User talk:Tim at aSK/Archives/1

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, Tim at aSK/Archives! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 22:08, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

Tim! Welcome!-- -PalMD ^{--Grüß Goat!} 22:09, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

Really? Veeeeeeeeeeery inttttterrrrrrrresting. 22:10, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

Welcome! Jumping ship?-αmεσ (pirate) 22:11, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

No

Don't expect me to be any help here. I totally disagree with most everything that goes on here. --CPAdmin1 22:12, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps, but you are one of the only voices of reason in an island of irrationality.-- -PalMD ^{--Grüß Goat!} 22:13, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

Name notwithstanding, RW has more than it's share of irrationality --CPAdmin1 22:14, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

Feel free to point out the irrationalityes in here, and we can have a good looong unproductive talk about it. No need to be helpful or productive here! Timppeli 22:21, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

Think of it as our own "10/90" rule. Rant, whisper, whatever you wish. Improve at will. Just don't go all TK on us.-- -PalMD ^{--Grüß Goat!} 22:24, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

(undent) "Don't expect me to be any help here. I totally disagree with most everything that goes on here." Then why take out an account? At the risk of seeming unwelcoming, I'm wondering: why bother? Well - at the very least I hope you are interested in some constructive dialogue about what goes on at CP - and at least you're pretty much guaranteed not to get banned here for not toeing the ideological line...maybe you can bring some of that spirit over to CP with you...PFoster 22:27, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

He is already using the spirit at CP. He's pretty much the only one.-- -PalMD ^{--Grüß Goat!} 22:32, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

I took out an account because I think that it may be useful at times to communicate with people here. I may engage in some (read: a very small amount) dialogue mostly defending Conservatism, Christianity, and CP. --CPAdmin1 23:51, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

I think Conservapedia is dead. It's now SchlaflyKaraouApedia... which is a n ugly place to be, no matter how you cut it.-αmεσ (pirate) 23:57, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

Also I'd love it if you call us out on irrationalities. I think the clash of ideas is pretty important, and I won't block you for insulting my imaginary friend. No matter what Bohdan says about my diligence as such, I'd be happy to be your debate partner.-αmεσ (pirate) 00:01, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Welcome the Dollhouse, Tim/CPAdmin1. Ditto most of what Ames has said. You could be as valuable to us as user:Lurker sometimes is. And our "current block" page still fits on one screen. I (we) am very proud of that. human 01:53, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

(undent) I'm a little curious, what do Conservatism and Christianity have to do with Andy's radical reactionary blog? --Kels 07:09, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

CP tries (or at least says it tries) to be from a conservative christian POV. As for my statement about defending CP christianity and conservatism, those are probably the 3 things that are attacked the most on here. --CPAdmin1 12:39, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Hey Tim, welcome here! Listen, I think I speak for all of us when I say that I don't mind the conservative or Christian bent on CP - fine, it's not me, but whatever. What I virulently object to is the suggestion - nay, promotion - of the idea that it is a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'. As one of the most intelligent and reasonable individuals over there, you must surely see that most many of your articles are filled with utter nonsense and when factual inaccuracies are pointed out, an editor is almost always banned? Andy really is writing and editing a blog, you know that, don't you? How else can you explain the impossibility of review and debate?

Personally, I would stop socking, wandalizing, and talk, talk, talk over there if you simply removed the suggestion that you were creating some kind of Encyclopedia. No unfortunate child should ever have to suffer an eduction via information provided on CP, but you are perfectly entitled to have a nice wiki where you discuss conservative and fundamentalist Christian ideas. DogP 13:00, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Hey!

I don't mind you blocking me at CP (I have grown used to it by now) but I resent being called a vandal. I have never been a vandal.

Also, next time be a man and respond to emails. --Horace 02:43, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Sorry about that, It is kind of a knee jerk reaction to call any RW sock a vandal. As for the email, at that point I was really busy, and trying to take a break from CP so I didn't want to get into it. --CPAdmin1 12:37, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Apology accepted. I regret that I have a thin skin in relation to some issues. By the way, I admired some of your recent comments on CP. You showed an admirable sense of independence. --Horace 18:37, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

CP, Christianity, and Conservatism

I'd like to know what CPAdmin1's take is on our treatment of the above three subjects. I am genuinely interested in reading his feedback. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 12:56, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Christianity

