Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?

Template:AOTW Navigation As a point of decorum, please use the [+] tab above when adding a new section, and the appropriate [edit] tab when commenting within an existing section. This will minimise the incidence of edit conflicts. New sections must be added at the bottom of the page. Thank you for your attention.

For non CP related talk, go to the saloon.

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: Archive list

Harry is eeeviiil...

... or so says CP.[1] Thought it might be worth adding to the list. Paul 17:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Boy, are they behind the times. Fundamentalist spazz-outs about Harry Potter are SO last year. --Gulik 17:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The funny thing is that they forbid to mention the most anti-Christian aspect in Harry Potter: Dumbledore was confirmated to be gay. Barraki 20:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought that edit read: "...Harry Potter would have been burned to a steak". Delicious! 194.6.79.200 12:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Gone, then they homohammer it, then gone again--Nate River 21:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Wigo-ing students

With the recent "News" item about a student giving his "Unsolicieted" (Sure, just like America was using "Enhanced interrogation" and not torture) opinion on the economics course, I have a few witty (or sophomoric... actually, mostly sophomoric) things I want to say about Andy's brainwashing having been successful. However, I'm not sure what the policy is about WIGOing the students. I'm under the impression that it is frowned upon. Anyone care to enlighten me? --Passerby25 02:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It is largely frowned upon, although I don't remember anyone removing a WIGO because of it. Please remember it is mostly the parents fault as they have chosen to send their children to Schlafly's classes, you can't blame them for how they have been raised they will need a few years in the real world before you can criticise them for what they say. - π 03:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It's important to note that the quote in question is from a former student now of college age. In other words, old enough to know better. The current students are victims, and it's just not funny to mock a victim. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 04:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It still doesn't seem all that WIGO-worthy - one of Andy's indoctrinated former students provides an endorsement of Andy's indoctrination. There's probably a "Stockholm Syndrome" joke in there somewhere, but with quality offerings like "Conservapedia's Law", it's better to focus on a few prime examples instead. There have been too many low and negative-rated WIGOs as it is. --SpinyNorman 14:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, every time I see the words "Conservapedia's Law", I can't help but think of "Brannigan's Law". Just had to put that out there. --SpinyNorman 14:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Conservapedia's law is like Conservapedia's love: Repulsive and church-approved. (Can't think of anything better right now, anyone got something)? --Passerby25 15:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Andy was attacked by a brain-slug once, but it dropped off after dying of starvation. --SpinyNorman 20:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and Conservapedia's Law is like Conservapedia's Love - primarily an act of self-gratification. --SpinyNorman 20:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What, because Andy tweaks it by hand practically every day? --Marty 05:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC) is growing rapidly!

But only for Pro-Creation! --Passerby25 00:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

With all that said, it's ok if you can spin it so it focuses the admin instead of the victims, which I found difficult to do. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 14:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I remember reading an article off site somewhere that did this successfully. It's premise was how liberals vs. conservatives see America. The article said that liberals see America as a nation that uses America's history, lessons, triumphs, and failures to note how America is always a nation in learning, and how we should celebrate our victories and learn from our mistakes (such as slavery). Conservatives, the article says, ask "so, how else is slavery like gay marriage?" And it showed a whole slew of responses on an exam rather than just pointing out one student. --Crazyswordsman 16:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ken's usual low shit

You would think his vulture like picking over the holocaust he used to attack Dawkins with that concentration camp picture would be as low as he could go, but he is now using the shooting at the Holocaust Memorial Museum to attack evolution. Can he be any more of an opportunistic little shit? For fuck's sake someone is dead, have some respect you low life. - π 08:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

After all this time, I wouldn't expect any less. Funny how one terrible event can be spun in two totally different, yet equally deplorable ways, branching off the exact same tagline. Not funny ha-ha, but funny in the way that's actually pretty disgusting and makes me weep for the future. The media's so abuzz, CP has to say it twice. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 08:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

In many ways he's even more annoying than Terry Koeckritz. Not only is he an opportunistic little shit, he's an opportunistic little shit that takes 10 11 edits and over half an hour to write less than 100 words. And given how long he's been spreading his obnoxious crap all over the internet, you'd have thought he would have learned to write by now. Rpeh 09:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ken and Terry Koeckritz are playing radically different games. I cannot believe for a moment that Terry Koeckritz believes a word that he writes on CP, he's just found the perfect forum where he act out his manipulative power games. Ken, on the other hand, seriously believes that he is at the forefront in the fight against Atheism, that he's some sort of cyber-warrior and that his efforts are making a difference. Silver Sloth 10:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Andy - a supporter of the BNP, let's not forget (although he hardly knew what he was talking about when he said that, but what's new eh?) - should be thrilled to hear that the Holocaust-denying Jew-hating bitter old white trash scumbag fuck had ties to the BNP. Perhaps someone should let him know? DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 13:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

TK's a power hungry madman, Kendoll is a typical conservative who thinks he has the right to tell people that atheism and homosexuality are wrong, while Andy's just a complete shit that has literally no idea what he's talking about 99% of the time. SJ ^Debaser 15:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait, Andy supported the BNP? Where did he say that? --Crazyswordsman 17:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a link to the statement in the Andrew Schlafly page. He said, "The BNP would get my vote for its position alone on education." (He also opined that their position on health-care was much too left-wing for his taste.) ListenerX^TalkerX 18:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I must admit, sometimes they surprise even me. And Hitler made it in there too. Oh, but wait, what an oversight! Have we forgotten that Hitler was a Roman Catholic who had birthday parties attended by big shots in the Church? Spin, Spin, Spin. How about some truth, truth, truth, you motherfrakkers! Jimaginator 16:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

And oh yea, the Nazis used "Gott Mit Uns" (God With Us) sometimes as a slogan. Maybe they were just the wrong kind of faithful ones huh?^{— Unsigned, by: Jimaginator / talk / contribs}

God mittens? --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Jebus!} 16:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

And it's not like they blame all science, just the evolution. Chemical reactions of gunpowder and reaction kinetics, the mechanic of guns, never managed to sneak into the picture. Not one bit on neuroscience, not even on psychiatry (I expect they put those up to be blamed (since they can be effectively separated from whether owning firearms are morally good) as well) [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 16:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Somewhere in my pile of stored crap, I have a replica SS fighting knife that I bought at a gift shop while touring the Battlefield of Normandy. Guess what is engraved into the blade along almost its entire length? That's right... "Gott Mit Uns". I didn't know what it meant when I bought it, but after I found out, I actually felt more revulsion than when I saw my first dead body. To think that those letters on the actual knives were at one point filled with Jewish blood is... Well, I don't know what word would suffice here... Just plain wrong. The Foxhole Atheist 17:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, every side, in every war thinks, nay, demands that God or Gods be on their side. Considering the bloodshed in the bible, I guess it's no surprise. But one would think that if that were really true, then over the millenia, things would have sorted themselves out, because God would have made things come out right. Why are there ANY religious wars anymore, if God was favoring one side? Twain said what needed to be said in "The War Prayer." One would also think that putting God on ANY weapon would be considered heinous, and yet... Jimaginator 17:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

...and yet: "I bring not peace, but a sword." Totnesmartin 19:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name. Exodus 15:3. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The polytheistic theory of Judaism suggests there was an entire pantheon of gods. This makes the first person plural of Genesis 1 a bit more understandable, as with the ease of which the Israelites of the OT fall back into polytheism. Killing a good chunk of the populace in the exodus is looked at as a purge of those who did not accept the cult (at that time) of the Ten Commandments. For some other more tangible items, some artifacts that were uncovered that appear to agree with the copper scroll location and thus would be from the original Temple were decorated with polytheistic/pagan motifs. The word 'elohim' was a reference to the entire court of deities in ancient cannonite religion. Anyways... YHVH was thought to be the war god of the pantheon who had some monotheistic priests who established the cult of the Ten Commandments that later became Judaism (just as some fishermen and a carpenter had what was seen as a small cult in Judaism about two millennia ago). [2] [3] [4] [5] It is interesting reading and thinking about this interpretation of history. It also adds some context for the above passage. --Shagie 21:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to be pedantic...the "Gott Mit Uns" motto wasn't associated only with the German army in WWII, it had long been the motto/battle cry of the German/Prussian army and appeared on German equipment long before the Nazi era. Mick McT 09:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Gods have been with soldiers (alegedly) for pretty much the whole of recorded history/warfare. Many battles were in fact tests of whose god was the stronger. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 10:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

And to be just a bit more pedantic, "Gott mit uns" was a motto of the Wehrmacht. The SS (who weren't that much into God in the first place) generally used "Meine Ehre heißt Treue" or similar words. 65.49.2.13 00:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Origin of words

That's the funniest thing I've seen from Andy in quite a while. "Fission" shows he's so fixated on getting dates for words that he isn't reading the definitions themselves _{(Andy, they're right there next to those numbers)}. Let me guess, since "fission" apparently originated in 1617, and that can only refer to nuclear physics, it must have been coined by a male American teenage conservative creationist whom the Liberal elites in Big Science have been suppressing ever since! But it took them 300 years to catch up! Another CP victory!!! Also note how theism itself obviously didn't originate with its word in 1678 because it was such an "obvious position" that it must have been around for a long time already, but 'flagpole' is so obscure that actual vertical extended flag display devices clearly could not have existed before 1884. At the same time, it's interesting that he claims that the root word of atheism developed 91 years after the word that it's in. That's like airplanes being invented in 1903, with the first wings produced a few decades later. Or, to use a completely random and hypothetical example, nuclear fission being discovered 294 years before nuclei... Kallium^talk 05:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's good to know Andy's back to being funny. This Conservapedia Law thing of his made me suspect he'd gone officially off to being clinically insane. Seriously, I sorta started to get worried for him there. Mountain Blue 06:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hilarious! What did flags hang on for centuries before that? Umm, perhaps a flag-pole? Or just a flag pole? What's about telegraph pole? If these word are sometimes melted into one, does this mean that wired telegraphy will be possible at last? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't be silly. "Pole" has been around since before the 12th century. Hence, by Andy's thinking, so has telegraphy. And pole-zero analysis of electronic systems, too. Oops, sorry. That would involve complex numbers. Whatever was I thinking? Gauss 18:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That flagpole wigo is a bit lame - Andy typed that over a month ago - and it was probably wigod or at least discussed back then... along with the fission thing. Oh well. ħuman 20:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Today's semi-funny is that the Assfly doesn't know the humorous story of the telephone greeting. I thought the Simpsons had popularised that one. Maybe he has never watched evil, liberal TV. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't seen the "essay" before, so it was new to me. I'm not the WIGOer though. Kallium^talk 04:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Helping our mad old pal, Ken

Ken's marathon session

Somebody needs to help Ken. He's been editing CP now right through the night, for at least 12 hours straight (he owns the vast majority of 'Show Last 500 changes'), with breaks no longer than 10 or fifteen minutes until midnight, then absolutely no breaks since server time midnight, 6 hours ago. I don't know what timezone he's in, but assuming it's in the US, this doesn't look good. Ken, you should talk to your doctor about this, maybe your meds are making you unable to sleep. Not sleeping is a good way to go CRAZY. Seek some help, it's not healthy. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 10:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

