsers might be more fogiving). Could you do me a favor and edit both his talk and user page?
  • On the normal User page, replace the "<div style= [...] </includeonly>" part with {{Useraway}}
  • On the Talk page, do the same and move the entire part (including Conservative's signature) after Hoji's comment to the very top of the page.
Thanks in advance! --Sid 3050 10:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Sid, I just unlocked them, let me know when you are done. I meant, after all the fuss and spitting on Andy's page, he's gone? --~ TerryK MyTalk 10:28, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Done, feel free to re-lock. Thanks for helping out! :)
And ah yes. Hmmmmm, that's certainly odd. Maybe he's taking a time-out, or something came up in real life. Whatever the reason, it's not the best timing to vanish right after ripping into a bunch of other sysops like that. --Sid 3050 10:36, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I will pray that it isn't something bad, his being gone. No problem, glad to help. You seem to be the in-house sign maker, eh? --~ TerryK MyTalk 10:38, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

While him being gone will be regarded as something good by quite a few people, I certainly hope that the reason for his departure is not something bad. *nods*
And no, I'm not really a sign-maker. I only made... one or two templates myself, I think. I do contribute to a few templates, though. Mainly in the form of fixing minor errors or making things a bit easier to use. --Sid 3050 10:44, 26 March 2007 (EDT)


Instead of worrying about the Conservapedia Panel, please create an entry for cp:NASCAR. Thank you for your attention in this matter. --Huey gunna getcha 16:48, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Done. --Sid 3050 16:56, 26 March 2007 (EDT)


Hi. Can you confirm your liberal status? Thanks! Richard 23:48, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Sorry to interupt but, whilst I am not really sure whether I am a liberal, I can confirm that I am a witch. Does that count? --Horace 23:50, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Devil worship is not allowed, and shows a tendency towards witchcraft and satanism. You will need to be watched. --~ TerryK MyTalk 03:50, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Let's see. By the common definition of "conservative", I honestly don't know. By the definition this site seems to push:
  • I don't really think that God created the universe in seven days.
  • I don't think we should take the Bible literally.
  • I don't think that homosexuality is a disease that should be cured.
  • I tolerate people even if they don't believe in the Christian God.
  • I don't misrepresent facts to fit my agenda.
  • I'm not a bigoted asshole who thinks that we should give the Internet equivalent of a Jew Star to people who don't think exactly what I want them to think.
So... yes, according to the definition of "conservative" that you, Andy and Conservative seem to have, I'm a "liberal".
To everybody with more than two braincells (read: not you, Richard): Considering that I'm not even an American, I see little sense in being sorted into the US black-and-white political system. People in other countries are allowed to support things independently from what a political party wants them to support. This concept encourages the forming of your own opinions, so I fully understand why people like Andy, Richard and Conservative don't get it. --Sid 3050 07:05, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Sid; while you didn't technically direct most of the above at anyone in particular, and furthermore we don't actually seem to have any rules regarding personal attacks, I can't imagine it'll go down too well. Not going to do anything about it myself, but you might want to tone it down a little. Tsumetai 07:44, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
I already included the part "that you, Andy and Conservative seem to have". Considering that Andy's definition of "conservative" surprised many self-identified conservatives, I think it's accurate. When I got here, I did not know anything about what "conservative" means in the US. This site told me that the views above are "conservative", and only later did I realize that they're just the views of certain idiots with power. That is why I included the qualifier in the harsher sentences.
And if some idiot is allowed to keep a public list of people who should be monitored, I should be allowed to voice my opinion about such idiots.
This is in no way aimed at people who consider themselves "conservative" in the common sense. I had hoped that this would be clear. I added a new sentence at the top, though. Thoughts? --Sid 3050 07:52, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Enjoy the use of this template if you like {{liberal}}. I was going to turn it into a six pointed star but I thought that would be too much. Myk 08:54, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I'll consider it. :) In the meantime, I settled with the category. *points down* It may be too much/harsh, but I found it fitting somehow. Removed the category, I like your template much better. --Sid 3050 08:56, 27 March 2007 (EDT) plus edit by --Sid 3050 09:48, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Hey Sid, we are putting something together that you might be interested in, if you don't mind can you e-mail me at, whenever you get a chance. Tmtoulouse 13:09, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Made a "cp_sid" account and sent a mail. :) (Hey, maybe this address will even work with Conservapedia...) --Sid 3050 13:28, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Well, whaddya know... it does! --Sid 3050 13:30, 28 March 2007 (EDT)


Elsewhere you wrote:

behaving like dicks is what drives good people away from this site? Random policy changes, hypocrisy, power abuse, and the complete inability to listen to rational people who try to improve this site are all factors that make rational people post less and less productive things.

It would be a strange dynamic if some people posted unproductive things, and the response merely drove them to be even more unproductive. That would be a cp:vicious circle.

I'd like to see discussion of a set of guidelines we all can live with. Should we start a new page for this? --Ed Poor 08:39, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

That phrasing is indeed misleading, but I don't see "unproductive" as "unconstructive/destructive". For example, many of the people who recently left still post on Talk pages here and there, but don't contribute to articles. They're not mean vandals or anything, they're just all "Meh." when it comes to making good article edits. But I'll correct it to "that make rational people contribute less and less to articles" to make it clearer. Thanks for catching it!
Guidelines... what are you thinking of here? --Sid 3050 09:03, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

A failed experiment[edit]

Thanks for helping me clean up the results of my attempt to "not be a dick" with ILBB. I probably should have just banned him as Aschafly suggested. --Ed Poor 09:26, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

No problem. :) And *shrugs helplessly* - I dunno his story, and I got no experience in the field. I guess it was a nice idea to give him a second chance - it may have worked out. At least this way, we are certain and don't have to go all "Hmmm... maybe I should've given him a second chance...". --Sid 3050 09:31, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
The only irony is that I now have to clean my watchlist a bit - I enabled the option to auto-watch any page I edit XD --Sid 3050 09:32, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes, I must consider the repercussions of my actions better. Like checking recent changes frequently; I should have caught this the minute it started. Thanks again for your help! --Ed Poor 09:35, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
Seconded. Nice work, Sid. Tsumetai 09:52, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Don't beat yourself up, Ed. You're a good guy. There is a reason Andy (among others) advises to block early. Once you have been an Admin on a site or two, you spot them, and go with your gut, not your heart or mind. ;-) Easier to add someone back, than to block too late, imo. --~ TerryK MyTalk 09:55, 29 March 2007 (EDT)


