User talk:TK/Archives2

I'm curious

At Conservapedia Talk:Sysops you wrote:

*The "problem" with this entire topic is its false premise. To my certain knowledge Andy has absolutely no desire to compete with, or be like Wikipedia. Some of you are always missing this point. They are not our "competition" for they make no attempt whatsoever to be what we are. And, conversely, most of us here couldn't care two cents for changing to be like them. I like concise. If I wanted complete (and mostly needless) detail, I would go to a library, not some online wiki. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 08:32, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

I replied but perhaps it got lost in the archiving. I am curious about a possible answer. This is what I wrote:

Pepsi-Cola is an alternative to Coca-Cola. They compete for customers. Conservapedia is an alternative to Wikipedia they compete for...?

• Andy Schlafly says the new site is an alternative to Wikipedia and what he deems to be a liberal bias.

• The site describes itself as "a much-needed alternative to Wikipedia, which is increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American."

• The founders of Conservapedia.com say their site offers a "much-needed alternative" to Wikipedia, which they say is "increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American".
  "It is rapidly becoming one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind," he [Mr Schlafly] said.

• Googling produces more of the same.

Surely something conceived as an alternative to something else is in competition with it?

WhatIsG0ing0n 04:20, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

I hope I am grasping your premise here.....

An alternative is always competition? I don't know the answer to that, but my gut tells me no. I do know that in order to compare two entities I wouldn't start by comparing Apples to Oranges. Both fruits to be sure, but totally different. Wikipedia is a decade or more older than CP. WP bills itself all the things it bills itself as. CP is new, started by kids, and most certainly not attempting to be neutral, or present a "world view". This is like comparing wanting to be neutral and wanting to be fair. Similar, but not exactly the same. My Prius is an alternative to my SL55. Do they "compete"?

Am I on the right track here, for what you are looking for? --TK_/MyTalk 05:12, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

Without knowing that much about economy, I'd say that it's only true competition if use of one service or merchandise excludes use of the other, using the same resources. For instance, if you have two bucks and want to buy a soft drink, you have to choose whether to spend them on e.g. a Coke or a Pepsi, so those two companies are competitors. But except for time, there's nothing that prevents a user from using both Conservapedia and Wikipedia at the same time, so those two are not really competitors in the exact sense. Of course, they can still be "competing" in a broader sense, such as on who has the most members, or which one is regarded as the "best" Wiki, or what have you. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 05:30, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

I think it's not a simple black and white issue.

WP doesn't really seem to give a damn who goes where. They have users supply information for other users, and the concept took off. They don't really compete with anybody else (and let's face it, there isn't really much WP could seriously call competition unless you look at professional encyclopedias like Britannica). They do try to get better on their own, though.

Andy on the other hand doesn't seem to want people to use WP because of "liberal bias" and "pornography". Why else all the remarks on how WP fails and such? Andy competes with WP, primarily in terms of reputation and (in the long run) for visitors. And he seems to target the user group in the school-related sectors (students, teachers, etc.). So it's a somewhat limited competition, but it still is competition.

You also have to keep in mind that few people will actually visit two wikis to kick off their research. I think most people will start on one wiki and then link-hop to the sources or to other entries on that wiki. And in most cases, that wiki will be WP. Heck, even the sysops often enough check WP. See Conservative's obsession with WP's most visited articles (which instantly become CP's priority projects, at least in his view), PJR checking WP for info on that plane hijacking thing, and so on.

An important key word is "opportunity cost": You maybe don't pay actual money when checking two wikis, but the extra time you invest counts just as much. In the time you look up the same entry elsewhere, you could do something more fun or more productive. The more common (and somewhat extreme) example to highlight the cost aspect is that you could use the time doing paid work.

Oh, and Wikipedia opened in 2001. That makes it a bit older than six years. And the age is an Apples/Oranges thing, too. Back in 2001, most likely few people had faith in or experience with the wiki concept. Nowadays, tons of people from the entire world can jumpstart a wiki project. Just look at CP's visitor boost once CP hit the blogs/news. So WP's age can't be directly compared to CP's age, no matter what some people might claim. Not even to mention the major technical development that happened while WP grew (and which new wikis like CP can take for granted). --Sid 06:12, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

• I would have supposed if he was asking Sid, he would have posted on Sid's page, lol. --TK_/MyTalk 22:57, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

“”I do know that in order to compare two entities I wouldn't start by comparing Apples to Oranges.