There's very good reason to believe he dwells in the EST zone. But I do believe he has commented on problems from sleep deprivation in the past and said that he has overcome this but sadly now appears to be backsliding (just like his promise to cut back on editing). Ken, heed DogP's advice for your own sake! Look after yourself. It's only a crummy website you know. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 10:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If he keeps it up, Andy'll have to go back on his "0 mental health problems from his contributors" slogan. Or, maybe he'll just get his lover TK to banhammer whoever mentions that Kendoll's an insomniac... SJ ^Debaser 10:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I think most of the SDG members regard Ken as a bit "special" and rather like the Jasper Carrott sketch about the "nutter on the bus" (Why me, Lord?) they try and ignore him if they can. Strangely, we are probably more concerned about Kens's wellbeing than all those caring "Christians" at CP and I believe that Ken has more of a rewarding relationship with us then he does with Andy et al - as the old saying goes "the opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference". Ken has admitted to some health issues but always denies any "mental" problems. I think the evidence shows that at the very least he has poor social skills, probably a low self-esteem and a disposition towards obsessive/compulsive behaviour patterns (don't we all to some degree). I regards his user page links to self-help websites as postive proof that he needs re-affirmation of his own worth (which is what most self-help books do) and being able to point to his holy trinity of atheism, evolution and homosexuality articles gives him the esteem which obviously lacks in the real world. The sad part about that of course is that he does not present these articles under his own name but hides behind an alias. (I do the same here of course, but then I am not endeavouring to get the internet to regard me with awe because any of my writings on RW.) Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 11:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I have a feeling a sit-down over a beer with Ken would be very weird, but varied and quite possibly result in many laughs, whereas a TK social encounter would be embarrassing and require great patience along with inner calm. At an Andy meetup I'd probably be thrown out of the pub and/or arrested for GBH. Anyway, Ken, send us a Gentlemen message and let us know what's up. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 11:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. I'm sure Ken is quite harmless IRL but TK would either invite or incite violence. Генгис^{Gum disease} 12:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm really quite worried about him, it's now 21 hours straight (no pun intended) editing. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 12:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If you keep up this sympathy for Ken (not that I disprove, although I think most of his entries are quite disgusting) you're going to get him booted out of Conservapedia for conspiring with liberals, like Zinoviev or someone. SJ ^Debaser 12:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

(EC)We all know just how much Andy cares about the well-being of his contributors - remember his distinct lack of in interest after PJR's wife was ill. (For a devout Xian, Andy is remarkably unfeeling about anything except himself. Actually, replace 'for' with "because he's" )Likewise, all his little shout-outs and pleas to be noticed are ignored over there, by those who should care. I think the only interest he has received was from Ed or Tk, smacking him down for his shout-outs. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 12:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

He's made 392 edits since midnight last night=one edit every 84 seconds. And he's made 678 edits since midnight on Friday, or one edit every three minutes, and that includes sleeping for nine hours on Friday night at 2am. Ken - get help. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 13:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This isn't "insomnia". It looks like some sort of manic phase.--WJThomas 13:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Now 470 edits in 22+ hours and still counting. As it's Sunday does he go to church? He'll either be a complete wreck or be suffused by the spirit of Jebus and carry on where he left off. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 13:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

He's sat huddled at the back of the church, editing from a laptop hidden inside a Plain Truth. Totnesmartin 13:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

40 minute break and he's ba-a-ack! --PsyGremlin_Whut? 14:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Are we sure that user " conservative" is not a bunch of pranksters? Just a thought--Buscombe 14:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If he is for real, I am also worried about him. Spending that amount of time on any internet project is not worth it. He is most likely a harmless fellow in real life. I suspect that in spite of his attitude towards us, many of us like him a bit.. just a teeny weeny little bit. --Buscombe 14:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If Ken's a prankster, he is the most dedicated one I've ever seen. He had been on this crusade before CP even existed, trolling forums and editing on CreationWiki. --Sid 14:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If TK wanted to get Ken out of the way, a few timely deletions or reversions now might push him over the edge. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 15:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Would it be mean to try and tip him over the edge by pointing out how his precious evolution article has slipped back to the third page of google, and his operation and years of promises that it will "soon" be in the top ten have all gone badly awry? Poor kendoll, his life's work slipping away. No wonder he has issues. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's something that a lot of us pointed out way back when he got on this SEO kick in the first place. The moment he stops actively promoting his pet pages, they immediately slip back into obscurity. They only sit as high as he does for as long as he's pushing, they won't stay there because there's no content that people will keep coming back for. --Kels 18:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

"We brake for nobody"

I like how the image of Ken's marathon is so effing long that by now three new sections easily exist next to it. Really puts things into perspective. --Sid 16:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

And he's back after less than four hours. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 18:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Four hours of praying the gay away at the megachurch perhaps? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Holy shit. I typically come out against wikidiagnosis of mental illness, but this is bad. Corry 21:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Good Christ Ken, I was away all day and I come back and you're STILL editing! STOP! This is absurd Ken, just stop for your own sake. Please. No doctrine or theory is as important as your own sanity. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 21:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't bi-polar disorder something that was suggested in the past? I have counselled several women with BPD and it certainly looks like he's going through a manic phase. If that's true then the tragedy is that when it finishes he will have one hell of a downer, so I hope TerryK doesn't do anything stupid (in relation to Ken that is),  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 21:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

He's purging. Probably dreamt about bumsex with Jesus. --Robledo 22:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Can whoever did that nice picture of his edits do an update please? He's still at it with only short breaks. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 22:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The WIGO is updated to 516 edits during 30 hours 7 mins based on 9 hours of sleep he got before that. (I am not the one who did the update though.) Speaking of which, isn't that a variant of OCD? Or really careless editing like myself? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 22:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Apart from it becoming even more enormous, surely the point of the image is just to show Ken's mammoth session. His afternoon restart needs it's own image should it deserve it. Also, as DogP remarked he had a warm-up session on the previous day. Should not that be included as well?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 22:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It might be OCD, or it might be his meds. I had a roommate who was severely ADD, and when she abused her meds, she was often awake and working for three or four days straight, then to crash for several more. Not that her work was very good after a day or so, but she was still programming away. --Kels 22:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I had contemplated making the session begin at 23:57 on Friday night, when he edited until 2am-ish, but that struck me as normal-ish. Looking back into the week, on Thursday he edited a 'normal' amount, and earlier in the week looked 'normal' too - I'm sure any of us idiots might have edited as much ourselves. But it really seems like something happened when he got up at 11am Saturday - he just went to work and edited like a crazed weasel until a nap Sunday morning, whereafter he just picked right up after lunch and went back at it. Ken - that's not a good way to spend your weekend. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 22:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I uploaded the larger range. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 05:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I notice he got up at 2.45am and edited for another hour last night. Definitely some insomnia there Ken. Doctor time. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 15:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Miss California was NOT dethroned because of her beliefs

Unlike what Andy, or she, thinks, she was dethroned because of her actions (or more precisely, her inactions, ie her lack of attendance at charity events that beauty queens have to go to as part of their contract). --Crazyswordsman 15:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but you forget liberal deceit - that's just the reason they gave to cover up the fact they didn't want some pro-lifer running the show, especially when God told her she didn't have to attend the charity do's (they were for liberal organisations, after all). open your mind and lose credibility. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 15:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

But how could she have been dethroned for those beliefs if the new Miss California also supports it? DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 21:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

What gets me is why anybody gives a flying one about Miss California's political views. "Beauty queen talks bollocks" - so bleedin' what? Totnesmartin 22:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It's like people caring about Bristol Palin. I never gave a crap about her, and then I started feeling bad for her for being used as a campaign prop (which is what invited the media to go after her in the first place), along with the other four Palin children. --Crazyswordsman 00:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why this would happen, but if Assfly felt the need to justify the removal of Prejean as Ms. California, he could always scream "look what Hollywood values did to this nice Christian girl!!!" ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 02:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Andy's not even trying anymore

Looking at his reply to Umlaut regarding e-mails, Andy's not even trying to be civil to his editors anymore. "Please post legitimate suggestions here, or please move on. Godspeed." I mean, I know the man is an insufferable boor, but it's like the editors of his "greater-than-WP-blog" are becoming more of a nuisance to him. Maybe the novelty's starting to wear off. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 16:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The novelty has long since worn off for the Assfly. CP is just a convenient place for him to dump his homskolling courseware and any random thought that comes in to his brain. RJJensen is the only person actually editing as if it was some kind of encyclopaedia, the rest are just carrying out their own little agendas. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he even does his cocoa edit any more. Генгис^unbelieving 19:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

And then, who could think of anything more predictable than this? Etc 19:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I half-expected TK to say something about liberals seeking to hide the truth.Umlaut 19:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Errr....all burned up is? DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 21:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, to follow this you have to go to the screenshots linked from the wigo item. ħuman 21:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Ouch!

CJHallock suggests that "More News Terms A"...."More News Terms Z" could be combined into one article. This set is a Crock o'shite invention anyway - just how utterly stupid is "More News Terms" anyway? But if it goes ahead could it undermine the months of work by Andy's homeskollars? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 17:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Um... isn't that what categories are for, anyway? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 17:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but Andy could never really get his head round proper categorisation, he thought a hierarchical structure would confuse his students and tried to impose a single level approach. All the other term lists were created as a way to suck up to Andy. There are several examples of new students starting off with these generally empty lists. I think the majority of DeborahB.'s edits which got her a sysopship were just churning out these alaphabetic list templates. The term lists are completely unworkable because somebody has to make the effort to actually edit the list and add the so-called "term" rather than adding a cat to the required page. Also categories aid navigation whereas the stupid term-lists just hinder it. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 18:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Well TopKunt has put paid to any ideas about deleting term lists. With CJ (Super! Terrific!) having several of his edits reverted can he last much longer? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 19:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't tell me I wasted my time categorizing over there! :) Aboriginal Noise ^{with 4 M's and a silent Q} 21:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who edits over there wastes their time!  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 21:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Touché. Aboriginal Noise ^{with 4 M's and a silent Q} 22:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Atheists not really atheists

There may not even be true atheists today. More typically an "atheist" is simply an anti-Christian. What planet does this guy inhabit? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 19:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

In Andy's world, Christianity is the only legitimate religion, and so the only one which can be properly denied. SJ ^Debaser 19:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This is even funnier when you realize that he insists in the Atheism "article" that Atheism solely means denial of God.Umlaut 19:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

So, Anti-islam, Anti-Jewry, Anti-Hindu never existed, or everyone are doing it in addition to Atheists. that explains a lot of things he said on his blog. (See, he supports the "one god further" argument; Athiest simply oppose to one more religion than the followers of religion: the one the believers are following.) [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 22:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I get the impression that a lot of the folks that the Slacktivist crew call "Real True Christians" really do act like they believe that everyone else, deep down inside, really believes _exactly_ the things they do, but are pretending to be Muslims/Hindus/Jews/Atheists/Whatever out of spite towards God. --Gulik 06:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Who iz zees?

TK banhammered Umlaut earlier for being a "member of a website supporting vandalism". Anyone here? SJ ^Debaser 19:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Me. I pointed out that Andy didn't have an email address, when he demands that everyone else does- see the WIGO. I created this account after getting banned (for only three months, which was a suprise) for pointing out that anti-hacking laws don't apply to wikis.

