Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

What is going on?

(talk) (talk) (talk) (hic)

As a point of etiquette, please use the [add section] tab above, or the "Add new section" link below, when adding a new topic, and the appropriate [edit] tab when commenting on existing topics. This will lessen the incidence of edit conflicts. Thank you.

When adding a link to Conservapedia that is not already on What is going on at CP? please place <capture></capture> around the link.


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

Contents

[edit] Every now and then

Things like thisimg pop up which remind why it is I still find fun at cp. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

MPs being slightly rude about TheDonald is apparently embarrassing English speakers some how. More embarrassing is the ignorance of the person who thinks it happened "on the floor of the UK Parliament". Sphincter (talk) 09:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I suspect if you asked most residents of the UK they would tend to say something quite similar. Very few people I know realise that parliament is the entire thing, lords and commons, few realise that the crown owns the palace of Westminster. So the idiot referred to the floor of the house of commons as the floor of the UK parliament but I suspect the majority of UK people would also make the same mistake. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I suspect most people do know that parliament includes both the lords and the commons, it just most people barely think about the lords, so parliament seems like acceptable short hand. I do suspect though, that they believe parliament to be the palace of westminster AMassiveGay (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
You must know a lot more politically aware people than I do, and I am quite politically savvy and active on the whole. The wonks I know would appreciate the difference but I promise you most of my friends would have no idea that parliament consists of both houses. Saying all that, however, Andy was still wrong, the debate took place in Westminster Hall, which is not actually part of the main chamber. I do love the archanities of the UK political system, even if I find them immensely frustrating and hide-bound. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
to be honest, its not really a subject that comes up with my friends, they are mostly immigrants of various descriptions. I just assume that if i, an ill educated twat know something, then must be common knowledge. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
"Archanities": Is that a portmanteau of archaic arcane inanities? I like it. MaillardFillmore (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Andy really can be a despicable person can't he.

Apparently the lead poisoning in Flin is purely a political issue because the governor is a rethuglican. And anyway, something as minor as lead poisoning is of far less long term importance than Teabowimg being to crap to get picked by a NFL team. Oldusgitus (talk) 08:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

[edit] TAR is Back

And nobody cares. Whoover (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Not so much nobody cares imo more that all he is doing is exactly what he did previously. Spam a lot of prepper and survivalist shite all over the 'trustworthy encyclopedia' whilst refusing to collaborate on anything. He's already up and running with over 100 pointless category additions yesterday alone. So the small amount of work AugustO and SamHb did in trying to clean up tar's putrid mess is rapidly being undone. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
This editimg is interesting. A delete tag for an essay he himself wrote, calling it vandalism. Whoover (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
When a "conservative, family-friendly Wiki encyclopedia." has dozens of articles about non fundies burying their beef bayonets in animals, TAR's edits seem a little tepid and not at all controversial. His edits also show how terribly conservapedia is run and how of much a grip Andy really has on matters. A micro insight in what would become if someone of his ilk actually got into power.--Mercian (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Only tangentially related, I never realized until today that Rawles is a Freeman on the land. He apparently writes his name "James Wesley, Rawles," as noted on Wikipedia. However, I can't find any reliable sources stating as such. Anyone else? I'd love to add that to the Wikipedia article. AyzmoCheers 22:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Do his books count? Whoover (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
He himself uses that as his username on wikipedia. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I meant sources about him being a FotL. I know that's how he writes his name, I'd just to love some FotL stuff on his wiki article. It would be interesting to see how people react. AyzmoCheers 13:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The motivation for TAR's return is clear. He is promoting Rawles new book "Land of Promise" that was published in December 2015. He is also piddling around for a few days to make Conservative think that he is dedicated to building CP, one spam at a time. Hclodge (talk) 11:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It does look as though that is all he was interested in. He's not even bothered un-reverting some of Sam and August's reversions of his crap he added last year. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

TAR's contributions do not make any effort to conform to CP style. He uses the second person and bullet lists rather than prose. Look at the first paragraph of "Selecting a radio":

"So you want a radio but do not know the first thing about it. That is fine, everyone started out with no knowledge about radios. The most important thing to do is to think about how you are going to use it."