What is the difference between an apple? Heart♥Gold ^tx 23:57, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

Orange you glad you asked? human^{be in} 09:57, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

Oranges are soft, pulpy and citrus, thick skins. Apples are more solid, thin skins. One keeps months, the other is perishable. --Ë. 04:12, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

Conservapedia Talk Page

On your conservapedia talk page, which is supposed to be YOUR castle, Andy deleted a huge section of your talk page. Andy said that any body who messes with another's castle will be banned. Don't you think Andy is being a little hypocritical here? He is basically speaking for you when he deleted the section. AmesG and I both stuck up for you reverting Andy's deletion and putting it back up on your talk page. We figured if you didn't want it on your talk page you could delete. So I do have one favor to ask, which is, could you please revert Andy's edits. It is your castle after all. ¿ Sta’le ? 00:32, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

Channeling

Does anyone else think TK is channeling this man?

No, I think he's mostly just a sad, lonely man looking for an outlet for his aggressions, whether that be by banning people there or acting like a douchebag here. Really, he must be a liberal, because he wants attention so much. Andy says that's what they're like, y'know. And before he comes and says he's happy as a clam, I meant 'sad' in the sense of 'pathetic'. This is honestly how he comes across by his communication 'style'. MyaR 17:53, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

Yo

Remember me?--AutoFire 19:57, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

Well, hello Dean! Glad you managed to get all set up with all those user boxes and what not so quickly! Enjoy RW, pull up a goat, and have some fun. I knew when I suggested it, this was the place for you, dude! :D --TK_/MyTalk 20:08, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

Now on my userpage:

This user is real, but TK thought s/he was someone's sock.

--AutoFire 21:22, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

Gee, seems you should be thanking me for steering you here, not making insulting UBX's. Oh well. :D --TK_/MyTalk 01:25, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

I'm Dean, you paranoid, intolerent, arrogant ignorant and reactionary jackass. Please try to remember that there are lots of people on the internets. Confusing for you, I guess, since we all 'seem' to be coming out of your moniter, but if you work at it perhaps you can figure it out eventually. This place needs a new user box for people you block on CP and then assume they are someone else here-- they could go on forver though. You should go back to your doc and get you meds adjusted. They are clearly all out of whack.

I'm Curious

For background see User_talk:TK/Archives2.

Conservative seems to think that "we [Conservapedia] nonetheless are competing with Wikipedia for peoples attention." It also seems he doesn't hold CP in high regard either. He also thinks "that uncited articles are a waste of bandwidth" which is a lot of CP. [1]

The Conservapedia Guidlines note that "Sysop's and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed. Failure to do so will result in the user being blocked." in particular Conservapedia policy, since Conservative is a sysop his instructions...as to Conservapedia policy are to be followed which means CP is officially competing with Wikipedia for peoples attention.

WhatIsG0ing0n 04:27, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Someone should tell Conservative that cites to CreationWiki and AnswersInGenesis don't count. --Stevo 05:06, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Why are the article numbers inflated on Cp? The Cp stats page says 10,700-ish articles, despite the 13,000 mark. [2] Sterile 10:36, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Cause Andy counts redirects and articles that are only a few words long. The Wiki software doesn't consider that "legitimate content" but CP considers it the PREFERRED kind of content.

Now I'm confused

Did someone swipe TK's account? Because I could have sworn he was Leaving and Never Coming Back. --Gulik 16:20, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Pssst, TK, it's spelled pedophiles. People might give you more satisfaction if you spelled your insults correctly. MyaR 16:26, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Oi, fuckhead!

18:19, 21 June 2007, TK (Talk | contribs) blocked Robledo (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked)

Your user name or IP address has been blocked.

The block was made by TK. The reason given is '.

You can contact TK or another administrator to discuss the block. You cannot use the 'email this user' feature unless a valid email address is specified in your account preferences. Your current IP address is 81.107.25.24, and the block ID is #10315. Please include either or both of these in any queries.

Care to shed some light on this beyond the currently stated reason of " ' "? --Robledo 11:15, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

The unstated reason behind it all: he is a frustrated bully who has found a safe outlet.^{— Unsigned, by: 70.160.54.137 / talk / contribs}

I live in Pennsylvania, it is a "right to work" state. That means that I do not have to be forced to join a union in order to obtain employment. However it also means that I can be fired from a job for ANY reason or even "no" reason (though for purposes of unemployment compensation, "no reason" will allow me to collect unemployment insurance, which the company involved will be forced to pay.

