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 Pibot
Archives for this talk page: Archive list

Contents

[edit] TAR finally whacks Wshact

And img tellsimg everyoneimg. And clogs everyone's talkpagesimg. But doesn't bother Ken. I wonder if AugustO or AlanE will unblock him. On an unrelated note, I hope DouglasA or Ed Poor come back and decides to start deleting the articles created by TAR due to their shortness. Ghost (talk) 12:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't just delete things because they're short. They also have to not be awful. PubliusTalk 18:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
On a related note, it seems that capturebot causes 503 errors whenever it's running. 12:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I am actually quite enjoying this. TAR is slowly turning cp even more insane than it was before, something I thought difficult to do, and turning it into an even more 'niche' blog the likes of which not even the coultergeist or wnd will EVER let themselves be associated with. Perhaps it's time to updated the CP article to relect the new fixation on prepper politics, wingnut woo medicinal theories and gun nut rights so that any moderately interested parent may take a look and pull their children even firther away from allowing the owner of cp to destroy their childrens education. Oldusgitus (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
And now they are getting ready to throw AugustOimg under the bus. Way to go ken, one of the few, the VERY FEW, truely well-intentioned editors left in your cesspit of idiocy and you want to loose him. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The important point is that it was TAR that did this based on coaching and phone calls with Karajou and Ken. "07:26, 13 January 2015 TheAmericanRedoubt (Talk | contribs) blocked Wschact (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 week (account creation disabled) ‎ (Removing content from pages: Ignoring repeated advice from Admins re behavior towards: User:TheAmericanRedoubt)" This is a "ban" not a "block" so Karajou and Ken taught TAR how to do it in a way that none of the other people with the Block bit can reverse. There are ways in MediaWiki software to do this, but it is best not to share that here. The irony is that TAR complains that this has wasted one hour of his time, but if you look at Ken's activity last night -- placing a notice on Wschact's talk page commanding his presence at Conservapedia:Community Portal, and then berating him for three hours after he withdrew the "arrogant" statement: "I am not an expert in living as a mountain man in a post-civilization world."
It is clear that Wikipedia user Trasel came to Conservapedia as Fongman but disclosed the connection in some Conservapedia templates. Trasel was then banned from Wikipedia for having a number of Sockpuppets. Trasel probably had to establish a new Conservapedia account to avoid the Trasel - Fongman connection. TAR is probably Trasel/Fongman, or could be someone else working for Survivalistblog to create massive amounts of inbound links. TAR wrote that Survivalistblog is the most popular one on the internet and is taking great pains to remove Wschact additions that Alexa and "The Survivor Top 50" site rank it only in 4th place. It is very clear that TAR/Trasel/Fongman is here to promote the Survivalistblog. Hclodge (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
He's doing an amazing job of playing Karajou and Ken. He knows exactly which strings to pull. While it's completely obvious to us, they're unable to see what's going on. Ken, I can understand, but I'm always amazed by how stupid Karajou is. It's also interesting how he's resigned CP to not be a collaborative effort (anyone who creates an article gets to "finish" it "unmolested"). As always, Andy's silence is beautiful. While I appreciate what the "liberal" editors are doing, I'd love to see what TAR can do without any checks. Sam, August, Joey, etc, please pack it up. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Ditto OU. I'm delighted that he's not so subtly pressing for rollback. He obliquely referred to it something like 4 or 5 times in a post. Andy might ignore conflict, but he sure knows how to promote in his meritocracy. If TAR is Trasel, and it looks like he is, I'm really disappointed that he's not a parodist, he's just crazy. I guess he'll fit right in, but it would have been more fun to watch those knuckleheads watch TAS ruin their site, and let I'm do it because they treat "conservatism" like a talisman. Nutty Roux (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
(ec) A blind peanut could play anger bear if it wanted to. TBH I think ken is actually the harder to play, all you need to do with AB is quote a few silly buzz-words, attack certain editors over there (AugustO, SamHB etc) and anger bear will be already veering to be on your side. He's had it in for August for a long time but August has been tacitly accepted by Andy too often for ab to simply ban him. This is his chance. I do like TAR's latest bollocks about the UK by the way? Another subtle tickle under the chin for ken and anger bear there. And who is Trasel, I can't find him over at wp? Oldusgitus (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Trasel. Eh, Ken is extraordinarily easy to play because he's an insecure and paranoid bigot who's not very smart — he jumps jumps jumps to respond in his typical fashion to anyone who disagrees with him. Seriously. It takes practically nothing to launch him into hours long editing sprees tweaking his essays and penning those long screeds that get farther and farther from the tenuous, hateful, point he was trying to make. Nutty Roux (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, does seem like him doesn't it? And as for Ken, he's easy to wind up and set of on a binge like you say but I think he's actually harder to tickle under the chin like TAR is doing with them right now. Ken is ill and sad and lonely but does occasionally show some awareness. Anger bear is a paranoid fool with massive delusions of adequacy, delusions that are way aove his actual level of adequacy. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