Me, I wouldn't call whatever the State Religion on CP is "Christianity", as it's got a depressingly small amount of Jesus' all-encompassing love and promise of salvation in it. What it DOES have is an overwhelming hostility towards homosexuals, scientists, and (of course) Liberals. As my spiritual guru the Rev. Ivan Stang would say, "They've got Jesus and the devil all mixed up!" How did their faith turn into such a terrible parody of itself? here's a charitable view, and here's a much-less charitable one. --SockOfGulik 17:41, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Oh yes, hostility towards scientists. Exactly. TmtamesP 17:43, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

C'mon, Bhod-- TmtamesP, do you really think CP isn't hostile to science?-- -PalMD ^{--Grüß Goat!} 17:46, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

To be honest, I don't think you even know what "science" is. TmtamesP 17:48, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Kindly enlighten us then, oh Great Sage Equal to Heaven. --SockOfGulik 17:50, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Medical doctors and paleontologists, at the very least. --SockOfGulik 17:46, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Now he's just fucking with us. He knows what science is.-- -PalMD ^{--Grüß Goat!} 17:53, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

To say CP is hostile towards science is idiotic and you know it. But go ahead, continue with your lunacy. Its entertaining. TmtamesP 17:55, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Thank you for your contribution, Tmtbodames. Don't forget to flush and close the wiki's lid when you're finished. --SockOfGulik 18:05, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

If you are truly being serious, and not just pushing my buttons, try reading the breast cancer talk page.!-- -PalMD ^{--Grüß Goat!} 17:57, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Conservatism

I wouldn't call wanting to turn our country into a Theocracy terribly "conservative". --SockOfGulik 17:52, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Mistake

This isn't a good place for rational debate, as you will soon find out (If you haven't already). TmtamesP 14:24, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

By all accounts, TmtamesP is wrong. CPAdmin is debating very rationally, against some not-so-rationalist attacks. I think that's exactly the point.

Also, congrats comrade Tim for fighting the good fight! --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

Yes, he is debating well, and yes the attacks are "not-so-rationalist". If he wants debate that is rational all around, he should go somewhere else. But debate here is futile anyway, this site represents an extreme fringe of society. TmtamesP 14:29, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

While I appreciate the attempts to cause 'lol drama', BohdAndersWedge, no u. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

Whatever, go drink your rw kool-aid. TmtamesP 14:32, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Nah, only water here. But thanks for the offer. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

Whatever serves the purpose and suites your fancy will work I guess. TmtamesP 14:42, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

It's not possible to have a Rational discussion about something as irrational as Religion. Susan^purrrrr 14:50, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

I don't see how religion is irrational. And before you start bashing religion, just remember that atheism is a religion too. --CPAdmin1 15:33, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Meh ... that's pushing it a little, but it's definitely a leap of faith to claim that there is no god. Even Dawkins admits that. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

No, it's not. Not any more than "bald' is a hair color or (to be mean) "good health" is a medical condition. --SockOfGulik 17:43, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

I do think it's possible; I think that's what does, or ought to, separate us from CP-αmεσ (pirate) 14:51, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Not when the ultimate argument is "Big Juju in the sky said/did it" it isn't. Susan^purrrrr 14:54, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

That rings of 'it's fine when we do it, but for them it's awful'. I'm sure that's not your meaning, but still. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

? (me no understand)

Well, it's as much a straw man of the argument as, well, just about most of Andy's words. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

Oh, god, here we go with the 'atheism is a religion' garbage. Atheism is the absence of religion. Susan is right, for better or for worse, religion is irrational. That's why we have the term faith. PoorEd 15:48, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Atheism is not the absence of religion. It is religion based on the belief that there is no god instead of the belief in a God or gods. --CPAdmin1 15:49, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

You just can't argue with such contortions. Susan^purrrrr 15:51, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Obviously. PoorEd 15:53, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

See my comment above, Tim - it's not really a religion, although it is based on a non-logically-supported judgement. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

A is more than just belief in a higher power. It is also a set of rules, values, and rituals. Could one say that they were Christian while completely disregarding the Ten Commandments or the teachings of the New Testament (+a few other books if you are from the Church of Latter Day Saints)? I don't believe that many would suggest that is the case. Therefore, it is necessary to include the set of rules and values along with the belief in a higher power to claim something is a religion.

If one modifies the 'belief in higher power' to 'belief or disbelief in higher power' in an attempt to include atheists in the definition of religion, one still has to define the rules and values that atheists live their life by. Here, you will have difficulty. Despite Andy trying to claim 'atheist values' you can easily find a good percentage of atheists who don't have that value and yet still should be considered atheists.