Your block Robledo, is of the "no reason" category. The reason though, is, you got in Aschlafly's face, point-by-point explaining why "any publicity" isn't "good publicity". This is a "protect the boss" block to ensure no (more) bad news gets put in front of him. I'm guessing it upset him to see your post on the main page talk page. One imagines a sort of, "What a band of loathsome vipers I have nursed in my bosom who will let their lord be insulted by this low-born cleric!" might have spilled from the keyboard of good King Aschlafly.
Kudos, BYW, it was a nice piece. Were it a different place or a different time, you'd still be there busily editing but neither though should you be overly surprised. ~~ CЯacke® 15:50, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

On a related note

PassingFancy was a two time loser. She had the nerve to fix a double redirect which Schlafly in a pique of CP's "policy" of ABF (Assume Bad Faith), blocks her for two hours. 20:34, 17 June 2007 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) blocked "PassingFancy (contribs)" with an expiry time of 2 hours (apparently vandalism in sole edit)

This first block was reason enough for TK to permablock the poor girl for copyediting. He reverted edits by another user and saw in the difference "inclusions of fantasy" to base his blocking decision upon. (Brilliant, huh?)

The only problem with that, of course, is that TK is incompetent. The girl's contributions show that her edit was actually, (simply) this.

After three months being a sysop the "I don't know how to work this new-fangled wiki like you smart people" don't wash.

And I'm done with you Terry...do not email me nor AIM me, I will be civil on irc but don't expect chit-chat, I have no more words for you.

CЯacke® 11:42, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Charles_Darwin&diff=next&oldid=203230 There is her "true" edit. You seem, to be mistaken, Rob. Maybe you just didn't click to other versions enough, or maybe you relied on somone else's information, TK is a dick, but here one can see the large portion of text that differs from edit to edit. --Ë. 11:58, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

No that was not an edit she made, check her contribs, or the history of the article. Tmtoulouse 12:02, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

It looks like that edit was made by JohntheApostle, whoever that is. --Kels 12:03, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Seems odd people here would be attacking/criticizing one of our users for something done on another wiki.....can someone fill me in on why? This usually doesn't happen other places. Wouldn't someone who was unfairly blocked, mistakenly blocked, write in at least? Anyway it seems a rather large block of text changed, and from the user creation log, there seem to be several variations on "Fancy", "PassingFancy" accounts created, and on CP they don't seem to allow that, officially, or am I mistaken? --Ë. 12:12, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

I don't think its really that odd at all. Essentially an account that had ONLY made a few copy editing fixes was banned, and the only reason given for the ban was to an edit the account HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH. Tmtoulouse 12:17, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Not odd? Can you name some board or wiki (other than this one apparently), where someone's posts/actions elsewhere are allowed to be brought up or argued? No skin off my nose if you guys want to argue with TK all night, but it is odd, you holding him accountable here, for something not done here. IMO. Now since this appears to be a sore spot with some of you, I am butting the hell out! --Ë. 12:23, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Sure one comes to mind right away, as well as others. Tmtoulouse 12:25, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Some lurker is spoofing me at CP...just to keep the air clear, it ain't me...I concentrate my efforts here.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 13:16, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

That was TK. He ran out of real people to ban, so he created a few sock accounts so he could get his banning "fix". LOL.

How were those edits vandalism, again? --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 13:29, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Well, we _can't_ hold him accountable on CP, since he's a lord and we're outcast serfs, so here's what we've got. --Gulik 13:42, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Pay attention

HAHAHAH! Decide who it was that blocked you! Hi, Will! Have a great weekend! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 20:39, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

Hey, Jerk. WatchandLearn vs WatchandLearn2. Both Me. I spelled that out before. DeanS and Techwriter64. Also both me and not anyone else. Get it? Claro? Probably not. I tried to make it clear and obvious. Pretend there are dozens of separate and unrelated people on the internets -- maybe even hundreds. Oh I forgot, you've O.D.ed on Ashfly's Hate-flavored Kool-aid. You're not thinknig clearly. 70.160.54.137 19:20, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