Too bad, though- TK reverted the "checkmate", so I don't get to see Andy justify his bullshit, and I don't get a Parthian Shot.Umlaut 19:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

TK is so quick! CJH reverted Romans comment on assflys talk page before TK could I guess (for a moment his revert was all that existed), I tried to get a link for that too, before I could TK had burned the whole thing the the ground. --Opcn 20:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

He's not fast enough. -- Nx / talk 20:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I caught that, it was CJH's revert of that that I missed. --Opcn 20:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a great WIGO. It shows how much Andy can get slapped in the face with so much ownage and just ignore it. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 21:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, thanks to Sid for linking me something to throw at Andy- I didn't know of any specific evidence of TK demanding private discussion.Umlaut 23:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Operation "Asia Gets the Banhammer" seems to have succeded

[6] 16:23, 14 June 2009 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 61.73.224.0/19 (Talk) with an expiry time of 3 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (IP of blocked vandal / troll / troublemaker: KOREA TELECOM) --Opcn 20:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If TK reads this talk page, and therefore knew about this, why'd he go along with it? Just to get more IPs banned?Umlaut 20:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Mountain blue was still leaking freethough and non-fascism in to CP --Opcn 20:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Opcn: Nope, wasn't me. Umlaut: I might have lied about being in Asia so as not to tip TK off. Then again, I might not have bothered to lie, assuming that TK would assume I was lying so as not to tip him off. Then again... aw, forget it. Too complicated. It's already 7 AM on this beautiful Monday morning here in Asia and I haven't even gotten to bed yet. Mountain Blue 20:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Good work, always leave them guessing. It heightens the paranoia. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 20:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. What did 61.73.224.0/19 actually do anyway? There's no contributions link and no nothing. Mountain Blue 21:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think TK needs a reason?--WJThomas 21:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It's probable that they have already been banned and TK widened their IP blocks, just to be sure. It's kind of like in the movies when the psycho thug lets rip a round of machinegun bullets into the corpse.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 22:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Their block log is growing rapidly!(June 14 alone has 3x/16, 1x/19, 1x/20, 1x/21, 2x/32) Expecting arithematic or geometric progression at some point. speaking of which, who lives (we are not doing drive-by stealing wireless networks, the last time we have talk about this issue) in area around Newark, NJ? I would love to see Andy's acolytes got collateral damages[[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 22:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I live in SE PA, but I think I am too far to have an effect on anyone in Newark. Who is in Newark that is damage collaterable (A new Conservative Word!?!)? --Passerby25 00:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I would suppose since Andy lives near Newark NJ his attending homeschoolers would live fairly close to it. Andy himself would not be vulnerable to blocks but I would like to see the acolytes getting collateral damage. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 01:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hold on... Andy is from New Jersey? This really explains soooo much about his personality.--Passerby25 02:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Not that you need google for it (Google may give you the actual address); the copyright notice on CP says use the exclusive juridiction of Newark, NJ tells you something. And I think he lived in New York for some time before (this is from some outdated documents found on Google), so where exactly he's from is at least arguable. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 03:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That was for me, I think. I live in South Korea, and that was very nearly the IP from my old apartment's connection.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 00:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

We salute you, sir. Mountain Blue 00:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Not Really

Operation Asia is officially cancelled. I actually went to Asia last Friday, and I was scheduled to go to Tehran tomorrow, do some consulting, and leave next weekend to Rhiyad, via Dubai. Tehran, Rhiyad, and the Dubai airport have hotspots like you wouldn't believe, and they all go through an extremely narrow range of IP addresses. My plan was simply to flitter and prance and flutter and dance from access point to access point and programmatically improve a random article or two at every stop. Beautiful little butterfly that I am, I'm extremely good at that flitter thing, you know. I would've had quite a gay time, and it should have been exquisitly delicious to see TK rain a couple /16s on the Socialists of Dubai, the Liberals of Saudia Arabia, or the Atheists of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Alas, Andy's fellow conservatives in Iran apparently don't want any additional witnesses to how they bring the hammer down on their liberals IRL, so they cancelled, among others, my whole fucking gig. Because, kids, this is what happens when bitter, bigoted mysogynists with bad teeth and failed careers run nations instead of websites nobody reads: actual people actually fucking die. We're actually quite lucky to live in areas in which pathetic little creeps like Andy and his enforcers are just that: pathetic little creeps. Sorry, but I really had to vent now. Mountain Blue 17:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Guess who's got Oversight now?

TopKunt's "well-deserved and overdue" promotion finally happened! Congratulations to the most successful parodist in CP's history! ^{— Unsigned, by: Nutty Roux / talk / contribs}

Let the destruction within begin! _{after the slow rot of a few years settles down} Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 22:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I fear that this gives TerryK even greater burning abilities.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 22:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah what does oversight actually do? Ace McWickedⁱ⁹ 22:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems to include sneaky ways of making irreversible edits, hiding users, changing logs. See here. Also, does anyone know what nsTeam1RW on CP is? User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 22:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

From MediaWiki - "The Oversight extension adds a user class that allows revisions to be permanently hidden from all users. Note that the revisions can only be restored by a developer."

And there are some handy instructions froma delighted user

1. click on history tab
2. click on the revision that you want to hide
3. you get redirected to the old page that you want to hide and you see the tab hide revision on the top
4. click on the hide revision tab -- NOT the delete tab!
5. you get redirected to Permanently hide revisions page
6. type in the Reason box - this is a required field
7. click on the Hide this data permanently button

Now off you go Terry, you've got work to do.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 22:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah? He thinks he can beat Capturebot2? Bring it on! -- Nx / talk 22:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

An epic battle between an automated program and an idiot who didn't use Wikileaks in the first place! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 22:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah? Just wait till TK program his own bots to automate the process. Ha! [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 22:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "nsTeam1RW": Long time ago (back when CP had a halfway stable cast of editors, as opposed to the current "a few sysops plus people who last less than a day" setup), CP had contests. Week-long team events to see who could improve CP the most by creating and editing articles. (See also Category:Conservapedia Contest.) To enable the teams to coordinate their actions better, they created special "secret" namespaces for each team and the judges. Only team members with the proper user rights were able to access them (or that had been the plan, at least). So that's what the right means: "Namespace Team 1 Read/Write"

They later (or was that before?) also added a "secret" sysop mainspace, but that quickly turned out to be a bad idea because pretty much EVERYBODY could read it by various means. --Sid 22:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

(ECx2)nsTeam1RW refers to the heydays of CP when they would have delightful, friendly editing competitions. Which Andy would then contest because his team invariably lost. The teams had their own secret namespaces where they could share Government websites which they could freely copy and paste from, nsTeam1RW was one of those namespaces. As well as showing Andy's incredible churlishness and lack of sportsmanhip the competitions gave us a list of US-registered boats all the way from A to well A, and a couple of Bs. Such happy days!  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 22:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Andy lost the contests because he would pick his team the same way he picks his sysops, cronies rather than contributors. - π 22:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, I miss the heady days of contest 3 when I added about 50% of the USDA glossary and Andy threw a shit-fit and got all the points tossed out and called the contest judges to sanction TK (my team's captain) for failing to control his team. I think this might have precipitated TK's demotion and departure. Stile4aly 22:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It's such a shame they don't have those contests any more. They were such good sources of lulz, the filled CP up with shite and they were good ways to get your socks promoted. Ah, how great the days of yore were. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Basically what TK can now do is "incinerate", rather than just "deep burn" pages. Note that what he recently did (prior to this "promotion") to Andy's talk page was a deep burn. He had to delete the talk page of the site owner in order to "hide" something from us. Such an action would be considered insane on any sane wiki. Thank Deity for capturebot! He probably then went to Andy and said "If you gave me oversight, I wouldn't have to burn your talk page. Pretty please?" Gauss 00:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

As Assfly said, private communication is disfavoured on CP. Seeing as how there is no record of such a conversation, it clearly did not happen. Checkmate. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 02:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone want to take bets on how long it'll take before TK starts incinerating vandalism/"liberal last-wordism"?Umlaut 02:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

He's probably already doing it. Gauss 05:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

He is already doing it you gave him the idea Umlaut, part of me enjoys it when he sends us shout outs like that --Opcn 05:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Who wants to bet on how long it will take teacake to somehow insinuate that some of our captures are fraudulent? ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 02:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the big problem with oversight is it leaves no trace. The only people who can even see the oversight log are the oversighters and it clears like the checkuser log (again only visible to the checkusers). This is why we went with hide/show as it leaves messages everywhere showing that something has been removed. - π 03:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

TK has already started using his powers to incinerate the page with all the talk about fair use of that stupid white flower picture. Gauss 05:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course he has. TK is fertilized by power, and he can't even wait a day to shower under it. PS, what was vaped: image:670132a9b4niner.png ħuman 05:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

His choice of language, "they are forging them to perpetrate a fraud", is interesting. If anything ever came to court, somebody could subpoena the CP webserver as evidence, because the oversighted edits are still there even if they can only be recovered by a developer. I wonder if TheKnife knew that. Rpeh 07:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The likelihood of that ever happening is extremely low. TK is not overly concerned with the actual truth, just the presentable truth. We can't present that information, so he can deny our screenshots are true. He has been denying emails and those screenshots of his IM chat were he said he is out to destroy Conservapedia for well over a year, I doubt he would stop now. - π 07:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I know, but the thought cheered me up a little. Screenshots... do you mean the Conley material or is there something else? Rpeh 07:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

haha...I called it. It sure didn't take him long. Hey Terry! For fuck's sake, talk to Ken about his well-being you piece of shit. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 12:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Natha.net

Amusingly, as I was following the fair use chat on wigo [7], I wanted more info, so I went to the article, went to the flower image page [8], and clicked on the "source" link (which is dead). So I worked up to the root. Natha.net, apart from looking like a fun source for debunking projects, features liberal use of photographs/drawings of naked women (and probably men?). Thanks, JM! ħuman 22:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That whole site is so New Age, what's JM doing there? Apart from nicking pictures of course. Totnesmartin 22:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

JM posted a series of "Mind and body" articles a while back which he had copy-pasted. I think he got a strop on when someone deleted them for infringing copyright and temporarily left for good.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 23:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

From their article on sexual continence... [9]

"It all starts from the scientific fact that orgasm and ejaculation – for the man – or the specific squirt – for the woman – are not necessarily connected. There are many situations known when orgasm is plenary experienced without the physiological squirt. The scientific perspective suggested and proved as an explanation to this phenomenon the theory of the biological transmutation of matter for low energies, even inside the human body. This shows that man’s sperm and woman’s sexual fluids can turn into energy inside the human body, according to Einstein’s famous formula E=mc2. The calculation shows that such energy is huge and it stays inside our body at different levels, which secures the above-mentioned advantages."