By whose authority are you going around adding "Protected" stubs to pages? You can think about that for the next three hours.--~ TerryK MyTalk 20:07, 30 March 2007 (EDT)


Eh? I've looked through Sid's recent contributions, and I have no idea what he was blocked for. Care to clarify? Tsumetai 20:15, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Read above. Where is this stub located? --~ TerryK MyTalk 20:16, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I believe that the issue was adding this and the like to other pages. What would generally be seen as wiki maintainance. --Mtur 20:19, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
THANK YOU. --Sid 3050 20:18, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

And you did not add the stub to my archive, either? Or any other pages? --~ TerryK MyTalk 20:21, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

What in the name of God are you talking about? --Sid 3050 20:22, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

You're on your way out the door, with posts like that. You know what I am talking about, Sid. The stub, "protected", you have never added it to any page, is that what you are saying?

Given that the 'protected' template was created by a sysop, one can hardly blame Sid for helping out. Tsumetai 20:29, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Well, yes I can, in point of fact. At whose request was the template made? --~ TerryK MyTalk 20:31, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
a quick glance at user contributions doesn't show any additions of the protected template since 18:00 today. Which edit are you referring to? --Mtur 20:32, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
*RUBS TEMPLES* "Protected" is a TEMPLATE. Not a STUB. And I was repairing a lot of accidental censorship that happened when David R (a sysop) inserted that template on a lot of pages earlier today. I even mentioned it on your Talk page and on his Talk page. Some of his insertions had been reverted by other users due to the censorship that had happened, so I restored the page in the way a sysop had intended - with the template, but without the censorship. If you want to ban me for doing something a sysop wanted to do, be my guest, but you'll look like a bigger fool than you do already. YOU SHOULD SERIOUSLY CONSULT THE SYSOP WHO STARTED THIS - I WAS JUST CLEANING UP FOR HIM. --Sid 3050 20:35, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
No one requested it, that I know of. Point? Tsumetai 20:38, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

BS. I am asking who asked for the template, who was going around slapping them on articles, including my own archived talk page? I mean, get serious here! Why shouldn't any archive be protected? They are supposed to be history, and history should not have a need to be edited, should it? Did I miss Andy asking for such a thing? Or was this just another guerrilla attack on the part of those who are complaining, endlessly, about protecting problematic pages? I think it very fair and reasonable that some consultation with Andy or the Sysops be made, before implementing system-wide changes. Is there someone who would dispute a common courtesy like that? --~ TerryK MyTalk 20:40, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

  • And Sid, you are one who has constantly nagged about protected pages, so I doubt your efforts were altruistic. And calling people names, like "fool" is a blocking offense. You have created an enemy out of thin air, here. But all your own doing. --~ TerryK MyTalk 20:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
OH GOTT, LASS HIRN VOM HIMMEL REGNEN. Template history: READ IT. See how it was created by sysops? Notice how your own archive history says EXACTLY who inserted it? HINT: IT WAS NOT ME. God, I know you're not able to get what I just said so here is the diff. AGAIN. I already posted that diff on YOUR USER TALK PAGE a long time ago and told you about the accidental censorship that had happened.
You managed to insult me TWICE in one hour for HELPING THE SITE. First for helping dead-end pages, and now for removing censorship and thus helping a sysop. I expect an apology. --Sid 3050 20:46, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, Sid....those links explain nothing as to how it happened, or even why, just that it did. Communication is the key. How were you insulted by questions? Are you above having questions asked of you? Did I call you stupid? Did I call you a drunk? Did I call you a fool? It doesn't explain why you were posting to me about my archives at all. There isn't a user TerryK. Why are you inserting yourself at all? If a Sysop makes something, without consulting the others, or even getting the OK from Andy, do you think unilateral action, of any kind, about system-wide things, like putting up that template is a good thing? If so, don't complain about Conservative. --~ TerryK MyTalk 20:54, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

My God... where to begin...
First of all, yes, communication is the key. You banned me, unbanned me, and then came up with a threat about something else that might get me banned again. Communication? Hello?
I am deeply insulted by your behavior, your complete inability to comprehend the simplest things, your unthankfulness, and your attitude.
I was posting to you about your archive because you created it in the wrong place. I then patiently explained to you why you should move it. Notice how I also alerted you about the censorship and about who did it.
Sysops don't need to consult Andy for everything they do. If you truly believe in that, show me where you consulted Andy about changing the Protected template or about banning me for helping the site by fixing dead-end pages.
And I did what a sysop intended to do. It's not my problem if he didn't ask you for permission or anything. I just noticed that his edits accidentally censored a few words, and I fixed things while they were still easy to fix. That template was NOT MY IDEA.
I seriously expect a sincere apology for your TWO instances of abuse and harassment in your next reply. --Sid 3050

I do not owe you an apology. You pick and choose what you want to reply/be insulted by. Your lack of patience and understand of people who don't have your level of wiki skills is apalling. You must live in some really politically correct world to twist the facts in your mind to think I have harassed you. Did I call you stupid? Did I call you a drunk? Did I call you a fool? If I did, you have my sincere apology for that. --~ TerryK MyTalk 21:09, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

You are a sysop. I expect people with the power to block users to be able to look up article histories, user contributions, or simply to read what people say on their talk pages. You threw a paranoid hissing fit and threatened to ban me on my page about something another sysop did and what I merely corrected.
You blocked me without reason, you threatened to block me again for something I fixed, and you think that's okay?
Seriously. Last chance. Just a nice and sincere "I'm sorry, I overreacted and should've checked if I'm ranting at the right guy" and I'd be almost willing to forget this complete trainwreck you created here. --Sid 3050 21:15, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Did I call you stupid? Did I call you a drunk? Did I call you a fool? If I did, you have my sincere apology for that. Why did you post to me, saying I had invaded the namespace of someone else, when there is no such user? What was that all about. Sorry if you consider it beneath you to explain things. --~ TerryK MyTalk 21:18, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Anybody could create that account at any time. And then what? It's simply not a smart idea to create pages all over the place. Keep it to your own name sub-space. I also find it funny how you completely ignore the fact that you banned me without reason and threatened to ban me for something a sysop did. Still no apology? Then I consider this issue closed with no result. Taking things to the next level. --Sid 3050 21:23, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
  • to Uncle Andy, everyone else does. You are arrogant in the extreme, assuming anyone has wiki experience, and then inserting yourself into things. --~ TerryK MyTalk 21:34, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm following procedure. Tried to resolve this here, got no acceptable result, went to another sysop. Since the dispute was with a sysop, I went to a bureaucrat. If that doesn't give results, I'll go to the Panel. Your insult is duly noted, as is your admission of not knowing your way around the basics of a wiki. --Sid 3050 21:37, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

It's my fault[edit]

Sid, please forgive me. This was something I started, and I did not communicate on cp:User talk:Aschlafly or any place about it. I just got off the phone with TK, and we talked it out.