Likewise, one has to identify the rituals that atheists partake in. These are things such as going to church, saying a prayer before a meal, wearing sacred underwear, praying five times daily, baptism, stations of the cross, burnt offerings, spinning of prayer wheels, writing wishes on pieces of wood hanging them at an altar of a god or Buddha, drinking from a certain fountain, etc... These are things that range from the trivial to the must do in order to be considered a member of some faith. What are the things that an atheist must do?

So, if you argue that 'belief or disbelief in a higher power' allows atheists to be defined as a religion, you must either come up with that set of values, rules and rituals for the atheists - or - you must remove the rules, values and rituals from all other religions - that the 39 melachot is not integral to some branches of Judaism, or confession and Mass to being a Catholic, the pilgrimage to Mecca from Islam.

It is much easier to say that atheism is the absence of religion than it is to redefine religion to include atheism and thus remove crucial parts of a religion.

Belief alone in something does not make it a religion. --Shagie 16:24, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

In some ways, atheists do not set out their stall by saying "We don't believe in a God, that's the beginning and end of who we are". Instead, the very concept of God simply does not figure in their thoughts. It is believers who claim that Atheists are defined by a strict adherence to a set of views based fundamentally around disbelief in their Deity, yet if you asked most Atheists what they go around thinking every day, it would likely not be daily incantations of disbelief in a Deity. It's not a religion because active disbelief is not the point, it's simply not to see the point in believing. DogP 17:04, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Hm. Although they're probably far from the majority, there are certainly some atheists for whom the absence of God seems to play a disproportionately large role in their lives. Some of them seem to talk more about God than most Christians I know. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 19:19, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

You're not wrong AK. I find those types annoying, myself. DogP 20:05, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, they twist my chain, too. Anyone who says things like "I'm an atheist - let me explain why in terms of these Bible quotes..." is tiresome. But, I think it is often a way station, or part of the process, for people who are throwing off the myths they have been taught. I think, too, that some of those people get a bit stuck at that phase. It's a bit like RW obsessing over CP. human 20:44, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Without resorting to Aschlafly statistics, I would bet that most (96.23%) atheists would define themselves by saying "I do not believe in God" rather than "I believe there is no God". It is a clear difference that atheists have no trouble seeing but wackos like Andy can't differentiate. How he can ever do a course on critical thinking in math without seeing the difference just beggars belief. Genghis ^Marauding 19:01, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

I regard myself as an atheist because there is no evidence for the existence of gods. I don't quite see how that could be regarded as a religion.--Bob^{bing up} 14:50, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

I never understood what is meant to be gained by calling atheism a religion? When I hear or read that, I think it makes the religious person look worse off. The way it comes off to me is that their beliefs are just as ridiculous as mine. Is that what they mean? --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Tah-daaaaaaah!} 14:58, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Some (atheists and theists) see claiming there is no god as a claim of intellectual superiority. By saying that atheism is a belief and thus a religion it attempts to say that the atheists' claim as a belief is just as irrational or rational as a theists' claim of belief. Though, it would be interesting to see if Atheism was defined as a religion by the government - though it would irk many of the activist separation of church and state - it means that places that 'preach' atheism could get tax exempt status (like a church), and that donations to these organizations could be tax write offs, and that as a religion, it would be a protected class and so discrimination and hate speech laws would kick in too. That would be funny. --Shagie 15:09, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

I wonder how many atheists, when they think about it, would take the strong position and categorically say there is no possibility of the existence of any type of god? I would suspect that the majority would maintain there is no evidence for the existence of any god. A position which is a lot easier to defend then having to prove a negative, and avoids any kind of absolute statement. Any statistics on this?--Bob^{bing up} 15:16, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

This probably belongs on the "atheism" page, but anyway...So, let's talk about probability. If you have faith, then to you, the probability of God's existence=1. If you don't have faith, then you have to focus on real probabilities. Atheism at that point is not a belief like any other. Given that there is no tangible evidence of a god, the probability of his existence is low, but non-zero. That makes the prob. of no god very high; close to, but not quite, = 1. You cannot argue that both beliefs are equally probable/improbable.162.82.215.199 15:45, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

I agree absolutely. The probability of god's existence and the probability of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's existence are exactly the same. But I don't see why you say that "Atheism at that point is not a belief like any other." It's exactly the same as my belief in The incredible Hulk or Superman.--Bob^{bing up} 15:57, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

What i mean, amigo, is that atheism isn't faith, as such, but just a non-rejection of probabilities. Hulk/FSM/God require a rejection of probability in favor of faith.-- -PalMD ^{--Grüß Goat!} 17:13, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