I still haven't found where JM nicked the photo though. ħuman 22:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

So how much energy do I loose each year when I go poo? --Opcn 23:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I always wondered how relativity accounted for sex. The more you know! 23:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Except that the mass-to-energy involved would destroy a city. But that's just details, and if we learned anything from Andy, it's that those aren't important. Kallium^talk 04:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it would destroy a city, but it would certainly make the earth move. Totnesmartin 11:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

According to the evil Liberal Wikipedia, 1 g of mass-to-energy was all it took for the Trinity/Nagasaki bombs (~21 kt TNT). Kallium^talk 12:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright WIGO

Is CJHallcock on shaky ground, given that the photographer's website clearly specifies "you can use the images for whatever you want, personal, commercial or non-profit use for free.....you are free to distribute and modify these files, commercial or otherwise, as long as you attribute its author. Doesn't this mean RJJ doesn't even need to Fair Use the image? DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 22:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

(EC34) LOL, Joaquin routinely claims fair use for PD images. Which shows that he really doesn't have a clue about the whole thing.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 23:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Ouch. Let's hope that he shifts to the one actually has a problem before he gets banhammered. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 22:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Huh? DogP, is that where the flower image at cp:sexual continence came from? ħuman 22:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, it is covered by the license of natha.net, CJHallock is on no ground with that claim (has that ever stopped any conservapedian before?) I'm pretty sure his argument that it is not fair use is 100% rock solid. I suspect that his removing it had more to do with the improper use of fair use than an actual dislike of the image, although the image doesn't seem to make much of an impact on the article. I wonder how long it will take TK to see this topic. --Opcn 23:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Ouch! That's a lesson in 'read the damn title' before posting. I was referring to the image of the lovely man and woman and sky and lawn and fence thingy. Excuse me for being a twat. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 23:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh. okay. well I'll bet he read that image entry too before going on his tirade. He surely wont survive this. Andy must be paying attention because of his edits to two copyright articles, but he is remaining silent, I wonder why. --Opcn 23:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe banhammering CJH would give unwanted consequences? Not that he would think that far into the future though. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 23:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair use tests

One of the tests for fair use spelled out in 17 U.S.C. § 107 is the purpose and character. Does it advance the understanding of the subject at hand? This has two questions that need to be answered:

• Has the material you have taken from the original work been transformed by adding new expression or meaning?
• Was value added to the original by creating new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings?

A flower does not advance the knowledge of the subject (flowers are quite promiscuous). The image has not been transformed by adding new expression or meaning, nor was any new information aesthetics, insights or understandings added by the inclusion of the flower. This fails fair use test #1. It also fails tests #2 and #3 quite easily. The question of if it has impacted the potential market is debatable, but still - tests #1, 2, and 3 are failed. [10] --Shagie 23:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone ever come back from a 1 month CP block?

and not been immediately (within the next two weeks) blocked for five years? --Opcn 02:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I would be surprised. If they block you for a month it is an attempt to appear fair, after that they feel justified in bring down the ban hammer because they already gave you a chance. Human, Ames and Dinsdale have some of the longest block logs have a look at them. - π 02:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That, and short blocks usually seem to be for being reasonable, when that contradicts Andy; this isn't a condition that goes away.Umlaut 02:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Back in the day, month-long blocks weren't "reinforced", but were just as rare. Its like they're trying to fool viewers into thinking they're merciful or something. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 03:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Return of Blocked Editors

This gives me the opportunity to (re)introduce one of my favourite pics, which seems to answer your question: yes, there are a few editors whose blocks weren't reinforced - and the best way to get this kind of lenience is to stay away....

(The underlying data is of April 2009, the situation surely has changed a little bit)

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm sad to see CJH blocked

He was going so strong too, I had high hopes that he would make it the distance. --Opcn 03:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really, you kept openly questioning them. You should work quietly for a bit and any contact you do have should be overall positive. Too much lackeying and you appear like Bugler, too much arguing and you will be banhammed, too little contact and they won't even notice you so you won't be given rights. Oh well have a sysopship on us. - π 04:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure I have no idea what you are talking about ... I'm shocked, shocked I say to find trolling going on here --Opcn 04:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I call bullshit! Either CJH was the real deal, or both Opcn and CJH are socks of Terry Koeckritz. It would make sense, wouldn't it? Fabricating a shit storm on CP worth goading Andy into giving him Oversight, burning the evidence, and then coming here to brag about it. I don't buy for a second that someone from here socked up and instigated it all. Junggai 11:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I was in fact CJH, to my knowledge TK does not have his tand up my ass (thats the sort of thing Ken might try though). Did you seriously think CJH has one of them? I thought I was caught for sure when I edited the article for some football club after someone brought it up on this talk page, TK reverted me hard after that. --Opcn 16:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ouch

Update: JM changes the block setting for CJH to infinite. Fat chance of seeing that user coming back. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 15:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It probably has something to do with the E-mail I sent him that said basically "Just because you fail to understand the law that doesn't mean that you can call me a liar" I think he didn't like that.--Opcn 16:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

So, is this the demise of WIGO?

Now that TK has oversight he will undoubtedly oversight away as many lulz as possible just to piss in our corn flakes. All the Best of Conservapedia past that we've collected is practically unreadable thanks to all the deep burning. Capturebot will probably be a short term solution at best. Eventually we'll be storing so many screen caps that storage and bandwidth will begin to become an issue and could at some point become untenable. CP is clearly so far down the path to madness that it has long ceased to be a source of novel humor, merely just new iterations of Andy's insanity, TK's masterful trolling, and the continued quixotic charges of true believers. At what point does WIGO become a fond memory of lulz past? Stile4aly 04:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

To be honest the current lulz, other than the Conservapedia law, have been a pale imitation of the past for a few months now. Image storage is not a problem, the pictures aren't that big but bandwidth is and so is CPU time because of the rubbishy way MediaWiki stores files. Trent was looking at an image server to get around that, but that may have petted out. To be honest I think we need to get the other big three going more, world, clogs and blogs. CP is now a tragedy, not a comedy. - π 04:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Even if those are his plans, he can't be everywhere at once. Besides, I think looking at the WIGO page for updates on himself is one of the pleasures in his life. Assuming his megalomania doesn't wane, I don't see him putting a stop to anything that gives him attention. --PitchBlackMind 04:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Capturebot may be a short term solution, but TK may be a short term problem. I think that now that he's a bureaucrat, he may be running out of ladders to climb. And we all know what happens when he runs out of ladders to climb...-- JArneal 05:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

He is not a bureaucrat yet and probably will never be one. The site will be a living fossil by the time TK has finished with it, the homeschool children will grow up and move on, the strong moraled sysops have left, the easily intimidated sysop will be driven off like Jessica, only the likes of Ed will survive and all Andy will have is an empty shell full of errors and rubbish receiving a few edits a day. - π 06:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Oversight... I meant oversight... either way, TK is only playing power games in the end. I think he may just give up when he realizes he can't gain any more power.-- JArneal 06:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

TK is not called TeamKiller for nothing. He is not a natural wiki-player and his role at CP has never been more than a thug. His mainspace "contributions" have largely been copy/pastes because he is not interested in making CP an encyclopedia his aim is to get his sadistic kicks, as Kevin warned us about him. The problem is that the more successful he becomes the less kicks he's going to get out of it because there won't be enough "action" so expect more oppression of his fellow sysops if they are not fully "on message". Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 06:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This could indeed be indeed the beginning of the end of WIGO and, by extension, the final nail for the conservapedos. Where would they be without all those loyal fans driving traffic to them? Oh well, it was fun while it lasted. Mountain Blue 06:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this is the rebirth of WIGO. Now, WIGOing trolling, one-off accounts, etc. will be more difficult, but he can't oversight away the ridiculous antics of his fellow sysops. Articles like "Conservapedia's Law" can't be shuffled under the carpet. He's actually forcing what a lot of people here wanted anyway - a focus shift. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 08:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, if you look at it that way... Mountain Blue 08:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait, he did oversighted RJJ on talk page. Unless of course, you mean he can't Oversight the mainspace without trouble or RJJ isn't actually a sysop. I think most silly antics are from the talk pages anyways, like Godspeed or clueless. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 15:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Forged screenshots

Of course, if the original diff link was still extant then that could prove whether a screencap was forged or not. The very fact that it is missing is proof that they had something to hide in the first place. I expect far more deep burning of pages as Lord Acton's dictum of "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely." plays out before our very eyes. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 06:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, here we go - it seems he's deep burned the RJJensen contrbution that he reverted in the copyright debate on cp:Talk:Sexual continence. Look at the history. Copyright debate? What copyright debate?! DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 06:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

At least Jallen, Kara and Dean used it sparingly and normally only to revert vulgarities and the like. TightKnickers, however, is about to embark on a blaze of conservative deceit, the likes of which we've never seen before. I love how he's already reverting Andy (Private communication comment) - might soon be time for the final endgame. Dean! Kara! I know you both read this - don't you think it's time to show you have a spine and reel the troll in? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 09:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping that the return of Rob might lead to a confrontation. It was Rob TK tried to frame for leaking SDG material to RW 1.0, right? EddyP 10:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't count on Karajou being the one to forestall TK's reign of terror. If this tag team arseholery is anything to go by, they'll be skipping hand in hand down the destroy CP highway. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

As the Terry Koeckritz fuelled paranoia reaches ever greater heights they're circling the wagons ever closer. The 'forged screenshots' line is just perfect wingnuttery - who on earth outside of their tight little circle would believe we need to make anything up; the script writes itself. Silver Sloth 12:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Winston Smith would be sooooooooo proud! If only CP had real power to fix all the liberal lies. Why, we could go back 100 years, and repair newspapers, magazines, radio broadcasts, TV, history books, text books, poetry, folk art, the congressional record, the bible, rock and roll. Oh the things we could do...Jimaginator 12:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

One can show bias or deceit quite easily at CP, but examples of flat out lying are not that common. Well done TK. You have shown yourself to be a liar. It is now clear to anyone that moral victory is ours. I suspect even the majority of admins and users at CP now know you are a liar. Can't wait to see what's next. StarFish 13:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, wait. Liar is too ill-defined for the purpose here. He's not spreading "falsehood" (As CP probably defines it); he's simply not letting you see what happened (he doesn't have his false version to spread, that's what separates him from liars). Subtle differences there, pal. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 14:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe where he states the screenshots are faked he is deliberately spreading falsehoods and is a flat out liar. Deleting the content from the page is deceit. Saying the screen captures are faked is lying IMO. I stand by my words. StarFish 15:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

He mentioned it on that Stanek blog thread (I think) weeks ago. Fucker plans ahead all right... even if the car dealership *is* going tits up. Totnesmartin 16:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It was certainly a lie, however, he will somehow insinuate that this is not a lie because we can neither account for nor prove the validity of every single screen capture the RW community has ever taken. Of course the burden is on him to prove a screen cap is fraudulent (as his claim is a positive one for the fraudulence of our caps), but stupid people rarely place the burden of proof correctly. Hello, Terry. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 16:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"Forged screencaps" has been TopsyKnocker's defence for a while now (and it's getting a bit lame. You need to come up with something fresh while you sit in mummy's basement, you grizzled wanker), especially when he was caught out slagging off CP the last time he was trying to bring it down - a good example is the one Helpjazz provided. That was edited and doesn't say anything near to what TK meant... according to TK. What amazes me, is how he managed to convince Andy that his opening the SDG to everybody, was actually a special seekrit undercover operation he was running. I wonder what his excuse this time will be? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 16:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Defence to whom!? Is there a large audience of potential CP-contributors that we're unaware of, which are being continually deceived by RW's hatemongering, to whom TK needs to respond? No one on earth is reading his defences outside this circle. 18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I know he's kidding himself, but srsly

What does Andy think he's doing by giving his essays (which are already in the mainspace) mainspace redirects? I think he thinks it's a clever loophole for his "fact"-based requirements of the "encyclopedia". ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 15:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Scrupulous adherence to scientific method