If TAR is really Trasel, then should not a checkuser discover that he has Fongman as an undisclosed Conservapedia account? Hclodge (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Brooking no dissent

Tar is a delight. I am enchanted by how immediately he gets personal when people offer well-considered criticisms and attempt to act in good faith in the interest of the site (no, I don't really think there are any good faith editors among the rabble there, but they do pretend to act in good faith as they perform). TAR's new target is "British Liberal Evolutionist User:EJamesW. Bravo! The guy is indistinguishable from a parodist, but he's also indistinguishable from the any of the other tendentious weirdos who use CP as a way to forget that they're nobodies. And so he fits right in, particularly with Ken, who isn't just enabling him, but goading him on. Finally something interesting happening at CP.. What took TAR so long to start flexing his muscles? Is he a parodist? Nutty Roux (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Despite two more pleas from AugustO, it appears that Andy is going to ignore the request to unban Wschact. (Implicitly Andy is also ignoring the request to remove TAR's block rights.) Hclodge (talk) 09:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
And EJamesW is now banned, on a probably trumped-up charge. Whoover (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Ken unblocked EJamesW without addressing TAR's blocking rights. Hclodge (talk) 06:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
It's actually quite lovely watching the way that Wsacht is playing kenny and tar. They genuinely seem to have no idea just how well Wshact is playing them. By being reasonably intelligent in trying to enforce cp's rules about spamming and the like Wsacht is driving kenny and trassel to ever more stupid utterances. Can you imagine a good faith editor, if there are any left, coming in and reading recent changes and seeing tar's lunacy and childish insults and kenny's supine support of him and thinking "Oh this is a great place, I think I'll join and edit in good faith because I'm sure I'll be welcome'. I'm not sure if that is Wsacht's intention but it is playing out quite well in it's own way. Oldusgitus (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Conservative blocked Wschat for two weeks for marking a spam article about a survivalist website with the spam template. Hclodge (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

TAR has dialed back his participation. Did he find a new job? Hclodge (talk) 11:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Andy seems to have a double standard. In May 2011, an CP editor from Australia asked for overnight editing rights. Andy turned him down for lacking a sufficient track record, noting "It's [not] just a matter of how many edits, but the quality of the edits are important too.--Andy Schlafly 21:20, 6 May 2011 (EDT)" Five years later, TAR shows up and fails to make quality edits that comply with the CP Manual of Style, but Andy must promote him to additional rights (including blocking) at the speed of light. Hclodge (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Terry H.

Did this person REALLY get a medical qualification of some kind? Oldusgitus (talk) 08:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

TAR would argue that sometime after the flood, God gave man the "inalienable right to bear" firearms. So, life spans started to shorten after God intervened in gun control, rather than Noah's flood. Hclodge (talk) 09:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Wrong. Since the weapon of gun is largely defensive, gun rights increase average life span. It's definitely the isotopes. Whoover (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Jeezus Haploid Christ that paper tho - the one by Tennessen. That's some hard fucking going right there. Here's a taste:
"When the more liberal definition of functional SNVs was used, [EA, European-American] individuals have a significantly higher proportion of predicted functional SNVs compared with [AA, African-American] individuals... P < 10^−15 ... However, when the more conservative definition was used, this pattern was reversed, and AA individuals have a significantly higher proportion of predicted functional SNVs compared with EA individuals... P < 10^−15. These results highlight how the definition of functional variants can influence inferences and underscore the importance of continued methodological development to robustly identify functionally important variation."
Yeah, fellas, maybe you want to settle on a definition beforehand, hm? I don't recall seeing a p-value less than ten to the minus fifteenth power before, either; that's pretty boss. It's sort of wasted on a statement that boils down to 'depending on how brown a freckle is, it is proven with mathematical certainty that Tom has either more or fewer freckles than Bob'.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Particle physics only requires p < 3 x 10^-7 (i.e, five sigma) for a "discovery". --Night Jaguar (talk) 10:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Of course, TAR would argue that after the end of civilization, academic papers would cease to be of any influence or interest. TAR would advise us to "be prepared" to live in a world without the scientific method as well as without any social fabric. Hence, TAR feels free to add dystopic fictional novels to the recommended reading list that he adds to non-fiction article topics. Hclodge (talk) 06:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Unadjusted p-values in genetics typically get very, very small indeed, 10^-15 is not unusual. Multiple testing corrections generally scrape off around 6 orders of magnitude. In my experience, though, most things in the order of 10^-15 have generally turned out to be experimental error (failed assays, faulty algorithms etc.). This is why we don't bother much with p-values, other than in drawing up a shortlist of candidate variants to examine in more detail. Queexchthonic murmurings 11:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] How fast can you get banned from Conservapedia?