You're an atheist, too

At least, towards about 99% of all the gods humanity has ever created in their own image. You're only one (or three) away from making that final step. (And if you can rationally choose not to believe in C'thulhu, Zeus, Ereshkigal, or Pele, why not finish the job and apply that same logic to Father, Son and Holy Ghost?) --SockOfGulik 17:47, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Actually your comment makes no sense. Atheism is not an attitude in relation to one particular god, but to all gods in general. Clever...Yes...Makes any sense in real life...No. --CPAdmin1 19:38, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Atheism is the attitude towards all gods in general that you hold towards most gods (that you consider fictional). Christianity is an "attitude" in relation to one particular god. I agree with your point above, but then isn't atheism differentiated from religion in that respect? Uchiha^KATON! 20:22, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

I think that it is a point that is difficult for most practicing christians, just as it is difficult for atheists to understand "faith". My failure to believe in God is no different psychologically than my failure to believe in Thor. It is not an active rejection of His message, I just don't happen to believe in (to me) fairy tales. That being said, I respect religious folks, just not those who practice hatred.-- -PalMD ^{--Grüß Goat!} 20:24, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Atheism is a disbelief in Jehovah, Coyote, Altjira, Vishnu, Allah, the bodhisattvas, etc... All of these deities are being worshiped in the world today. Why must one pick one (or some) to pay hommage to when the world that they see can be described quite well without? --Shagie 20:46, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Thank you

Thanks for sticking around. The discussion is lively and interesting. User:PalMD

I have a feeling you'll be joining us permanently, soon.

After all, coming here means you are now infected with Liberal Cooties, so I'm sure Andy's just looking for an excuse to give you the boot. Possibly this bit of treachery against your liege lord will be it? --SockOfGulik 18:03, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Not likely. In the event that I get the boot, I will not be joining here full time. CreationWiki would be more likely. --CPAdmin1 19:39, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

There was a time when people went to all lectures that were offered. Not just ones that reinforced their own preconceptions, but also those that challenged people to think in new ways or about things that they did not necessarily agree with. It is unfortunate that the only people who glance down the political shelves at the bookstore are those who already agree with what is written there. Preaching to the choir if you will. Just listening to one side of the argument is just as bad as only havening one side of the argument available (Communist China or Cuba? or Muslim Maldives?). Be glad that both sides are available to be heard and foster that freedom by listening and contributing. Not only to help yourself grow, but to challenge us and help us be exposed to something that isn't the party line. --Shagie 19:57, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

You should stay here. Its possible to have some fun, just make sure you stay away from the raving lunatics. TmtamesP 19:42, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

In that case your entire comment becomes a contradiction-- -PalMD ^{--Grüß Goat!} 19:59, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

I've always wondered...

Why is there a CPAdmin1, but no CPAdmin2, 3 or whatever? NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 02:31, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Only Tim knows. Why do ye ask such questions? Ye might just as well be concerned with the unladen flight speed of Swallows, be they African or European! human 03:50, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

I don't know...wait...AAAAAAAHHHHH...--CPAdmin1 17:39, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

The voice of reason?

Hi, CPA1...your edits on the Obama talk page re the image and on the classroom prayer talkpage re the definition of school prayer in an article about school prayer were refreshing, to say the least. Glad to see someone has the smarts and the stones to at least attempt to reel Andy in a bit...PFoster 23:07, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Thanks.

My sentiments exactly! (I didn't even notice your presence when I added the WIGO update...) It's a crying shame to see even idiots like Learn Together shoving you around by now. :(

You often make the right call (like with the Obama picture or with the "uncited" template and the following "burden of proof" discussion), but your problem is that the structure around you is against such common sense. It's not just LT or Croco. The entire hierarchy was built on the premise (1) that Andy promotes people he agrees with to sysop and (2) that the sysops are always right, even when they are horribly wrong. That's why you got the "We must discuss this via mail" idiocy, for example: You are not allowed to openly disagree with a fellow sysop. It endangers the very foundation of CP, as odd as it seems.

But please keep up the good work and don't let them shove you around too much; your opinions are always refreshing to read. :) --Sid 07:50, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Hey CPA1!

Hey CPA1. I just wanted to say that I really respect your attempts at dialogue here and calling out this wiki when you see stuff you disagree with. I hope most users share that respect although I guess like any group of people some will and some won't. I'm not here to debate you (I've debated Conservative Christians before and found it to be mutually frustrating and antagonsiing - and mutually pointless). I have tried to convince other admins at CP to post here but no-one would even reply so I was suprised and pleased to see you have a presence here. It is really (sincerely) good to see someone willing to step over the divide.