The lunacy continues. Or perhaps Andy is just having some fun with us?-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 16:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Andy has never acknowledged reading us. Probably never will. He can't. He's way two big of a man to bother with lowly ol' us. Do I think he reads us? Probably not. He ignores us like he ignores everything else that is contrary to his truths. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 16:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The best part of that edit is the summary: "removed "constitutional" because its origin had nothing to do with a "constitution"; it's amazing how removal of clear mistakes like this one restores the perfect geometric fit". Translated, it means "It's amazing how when I change the data to fit my theory, the data fits my theory." Rpeh 16:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This is just plain funny. How those words are not conservative, yet all the nonsense Andy added is is inexplicable. At this point, he's just obsessed with a "geometric increase." He should submit his findings to a linguistics journal. 17:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know on what criteria she judged it, but my cousin, who has a PhD in linguistics from MIT and studied under Chomsky, gave a bit of a laugh and rolled her eyes when she saw Andy's Conservative Words page. That was about it. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 17:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to record it, but TK disappeared some of the CJH edits

Vasopressin, a pretty darn innocuous edit I did, has gone missing, lies/vandalism. I had a clear and authoritative scientific source and made four claims. 1) It's called ADH, 2) It is released from (but not manufactured in) the pituitary 3) It is involved in Male-partner bonding and 4) It causes the body to maintain its water. This oversighter thing is going to be a bigger problem than I had previously thought. --Opcn 16:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Grab some popcorn, sit back and watch TK make everything disappear over time. TK is going to use oversight like a blunt object rather than a scalpel. But then, using a scalpel would imply TK has opposable thumbs. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 17:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested in seeing how often he uses it. Will he use it for run-of-the-mill vandalism? Or only when he gets called on something? ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 17:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Definitely when he gets called on something (I have a suspicion that he begged for oversight right after Umlaut called Andy out on the email is required thing), and probably will for the first to dick with us. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 17:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I've got 100 internets and a penguin (SirChuck doesn't know he's donating one yet) that says we never see another revert from TK. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 17:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right. TK will go straight for the incinerator. But Andy may be a bit squeamish about it. Here, he reverted someone's "threatening rant" and blocked him. But Andy only reverted ("shallow burned"). It was later incinerated, I would guess by TK. Otherwise Andy would probably have incinerated it himself. The items, from the "recent changes" log, are below. No point in giving the actual link; it's gone. The Bucephalus contribs list shows nothing, of course. Gauss 19:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

1. (diff) (hist) . . m User talk:Aschlafly‎; 14:44 . . (-588) . . Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by Bucephalus (Talk) to last version by TK)
2. (Block log); 14:43 . . Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) blocked Bucephalus (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) (threatening rant)

I didn't grab it but it was the same what GJennings posted. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 19:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's a question for people with more wikiskills than me- is it possible for a person to bork the database by injudiciously using oversight? Corry 21:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it, but because it can only be restored by direct database access, restoring a lot of oversighted stuff is tedious, only CPWebmaster or Andy can do it, and they can royally screw up when directly manipulating the db. -- Nx / talk 21:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

At most, you will increase the R/W time for queries if they don't run an optimize script every now and then. tmtoulouse 21:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You know, I didn't know that I was going to be donating, but I've checked the records, and it just happens that we have exactly one penguin available. A Macaroni.... Good luck Psy SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 04:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Look at that Keijo

Keijo just did a whole lot of vandalism, left people to do many reverts, I'm a little impressed that he made it that far. --Opcn 17:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why that's anything special. It's not that hard if you really feel like going through the trouble. Just open a bunch of tabs to the edit pages and submit all the changes at rapid speed. You could probably pull off 50 in a minute or two if you had a quick finger. --PitchBlackMind 17:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That's actually quite a good way to get vandalism through. A team of three people, one to vandalise and two to revert. The reverters obscure everything (but leave one piece of vandalism) and make it hard to see what's been reverted - if the vandal makes 20+ edits, something might get through. EddyP 18:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

He wasn't doing that though, I was more impressed by how much time her spent up rather than how much damage he did. Not that I condone such actions. --Opcn 19:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

So you would be the much vaunted WIGO that just got me banned, I presume. PTaylor, my CP account, was just banned because of your comments above. Cheers guys, way to go. Why not actually do something, rather than just hate ranting CP? I presume Keijo was one of you? OscarJ? Bastards. Annoyed 20:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind. Not your fault. I can't be bothered anymore. I've been KarlJaeger, PeterWinchester and now Peter Taylor, and I keep getting blocked for doing nothing. I genuinely am giving up at this point. CP just doesn't want users. Annoyed 20:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I seem to remember Mr. Winchester when I was over yonder. Aboriginal Noise ^{with 4 M's and a silent Q} 20:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well thank you. I wrote some quality articles in all my guises. Glad you remember me. Annoyed 21:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The future of claims of faked screenshots

TK suggested that some of our screenshots are faked. I doubt anyone will believe this about any particular screenshot. First, everything we post on WIGO is believable, but already about as outrageous as imaginable. Unless TK starts to drop N-bombs, no screenshot will be so out of character from the diffs that don't get covered up that the screenshot will seem unbelievable.

Second, edit numbers are sequential, so oversight should, assuming it doesn't renumber every edit, leave a trace.

As a preventative mechanism, we might consider WebCite, which produces third-party screenshots. See also Iterasi and kwout. Coarb 19:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Why did you start this in a new section? Haven't you read the rest of this page? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 19:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If I'm feeling lazy or important, I'll do that too. Just like not signing my comments.

The other discussion was about a particular forgery claim, then about completely different things. I wanted to point out two technical pieces of information. I forgot that the other section had that title when I titled this section. I changed the title of this section so you will not annoyed that it nearly duplicates an earlier title. Coarb 20:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I was not annoyed, just irked. :) Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 22:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If we all got together in a room with a rabbit, forty pounds of duct tape, five large bunches of bananas and a thing that went 'whheeep', and a gallon of grog each, we couldn't write, photoshop or think of things as good funny as the WIGO's produced by the staff over at CP. So why the FUCK would we forge them Mr. TK? You fucking nincompoop. I hope you win, by the way, and destroy the whole fucking dump. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 23:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That's why I gave up writing parody articles on CP. I was shamed to discover I couldn't out-crazy the True Believers. --Gulik 06:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

TK just can't be arsed anymore

He's not even bothering to come up with blocking excuses now. It's of course unthinkable that someone may have a name like 'Jacob'? Or perhaps the surname just sounded a bit too foreign for TK's liking? Jammy 20:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Not Americanizing your name, even if you live in a foreign country, is a liberal trait. --PitchBlackMind 20:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Koustoulis is arguably more Americanized than... Koeckritz. Funny that. Mountain Blue 20:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion re: page content

As I just caught myself posting my second TK WIGO directly in a row, I propose that we simply replace the article like this:

= What is going on at CP? =

TK.

Really, do they take turns being obsessed? First Ken went on a marathon, and now TK's going wild at full blast. (And yet, I'm willing to bet that in a week or so, Ed will pop up on aSK again, going all "We can work together to make CP more balanced!") --Sid 20:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I see he's still making up his own rules as he goes along. Now the TV show Angel gets deleted because it's "pop culture". Like somebody said, remember the good old days, when they used to create articles? Oh, and given this edit, Terry Koeckritz has given implied permission to use his name all over the place. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 09:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Dealing With TK

Quick thought - and I probably know the answer - but has anybody ever considered hiring a private detective to follow Terry Koeckritz? I know it's a bit icky to discuss such a thing, and I know what the overall answer will be... but I like the thought that it'll increase his paranoia even for a minute. If you don't like that idea, just be thankful I didn't suggest sending male strippers to Ken's house? Rpeh 21:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Um...yeah. You can do what ever creepy/stalker things you want in your own time. Don't involve the site in it though. Z3ro^talk 21:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the strippers might actually be appreciated. As for Terry Koeckritz I don't care nearly enough--Opcn 21:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Follow TK where? From his Mom's house to the 7/11 and back again? tmtoulouse 21:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Who cares about anything he does except on CP? Why would you want to spend money to pay someone to observe stuff you don't care about or already knew? He's a disgusting creep. If you feel the honest need to know more than that, you should take a break because his poison is the most sickening kind. Nothing good can come of what you're suggesting. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 21:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, I'd imagine following TK in real life would be profoundly disappointing. Internet bullies seldom make intimidating real-life figures. On CP, he's the stuff of nightmares. IRL, he's the stuff of hot-pockets. Z3ro^talk 21:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a terrible idea to harass a person in real life because of childish internet games. Corry 23:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I love the fuck out of your last addition to this topic Z3ro

On a side note, why isn't Andy being the first target? (As in someone dig out his darkest secrets and, ur, post it somewhere?) I am sure Andy would be a more interesting target IRL (not that I am suggesting anything, but Andy should get preferential treatment before TK I would think) [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 01:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I miss TOP, by now he would have been around to tell you stop having this stupid conversation. This is the internet! It is not that important. It is especially not important enough to involve peoples actual lives in. This is the sort of sick games TK us to play calling peoples work and shit (ask the old HotOrNot admins). Only a real sad loser would continue a fight off-line. - π 01:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Your all fucking retarded. At least Rpeh seems to be down with my brand of humor. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 01:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It has to be said that people on this site are even easier to wind up than those on CP... Rpeh 04:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Nah, you just made an asshole suggestion to stalk someone, and not many people have chimed in to tell you what a loser idea that was. Loser idea, end of story, you should be sorry you posted such tripe. ħuman 04:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is you are new, it is hard to tell whether you are joking or just that clueless. - π 05:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well Neveruse513 got it, as did tmtoulouse and Z3ro to some extent. And fuck you all if you can't take a joke. Do you really think I give a flying fuck what TK does? It was just an attempt to start off some lulz. Didn't work. Must try harder next time. Rpeh 05:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I got it too Rpeh. It was part joke and part attempt to increase TKs paranoia. It was in no part a serious suggestion. As for you being too new for people to tell the difference I couldn't disagree more. I think some people struggle to tell the difference precisely because they have been here too long. Personally I'm here to laugh at CP. The day I take it all as seriously as some of the above comments I'll leave. As yogi bear might say "yeeesh". StarFish 06:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Still, suggesting real life stalking of an internet persona is creepy. I saw the fragile attempt at humor when the editor mentioned sending strippers to Ken's house, but sometimes a bit of proofreading and thinking can actually make a joke, you know, "funny", instead of just creepy. ħuman 06:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I read that first as "poofreading" - which I thought was a funnee by teh Human. But no. :( Генгис^pillaging 07:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

So not a "Loser idea, end of story" after all, but one with at least a scintilla of humour? There's also a difference between making a genuine suggestion and saying something as a deliberate wind-up. When I tell you to go fuck yourself, I don't actually expect you to spend some time trying to carry out the act, so when I post a suggestion on a joke site about hiring a detective to follow a known paranoid control freak, you should realise that it's not a serious suggestion. Thank you StarFish for proving that not everybody on here is completely dense. Rpeh 06:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Getting a little hot under the collar there eh Rpeh. Ace McWickedⁱ⁹ 07:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a little, yeah :) Rpeh 07:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh, happens to us all eh. :-) Ace McWickedⁱ⁹ 07:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Skillfully using his absolute control over the press wiki, he gradually built up the legend of the "Duce" "Dick", a man who was always right and could solve all the problems of politics and economics. Italy Conservapedia was soon a police state. With those who tried to resist him, for example the Socialist Giacomo Matteotti Ames Grawertti, he showed himself utterly ruthless. But Mussolini Assolini's skill in propaganda was such that he had surprisingly little opposition.(Grolier Encyclopedia)

(undent)Now sending in the captain to deal with TK, now thats an idea we can get behind --Opcn 15:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

How did I miss this WWGO?