I got banned within 20 minutes by Andrew himself. It was quite fun.{{User:|RationalMan|16:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)}}

There was a time when it was instantaneous if you were from Europe. Ikanreed (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I suggest moving this discussion to the talk page of WIGO:CP.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Andy watches Recent Changes like a hawk, which I find hilarious considering how long he's been at this and how little progress the site has made in the last 8 (!) years. For all his faults, he's at least persistent. Cow...Hammertime! 21:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Persistence in the face of overwhelming evidence is Andy's defining trait, though. Like that's what happened with every major Andy incident. Ikanreed (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
There's no trick to getting banned from CP. Not getting blocked, without playing the role of the parodist, is the real challenge. --Inquisitor (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
A couple of years now although I have had a few short term blocks from one of the more vigorous parodists before he removed his mask. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Karajerk's sole function these days seems to be blocking people, based on spam / checkuser history. Come on Kara, those millions of empty bird articles aren't going to flll themselves! PsyGremlinParlez! 10:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Karajou's sole function could be served by a spammer IP blacklist and the Edit Filter extension. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Extensions are liberal attempts to subvert the Christian foundation of mediawiki. Ikanreed (talk) 15:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I always get blocked pretty quickly whenever I get the itch to sign up and do something dumb or funny. The other day I lasted about five minutes when I altered the baldness article to be along the lines of "baldness is the hairstyle of people who don't believe in hair", or something. Might be easier to sneak in things when TAR is on a binge actually ... Ruddager (talk) 03:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Is TAR a native speaker?

Based on a careful reading of TAR's speech patterns, do you think that TAR is an American or an immigrant? For example, the word "liberal" can be an adjective meaning "permissive" as opposed to "strict". TAR created the insightful essay entitled, "Essay:France Pays Dearly - Liberal Gun Control Laws and Gun Free Zones that Welcome Terrorists" and User:EJamesW corrected him by deleting the word "liberal" because TAR really meant "Strict Gun Control Laws". This resulted in a rantimg and a block. Perhaps TAR thinks of "liberal" as one of his many pejorative terms. TAR's sentence patterns are [pejorative][pejorative][pejorative][pejorative][pejorative][pejorative][pejorative][subject][verb][pejorative][pejorative][pejorative][pejorative][predicate nominative]. At first, I thought that TAR could not write, then that TAR could not think clearly. Now, I am questioning whether English is TAR's second language. Hclodge (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