I don't want to argue ideaology or anything else with you but I do want to try to understand. My biggest criticism of CP is that the admins (most of them) seem like such unpleasent, authoritarian people who ban at the drop of a hat with no explanation. They just seem really, really unpleasent people. Issuing writing assignments etc. It's like they're on a power trip or making up for being bullied at school or something. That's the part I don't understand.

Good to see you here anyway. RedDog 06:34, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Disagreements with RationalWiki

I know that you have written in several places that you disagree with RationalWiki (as one might expect) in virtually every way possible. I am genuinely curious about what specifically you disagree with. Obviously, it isn't hard to figure out your objections in a general sense, but I'd really be interested in reading specifics. Go to an article talk page an let us have it. Honestly, don't pull any puches. You seem quite reasonable (especially as CP sysops go), I for one would really like to read your specific objections. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Tah-daaaaaaah!} 14:18, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

I will at some point. --CPAdmin1 14:28, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Thanks. I'm also curious about your disagreements with CP. The feeling I get is that you liked the idea of the original CP "mission statement" of being a learning resource project for homeschoolers, but you're a little disturbed by the political attack machine it has become. Is that a fair assessment, or am I way off? Would you consider my assumptions (political attack machine) way off? --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Tah-daaaaaaah!} 14:38, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

That's pretty close actually. I might get more into it when I have time. --CPAdmin1 14:43, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Respect

Tim, a few days ago I posted that i respected your stance but would respect it more if you posted as bluntly over at CP. I see on Andy's talk page that you have done just that. No-one epxects you to take on a pointless fight, but to state the question in the way you did seemed like a good thing to do. I know your core views haven't changed and probably never will but I hope everyone here will respect someone who while so obviously bullied will not allow the bullies to hold sway unopposed. I hoep you will stay around RationalWiki - we need opposing views every bit as much as CP does. I hope the majority here can share that view point. RedDog 15:22, 12 June 2008 (EDT)] 15:21, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

We Jellyfish agree. It isn't often that the sysops on CP are brave enough to express dissenting views. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{Diane, I'm at RationalWiki again...} 15:30, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Agreed with the two posters above me. You've made your voice heard in various matters these days, siding with common sense and reading comprehension, even when that made you oppose other sysops or even your "superior". Kudos! I hope you'll last. Maybe you'll even make a difference, I certainly hope so. --Sid 15:35, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Fourthed. NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.} 02:12, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

Range blocks

You know all it would take is a small tiny change in an "if" statement and you could keep Karajou and others from blocking 10,000,000+ potential users with the range block. Or even better you could just open it up and let them block using x.0.0.0/8. tmtoulouse ^beset 21:36, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

I have no Idea what you mean. --CPAdmin1 02:04, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

Neither do I. NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.} 02:11, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

I think he means two things - one, a tiny tweak in the php files would prevent such stupidity, or, alternatively, could allow Kookoo to block millions instead of just thousands of IPs at a fell stroke. ħuman 02:15, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

IP numbers and ranges

Lets take the ip address 209.85.100.44. This number in binary is:

209     .85      .100    .44
11010001.01010101.1100100.00101100
12345678 12345678 1234578 12345678

Four sets of 8 bits.

One can specify a range of IP addresses by saying how many bits are significant in that range. If you wanted to block 209.85.100.1-64 you could say 209.85.100.44/26. Going back to that set of bits, the 'x' are the ones being ignored.

209     .85      .100    .44
11010001.01010101.1100100.00xxxxxx
12345678 12345678 1234578 12345678

When someone specifies a range like 70.126.0.0/16, only the first 16 bits are being used. Instead of blocking 64 address (with the /26 example) - the block is across 65,536 ip address. These ranges often span much more than the actual target - there is much collateral damage. For example, when a east coast college was blocked for some reason with a /16 range block, it happened to block a fair number of rural wisconsin, michigan, and northern illinois IPSs also who get their ip range from one provider that has a subset of the /16 range block. Think about that for a moment - that block knocked out thousands of IP addresses used by middle class people like farmers and factory workers in the rural midwest. Those are part of the religious right in swing voter states this election. And someone at Conservapedia said "we don't want you here"

When my range was blocked, it took out 3 or 4 other people who had contributed and all of the speakeasy ISP on the west coast. While cities that start with 'S' tend to be liberal out here (Santa Cruz, San Francisco, San Jose, Seattle), there are a number of places where this ISP services like Redding, Fresno, Kern County (thats where the clerk stopped doing civil weddings altogether instead of allowing for same sex marriage certificates). Again, quite a bit of collateral damage to hit me, and quite possibly some other contributors.