The Obama manifesto doesn't exist, but if it did, we are sure it would bear striking resemblance to Mussolini's manifesto. Thanks JPatt --Opcn 21:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The more I see of this stuff, the more I get the feeling Jpatt is laughing his butt off. His essays are so over the top that they come off as funny more than disturbing, and they fit in so well with Andy's stuff it's hard to just point at them and say parody. --Kels 22:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe I hadn't seen this before either. That clinches JPatt for me. Well done, brother.--PitchBlackMind 22:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

He's taking names

That's just creepy. Bjones 22:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess that gives us free rein to use his full name in every mention now. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 22:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Tmtoulouse ... I would consider Americanizing, how on earth are you supposed to say that? I wonder if I could get my name on the list ... --Opcn 22:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Dude! That's not my name, my name is Trent Toulouse, my user id is tmtoulouse, it comes from my full name Trent Morgan Toulouse. Come on TK, its on my damn user page. tmtoulouse 23:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The little troll is clearly running out of people to harass on his own wiki. Corry 23:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thing is, he will have to do better than that, the three of us are old school veterans of TK and all of his tactics. We have been the focused harassment of multiple CP sysops who have tried to damage our "real life" reputations. None of them were remotely successful. You would be hard pressed to find three people more immune to his trolling than us. tmtoulouse 23:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Or three people less likely to bother faking CP screenshots. But it is amusing to be famous, if only briefly. I wonder if I can get a lawyer to send Andy a letter requesting that he remove the slander or libel or whatever it is from his web site? ħuman 23:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Better yet, sue him in small claims court. Use the discovery portion of the process to request all records re CP, including funding, secret communications (probably containing more libel), and so on. Maybe throw in a goodly number of interrogatories for Andy to answer. Could be fun.--WJThomas 00:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to twist the internets panties into a Mobius strip and stuff them into a Klein bottle, let's see him call this a forgery! ħuman 23:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I suspect he used those names since they're the only three he knows right off. I'm sure he could find mine and a few others easily enough, but he's got those right at hand so why bother? --Kels 00:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Nooooooooooooo it's becoz we're teh rulzorz of teh Fandal Sight! ħuman 01:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC) (timestamp a bit later than actual post due to forgery)

Hey Terry Koeckritz, other people have names too, so STFU if you can't get the whole list. Now let's see how Terry Koeckritz's creepiness will match up with the Church of Scientology. Prediction: epic fail of TK to get the complete list of our names. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 01:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to give him mine along with my address if he really wants to tally names. If there's anyone we shouldn't be scared of it's Terry Koeckritz.--PitchBlackMind 01:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey TopKracker, why don't you put my name up on your userpage? After all, I'm the superhero of the group.... I can teleport myself from Denver to Salt Lake for vandalism purposes..... SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 03:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

TK: "I am going to add more names, and not stop there, but link to it other places, like Ken has shown us to do.

Why?

Because you keep using my full name, in spite of your ex-admin's promise to stop it. Therefore I am going to link your names to the same types of things you keep doing to me. Fair is fair."

Let the hilarity ensue! ħuman 06:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• snigger* As Ken showed him how to do *snigger* Z3ro^talk 13:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Be careful, folks. Remember, Tk knows people. --Gulik 06:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ex-admin's promise? Sorry but what weight does that carry round here? Ames is no longer an active contributor but devotes his spare time to his blog. He has no influence over what is published here and never carried more influence than any other user even when he was active. Having driven away most editors at CP, TK has no more toys in his pram with which to amuse himself and needs to cause more mischief. Tell you what Terry, why don't you actually try writing some genuine educational articles for the children that you have professed to care so much about? And furthermore do it without such obvious copy/pastes that underpinned most of the other articles you "created". I presume you haven't forgotten the UCLA article when you lied to Andy and the sysops at CP that it had not been copied from Wikipedia. It was shown both here and independently by Philip J. Rayment, to be an utter falsehood so why don't you expunge that from your database with your new powers, as any other sysop can resurrect it whenever they wish if they want to know the truth? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 07:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That list is insulting to User:Nx. TK, I demand you rectify this at once! EddyP 15:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Uncle Ed's sympathetic side

Having your own group of diseases is a great way to get attention (and federal research funds). - Nice one Ed, nice one. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 22:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

It's quotes like this that scare Ken even deeper in the closet. For shame, Ed, for shame. Vulpius 01:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

50? Oh noes! I can't even get myself 1 (and that 50 is in six months, and my 1 that doesn't exists counts at least 10 years). [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 02:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The number of men, straight, in closet or openly gay or otherwise, having 50+ sexual partners in 6 months would be around ~0.000001% (my assumption is we are talking 4 or more standard deviations above the mean) so the difference between 0.000004% and 0.000001% is fuck all. - π 02:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone paid attention to...

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

Yes. The entire SPastel thing was epic:

• SPastel was extremely polite and cooperative. The template is so obviously inappropriate for articles on specific butterflies even Karajou has to be aware of it. He is clearly complaining in bad faith. Most people would have called him out on it, SPastel pretends not to realize he's being an asshat and calmly points out a select few of the many reasons the template is useless. The taxonomy box is completely ludicrous. Most other biologists would have told Karajou to shove it, SPastel meekly states there are "issues" with the box and asks for "imporovements to the template" to be discussed.
• SPastel is exactly the kind of editor you would expect the Conservapedos to loves. SPastel does not talk, SPastel just writes articles. They are concise. They are genuinely useful. SPastel does not believe in evolution. SPastel takes care to cite an evolution denialist in every single friggin article, including articles he's not really topical in. SPastel dislikes "19th century materialism" and its attempts to shoehorn God's creation into schemes "made by man". It just doesn't get much more Conservapedian than that.

Did they take the axe to SPastel because they read RW and thought SPastel was me or something, or are they just completely nuts? Mountain Blue 07:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Completely nuts, yeah. I dunno what's going on here. Clearly they had it out for SPastel, but the strange thing is that they were so formal and polite(ish) about it. Normally they don't even bother with formalities--they don't like you, off you go. And then to delete all his work? Maybe Andy didn't believe the denials as to copyright, and asked The Boys to toss SPastel without making it obvious it was about copyright? Weird. Andy seems particularly concerned about (text) plagiarism of late--there's been a few times in the last couple of weeks when he asked contributors if their work was kosher. Makes a guy go, "hmmmm...".--WJThomas 10:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's really quite a nice summary of CP's new motto: "We don't really want editors." 13:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"to delete all his work"'- do we know SPastel is a bloke? I only ask because there's something about SPastel that says "female" to me, but I can't quite put my finger on it. Mountain Blue 13:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Karajerk's Brian MacDonald's (just in case he feels left out) on a roll - now he deletes Glenn Seaborg and [ Jeremy Paxman], both of which seemed to be ok. Ah, the site is growing rapidly. Between Brian and Terry (gosh, I almost see them as human when Iuse their first names) CP has probably had a net reduction in pages over the past few days. Terry Koeckritz's "Pop Culture" reason is still the best - don't forget to delete all the Disney stuff then, Terry Koeckritz. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 16:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Since Atheistic means censoring religion...

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

Start the prayer off with "To Whom It May Concern..."? --Gulik 06:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Great suggestion, would that I could --Opcn 06:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That reminds me, our much-missed friend Godless Liberal was supposed deliver a valedictorian speech when he left high school. Some suggestions were made that he should deliver a Pastafarian prayer. I don't think we got an update on this is as he withdrew from here to concentrate on his studies. Генгис^marauding 07:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I Borked

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

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

Schlafly's apology

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

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

"To act fairly is to follow the rules. To act capriciously is to be the rules." --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 12:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The decline and decline of CP

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

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

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

The only other one is PhyllisS, purely to keep up the nepotism. But you're right that Terry Koeckritz has scared just about everyone else away. There are also probably a lot of people who would like to contribute but can't because Terry Koeckritz has blocked them. Rpeh 11:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Terry Koeckritz doesn't want meat handed to him on a platter. Terry Koeckritz wants to hunt. SJ ^Debaser 12:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

My leaving had nothing to do with Terry. Andy stating that liberals show false intelligence was my impetus to get out. Aboriginal Noise ^{with 4 M's and a silent Q} 12:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I do think that we ought to use Terry Koeckritz's name more often around here instead of his typical online handle 'TK'. We debase Andrew Schlafly, Ed Poor, PJR and others by name, but we almost always allow him to hide behind his own handle. Those who know Terry Koeckritz and his routine destruction of online internet communities that form around forums, wikis and blogs should be able to search for his name, Terry Koeckritz (TK), espcially since Terry Koeckritz has recently been so keen to name those people here who he mistakenly sees as enemies of Terry Koeckritz. That Terry Koeckritz, aka TK, is an especially threatening emailer and sender of offsite communications to users of these communities is something that others may want to know about Terry Koeckritz. I personally have received threatening emails from Terry Koeckritz, known as TK, in the past, as have others, and Terry Koeckritz is most certainly not a pleasant individual to deal with. That Terry Koeckritz's goal is the destruction of Conservapedia is beyond doubt. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 14:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Should we be amending the Terry Koeckritz template to ensure that everyone knows we mean the computer security 'consultant' Terry Koeckritz who lives about 60 miles from Reno? Silver Sloth 14:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

When you say "about 60 miles from Reno", are you referring to Fallon, Nevada, home to one Terrance F. Koeckritz?--WJThomas 18:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

For some reason, I feel left out when Terry Koeckritz doesn't send me threats, because it looks like a sign of honor from my perspective. Didn't he mention working for Hilary Clinton at some point? lolz Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure CPalmer is legit any more. I think he used to be, but recently (after Jess left) I've been seeing work by him that seems like parody or veiled criticism. Also, he's been encouraging Andy slightly with the whole geometric procession thing and Conservapedia's Law, and he always struck me as too intelligent to truely believe that. EddyP 15:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget the Terry Koeckritz who allegedly guarded Nancy Reagan during the assassination attempt on St Ronnie (although every resource everywhere seems to neglect to mention that fact). Quick aside... thought I'd go to www.ronaldreagan.com, to check if Terry Koeckritz was indeed around, and not a lying scumbag, when I received this warning: "Warning - visiting this web site may harm your computer!" it seems ronaldreagan.com has malware - probably a virus that infiltrates your bank account and sends funds to South American guerillas. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 15:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

PS Ken would be proud of me. A certain search engine beginning with G has me at no 3 for pages about Terry Koeckritz (ok, with a little help from Digg.) --PsyGremlin_Whut? 15:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it interesting how there's no connection whatsoever on Google between "Terry Koeckritz" and Nancy Reagan, Ed Meese or Adrianna Huffington, all of whom are supposed to be close confidantes of his? Hmmmmmm. Must be the evil Liberal bias of Google, yeah. --Kels 17:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a stronger connection between "surgical scrotum removal" and Terry Koeckritz than there is between Nancy Reagan, Ed Meese and Terry Koeckritz.