Apparently the 'template' (which TK was calling a 'stub') I created was the focal point of all this.

I created 3 or 4 templates to indicate page protection. I even got David to help me place the templates on the talk pages of protected articles. The notice was supposed to mention the fact that the article was protected, include an embedded "category" tag, and provide a link to the protecting sysop. *whew*

The straw that broke the camel's back was when TK found this stub/template or whatever Frankenstein monster I created, on his archived talk page.

I feel that TK's block of you was the result of (1) something I did and (2) the fact that I did not communicate my idea first - or wait to see if there was any agreement for it.

I am willing to block myself or ask MountainDew to block me (as penance) - during the day, of course - it makes no difference while I'm sleeping! :-) --Ed Poor 23:58, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Always take an eight hour block WHILE you're sleeping. That way we all get the best of both worlds: You get you penance and we get to keep a reasonably good sysop. -- Crackertalk 00:05, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
Ed, none of this is your fault. I appreciate your message, and I of course accept any apology you give me (even though you shouldn't have to apologize for trying to streamline things). :)
Just understand that TK's continuous abuse is pretty much making me go "Bah." about the site right now. I got banned by him after trying to help him and while making minor improvements to articles. If anybody is to blame, it's TK and his completely misguided power trip. --Sid 3050 07:29, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, Ed! And it was good to have a voice with the name! Let us note that I don't have a disagreement with the template, or its use, so long as Andy and the Sysops know what is going on. People assuming that just because something is made by one of us (Sysops), they can change users pages as they wish, that is unacceptable. Of course the whole non-issue of someone (anyone) changing my archive/talk page has already been discussed, with Andy saying no one had the right to change those. So, it was a non-issue for any sysop or user to add the locked template to my archive. And you said you never asked anyone to add it to user archives. Patience and understand is what is needed more of here. My blocking of Sid (for all of ten minutes), who does have some history of being blocked, did no injury. Nor did my asking him to explain what he was doing. For Sid to call me names over his inability to explain, isn't a valid excuse, nor does he have grounds for any complaint. All of you should know Ed told me he did the same thing on Wikipedia, to get some one's attention. Andy has always told us to block first, ask questions later, so I was within "policy". All I received from Sid was his condescending attitude and being called names, clearly revealed in his posts here, and on my talk page. I suggest people, all of us, see this as mis-communication, which is what it was, not an issue. --~ TerryK MyTalk 00:43, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Wow, the guy I respect apologizes, and the guy who abuses me says he did everything okay. I have a history of being blocked? I had been blocked ONCE. And that had been an ACCIDENT. I have never been blocked for an actual reason.
I don't owe you a detailed explanation. I explained WAY more than I had to when I did you the favor of alerting you about the accidental censorship that had happened when a sysop changed your page. I actually went all the way and explained to you why and how you should move your page. It says a lot about you that you know how to block users, but apparently don't know how to check article histories or user contributions.
You blocked me (completely unjustified), unblocked me again and left a nasty message and ban threats on my Talk page. You could have just asked me what was going on while we were chatting on your talk page - hours before my ban, when I did you the favor of alerting you about this issue.
Once again: The only pages I changed were the ones that had already been changed in that way by a sysop. I did NOT suddenly go around and add the template to pages. I also did not add it to any User Pages.
In case you missed it: I DID NOT ADD IT TO ANY USER PAGES.
Your attitude is unbelievable. You refuse to see how you messed up, don't you? Even after more than a page of explanations AND a phone call, you still don't get it.
The ban and the ban threats are based on you not realizing that you're shooting the messenger. Here are a few things that a reasonable sysop would have noticed:
  1. The diff I linked you to (hours before my ban) shows that David R had modified your user page, not me.
  2. The template history shows that this template had been created by sysops, not by me.
  3. My contributions around that time read "Repairing censorship", not "Adding funky template".
  4. Checking those diffs reveals that I added the template to exactly one page.
  5. The history of that one article shows this edit, where David R originally added the template - his edit was apparently reverted due to the censorship, and I just re-inserted it because that had been the original intention by a sysop.
Summing it up: I got a ban and a ban warning for... adding exactly one template to a page that had already been tagged that way by a sysop. And five minutes of work would have shown that to you. ANY user with a little bit of wiki knowledge could have done it, and any sysop SHOULD have done it.