Can you imagine if every CP article started out with a paragraph like that: "So you want to find out about aardvarks but do not know the first thing about it. That is fine, everyone started out with no knowledge about aardvarks." — Unsigned, by: Hclodge / talk / contribs

"Think about how you are going to use it..." Ummm, i guess I'll mostly listen to it. I guess. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

[edit] TAR Categories

Sunday action on the religious front. Let me say as a preliminary matter that there is nothing wrong with people worshiping in the religion of their choice, and that I do not judge people by their religion. History, however, is full of cases where people have been discriminated against on the basis of their religion, so I can understand how adding a person's religion to a biography (particularly without a reliable source) could be a wikicrime.

I also am not enough of an expert to understand what happens if you add the same category multiple times to a same article in MediaWiki. It appears that MediaWiki eliminates duplicates, but I don't know what the effect is upon SEO spiders. (I think that they never see the duplicates.) This is why I find TAR's categories activity puzzling: TAR adds three categories to Kohs long-standing biography: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gregory_J._Kohs&diff=1122395&oldid=585261(Archive) TAR adds Jewish People, American Jews and adds Business People a second time. Kohs asks TAR on his talk page, why he was tagged as a Jew, and Karajou removes the question: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:TheAmericanRedoubt&diff=1195651&oldid=1195645 (Archive) Karajou block Kohs as a "Troll" and also blocks his IP address. (Archive) Andy then removes the Jewish tags from the Kohs biography but keeps the two Business People tags: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gregory_J._Kohs&diff=1195654&oldid=1122395 (Archive Somebody then does a lot of oversighting of these TAR related changes. (Archive)— Unsigned, by: Hclodge / talk / contribs

On both Wikipedia and Conservapedia, categories do not have to be sourced. So, when TAR adds a category like "pro-Second Amendment" or anti-Second Amendment to a biography article, he is not required to have a source for his judgment. How would TAR even know whether Kohs' religion? TAR is not interested in truth or accuracy; he just wants SEO links. Hclodge (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

[edit] TAR's essay on fourth generation warfare

TAR's latest essayimg may not have been written by TAR. It starts out with a byline, "by Alex Barron, December 10, 2015" yet the box at the top reads, "This essay is an original work by TheAmericanRedoubt. Please comment only on the talk page." It is a poorly argued theory that blames Obama for the events in the Middle East and links those events to a generalized attack upon the Christian way of life in the United States.

To lure more readers to this essay gem, TAR created the non-essay "Fourth Generation Warfare" article as just a redirect to his essay. He has now added links to both to a number of CP articles.

While respecting CP's tradition of allowing anyone to publish any views as a essay, doesn't this step beyond policy by 1) not attributing the original source, 2) redirecting from non-essay article titles and 3) adding to TAR's large pile of red-linked articles that he has promised to write?

Not sure on the relationship between TAR and 'Alex Barron' (which may well be a pseudonym of course). Original essay seems to be at The Charles Carroll Society and linked to a Twitter account in the name of Alexander Barron. Worm (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Worm. TAR contributed to Wikipedia under the name JeffersonFranklin, and someone is leaving comments on the Charles Carroll Society blog as JeffersonFranklin. Given the differences in writing ability, I don't think that TAR and "Alex Barron" are the same person. It is getting to the point that if TAR loads a fully formed article onto CP in one edit, I strongly suspect that he has lifted it without attribution from another site. Andy and User:Conservative have a lot of copyright clean up left from TAR's wake. Hclodge (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

TAR's book promotion methodology is now evident, from his efforts to promote the 2015 Rawles book and the Lind book. Step 1, write a user-contributed review on Amazon. Step 2, go to other websites which allow him to contribute (such as the comment section of The Charles Carroll Society or the Essay articles of CP) and leave links to the Amazon book reviews. Step 3, define the key phrase or concept of the book as the title concept of a blog post or essay. Even though these are these terms are not widely accepted outside the "novel" that TAR is promoting, TAR's concentrated use of social media is an effort to make the terms appear widely-accepted by search engines. Someone assuming good faith could be easily fooled by TAR promoting the 2014 Rawles book, but a quick repeat visit to promote the release of the 2015 Rawles and Lind books shows a pattern that cannot be ignored. Hclodge (talk) 13:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

And a new user comes in and removes TARsimg redirect and instead sends it to an already existing article. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

In preparation for the Super Bowl, Andy has also deleted a copyrighted image uploaded by TAR. Hclodge (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Personal tools

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support