File:TK and reagan google results.png

500px

I'm too scared to click that link, especially after the last time I clicked a Terry Koeckritz link, I had to read about him being given a forced enema, whilst caged, on Borrelboards, or whatever it was. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 18:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Mommy dearest

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

Links removed from comment. ħuman 00:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to out his mother. It's not necessarily her fault that her son is a prick.--WJThomas 18:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - she looks a nice old duck. However, I have to love the irony of their predicament. Wasn't their beloved George Dubbya in the White House when the government crapped all over them? And ironically, she would probably stand to gain under Obama's health reforms. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 18:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, leave mothers out of this, that's really uncalled for.--PitchBlackMind 18:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Although it will give him an idea of just how far web-stalking can go, if he wants to play that game. I can't wait to see his face when the maroon Pontiac starts circling his block. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 19:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sure that dear old Babs is blissfully unaware of the malice in her son's (Terry Koeckritz) internet antics. So I do hope he's looking after with a cut of the fees from his high-powered political/public-policy/computer/car-price consultancy work. She seems to have had a rough deal so one would think that she would be behind Obama's plans for universal healthcare. Which side is her son (Terry Koeckritz) on now, is he still backing up Andy's every man for him self philosophy or did he vote to get a better dear for his dear old mom? Of course he could put Andy's charitableness to the test and ask for a small retainer to look after her seeing as he's doing such a good job looking after Andy's wiki. One last thought, does she look the type who could publish that story on the internet all by herself or did her computer genius of a son (Terry Koeckritz) do it for her? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 19:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It'd be cool if we had an anonymous, public account that anyone could access. That way TK wouldn't know who this stuff comes from. It would also give TK et al a great red telephone. I think it would all-around increase the paranoia, which I think makes for better lulz. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 19:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Nah, it'd still be creepy and uncalled for. --Kels 19:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Nah, it'd be cool. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 19:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that I have sympathy with Terry Koeckritz's mother as she has obviously fallen on hard times. It's not easy losing a loved one to cancer and losing all your savings to medical bills. This is exactly the sort of thing that socialised medicine is designed to overcome. My own dearly beloved Mrs Khant had cancer and received tremendous treatment from the NHS including a £50,000 titanium arm prosthesis about five years ago. She's still going strong and it didn't cost us a penny more than what we already pay in our affordable social security/tax contributions. So go on JPratt, write one of your stupid essays about how bad the British NHS is (nobody is claiming it's perfect), just don't forget that the mother of your chum, Terry Koeckritz, was semi-impoverished through medical bills, that's how great the present system is in the USA. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 20:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Listen, TK doesn't have many fans over here, but it is completely unnecessary to bother with family members. Mrs. Koeckritz did nothing wrong. I know where you are going to run with that last statement, so don't!! Aboriginal Noise ^{with 4 M's and a silent Q} 21:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't talk about this, this is sick, please. Stalkish. --Smg87 21:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Concur with parent. Fedhaji 23:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Just in case there's any doubt - dragging Mums into an internet debate is totally off-limits, sorry. Absolutely not cool. And just 'cos he might do it doesn't make it right. Let's maintain that moral high ground that we stand so mightily and resolutely upon. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 23:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree totally with DogP. About this and everything he has ever said or thought. Ace McWickedⁱ⁹ 23:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Go ahead Human, I second burning this thread and apologise for anything I may have written which could me misconstrued. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 23:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I also second burning this thread. I considered doing it myself, but I've been sysop for less than a week and hadn't yet figured out if I would have violated convention. Mountain Blue 23:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I have dealt with Robledo before (the offending poster) and found him a cunt. Perhaps admistrative action is in order? Ace McWickedⁱ⁹ 00:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to burn the thread, just the edit that started it (and perhaps add "personal information deleted"?). Trouble is, since we do it so rarely, I can't remember/don't know how. I'll go read the help files and see what's there. ħuman 00:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Time to bring in our own Oversight Whammy Bar. Blast it to bits Human. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 00:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Human: Thanks. Mountain Blue 00:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome. I followed all the instructions, so why can I still see the edit & its links? (With this edit I overwrote it without links). Anyone ever practice "hide revision" enough to tell me what I might have done or not done wrong? ħuman 00:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I find it heartening that anyone here would have difficulty burning an edit. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 00:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I desysoped Robledo. Anyone disagrees they can reverse. Ace McWickedⁱ⁹ 00:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No I think you are right Ace, also can we get on top of this shit faster in the future I had to hide over 50 edits. - π 01:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Really glad I got back home to find everyone else found this as distasteful as I did. You stay classy RationalWiki. --PitchBlackMind 02:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Distasteful, but something I'm not going to lose sleep over Terry getting a taste of... ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 02:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Blocked IPs and Range Blocks

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

CP
WP

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

Wait one frakkin' minute! These look like biological warfare maps: coincidence? Jimaginator 13:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I so love this. I crap some half-baked idea onto someone's talk page, some other dudes work out the details and make it happen, and LArron gives me top billing for the whole thing. I, meanwhile, haven't even followed through on those charts I promised a week ago. Anyway, it just so happens I have a new idea: there should be badges for people that get IP ranges banzored, a la Science Scouts. Instead of "Level I" and "Level II" and so on we'd obviously have "/24" and "/16" or some such. Now someone make it work for me. Mountain Blue 13:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Here you go, unless someone can think of a good image to put in the center to represent... an IP address. Science Scouts is cool. 15:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a million, Publius. The /32 is ballsy. Mountain Blue 18:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

These are great... although I'm a little confused - 'cos I thought CP had something like 3x the blocks of WP, yet these make WP look worse?--PsyGremlin_Whut? 13:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

CP has easily a couple thousand times the blocks of WP per contributor, or per article, or per edit. Maybe a couple tens of thousands. I'm sure LArron will be happy to provide hard numbers. Also, keep in mind that on these maps the typical WP block (which blocks one address) looks exactly as bad as the typical CP block (which nukes a campus, a medium ISP, or a small city). Mountain Blue 13:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the red dots are just one address - it's the yellow dots which you want to look at, as they're the /16 range blocks. EddyP 14:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh shame on you Portugal. Not a single IP blocked on CP. JoeDuffy 14:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

What we need (and I fear may be beyond even LArron's skills) is a population-scaled map, like so, allowing a /16 to be 65 thousand times larger than a /32. 15:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the same effect could be acheived by having different dot sizes for each range size. Jimaginator 20:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I suspect the above comment has just added an extra dot! StarFish 15:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

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

wp

cp

Happy now? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 17:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Tenk yew! (Actually, I might have mentioned this before, but you rock!) Is it just me, or do those badges above look suspiciously like ecstasy pills... er... you know, the pictures you see on the warning posters. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 17:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Anyone else thinking of the movie Wargames right now? Kaalis 17:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Thanks for your ideas - and this gapminder site seems to be fun larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 18:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that it works that well. And it transports a wrong impression as the change of contrast is linear, while each range block covers twice as many numbers as the next smaller one.

If I try to put this information into the size of the circles - doubling the area for two neighbouring ranges - I get some very black regions :-) larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 23:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Another idea would be to change it so that the short term warning blocks are not shown. Remove blocks that are due to expire in less than... say, one month. That would give a better picture of the "no editors from..." mindset. --Shagie 19:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No Chilean blocks? C'mon, TK, you got work to do. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 18:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

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

LArron, I don't normally comment on your graphs, but bravo. I think the extra large /16 block circles perfectly represent CPs "nuke 'em" block policy. Z3ro^talk 18:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Thank you! I made the pics into an article - and I'm thankful for input. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 23:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You'll love this one - "Broadband users in SCANDINAVIA"....DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 23:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to show my ignorance....can someone explain the /2, /8, /16 stuff to me plase? I guess it's something to do with the number of IPs blocked but don't quite get it. Feel free to put it down to my age and advancing senility. Mick McT 07:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It's the number of bits of an IP address that must match the blocked address to also be blocked. In that last example (85.227.0.0/16), only the first 16 bits (the two non-zero octets) have to match, thus blocking the 65,536 IPs starting with those two numbers. In a /24 block, the first three octets have to match, only blocking 256 IPs. A /32 block would be identical to an individual IP address block. There's a good help page here. Rpeh 07:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a better link: Idiot's guide to range blocks -- Nx / talk 07:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I figured out what TK's problem with Scandinavia is. Mountain Blue 08:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Eventful morning over there...

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

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

Look at CaptureBotII's user page and "Project Woodshed" linked off my userpage for how to set up your own sandbox to grab screenshots without necessarily having to write WIGOs for them. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 18:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"Anti-evolution" and "competently written" aren't really terms that go together. --Kels 18:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"Moderately scientifically literate blogger XYZ put up a very competently written post today blasting the entirety of the anti-evolution lobby" --Opcn 18:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Kels: I disagree. You don't have to be insane to have difficulties emotionally accepting the idea that pure dump chance could have built so many organisms so intricate and beautiful in so many different ways. There's is difference between being able to reason about something and being able to really embrace it and resonate with it. Your rationality can be completely overwhelmed in one specific area but fully functional in all others. I can easily picture someone who happens to unable to bring himself to believe in evolution but is completely sane and competent otherwise. Remember how it took some pockets of physicists fifty years to really accept relativity. Remember how an entire generation of geologists had to literally die out before continental drift stopped being controversial. Remember there is at least one credentialled and successful biologist who happens not to believe in evolution.

An anti-evolution site with the likes of SPastel could actually go somewhere. It would probably contain a lot of genuinely useful hard facts in addition to some amount of proselytizing. Spastel's butterfly pages were anti-evolution only in that they cited d'Ambrera. Except for that they were completely neutral. They even linked to the Tree of Life site, for chrissakes. Mountain Blue 18:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about it, isn't it all a bit weird that he got booted over taxonomy? Surely, young earthers don't believe in taxonomic classification since no species is in any sense related to any other. Surely they ought to have baraminoboxes instead? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Taxonomy does not necessarily imply phylogenesis. It could be purely morphological, like the one Aristotle did. Mountain Blue 19:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ouch. I thought that taxonomy is compatible with old Earth creationism... guess not. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 19:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wha? The concept of "taxonomy" as such is compatible with pretty much anything. "Taxonomy" by itself just means "we stick things into a pyramid of nested categories". It's only when you talk about specific criteria things get hairy. Modern biology tries to categorize by degree of kinship. Creationists obviously can't do that, but they can still categorize by degree of phenotype similarity. You know, four legs vs six, life birth vs eggs, brushlike antennas vs straight ones, shit like that. Mountain Blue 19:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That's how Linnaeus started, so watch out creationists, in another couple of hundred years you'll have caught up, assuming the Rapture doesn't happen first...and why should it, it's 2000 years late as it is... Totnesmartin 20:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Twitter

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

You're like a little girl that can't get her way. Didn't mommy suckle you enough? When will you ever learn that God is not on your side? We win because of Him! I will not post Trent's full name or Ames full name, for now -Jpatt

Aw! Innit cute! I got my own personal non-sequitur from CP's Master of Disaster(ous writing). Hey, fuckhead - um, I'm not sure what exactly you're winning, looking at your White House, Invasion of Iraq, getting pwned by Iran and North Korea. Maybe your god has taken a couple of eons off? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 10:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick, ban him Terry Koeckritz, he's a member of a vandal site! Z3ro^talk 19:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Is that the real Mr X-Ray of Ohio who has visited us or someone taking the piss? Генгис^pillaging 19:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a BoN. Fedhaji 21:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

But is it actually Jsplatt? The comment seems right down his alley. From thought to type. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 21:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

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

have never hidden my identity not even a little bit. tmtoulouse 21:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Still looking for the word Trent in that post --Jpatt

Er what? Because my user idea doesn't include my full first name I am in secret internet hiding? Its on my damn user page, and the use of my last name gives a lot more away than "Trent" does. tmtoulouse 00:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

On a completely unrelated note, when did the word meme become so popular? Of all the words that have gained in popularity in recent years, I hate meme the most. Z3ro^talk 21:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a completely new paradigm. Генгис^pillaging 22:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You should be happy, it's almost entirely displaced "zen". --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think "Meme" became a popular term after Dawkins' The Selfish Gene popularized the idea. The Internet gave it the ideal medium to flourish in. --Gulik 23:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Why does CP even suggest that you use your first name/initial or whatever? First off, that discourages users who do want to create an account, secondly, it is only half assedly enforced and half the sysops don't even do that. If I were to do that, it would come out to DNajib. (yeah, I have an African last name does TeamKiller actually read this page?) Yeah, I know everyone knows this, but I have exams tomorrow, too much Lebneh to eat, and I think I lost 2 of my cats. I can't find them and now I have to look for them but don't want to. My friggin head hurts too.... Fuck finals. My rant. --Beishanlong ^grandis 01:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The contradiction! Its Buuuurns!