And all I asked for was a simple apology for the tons of crap you poured on me. God, this place is making me sick. --Sid 3050 07:29, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Well, Sid, perhaps this isn't the place for you. Your arrogant, all-knowing attitude doesn't serve you well in a group environment. Every post you have made to me in the past 24 hours is full of attitude, gritting of teeth, bemoaning you having to explain to a "drunk idiot" what he so obviously should have known, being a Sysop. And that is exactly why I am, and you are not. The name calling you have done is more than enough reason to block you. That isn't a threat, it is a fact. Ed, too, at first thought you had added the template, so I assume anyone with his great experience with Wiki making that mistake, it wasn't unreasonable for me to have as well. This is something you could have cleared up in minutes, with patience and a good, cooperative attitude, however, I will apologize to you for mistakenly thinking you were adding the template to pages. You say you never once did, and I accept your word on that. Now that doesn't excuse your nasty attitude, and contempt, nor does it excuse your name calling, which is of course reason enough for blocking you, but I haven't. How easy all this would have been, if you had only specified, in the beginning the chronology you brought to this topic later. Being here, working on a group project like this, presupposes all volunteers will be cooperative and understanding, not self-righteous and bombastic. Your statement above, "I explained WAY more than I had to when I did you the favor of alerting you about the accidental censorship that had happened when a sysop changed your page." really shows anyone all there is to know about you, I guess. It still begs the question of why you were concerning yourself with my page, and the errors of another Sysop. The proper procedure, if you were trying to be helpful, would have been to alert the other Sysop. Since you were posting there, I assume you read and understood Andy's post that touching/editing/moving another users page was a no-no. That would seem to include even "fixing" the code in a template some other Sysop added to my page. And just so you won't continue to feel singled out, I will tell you more than I need to; I also emailed David and Hoji, asking them by what authority they were adding templates, system-wide, not only to articles, but to user pages as well. I suggest you become more kind hearted and helpful, and stay away from bombastic drama. --~ TerryK MyTalk 09:08, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
Nasty attitude? I spent a full hour patiently explaining things to you, hours before my sudden block. At that time, I had already alerted you of the thing that was going on and you ignored the entire issue. The diff I gave you pointed at exactly that chronology. All you had to do was ask me - I had been there and in a quite helpful mood. A simple "Hey, what's that template thing all about?" would have sufficed.
You blocked me for no reason while I was on an improvement spree late at night. When you unblocked my account, I had to get a new IP address just because you forgot to unban my IP, too. And by the time I was able to post, you had already posted the initial post here, babbling something about me adding a "protected stub" to pages.
You banning me for no reason and leaving threats before doing your research would be a perfectly valid reason to de-sysop you. That's a fact, too. You only won't get de-sysop'd because you push Andy's point of view, so abuse is perfectly okay. You, just like Conservative, Karajou and Richard enjoy Andy's protection.
I am concerning myself with the errors I see because I care. It's in my nature not to look away when I see things going wrong. So when I noticed that an editor accidentally removed words while editing, I fixed things for him. I couldn't fix it on your page because it was locked, so I decided to tell you about it. While I was there, I also noticed that it's in the wrong name sub-space, so I included that note in my post.
And no. I do not have to ask a sysop about reparing damage or doing simply maintenance tasks. Just like I didn't have to ask a sysop when I did a mass-revert of a vandal's spree a few days ago. I only needed a sysop's attention when it came to the locked page, so I alerted you.
And once again: I did not touch your user page. The ONE change I made to the template ONLY had consequences for the template page itself, NOT the way it appears on any other page. YOUR ACTIONS WERE BASED ON YOU MISUNDERSTANDING STUFF. DON'T BLAME ME FOR BEING ANGRY AT YOU.
I have been very helpful to you. Multiple times, even. I always gave my best to help the site in more ways than you can imagine. You banned me during one of my improvement drives. In the time I spent on arguing with you about something I didn't cause, I could have improved twenty more pages that are now still in their dead-end state.
You bit the hand that fed you. Don't expect me to help you out with technical issues any more. --Sid 3050 09:30, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Sorry, I don't recall me ever asking you for help with my talk page. Nor did I ask David or Hoji. And any reasonable person would indeed blame you for getting mad at someone who has less technical knowledge than you do. Read your words, Sid. They were mean-spirited, so don't try and put a good face on them now. Ed specifically said that template shouldn't be put on user pages. You, and it seems a couple of Sysop's who have been complaining about locked pages for some time now, seemingly used Ed's good intentions to once again "push" your issue, by distributing that template. You wanted to strike at Conservative, and make a point. If you have been reading Andy's talk page at all in the past two or three weeks, your statement about Andy "protecting" me, because I push his point of view, shows you to be recklessly uninformed and/or a trouble maker. I think Richard was booted, no? With all this anger bottled up in you, your hate of Andy's point of view, I once again suggest you think about why you are here. Now you type away and vent, Sid. I am done explaining myself. --~ TerryK MyTalk 09:49, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
I didn't use anything to push anything. You're being paranoid, and it's showing. I fixed pages that had been censored.
Richard was booted not for his actions, but for the fact that he was a hoax. Andy had done NOTHING during the 24 hours that people complained about Richard on Andy's Talk page.
For the last time: The template had not been my idea. It had not been created by me. I did not choose where to place them. And I only re-placed it on one page where the change had been reverted because of the censorship it had caused.
My rant is not about you not knowing stuff, it's about you using sysop powers from such a position. This is either stupidity or abuse. In either case, you should not have these powers. It's the equivalent of an eight year old trying to use a gun - he has a rough idea how it works, but no sane person would let him play with it. --Sid 3050 10:01, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously, I had a part in this...[edit]