TK, FYI, an RW admin blocked and warned the previous contributor for the above post, which was (correctly, IMO) viewed as a personal attack. Heart♥Gold ^tx 19:49, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Undelete my account

TK, since you're an expert at conflict resolution, could you arrange to have me unblocked at CP? I have decided to try again for a sysopship there, now that I have one here. Heart♥Gold ^tx 19:33, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Beware Lord Acton's maxim Hearto'; look what it's done to the poor owner of this talk page. ~~ CЯacke® 19:35, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Two sysopships? The POWER, it FLOWS through me! XP Trashbat 19:38, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Cracker, I am not bright enough to catch your drift. Trashbot, I am power hungry, I guess. Heart♥Gold ^tx 19:40, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Go for it if you can HG, you've been a good contributer on both sites and you'd make a good sysop over there. You'd have your work cut out if you're to block as many of my socks as Karajou though...XD Trashbat 19:48, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

I would be worried about the stability of the universe actually............but I guess Hoji wields both the light and the dark side in him............seems dangerous to me though. Tmtoulouse 19:43, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Who is Hoji? Did you mean HG? Heart♥Gold ^tx 19:47, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Hojimachong, but the dark side has grown strong in him (I.E. he spends to much time at CP). Tmtoulouse 19:53, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Actaully, I retract my request, at least for now, TK. I just spent some time looking around CP, and I don't think I will be able to be useful there. Heart♥Gold ^tx 20:20, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Whats that supposed to mean? Bohdan 20:29, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

In my absence, I forgot about many of the problems that caused me to leave CP in the first place. I took some time to recollect those problems. I don't think CP is viable, and do not think the captain of that ship is heading in the right direction. (It is his ship, though). Heart♥Gold ^tx 20:34, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

I think CP is heading in the right direction. Bohdan 20:38, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Have you ever studied cognitive dissonance much Bohdan? Tmtoulouse 20:41, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Or the maiden voyage of the Titanic? human^{be in} 20:48, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

No, but I have studied the effects of being a Liberal. Ha ha haBohdan 20:44, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

I think if you explore the concepts of cognitive dissonance you will find that you may not be very objective in regards to CP. I would be happy to discuss it in depth if you like. Tmtoulouse 20:46, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Just for fun, lets go for it. And don't hold back. Bohdan 20:48, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

The idea behind cognitive dissonance in this case has to do with your return for your work. Writing at conservapedia is a pretty thankless task, and it can not be really that fun. Maybe blocking vandals here and there can have its excitement but you are being denied all the fun parts of editing a wiki, such as community interaction. Because it is a somewhat tedious task, and your reward is very limited you experience dissonance over the fact that you are doing something you don't like doing, but your not getting reward. There are two solutions, stop doing it, or come up with a better reward. People often chose the second choice, you convince yourself you are involved in something a lot more fun and a lot more important than you really are. You MUST believe CP is headed in the right direction because if it is not you have wasted countless hours of time and countless amounts of your own personal effort. Check out the famous Festinger and Carlsmith's experiment here. Tmtoulouse 21:00, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

"but you are being denied all the fun parts of editing a wiki, such as community interaction" thats not correct. There is community interaction on Cp. Bohdan 21:03, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Yes, you revert an edit to take care of a redundancy and get your head chewed off. Interaction is FUN! ~~ CЯacke® 21:18, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

*reads the talk page there* ...wow. Looks like Bohdan may become a true RW member (disgruntled, disillusioned, banned, two out of three suffices) sooner than anybody expected... --Sid 21:22, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Trust me, I will never be a true Ratwiki user. Bohdan 21:24, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Hehe, too late! Your presence and participation have become a definitional aspect of this site! You are a true RatWanker whether you like it or not! human^{be in} 21:28, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

That's what they all say before they get stripped of their rights and/or banned overnight for some random reason. Do you think the victims of the Night of the Blunt Knives had been disgruntled or disillusioned before they got banned? Some may have been, but from what I remember, several of them had been pretty much pro-CP before they got eliminated. Or did you tell yourself that you being threatened by TK there for no good reason is a Good Thing? --Sid 21:32, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Trust me, they were not "pro-CP" Bohdan 21:34, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Trust me, chances are GREAT you're wrong. Please tell me what you base your claim on. I don't trust your simple word, at least not in this case. Heck, in one case, you have basically been proven wrong already: User:Leopeo got unbanned again because his/her block had been a mistake. That user got banned during the Night of the Blunt Knives and only got unbanned nine days later (way outside the usual "blocking admin realized he simply made a wrong click" window), most likely after Geo reviewed the case. --Sid 21:46, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