Tmt is offering a patch to make it so that such far ranging stupidity and collateral damage against people who are potential real contributors to knock out one person who probably can't get out of a 16 address range and certainly not out of a 256 address range. Alternatively, he is offering a patch so that Kookie can block /8 and block everyone in the 70.0.0.0/8 netblock or 16.7 million addresses at once. If you're going to let someone be stupid about blocks, might as well let them be real stupid.

What's more, that latest /16 block also blocked the email ability of a user. So any people who were blocked accidently as part of that range can't send email to Andy (not that they could ever appeal to Kookie, he doesn't have his email enabled at all). Its a good way to turn off people who might think of being or have been otherwise good contributors.

If you do have questions about how network addresses work, please ask away. There are a number of competent wiki admins and sysadmins here who would be glad to help other people become more familiar with how the technology works and how best to use it. --Shagie 05:05, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

Very good explanation! And just in case that you (Tim) actually don't know what caused these suggestions, look at this discussion. Karajou seems to think that range-banning 65,536 IPs is a good way of banning single users or proxies and banhammered almost half a million IPs in, like, the last two weeks or so.

I completely back tmt's suggestions. Either limit his power so he can't abuse it so blatantly (which hurts the site more than any vandal) or remove all stops so he can go wild. --Sid 05:22, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

Having used the odd proxy in my time, I find that most proxies only have a single IP or have several IPs that are in no way related. They certainly don't have huge ranges of IPs. Now the people who do have huge ranges are ISPs that either cover whole regions (maybe even a small country) or institutions (like metropolitan school districts). Theoretically the IP range blocks may take out 2ⁿ IP addresses, but most private users have dynamic IPs. So by making a wide range block you can cover the possible adresses of a single user but the number of potential users who might access this range is actually much greater than the mathematical range - maybe in the order of 5 to 10 times! As with most things that Karajou does, his blocks are an example of his dumbass ignorance. Particularly as anyone who uses a proxy is likely to move on to another. So IP blocks of longer than say a week are pointless. However, the more the merrier I say. Let him strangle CP's user base and starve it of editors. Genghis^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 06:21, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

If you do want to block an entire netblock owned by one company the whois lookup is useful. For example whois 209.85.100.44 shows:

NetRange:   209.85.0.0 - 209.85.127.255 
CIDR:       209.85.0.0/17 

That CIDR entry is the range one would block if you wanted to block the entire IP. The IP block that I happen to be part of is a /24 and yet the IP block was banned with a /16. Granted, using this requires getting those with block rights to be more moderate in their blocking and requires additional work and understanding of what it means. This may be challenging as some sysops appear to block for the shear bully enjoyment of it.

So, that netblock that hit the rural midwest... whois 216.165.128.0.1 shows 216.165.128.0/18. Switching that to 216.165.10.0 you get 216.165.10.0 you can see NYU owning 216.165.0.0/17 - not /16. The TDS (described as "Serving rural and suburban communities across the United States") net block only goes to 216.165.191.255 though, lets see what is after that...

• Crescent Consulting of Texas - NetRange: 216.165.192.0 - 216.165.223.255 -- CIDR: 216.165.192.0/19
• Champion Broadband in Los Angeles, CA - NetRange: 216.165.224.0 - 216.165.255.255 -- CIDR: 216.165.224.0/19

--Shagie 11:47, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

qwerty

Thanks, Tim. PFoster 16:34, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

sure --CPAdmin1 16:40, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

CP's load problems

Are you still taking care of the site? tmtoulouse ^beset 16:47, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

I don't know anything about it. --CPAdmin1 16:53, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

Well cause I think I know how to fix the problems the site is having, and was curious if anyone was going to try. tmtoulouse ^beset 16:53, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

I am not sure who is in charge of that kind of thing. Did you try emailing Andy? --CPAdmin1 16:56, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

I would be surprised if my e-mail is not blocked, besides it is a bit on the "technical" side of things. It is not hard but after seeing his solution of commenting out all the extensions on the wiki I don't think it would be a good idea...oh well just thought I would try. Thanks anyway. tmtoulouse ^beset 16:58, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I am not at all involved with the upkeep of the site. you might try CPWebmaster. I don't know whether he can fix it. --CPAdmin1 17:00, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