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

Contrary to the deceit proffered by liberals, physics has almost nothing to do with mathematics. Meanwhile, paleontology has much to do with astronomy. Deny this and lose all credibility. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 02:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

And being a Conservative instantly makes you infallible on ALL subjects. --Gulik 18:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Time for an easter egg hunt

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

Mucho laughs, even for a chemist like me.....--199.20.64.195 23:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

TK invents his own statistics

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

I want to know how this squares with Andy's "Geometric Fit". He/She (TK I mean) says in the mainpage that the number of people identifying with conservatism hasnt changed since 2004. Ace McWickedⁱ⁹ 23:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh there's just so many ways that TK (Terry Koeckritz) is avoiding the real truth here. 35% moderate+21% liberal=56% self-identifying as not conservative, a powerful majority, especially considering only 40% self-identify as conservatives. 73% of Republicans are conservative vs. Democrast being 40% moderate and 38% liberal clearly means Republicans run a less inclusive, 'smaller house', as distinct from the broad political balance across Democrat supporters. Likewise the rest of the figures he's twisted so much they look like a pretzel. More Terry Koecritz lies. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 23:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well gallup did it wrong of course! They collected the data and then drew conclusions. As we all know from Andy's 'conservative terms' you're meant to do it the other way round! Jammy 23:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Aww, Terry's bored. Hi Terry! I see what you did there! Have fun with the trolls who smell the bait! Most of all, thank you for showcasing what ignorant cowards Andy et all are...it is absolutely priceless. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 02:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

And how does that bode for CP's common stance of "You're not really a conservative just because you say you're a conservative"?HollowPsycho 03:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Damn. You beat me to it (curse this requirement for sleep). When I posted the link to that blog post in the saloon bar yesterday, I guessed CP would pick up on it. It's typical conservative deceit: when it suits them, crow about how many people are conservatives; when it doesn't claim that they aren't conservatives at all. Rpeh 04:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Lemonpeel Shoutout

Email me User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 02:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone seems to have made an appeal to TK, but I doubt it will work, I suspect that if Lemonpeel is a rat ;) he can come out and say it --Opcn 04:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Lemonpeel was first blocked under another name last year. After that, he came here and made one edit before vanishing again. I don't think he has ever had a lot of time for us or particularly interested in contributing here much. I have no idea why he went back a second and third time. Opcn, you don't get this whole idea behind socking do you? - π 04:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Everyone socks in there own way, I prefer argyle, that said I'm working on a plan, and not outing anyone or eating up proxies, so all in all I think I'm doing alright. --Opcn 06:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Making it obvious who your sock is in not much of a plan, unless having us think you are the world's worst sockpuppeteer is part of an amazingly complex plan. - π 06:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, yabbling about it here is in bad taste anyway. ħuman 06:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Make that second worst. Don't forget CUR. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 06:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that CUR's mummy sowed his named into his sock he was incapable of making puppets out of them anyway. - π 06:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

My latest sock is already gone, so yabbling isn't that bad (cool word BTW), but yes there is a daringly complex plan behind it all, I won't lay it out here, but it involves three live chickens, a few inflated balloon animals, and 36 and a half ounces of Anal lube. --Opcn 15:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, reminds me of when I joined the Masons. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 15:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Is "Anal lube" a brand name or do you think there is a lube specifically made for the anus? We, Ourselves, prefer "Astroglide®", original formula only please. The Triune God(s) 17:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

He finally noticed that I was using the EXACT SAME IP ADDRESS --Opcn 21:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ken singing

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

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

I doubt Ken has the drink to keep himself sane. What he really needs is a good, run-of-the-mill vice. - π 06:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

A good run of the mill vice like sex with strange men? --Opcn 06:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No, like biting his nails, or watching reruns of Rosanne. Fuxkcing strange men isn't "run of the mill" quite yet, let him take baby steps. ħuman 06:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be run-of-the-Windmill-ministries vice? Генгис^pillaging 06:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ye gods. When I first read that I assumed it was a piss take of Ken, not something he had actually written. Even the other CP sysops must be getting embarrassed of Ken by now? Rpeh 07:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

See, Terry? We don't need fake screenshots! You guys are already ridiculous enough!-- JArneal 07:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Terry? Do you mean Terry Koeckritz? Rpeh 07:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Why, yes! Terry Koeckritz! I figured leaving out Terry's surname (which is Koeckritz) would be okay, but I had forgotten about our recent obsession with calling Terry Koeckritz Terry Koeckritz! Silly me. I hope Terry Koeckritz can forgive me. Maybe if I just type his name over and over I'll remember to do it next time: Terry Koeckritz Terry Koeckritz Terry Koeckritz Terry Koeckritz Terry Koeckritz. All better. Won't make that mistake again. Sorry Terry Koeckritz! -- JArneal 08:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Does repeating his name like that work like saying Blood Mary over and over again? Watch out or Terry Koeckritz may appear before you and destroy your website like so many others. :) --BoredCPer 08:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah good. I assumed you meant Terry Koeckritz, but I wanted to make sure you meant Terry Koeckritz instead of just assuming you meant Terry Koeckritz. With hindsight it was fairly obvious you meant Terry Koeckritz so I apologise for wasting your time asking you to confirm you meant Terry Koeckritz rather than simply operating on the likelihood that you meant Terry Koeckritz. It's good to know that you'll remember to say Terry Koeckritz whenever you want to mention Terry Koeckritz in the future though. Rpeh 08:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we change the TK* template to his full name, which is Terry Koeckritz? (*TK stands for Terry Koeckritz) 194.6.79.200 11:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking only in full names is making this start to sound suspiciously like a series of Chuck Norris jokes, i.e. Terry Koeckritz doesn't block your IP, he blocks your soul. / Most people banhammer by clicking a mouse. Terry Koeckritz uses an actual hammer. / Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and Scooter Libby are all Terry Koeckritz. Kallium^talk 15:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't get the joke. Aren't all those things true? I have personally heard all those things about Terry Koeckritz...and more...I have heard that when Terry Koeckritz jumps into a pool of water, Terry Koeckritz doesn't get wet because the water quickly recoils in fear from any contact with the concentrated dark matter that composes his skin. In fact, I heard that Moses was able to use Terry Koeckritz to part the Red Sea (Terry Koeckritz is immortal, don't you know? There are some even the reaper will not touch). Kaalis 17:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The reaper just wants to avoid being banned from CP so he can fix his redlink. Kallium^talk 18:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Is Alberta like your Southern US? I never knew that. --PitchBlackMind 16:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we would have had a Bible belt, but we thought vertical stripes were more slimming. --Kels 19:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thought pretty much everyone outside of larger cities in Quebec, Ontario, NS, and BC were major hillbillies, no? And reverse-vampires too. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 16:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Lies! Lies and slander! Except the reverse-vampire bit, of course. --Kels 19:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Wigo - Now with (blue) BALLS

• Tooltips. Mostly because noone would know what the blue dot does (see next feautre). The relevant pages to edit are: Mediawiki:Wigotitleup, Mediawiki:Wigotitledown, Mediawiki:Wigotitlereset. Also, alt text (the text that appears if you disable images): Mediawiki:Wigoaltup, Mediawiki:Wigoaltdown, Mediawiki:Wigoaltreset.
• Reset vote (the blue dot). It doesn't delete your vote, it just sets it to 0 instead of +1 or -1, so it'll be counted in the total.
• Total votes (added this a while ago, I assume everyone has noticed by now): Mouse over the result to see the total number of votes. Relevant page is Mediawiki:wigovotestotal.

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

Ah, thanks for the update/notice. I was wondering why WIGO had suddenly developed blue balls...--WJThomas 10:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice one Nx, as ever I'm in awe of your l33t skilz (have I got that right?). In particular the total votes thing gives insite as to whether a low vote is either disinterest of a tug of war between rival opinions. Silver Sloth 11:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

1337 is more common now. - π 13:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

It isn't just you. If you changed your mind or accidentally clicked the wrong arrow, you could just hit the other one and flip it. It's hardly necessary. --PitchBlackMind 19:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It makes sense. It's a "zero" vote. "Flipping" up to down changes your +1 to -1. Having "zero" votes allows for tallying percentages more accurately, it lets people vote "meh" if they want to. PS, Nx, do you mind if I change the image to a blue zero? Where locatest it thou? (Guess I could just check the source...) Last thought, can the "best of" widget report not just the net but the +/0/- totals as well? ħuman 19:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait, can you vote "zero" ("reset") without voting up or down first? ħuman 19:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This ain't Chicago. You don't vote early and often. You vote once. -1, 0, or 1. Once! User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 19:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You can vote zero. Make sure you ctrl-r because the javascript has to be updated. Image filename is located at Mediawiki:wigoresetvote, if it's a gif, you don't have to change that, just upload to File:wigoresetvote.gif -- Nx / talk 19:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Glad a zero vote is possible. Can you change the mouseover text to be "vote zero" instead of "reset"? I made a "0" gif, I might also change it to black from blue for a more neutral appearance. Thoughts on that? Any thoughts on my last question above? It would be cool to know, sometimes I suspect fairly neutral scoring polls may get a lot of votes, but they split... ħuman 20:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I was about to crack a joke about human being the only one who thought the WIGOs important enough to be indecisive, but I started doing something else. Seriously, dude, you're a tool. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 20:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

(ECx2) Oh, I think I see where the confusion comes from. Yeah, you can vote zero first, because instead of actually removing your vote I instead decided to record a zero vote using the existing functionality (in fact wigo can be expanded to allow any numeric vote, not just up or down - I'm probably going to use the same system for the new Aotw voting, once I get around to that). After EC: the tooltip is MediaWiki:wigotitlereset (see first post for the rest). As for the +/-/0 totals, I can do that too. -- Nx / talk 20:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Human, please make the new 0 image a mini-goatse. That is all. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 20:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

↑=↓ that's confusing! Better would be ↑ ↔ ↓ larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 21:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Here's an example with Wikipedia's voting icons. With that in mind I changed the image to a grey equal sign, and the tooltip/alt-text to neutral, as IMHO equal fits in better with up/down

With Wikipedia's icons

-- Nx / talk 21:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, how's it now? -- Nx / talk 21:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a bed+breakfast :-) The encircled symbols of the pic would work nicely, I suppose --larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 21:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Terry Koeckritz

Just to make Terry Koeckritz a little more crazy and "on edge", a google search puts him in the Greater Los Angeles Area and he "runs" a Computer & Network Security apparently, whatever the hell that is. BTW, is his last name Polish or something. I'm Polish, but my last name is nothing like that (mostly because I have my dad's African last name). --Beishanlong ^grandis 23:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)