If you don't know what I am talking about, its no use explaining. Bohdan 21:52, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Uh, wouldn't that be the ONLY time its worth explaing? Tmtoulouse 21:53, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

I misspoke. If he doesn't already know, then I don't want to explain. Bohdan 21:58, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Why does this sound suspiciously like a "We defined them as anti-CP, therefore they were" in-crowd reference? --Kels 22:00, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

I would've interpreted it as "I actually have no idea, so I need to bluff", but I like your interpretation, too! --Sid 22:02, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Actually, reading that back, maybe I should amend "I don't want to say the real reason because Andy/TK/Karajou/whoever will see it and I may suffer consequences/lose my position of privilege/face criticism", but I dunno for sure. --Kels 22:06, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Thats not the reason. Bohdan 22:08, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Well, TK said we were, and he's known not to be a liar, and he's an expert in communication and conflict resolution. --jtl^talk 22:03, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

I can't take this. Can't you debate without using personal insults?

Bohdan 22:19, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Umm, where do you see an insult? Just curious. CЯacke®

Its there. Look harder. Bohdan 23:28, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

grate,noe my eyesballs have exploded. ~ CЯacke® 23:33, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Quoting TK's self-descriptions is a personal insult? --jtl^talk 22:54, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Warnings, bannings, 90/10 complaints, Conservative hissy fits, and RobS conspiracy theories do not make a community...but okay. Your a big boy, you make your own choices. Tmtoulouse 21:16, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Thats it? I thought we were going in depth. Bohdan 21:18, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

There are a number of problems with this, not the least of them being:

I don't, nor have ever, expected a reward for the countless hours i have given to the developement of Cp

i have, unexcpectedly, received praise for my efforts

The purpose of my efforts is to spread knowledge, and that is being accomplished

by heading the right direction, I mean CP is not becoming like wikipedia, with a liberal biasBohdan 21:31, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Eh I charge by the hour for much more than this............but you pretty much described the situation, you get no external reward for your hard work, therefore the only justification you can have for it is internal reward generated by the idea that CP actually means something and is going somewhere. Therefore, you are incapable of objectively assessing CP, to do so would risk your mental homeostasis. QED. Tmtoulouse 21:37, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Wait, your not billing me for the time before, are you? Bohdan 21:40, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Nah Bohdan, my services are free of charge for you. Just don't expect me to fully apply myself! Tmtoulouse 21:46, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

When you talked about cognitive dissonance, I thought you meant things like TK talking about openness and accountability on one hand, while doing just the opposite on the other, or Ed Poor telling people that CP sysops don't bully in a message essentially telling an editor they have no rights and they'd better shut the hell up before they get blocked. Saying one thing and doing another, while convincing themselves that it's all just peachy keen and reconciled. --Kels 21:41, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Thats more delusion and projection, and a lot more complicated to parce out than cognitive dissonance which as a real specific meaning on cognitive psychology and cognitive behavioral therapy. Tmtoulouse 21:46, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Okay, I get that now. I only got to second year psych before the university priced itself out of my range, so a lot of what I have beyond that level is from personal interest, so I have a few gaps. --Kels 21:57, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Welcome back

Welcome back TK. Heart♥Gold ^tx 00:17, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Yes, Welcome to the Dollhouse! I hope your stay here will be productive, and that we will all learn from your edits. Remember, we do not read, we Write! human^{be in} 01:39, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Sysop Abuse/Mocking

Is there some Community Guideline I have missed about that?

While talk pages are deemed undeletable, I don't see anything about Sysops abusing their "powers" to edit/update a users talk page. Would the so-called "fair" offenders stop? --TK_/MyTalk 14:05, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

I thought you were leaving? --Gulik 14:57, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

• Wishful thinking? Deliberate, non-intellectual extrapolated assumptions based upon a comment made by me that I would no longer be participating in community "votes", discussions because they are rigged, like at other sites? Deliberate distortions are anti-intellectual and supposedly what this community hates. Odd so many here given the power to abuse do so much of it, eh? Maybe, Gulik, you should spend more time doing whatever it is you do, and less time being concerned with who comes and goes to a site that supposedly welcomes all. --TK_/MyTalk 15:02, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

What did somebody do? Diff link, please... I'm eternally curious. human^{be in} 15:06, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Me, too. It's hard to know what to stop if we don't know what we're doing wrong. --jtl^talk 15:53, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

On your page: "Talk Pages/Articles are "Community Property" All transparent here!..."