Isn't he the guy with the email that bounces and no available email address in the wiki... if one was to be able to sign up in the first place from an unblocked IP and try to do so. --Shagie 17:13, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

I can leave a talk page note if someone else writes it clearly first. ħuman 19:46, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

It needs to be more of a back and forth then a simple note. My user talk page includes instructions for the first step, optimizing the database. The next step probably involves rebooting the database server, and a few others steps. I would need to know if they are using SSH or just web applications, do they have root or are they on shared or limited vps hosting, etc. A simple note won't cut it. tmtoulouse ^beset 19:49, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

Why not just IM Andy then? Hehe.... ħuman 19:52, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

Unrealted

You may wanna pop on over to CP and revert the thing about Shia LaBeouf, he's not at fault. One of your innocent guys are. Tell Andy to stop jumping the gun.

Hollywood values claim three more victims: the apparently drunken actor himself, and two innocent people harmed by his driving. Illustrating the double standard given to Hollywood types, the actor had previously been let off for prior misconduct and he even joked about his drunken conduct on television.

-- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{Is this lulz inducing?} 20:39, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

CPAdmin1 -- you struck a theme

I have to laugh at myself now (i have been going into "mistake" mode of recent, and am hoping it's just the law of large numbers) for thinking your opinions might confuse things when i try to sort out all the responses to the poll -- yours struck a theme and were easily identified ...

Does your Wiki group have a Libertarian page containing a defintion? If not, what are the chances you guys would be interested in mine? If you like, i would temporarily post it here for your perusal.

-- Rem^Beau 21:48, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Palins Pastor

Check it - http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13098.html Ace McWicked^whisky 01:24, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Why not work it in to Sarah Palin? ħuman 01:52, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Still at work but will see what I can do, if the LHC doesnt kill us all in an hour. Ace McWicked^whisky 02:07, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Not related to Palin's pastor, but the same WIGO Talk item. You said: "True, I do disagree with some of what Andy claims. But don't pin stuff like that on the whole conservative movement based on a few people". There are some extremist left-wing atheist communists here, but some of us realize that Conservapedia is as far from real conservative values as it can be. I'd even say (and now people will jump at me) that RW has more conservative values than CP. You singled out Jose83's and JPatt's contributions or "some of what Andy claims". But really, is Andy or any meaningful editor at CP so far from what those parodists wrote? Do you agree with their stance on Obama being Muslim? Do you agree with their double standards? Do you agree with their purported roles for women/housewives and all their abstinence talk combined with their reverence for Mrs. Palin? What I am really asking here, do you really still believe that Conservapedia shows any real conservative values, or that Conservapedia helps the conservative cause in any way? If you have realized that it's not so, what are you still doing there? Respectfully, Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 03:57, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Aha!

I knew you were a homescholar. _{(Or that general age...)}
Continue. ^_^ Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 15:01, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, and proud of it. --CPAdmin1 15:13, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Good for you :) Incidentally, I might also inform you that my New Year's resolution is going to be "stop pouncing on casual users".

I'm sure you will appreciate this. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 15:22, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

New Year's is a long time away, though... --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 15:37, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

An honest, good-faith question.

Tim, there's a lot I disagree with you about, but you strike me as a fundamentally reasonable guy. With that being said, why do you keep volunteering your time to help a project fully owned and operated by a man who has proved himself over and over again to be a bullyand will NEVER admit to his mistakes, inconsistencies or flaws? PFoster 21:24, 28 November 2008 (EST)

Are you blind or something?

Have you not noticed the vaporise button at the top, or the one that says capture? You are a sysop my friend. You have been for months that I know of. - User $\pi$ 17:48, 30 November 2008 (EST)

Oh, well someone needs to un-sysop me then. That was the deal. --CPAdmin1 20:32, 30 November 2008 (EST)

Okay if you insist, but you have to fix your own article up again, without the use of rollback, Mwahahahah!!!! 20:36, 30 November 2008 (EST)

You know that now you are leaving little red exclamation marks all over my recent changes list? - User $\pi$ 23:38, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Huh?