It was partly, probably a lot, my fault. Ed Poor and I were working on a project to add a {{protect}} template to each page that was currently under protection. Inadvertently, my computer censored some phrases and words in the articles I added the template to. I think Sid was just cleaning the pages up. There was absolutely no reason for him to be blocked, which begs the question: Why was he? --<<-David R->> 12:41, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Double Redirect - sysop request[edit]

(sigh) Requesting sysop assistance because TK is creating a double redirect:

I have attempted to fix this double redirect two times, and both got reverted by TK. I assume he sees my routine repair as an attack on his User Talk page, so I need sysop authority to get the permission to fix things. The page is now also protected in its broken state, so I definitely need a sysop now.

So: I officially request the opinion of sysops cp:User:Aschlafly, cp:User:TK, cp:User:Conservative, cp:User:CPAdmin1, cp:User:CPWebmaster, cp:User:Ed Poor, cp:User:David_R, cp:User:AustinM, cp:User:Geo.plrd, and cp:User:Tsumetai to get a poll of roughly 33% of all sysops for this undoubtedly critical change to a User page.

All replies should be left at cp:User_talk:Sid_3050#Double_Redirect_Poll for easier evaluation of the results. --Sid 3050 09:50, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Sysops, please leave opinions/votes under this line

I confess that I do not fully understand this issue, but unlike Wikipedia we do respect notions of private property here. A man's user talk page is his castle here, to the extent possible. That right is not unlimited, of course, but I don't see a compelling reason for others to dictate how TK should manage his talk page in this instance.--Aschlafly 09:54, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
Click on cp:TKarchive1. It should automatically redirect to cp:User talk:TK/TKarchive1, but it goes only half the way. It redirects to the middle of the chain, and the MediaWiki software doesn't auto-redirect to the real target (this has its good reasons, but would be a bit technical to explain here). At the moment, things are "broken" because of the double redirect. I tried to fix it so both cp:TKarchive1 and cp:User talk:TerryK/TKarchive1 point at the correct page, but TK reverted my edit "just because". --Sid 3050 10:08, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
  • It is the responsibility of the Sysop who changed my page to fix it, not user Sid. Sid, you can leave a message for Hoji. He never mentioned his "fix" and I was on IM with him last night. --~ TerryK MyTalk 09:56, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
The first redirect is in the main namespace, which should be reserved for articles. It should be deleted, else it'll show up in searches and as a random page. Tsumetai 10:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes, that would be the best, but I had tried to at least fix the symptom. Technically, TK's pollution of another user name-space should also be vaped. --Sid 3050 10:08, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
TK, wrong issue. This isn't about the template, it's about you reverting the double redirect fix. Learn to read posts before replying. --Sid 3050 10:08, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
Sid and TK, you could do everybody a favor and just drop it. Do you trust Tsumetai and me to handle the redirect, moving, unlocking, etc? --Ed Poor 10:10, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
I trust Tsumetai (and various other sysops, including you), and I'll cool down eventually. Just need a brief time-out from this trainwreck of a site. Sounds like a good idea, actually. --Sid 3050 10:14, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Sid, it isn't the wrong issue, it is the only issue. The problem wouldn't be there if people had kept their hands off. And I can still block you for the name calling, so I do suggest you hold your tongue, and listen to Ed. Ed, this is like the same deal we talked about. I would rather learn how to do it, but of course you and/or Tsumetai may fix it.
That might not be a good idea TK. As a sysop currently involved in a dispute, to block another party in the dispute isn't good policy. Crackertalk 11:01, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
  • First off, there isn't a dispute. This isn't Wikipedia. --~ TerryK MyTalk 11:06, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
Dude, this is a dispute anywhere. Wikipedia does not have separate definitions for dispute. Myk 11:44, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Have it your way, Myk, but I don't think you have any say, since Sid was asking for Sysops to comment. Andy has resolved it, read above. --~ TerryK MyTalk 11:54, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
I am this close to taking the lord's name in vain --> <--. Your disrespect for editors of this site is disgusting and is classically elitist. Disputes are easy to see, TK. They're pretty much any convesration that involves your bullet points on every other line. Myk 12:03, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
Ed was not at fault for this problem, nor was Sid. Ed is a good guy, but he shouldn't be a "fall guy" for TK. It's to Ed's credit that he tried to shoulder the responsibility so everyone could move on, but it shows TK's lack of good character that he allowed Ed to assume the blame. TK needs to admit responsibility for his own actions and apologize to Sid, as well as the other people he has already offended at Conservapedia. Then lighten up. TK has a rude, obnoxious, overbearing attitude and in my opinion has been abusive towards not just Sid, but many people at Conservapedia.
Anyone that disagrees with him is told "maybe this isn't the right place for you" and "I am a sysop, you aren't". TK's been a "sysop" for how long, a week? And he is already talking about becoming the "Lead Sysop" (Ed Poor's talk page) I believe TK should not have the "power" that comes with being a Sysop. He has shown himself to be too immature and alienates the average user.
I have been reading these pages for a week, and have decided not to contribute. The only reason is that I don't like what I see from TK.
Good Luck Conservapedia.
Tim Smith --Tim Smith 15:36, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
12 days as of today, actually. Thanks for the kind words, Tim, and you make a few very good observations. Ed indeed made quite a sacrifice there, and "responsibility" is one of the key words that often go through my mind when I think about such admin actions. --Sid 3050 15:42, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Good, seemingly a sockpuppet commenting, lol. --~ TerryK MyTalk 02:44, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Suggested resolution[edit]

I talked about this with TK and deleted the following pages:

You can check the deletion log for my last 2 deletes:

Is there anything else that needs to be done about this? If not, let's turn our attention to crafting reliable and informative articles. :-) --Ed Poor 11:57, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Thanks for all your help and patient explaining, Ed! --~ TerryK MyTalk 12:29, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Request resolved - Thanks![edit]

Thanks for cleaning things up, Ed! And thanks for your advice earlier. I took a shower, watched some anime, and now I'm as much back to normal as possible under the current circumstances. Also thanks to Tsumetai, Cracker, and Myk for chiming in. I deeply appreciated your input. :) --Sid 3050 12:39, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Footnote help pages[edit]

I didn't understand your post to me. Conservative 17:45, 31 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

I am unlocking the example page and feel free to help with all the "How to" pages because I am not very adept at "Wiki techno stuff". Thanks. Conservative 17:49, 31 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Sid please see my message here: Conservative 18:47, 31 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
I left another message in the relevant talk page. Conservative 18:50, 31 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
I don't want to mess with Andy's stuff. please ask Andy. Conservative 19:12, 31 March 2007 (EDT)conservative


I have unlocked the article, but you're on a short leash. Please don't make me regret unlocking it for you. I would prefer you add your information to the article, and wait a little while and get a consensus going before removing TK's edits. To me they look like copy violations, but I don't know if he's merely citing them or quoting them. Preferably, I would prefer not so many large quotes.--Elamdri 08:55, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Take a look at my long post on the talk page. I haven't run actual text diffs, but if you want me to do so, I will. I'm 99.9% certain that TK only wrote a few words in there. --Sid 3050 08:57, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
I looked into it a little myself. I definitely think it is a little sketchy, but I don't want to question another sysop's edits without some backing. I dislike the vast quoting. I prefer smaller quotes with the meat of the article put into context by the author. If that is the case, then by all means go ahead. All I am asking is that you not drastically alter the article in a way that would cause an edit war. Other than that, by all means have fun!--Elamdri 09:02, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
(Still running a diff check) As said on the Talk page, I would do a revert to before TK's edit. If you are uncomfortable with that, lock the article again, and I'll take my case elsewhere. I don't want you to regret your action, so I'm telling you what I intent to do. However, in all fairness, TK was the one who drastically altered the article by doing a full replace of the old one. Check the article history and a few diffs. --Sid 3050 09:06, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
On further look, you are right, he's made a great deal of copy and pastes from those sites. I'm going to revert it on that judgment.--Elamdri 09:09, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
In retrospect, I am very tired, lol, can you do the reverting? It's not gonna let me just do a rollback anyway because of the protecting.--Elamdri 09:11, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

TK told me on the phone that he obtained permission from the author of the long passage to include it in the article.