What are you going on about? Are you saying nobody should be able to clean up crap left after page moves without posting RFC's first? --Stevo (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Ditto Stevo's comment. Basically, Tmt was removing extraneous "conservapedia" prefixes from articles in the CP namespace, and the deletions are the last step after fixing links. Oh, and can you put "nowiki" tags around that template? It makes thing a little confusing to read, and of course adds your user page to the "archived vandalism" categoy. Which is sort of funny, but probably unintentional on your part. human^{be in} 15:46, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

• Yes, double blanking, vandalism archives, all of that is indicative of pure motives and transparancy! I was wrong, and apologize! Good thing I can put anything there I want, even stuff that shows before being deleted from the DB! And for others who post here, I have no obligation to explain anything on my User page. --TK_/MyTalk 15:48, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

No, no obligation, unless you want to be taken seriously. But that ship's already sailed, hasn't it? --jtl^talk 15:53, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Can I just say TK that I am a fan of your 'screen dump' user pages, although I preferred this one --Stevo (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Oh yes, that was a classic. TK "caught" Linus & I trying to hide a few dozen articles from him. human^{be in} 16:25, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

• Yes, double blanking, removing vandalism archives/templates created, but never advertised, all of that is indicative of pure motives and transparancy! --TK_/MyTalk 16:02, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

But nothing was removed from the site, or hidden. Some filenames were improved. It's called wikihousekeeping. human^{be in} 16:23, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

• Call it whatever you like, Human, the fact that stuff is double blanked and unable to be seen by any but the admins, is what it is, lol. Like I said, I am sorry, obviously nothing untoward here, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all,nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all,......I love living in Stepford! It's a happy place! --TK_/MyTalk 16:33, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

LOL! I thought you were an active sysop on another wiki and knew how page moving/renaming worked? human^{be in} 16:37, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

• No. I don't do such deletes on my own idea, and am not in agreement with them being done anywhere, actually. Although I do adhere to the procedures there, here, or anywhere else I am a member, because thats just the right thing to do. I just dislike people claiming such things are not done, while criticizing other sites for doing it. --TK_/MyTalk 16:51, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Which of those do you want to look at? I'll undelete anything you like, at least long enough for you to satisfy yourself there's nothing there. --jtl^talk 16:40, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

• Unlocking after double, triple blanking, and moving across names, isn't at all a help, and doesn't dispel suspicisions. In order to avoid that, such items should rightfully be placed (in any community that really desires transparency) in some AFD page, where all could see what is proposed to be deleted. Then after community input, the sysops or bureaucrats would be free to accept the communities ideas, or not, as the case may be. Bureaucrats would still be free to manipulate the DB, same as they do other places, same as has been done here, most blatantly in the removal of all traces of RW 1.0, my own first membership here (self-requested and agreed to be me), etc. Failing all of that, to assume one is above all other members in integrity, a claim self-professed, by Admins, is in and of itself suspicious, removing items with little if any edit note info. Please note I was content with letting what I posted on my User page speak for itself, and had no desire to argue yet again, with the elite power structure here futilely about matters of openness. As I said on some other community page talk, I am done with all that, because the Admins here only want openness when it suits their purposes, or attacks CP. --TK_/MyTalk 16:51, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

For the record, the only pages I'm aware of which have been deleted on RW2 which had any actual content were: User:TK (the first version); Conservapedia:Edwin Meese III (Plagiarized Article) (since restored); Conservapedia:TK; User:Jtl/TKArchives1. One thing those all have in common: you were the one who wanted them gone, and I'm more than happy to restore them. You keep claiming other deletions and supposed db manipulations, but you either can't or won't provide any specifics. --jtl^talk 17:01, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