it mostly looks like james forgot the party line of liberal = whatever bad word needed in a sentence. Are the liberals trying to give freedom to things they don't like? Permissive America destroying liberals. Trying to restrict things they like? strict America hating liberals. His use of liberal is entirely in line with the use of it in cp and conservative anerica in General --Miekal 15:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
This reads a bit like a conspiracy theory. It's a stupid person. Ikanreed (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I thought it had more or less been ascertained who TAR is. And he is an American. He just sadly illustrates quite what it is that the rest of the world finds so mystifying about the USA. How can a country that can produce people of such intelligence as it does also produce such complete fucking morons as it does. And especially how does it do it in such large numbers. In almost any other developed nation 'politicians' of the stature of palin and bachman, mendacious fucktards like the drug using blowhard limbaugh and closeted queens like ted haggard would have long ago been laughed out of all public life. In the US they are still positively feted, largely by the likes of TAR who is too stupid to realise his own stupidity. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Our politicians stem from our election structure. Every other nation that has political districting conjoined with FPTP voting gets the same level of stupid elevation. The way that creates "safe" districts where one party's primary decides the electoral results naturally breeds crazy. Throw in a bit of racial history and you get a machine practically designed to give you Bachmans. Ikanreed (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of TAR, he's been AWOL for a few days now. I hope he's okay. Things are so dull with Ken the sole hyperactive loony. Whoover (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Ikanreed: Over this side of the pond in Englandland, we have political districting (wards or constituencies) combined with first-past-the-post. What we don't have are primaries. OUr system pushes political candidates into gaining the support of the majority in the middle. Your primary system pushes them into first winning over the lunatic fringe, who vote in primaries disproportionately, then winning over as much of the middle ground as isn't completely repelled by the outlandish promises they've made to the lunatic fringe. But I don't understand why Appeasement of the Lunatic Fringe has happened more strongly in the Republican Party than the Democrats. Cardinal Fang (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Nutters do get elected in the UK but they tend to be on the left. Dianne Abbot and George Galloway spring to mind.--Mercian (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
You can not even begin to blame this on the electoral system in the USA. This is a moron talking and the fact the US elected her to anything other than cloakroom monitor should be source of eternal shame to you. The fact that people in the comments defend this idiot and try to claim she is some way not a fucking moron is even more damning to be frank. And Abbott and Galloway have been proven right as many times as they were proven wrong. They spoke out against bliar as he and shrub lied to take the world to war, they sort of got that one right didn't they? Oldusgitus (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Cardinal Fang: oh that's not hard. Democrats, are very much a coalition government forming approximately half the government. There's a much stronger inclination to mix views and appeal to the center of the party, since the left fringe represents many distinct groups like environmentalists, socialists, civic libertarians, minority identity politics, and even groups like atheists(yeah, in the US, we're fringe). Unlike the republican fringe, which is defined by "the party's position, but absolutely no negotiating on (GOD/GUNS/GAYS/TAXES pick one)". As to the why they're like that, I think Altemyer's The Authoritarians does a good job isolating how xenophobia and obedience unites those. Ikanreed (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
My hearing is horrible, so all speeches sound like gibberish to me. Going by a partial transcript in the comments, though, what she's saying isn't particularly nonsensical. Supposedly, the government is too big to work efficiently and the current status quo is screwing over average Americans. You can disagree with those opinions, but I wouldn't say they're inherently "stupid". She does speak and act kinda erraticly throughout the speech, but honestly, wouldn't most people act like that when you put them in front of an audience and they have to give a speech? Aside of this video, I'm well aware that some of her ideas are pretty nutty, though I kinda wonder why most Republicans get called crazy or bigotted, while Sarah Palin is pretty consistently labeled "stupid". 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
My hearing is pretty good and she rambles, speaking meaningless bullshit and trying to shoehorn in idiotic soundbites. And this woman was an elected politician, albeit one who cut a ran half-way through her term. And this persons isn't 'most people' imo, she is one who was at one stage running for vice president and is now contemplating a run for president. And she can't put a coherent sentence together after her teleprompter breaks, which is the entire point of the video. She doesn't have 'opinions' that she can coherently express, and that is the problem. If she had opinions which she could manage to make clear in meaningful English then I could agree or disagree with them, as it is I just look from a distance and shake my head in wonder. And try reading the full transcript in the description instead of a partial one. Then claim what she says amkes sense. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Ah, a full transcript. Okay, you're right, she rambles like there's no tomorrow. Still though, I'm horrible at expressing myself through speech too, but I'm not an unintelligible rambler when I type out my statements, am I? In my opinion, judging someone's intelligence by how well they are at expressing themselves in social situations is intellectually dishonest. If you want to call Sarah Palin stupid, be my guest, but do it because of her nutty views or for not preparing her speeches properly. Not because she doesn't happen to be a natural public speaker or be good at winging it when her teleprompter breaks. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 08:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I get your point but this is someone who aspires to be POTUS. I wiould hope she would be slightly better than that at expressing herself. And yes, I know Bush was also appaling at times. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

That's fair enough, though I wouldn't rank fluency in speech that high in the list of properties that are important for the leader of a nation and head of government to have. I'd say she already so severely fails the top entries in that list to the point that criticizing her for being bad at speaking in public seems like a non-sequitur. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 11:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Moral advice.

To be fair that article was added by TK and we all know what he ended up being shown to have been. The fact it has stayed there all this time is more telling than the fact that tk wrote it in the first place. It's not as if it is a new article. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course, Oldusgitus is correct. However, since Cosby's morality has been called into question, most media have reviewed how they have invoked his moral authority. CP has not. Hence, the humor. Hclodge (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Because it's completely reasonable to expect that a website with a half-dozen regular editors would remember a single reference on a page that hasn't been edited in six years. Fail. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 01:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
But think about all the homeschooled children who are told, in 2015, to emulate Bill Cosby, regardless of whether those children are on the political left or the political right. Hclodge (talk) 08:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The CP page in question was a speech by Newt Gingrich. Because I cannot find the original speech, I can not determine whether the headline in question was in the original text or was added by TK. Newt did give favorable mention of Bill Cosby in a number of speeches as well as in Newt's books. Hclodge (talk) 09:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Personal tools

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support