If you are a sysop all non-sysop edits have a little red exclamation mark next to them on the recent changes. - User $\pi$ 23:53, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Oh, sorry. Not much I can do about that. I'm not planning to be around here too much anymore anyway, so don't worry about it. --CPAdmin1 23:55, 1 December 2008 (EST)

No big deal. Nice having you around when you take the time, Tim. ħuman 00:07, 2 December 2008 (EST)

True Christians at Conservapedia

Can a True Christian sit by as people bear false witness against others and condone it through inaction? Can a True Christian ignore the two most important commandments? Can a True Christian ignore their fellows in need and instead turn a blind eye? While I may be wrong here (I am not a True Christian), but it is key to lead by example. To write falsehoods about people or condone those who act with bigotry and malice through inaction doesn't seem to be the way of a True Christian. Every administrator who ignores those who say "help me" and every person who blocks a person for trying to correct a falsehood fails to act in the manner of a True Christian. Are there any True Christians at Conservapedia? One can say "we are all sinners" but without taking any action to correct it, the injustice continues. I could easily argue that the proper, Christ-like thing to do when faced by such injustice is to turn over all the tables and chase those who are perverting the Word of God out of the wiki. --Shagie 02:01, 14 December 2008 (EST)

Believe me, I have problems with CP. But I don't need you telling me when to leave. If I reach the point where I feel that I cannot stay at CP with a good concience, then I will leave, and it will have nothing to do with anyone else telling me to leave. --CPAdmin1 02:11, 14 December 2008 (EST)

I'd also like to point out, that the "love your neighbor" also applies to liberals --Shagie 02:04, 14 December 2008 (EST)

Absolutely. That is one of my biggest problems with CP. --CPAdmin1 02:11, 14 December 2008 (EST)

Yet you're still aiding and abetting Andy and company. Oh, well. --Gulik 02:17, 14 December 2008 (EST)

Not on that point. --CPAdmin1 02:24, 14 December 2008 (EST)

"All I did was stand on the streetcorner, and let my friends know if I saw a police car--I had NOTHING to do with the robbery!" --Gulik 02:37, 14 December 2008 (EST)

Please point out to me something that I have done that is "aiding and abetting" anything that involves bad treatment of users, or writing falsehoods, etc. --CPAdmin1 02:42, 14 December 2008 (EST)

Do Protestants (which I'm guessing you are) have the concept of a "Sin of Omission", or is that a Catholic thing? --Gulik 02:49, 14 December 2008 (EST)

Only codified in Catholicism. But you can read its basis at Romans 7:19. Still, if someone feels guilty about something (that Catholic guilt = sin thing) something wrong was done at some level. --Shagie 03:05, 14 December 2008 (EST)

My point is simply that those who are there are not helping the Christian agenda as set forth in the New Testament by aiding Conservapedia. The administration there is showing/has shown itself to be intolerant of any viewpoint that doesn't agree with Andy. Outright lies are written about people - instead of deleting the lie, the page referencing the lie is deleted[1] and the lie is left without citation. Do you believe that you can get TK, Andy, Ed, Bugler to change their ways? Can you get PJR to start helping out those who have been treated unjustly? For that matter, will you try to help those who have been blocked for saying that people with blocking powers have been insulting them and harassing them? --Shagie 02:48, 14 December 2008 (EST)

And the lemming award goes to...

Dude, seriously. "And I know that God will not command me to do anything contrary to his word." [2]

Please tell me you're being funny. Please. --JeevesMkII 02:35, 14 December 2008 (EST)

That was in answer to something akin to a false hypothetical. The statement you quote is perfectly true. God does not contradict himself. I am not sure what you are objecting to. --CPAdmin1 02:40, 14 December 2008 (EST)

Oh dear. Perhaps I really do need to enumerate all the things wrong with that statement. All right, here goes:

1. By what means could you possibly know that? Before you answer, please consider that all Cretans are liars. Circular reasoning is no reasoning at all.
2. How could anything god says be contrary to god's word? The things he says ARE HIS WORD.
3. If instead of "contrary to", you actually meant "contradictory to something he previously said" why exactly do you think this? The Bible is full of instances where god resolves to do something, and mere mortals talk him out of it. He apparently does change his mind.
4. This is tacit admission your morality isn't in fact from god, and you have to hedge by saying that god would never, ever command you to do something abhorrent. As if you could ever demonstrably know that, see 1.

In any case, the statement made me facepalm. --JeevesMkII 03:05, 14 December 2008 (EST)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas, Tim, I hope it's a good one. ħuman 14:54, 25 December 2008 (EST)

Thanks. Merry Christmas to all of you too. --CPAdmin1 14:59, 25 December 2008 (EST)

Teenagers

Sorry, Aschlafly doesn’t want to hear anything except his version of affairs. Proxima Centauri 14:19, 26 December 2008 (EST)