Moreover, any drastic changes to the article and TK will just lock and revert, so please tread lightly. Try to 'incorporate', not 'replace'. Work with, not against. See cp:Conservapedia:Collaboration. Darn, still a red link :-( --Ed Poor 09:13, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

The problem is not the long passage. The problem is that the entire article is copy-pasted from multiple sources. Not just what TK later marked as a quote. Do you want me to take this to Andy instead? This is insanity. An entire article is copypaste, and TK's entire contribution to it is "Thomas E. Brewton wrote in 'Moral Models from Mainstream Media'". --Sid 3050 09:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
Does he have written permission? I looked over those links and they was, in my opinion, an egregious amount of simple copy and paste. It wasn't even put into his own words, and if he was quoting them, I would ask for far more citations. I can see where Sid is coming from and he does have a point. Now, that larger quote, I do believe that exists in the article as a quote, and if TK has permission, all the better, but there are other portions of the article that are direct copy and paste, without even citations.--Elamdri 09:19, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
Even with permission, I would be against it since this is just one guy arguing his point of view. The entire thing can be summed up into one or two sentences like "Some/Many people like Thomas Brewton argue that morality is closely linked to religion" or something like that, and then people could follow that trail with more sources to actually look at the global discussion. --Sid 3050 09:27, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
  • There are all the needed citations there. Andy has specifically posted that copying material is okay. FYI, editors traditionally do not write, they compile and organize material from others. The revision isn't done. You secular-progressives need another hobby. Of course I requested permission for the copying, and I fail to see where my not understanding what Sid was asking of me, makes anyone question my honesty. Shame on all of you. --~ TerryK MyTalk 01:26, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Original Message-----

From: [1] Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 5:50 AM To: Terry Subject: Re: Conservapedia Entry on Morality Importance: High

Yes, I would be happy to have you use anything you wish from the website. It's not a commercial venture. The intention was that it be an educational resource to pass along what I was fortunate to learn in the schools of the 1940s and early 50s.

Tom Brewton

Whoever said I was secular?--Elamdri 03:44, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

My bad, if you are not. I just assumed because a Christian wouldn't be judging like you did, without getting any information first hand. Or at least the ones I know. I apologize if I was wrong. I did try to contact you, however you haven't enabled anonymous emails through this board, so I couldn't... --~ TerryK MyTalk 04:22, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

You abused your sysop powers to prevent others from editing, you did not explain yourself on the Talk page, you did not answer the question of the four remaining sources, you broke the First Conservapedia Commandment. I have taken this to Andy. Either he will second your decision or he will finally crack down on you. I almost fear that he'll back you up, but then again, copyright has always been a touchy issue around here, so he might make an exception. Either way, feel free to leave your usual snarky remarks. I won't censor them, so others can see your true colors. Again. --Sid 3050 05:16, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Read the email:

Yes, I would be happy to have you use anything you wish from the website. It's not a commercial venture. The intention was that it be an educational resource to pass along what I was fortunate to learn in the schools of the 1940s and early 50s.

Tom Brewton

I never had a chance to finish the article, as I told several Sysops including Ed Poor, that I locked it against your vandalism and elitism in knowing better than anyone else. Your continued vendetta over an accidental block, coupled with your name calling, only shows I have been very lenient with you, not a bully. You have been the only person, reading above, to call people names, Sid. Ed Poor tried to talk sense to you, and you posted you would step back, which you haven't done. This is a dead horse. This isn't Wikipedia. FYI I take great care to ensure Andy is always kept informed. He has a copy, as does Ed, of my email to, and the response above. We call that communication. You should try it instead of using pages here as "Drama Central". --~ TerryK MyTalk 05:47, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
The funny thing is, I'm over your idiocy about the Protected template. I did step back (unlike you), and got over it. Then, a few days ago, I happened to see a "+ x thousand" contribution to Morality by you... and I realized that the tone sounded WAY too intellectual for you. I did a few Google searches and found the Brewton piece. That was the basis for my revert. ANYBODY could and SHOULD have done the same when encountering such a massive copyright violation. --Sid 3050 06:20, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
  • So, you now seek to become a marytr in your own mind, by repeating lies? The material wasn't copyrighted, and even if it was, the owner gave permission. You misrepresent the facts, Sid. You are a Drama Queen. You were told that I had permission by Ed Poor, and you chose to ignore it, and keep posting lies, and you are insulting above, once again. --~ TerryK MyTalk 07:02, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
So you're calling me a liar now? That's cute. It's also cute how you focus on ONE out of FIVE sources and think that that makes it all okay. --Sid 3050 11:03, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Bans and Warnings[edit]

Originally left under cp:User:Sid_3050#Bans_and_Warnings

What, no ban from me? Wait'll I get my mitts on ya! ;-) --Ed Poor 14:03, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank You[edit]

There is at least one person on this Wiki who has some sense. --CatWatcher 18:45, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Trust me, there are a few more. Stick around (or at least lurk) for a few days to get a proper feeling for the place. It's a bit like Twilight Zone in some areas (as you just found out), but aside from that, it can be okay or at least entertaining. You'll quickly spot the people here who make some sense, so maybe you'll find a way to blend in along with us. I'd certainly value another reasonable person :) --Sid 3050 18:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks I might do that, but I seem to court controversy.--CatWatcher 19:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Welcome to the club :P Just lurk for a bit, you'll quickly see that you're not alone in such a position. What you do then is up to you, of course. --Sid 3050 19:04, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Sid, you read about the lions but did you read about the ants?[edit]

Sid, you read about the lions but did you read about the ants? I added that material awhile back. cp:Theory of evolution article. Conservative 20:43, 5 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

*wipes away tears of laughter* Dude, I'm one of the guys who had been openly advocating for removing the entire section about lions. It's my favorite section ever because it makes absolutely no sense - it has no real connection to Evolution. It's just a bunch of examples where "the Bible had been right before the scientists" or something, thus proving... uh... what exactly? That evolution is... errr... possibly not right because... uh... the Bible says so, and... uhm... the Bible has been right about a few things before?
The section about the lions is the equivalent of Monty Python's "And now for something completely different."
I'm honestly sorry that you thought I'm cheering you on there, but the "exactly the one section that has NOTHING to do with evolution" bit should've given you a rough hint. I'm not going to look for ants in evolution, but thanks for the heads-up anyway. I'm "happy" with the lions. --Sid 3050 21:08, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
where does Conservative find this stuff? Is there a cp:conservagoogle out there that I've never heard of? Or does he just google random word combinations and hope they turn up more facts opinions about evolution being wrong? Jrssr5 22:14, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
I guess that he basically googles for evolution site:[name of creationist site] and picks random things from the first few results. From there on, I don't know. *shrugs helplessly* --Sid 3050 07:33, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

"Warning by Conservative for changing Speed of light".[edit]

From your potted biog. You is my hero. But how the hell did you do it, and what speed is it now?