I've understood almost nothing TK has said in this section, but I think he just answered to my first question with a "Yes". Thanks --Stevo (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Such items should rightfully be placed (in any community that really desires transparency) in some AFD page, where all could see what is proposed to be deleted. Then after community input, the sysops or bureaucrats would be free to accept the communities ideas, or not, as the case may be. That clearer for you Stevo? --TK_/MyTalk 17:00, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Yes, that was one of the only bits I understood, which I think answers my question, apart from the fact that I can't see where you've defined "such items". --Stevo (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

For the record, the only pages I'm aware of which have been deleted on RW2 which had any actual content were: User:TK (the first version); Conservapedia:Edwin Meese III (Plagiarized Article) (since restored); Conservapedia:TK; User:Jtl/TKArchives1. One thing those all have in common: you were the one who wanted them gone, and I'm more than happy to restore them. You keep claiming other deletions and supposed db manipulations, but you either can't or won't provide any specifics. --jtl^talk 17:01, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Of course! And your narrow definition of "deleted" is a pathetic attempt to gloss over items "wiki-glitched" double and triple blanked, moved and remnamed, so as to make finding them nearly impossible, but accomplishing the same thing as being deleted. Please, Jtl, save us from the pious sermonizing and self-serving statements. We all know what you and other admins do here.--TK_/MyTalk 17:10, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

And there's another claim of "wiki-glitched" pages, with no specifics. If you have any actual claims to make, please do, otherwise people might think you're just making baseless charges. As to your difficulty finding pages, well, it's not our fault you still don't understand how MediaWiki works. If you'd ask actual questions about things you don't understand, maybe someone would help you. --jtl^talk 17:13, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

• Well you offered to "open" the articles in question, seems I did actually post specifics, no? And you read my answer. I understand what you do, how you do it, Jtl. Others do as well. Point is, if this place were indeed transparent, no questions would be needed, because nothing would ever be deleted without at least a weeks notice and it being on display for all to see. --TK_/MyTalk 17:25, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Talk pages are community property

What, if anything, are you trying to demonstrate with the 'Talk Pages are "Community Property"...' section on your user page? Not only are there no talk pages mentioned in any of those deletes, no actual content was lost in any of those deletes; most of them are cleaning up un-needed redirects following page renames. --jtl^talk 15:43, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Apology

I wish to apologize for whatever misconduct I may have committed on CP and for insulting you here.--AutoFire 15:39, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Yes, you are so pure of heart, you just post the way you do, making attacks (which are against the rules here too,only no one will block you as they do others) and carrying on, LOL. --TK/MyTalk 15:45, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Thank you AutoFire for that sincere and heartfelt apology. --TK_/MyTalk 16:04, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Ne pas nourriez!

Don't Feed the Troll!

--DoxXox^-DawkT0wk 17:04, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Are sysops allowed to make personal attacks, call names? And then have another abusive admin add the unsigned attribution? Keep going, you drive more people away with such silly and vindictive efforts! --TK_/MyTalk 17:06, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

DocSock isn't a sysop, and I don't see any personal attack or name-calling. Or do you think you're a troll? --jtl^talk 17:10, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

One, DocSock is not a sysop, two, it is an attributed comment that honestly says little about anyone in particular...just an old internets saying. Of course, one could make certain assumptions based on the context. Doc's friend doesnt like being accused of wandalism, unless its true.--DoxXox^-DawkT0wk 17:11, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

The history clearly shows Doc not attributing it, Jtl adding it, me removing Jtl's bail out, and then Doc adding the earlier lack of attribution. Clearly a case of Sysops working in tandem to gang up on a user and abuse them.

And if Doc isn't Palmd's sock, please have Trent post here saying he isn't after running check user. Fair enough? --TK_/MyTalk 17:14, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

PalMD is not a sysop. 24.141.169.255 17:16, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

I can confirm that PalMD is not a sysop.--DoxXox^-DawkT0wk 17:17, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

• Answering a question not asked. We all know DocSock is an invention of Palmd. As such, he should be blocked for at least one hour for posting an attack, without attribution, and using his sysop powers to protect his sock. And Admin should remove the vandalism here, an adjuct to his attack. --TK_/MyTalk 17:21, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

I'll use short words so you can understand. Palmd isn't a sysop. DocSock isn't a sysop. Unless you're claiming to be a troll, there was no personal attack. There was no vandalism to remove. --jtl^talk 17:25, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Once again, neither person in question is a sysop--and now for the personal comment--dumbass.--DoxXox^-DawkT0wk 17:26, 25 June 2007 (CDT)