*chuckles* Thanks! The action basically happened on cp:Talk:Speed of light. *checks that page* Actually, the entire page there is about this issue.
Long story short, it was about the "starlight problem" (it has been confirmed that that Andromeda Galaxy is 2.5 million light years away, but that clashes with the whole Young Earth gig) and the YEC explanation attempt that the speed of light is "decaying" (so it had been MUCH faster before and is now slowing down). The whole thing had been sourced with outdated AiG pages, and I eventually convinced him that "c decay" was not the officially endorsed position by creationists anymore (using AiG sources, even). Check the earlier versions of that article from that timeframe to see the revisions it went through. --Sid 3050 15:44, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Happy Easter![edit]

Happy Easter to you, Sid!

The eleven disciples went to the hill in Galilee where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him, Jesus drew near and said to them, "I have been given all authority in heaven and on earth. Go, then, to all peoples everywhere and make them my disciples: baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and teach them to obey everything I have commanded you. And I will be with you always, to the end of the age." Matthew 28
Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right. You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, telling the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all. You know what has happened throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached— how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him. “We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” —Acts 10:34-43 NIV

--~ TK MyTalk 04:55, 8 April 2007 (EDT)


Thanks for moving my comments at cp:Definition of evolution to the talk page. An oversight on my part. WhatIsG0ing0n 12:17, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

No problem, happened to me often enough. :) --Sid 3050 12:19, 8 April 2007 (EDT)


Thanks for the note, I'll go fix that. And by the way, I just read cp:User:Sid 3050/Popularity of Evolution, and was so glad that you actually took the time to document it! Talk to you later (get on IRC), --Hojimachongtalk 20:48, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

  • More meetings of the Cabal..... --~ TK MyTalk 02:13, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
TK, either explain your apparent paranoia or stop posting cryptic nonsense on my Talk page. --Sid 3050 06:55, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I have no paranoia, Sid. What is wrong with the openness and transparency of the talk pages here? I do know that some people stop talking in IRC when others appear, so maybe that just makes it "look" worse than it is, lol. ;-) If you don't want others posting here, you can always lock it, like Conservative. If I wasn't hitting a sore spot, you wouldn't have responded as you did, eh? --~ TK MyTalk 07:26, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Nothing is wrong with the openness of the Talk page. I just chatted for a few minutes with Hoji and helped him to upload a file, so I ask you again: Why do you suddenly start babbling about a cabal?
And no, I can't lock my Talk page. Nobody (except for sysops) can lock anything. Not that I want to do that. Unlike Conservative (and you), I don't believe that locking stuff makes the problems go away. Besides, even if I did lock it, you could still pester me.
I'm reacting the way I do because you're an annoyance that's polluting my Talk pages with baseless paranoia. You don't even understand some of the very basics of this wiki and still insist to butt in everywhere. And when people point out that you're totally wrong, you demand that they sacrifice time to explain things to you.
Now, here's a pointer: DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH. We are not your nannies. It's not our job to tell a sysop how to do BASIC things like moving an article or how to figure out where to place Talk page archives.
You don't show the tiniest bit of thankfulness to people who have less power than you. I should've figured it out the day I wasted lots of time to explain the <ref> tag (back in cp:Talk:USA Today) to you. --Sid 3050 07:46, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Tell me: Did your face turn red, and did you stomp your foot when typing the above? You make it my fault that someone made me a Sysop, and not you, I get that. But dude, why do you go around blaming me? And why are you always so nasty tempered and mean spirited? If the place bothers you that much, at least have the integrity to quit. --~ TK MyTalk 07:52, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*laughs* Like I told Horace: I wouldn't want to be a sysop. I don't think I'd be the right guy for the job when it came to banning vandals. And no, my face didn't turn red or anything. Actually, I smiled. It's fun to poke you.
The thing isn't that Andy made you a sysop (even though I always frowned at the "Make an editor a sysop based on content alone" thing). It's (1) that you don't bother to read up how to utilize your various powers the best way and (2) that Andy doesn't react to any criticism. At all. Not just in your case. Also in Conservative's case. Or in Richard's case. Or in Karajou's case (which ended with the complaining user being banned). Or in cases about site policy.
A part of me wants to quit. Honestly. Two parts hold me back, though: The part that thinks that it's worth the stress if it makes things better for other editors. And the part that simply enjoys the open chaos that erupts in every corner nowadays (and that I often enough predicted). --Sid 3050 08:07, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Been nice knowing you[edit]

I wonder how much longer either of us will be allowed around here.[2] --Scott 07:39, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, I figure it won't take long before we (or either of us) get booted out for... whatever Andy thinks is a rule by then. Maybe I'll get an "explanation" like "This is a private site, and you only were allowed to post because of Andy's generosity. Not anymore!" --Sid 3050 07:47, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Finding your voice[edit]

Covey talks about finding your voice and helping others to find theirs. Perhaps you've heard of his bestseller cp:The Seven Habits of Highly Successful People.

Many of your comments are useful, and I try to incorporate them. But I have to run them through a filter first, and this takes time and energy that some others aren't willing to invest. I'm the kind of guy who will even listen to a bum on the street insulting my appearance - "Hey, stupid, your tie looks like *#^!" - if I'm on my way to an important meeting like a job interview.

Did you have to run that through a filter? (Or, worse, are you getting ready to criticize me for criticizing you? ;-)

  • you are so blinded [by] my "merits" that you ignore all criticism.

Maybe the glaring light that blinds some of us here is the critical attitude - not the critiques themselves. Please consider ways to get your suggestions across more effectively. --Ed Poor 07:43, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I've tried many ways. I'm a very civil person most of the time, and I beg you to check my earlier edits. In the month I've been here, I tried to be friendly and polite. But every time I touched an issue that went against Andy's "The site is perfect! I'm doing perfect edits!" view, things went bad.
I know my tone is harsh. But it's only become harsh because all prior diplomacy failed. And worse, Andy openly shows that unfriendly behavior is something good. Look at the way he defended Richard, Conservative, and whoever else people (and other sysops) complained about. It's a case of "Monkey see, monkey do" in a way. Sysops are the standard regular users should try to follow. And some of the most prominent sysops showed and show that it's okay to push your own view and to drop all nice-guy manners.
I think that most of my initial posts are as reasonable as possible (the site has serious issues - I can't pack that into a cuddly-nice "You are so awesome" post with pink frills). Things just get out of hand when some sysop chimes in with an "I haven't read or understood your post, but I can tell you that you are wrong because we are right. And anyway, this isn't Wikipedia, so there." reply. And that happens all the time (except for the cases where I get flat out ignored).
I admit that sometimes, the initial post is fueled by aggravation. That's a bad thing, and I try to tone it down. But I beg you to understand that this aggravation is based on a month of being pushed down or ignored (and sometimes by the fact that the most aggravating things happen after 3am local time...).
Seriously, though. Look back at some of my edits when you got a free minute. Look at my stress in cp:Origin of the Moon, cp:Nobel Prize, cp:Speed of light, and cp:Wikipedia. It's getting to me... Despite all the aggravation, I honestly try to keep things at a halfway good level; but sometimes I fail, even in the initial posts. --Sid 3050 08:00, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Dude, seriously, your tone is like way harsh. Take a chill pill.
You gotta avoid rhetoric like you're an annoyance & baseless paranoia. --Ed Poor 08:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
  • my face didn't turn red or anything. Actually, I smiled. It's fun to poke you.

Wrong kind of fun, in the wrong place. You can do that on IRC all you want - but not here, okay?

Think it over, come back, and help the project. I like having you around. --Ed Poor 08:18, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

  • the site has serious issues - I can't pack that into a cuddly-nice "You are so awesome" post with pink frills

Now that was an excellent criticism. I'm glad I sifted through the dust to find this gem. More like this one, please! :-) --Ed Poor 08:20, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I feel like writing many paragraphs about what just happened in the last 14+x minutes, but I figure it would be a total waste of time. I should've realized it long ago, but thanks for driving the message home by holding out one hand while reaching for the ban-stick with the other one.
So I'll just limit my reply to three words: Go away, Ed. --Sid 3050 08:31, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
  • That wasn't nice.....while I was in meetings, Ed blocked you, most likely as a means for cutting me off from doing so, Sid. Believe me, when I next block you, it won't be short, and you'll need lots of socks, lol.  ;-) --~ TK MyTalk 12:42, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
  • ROFL! Judgement Day is at hand. --~ TK MyTalk 12:49, 9 April 2007 (EDT)


Sarcasm is not "only okay when being directed at non-conservative views". What you said on the Talk:Theory of Evolution page was ridiculous and completely non-productive (not to mention false). Kind regards, Ratso 13:01, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Trust me, it is. Look at the sarcasm other editors or sysops get away with. But please tell me how it was "false". I backed up my statement with sources, I expect you to do the same. And do enlighten me how to be "productive", now that the article is effectively in stasis. My comment is the result of WEEKS of issues, and the decision by the Panel is a catastrophe. --Sid 3050 13:04, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy's answer[edit]

apparently we should not question sysop's decisions--we are here to work. I don't think this makes much sense, but okay. Flippin 13:18, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

  1. Disagree: If you don't understand, ask.
  2. Agree: we are here to work, so please write lots of timely, hard-hitting, valuable and verifiable articles. --Ed Poor 13:21, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Ed, Sysop Abuse page, PLEASE. People are getting banned left and right at the moment for ASKING QUESTIONS. --Sid 3050 13:23, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
So we gotta boost our "ratio"? Sounds a bit like "leveling up" I know from RPGs... *snickers* --Sid 3050 13:19, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

There's your answer.[edit]

Wow, and all he did was ask why people are getting banned left and right for having civil debate over guidelines and procedures. Flippin 13:26, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

OOOOO! You're in trouble!!![edit]

TKs got youre number, commie.--PalMDtalk 17:38, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I wouldn't worry, TK should be banned shortly, based on the new 90/10 rule. Check TKs contribs - well over 90% talk, virtually no genuine editing of articles. Human 20:15, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
It would be a pity if TK got banned just because of the weird 90/10 rule. But regardless of reason, I'd welcome it. --Sid 3050 20:30, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
That would be the very definition of "poetic justice."--Dave3172 22:28, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Indeed. But, I am still here. Where is Sid? I keep looking for him.....don't see him anywhere! And, FYI, the rule says "may be blocked" not will be. Lack of reading skills must account for some of you doing the edits you do. And, by the way, your math stinks. --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 23:34, 16 April 2007 (EDT)



Copy of what I posted over there on talk: "Nice work Sid! Now to 1. get rid of the redundant entries and 2. move some of the "uncategorized" UXBs into categories... I am wondering if the redundancies are some sort of glitch, because the one I made I surely only put in "politics". I am glad the the categories start off with Christianity, CP activism, and Creationism, as those surely are the foci of this wiki. What is scary is the number of non-conforming use boxes that pepper the other categories." Human 20:14, 13 April 2007 (EDT)


[3] Ulysses 09:03, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

You've got guts, I'll admit that. I'm no Bible expert, so I won't be much help on the technical side (and I'm about to head out for a bit). You got my support on the issue of his stubbornness, but thanks to Conservapedia's habit of not separating "editor" and "sysop", the head-on approach is not the best way.
I don't have the previous exchange in memory, but the best thing would be to (re-)find good sources and present your case in a concise fashion. If that doesn't work, maybe alert one or two friendly sysops (read: not the ones who post taunts and snide remarks all the time) to the matter and request their opinion on the matter.
Like you most likely know, I got banned (twice) over this; and while I wouldn't hesitate to jump back in, I think it's been proven that confrontation is bound to lead to escalation. So try to just present your evidence and request more powerful backup if it doesn't work. I'll keep an eye on this once I come back, but at the end of the day, I'm just a regular user, so I won't be able to directly do much in this case. --Sid 3050 09:42, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
I am happy to report that the ta-faction seems to have won an apparent victory in the epic War of the Greek Definite Article. AKjeldsen 13:00, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

The "Defective" template[edit]

I got your e-mail message about the "defective" template. I suspected as much, actually, but didn't spend the time investigating. The template is not being used currently, and perhaps should be deleted, but I might actually fix it instead, particularly since you've done the hard part of working out/explaining what's wrong. Tomorrow night, if I don't forget. Philip J. Rayment 11:36, 23 April 2007 (EDT)