RationalWiki will be going through an upgrade cycle this weekend. This will cause some down time, details are at the tech blog. As a reminder, we try and add information to the tech blog during any outage, you can always refer to it for details or as a form of communication if the site is down.

from Tmtoulouse (Talk), group Site wide (urgent) at 15:23, 18 April 2014

User:Diebot/Conservapedia:Community portal/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This is a backup of the currently deleted revision 890407 at Conservapedia
title: Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive1
timestamp: 2011-07-18T00:50:08Z
user: RobSmith
comment: Archiving discussions older than 7 days
page-id: 114153
rev-id: 890407

Some changes may not take place until you refresh your browser's cache. To do this in Firefox, simply press F5.


[edit] August 2007

18th - Three new editing toolbar icons have been added:

  1. Image:Button reflink.png - will insert <ref></ref> links around the selected text.
  2. Image:Button category.png - will insert the category tag around the category title, without having to manually insert.
  3. Image:Button template alt.png - will insert <nowiki>{{ }}</nowiki> around the selected text. Useful for quickly adding templates.

Sounds great, but um... they don't seem to be there yet. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 16:17, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Have you refreshed your browser in the editing screen? Jallen talk 16:18, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

OK, now I see them, Thanks. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 16:20, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Page Protection

Several pages relating to atheist PZ Myers and his weight have recently been locked from editing. Why are the articles locked, especially since the most recent incarnations of this idea, Atheist blogger PZ Myers, excess weight and study on internet usage has not been vandalisd in any way?

BenDylan 09:13, 30 May 2011 (EDT)

Don't know why. Do you seek to edit those particular entries?--Andy Schlafly 10:30, 30 May 2011 (EDT)
Ben, perhaps you should contact PZ Myers and ask him if he wishes to work with Conservapedia to develop a study concerning his internet usage and his issues with being overweight. It could help him develop his exercise science and applied biology skill sets. conservative 12:48, 30 May 2011 (EDT)

<Overly dramatic sigh> Good one, conservative, atheists are fat. You win this argument again. EricAlstrom 14:36, 30 May 2011 (EDT)

Eric, I wasn't aware there was an "argument" and please feel free to point out a single factual error in the Conservapedia atheism and obesity article. At this point, no atheists has successfully done so. In fact, there are well known atheists who have linked to the article and admitted they have weight issues. Of course, this is ironic since many atheists like to claim naturalism is in accordance with science and certainly there are overweight atheists who have not been diligent in terms of following the recommendations of nutritional science, exercise science and medical science. conservative 16:13, 30 May 2011 (EDT)
As much as i agree that atheists are hypocrites, thats besides the point. the question was why is X article locked if no vandalism has happened to it? (trying to get this back to the topic creators original question and not into potential fighting)--SeanS 16:17, 30 May 2011 (EDT)
If I unlock it, do you have edits you are going to do? If so, what edits and when are you going to make them? Certainly, I would hate to think this is a tempest in a teapot that is trying to be stirred up. There are so many entries that could be created or expanded at Conservapedia. conservative 16:26, 30 May 2011 (EDT)
By the way, Google seems to think this is an important and highly relevant article as it ranks #1 for the search "Atheist blogger PZ Myers, excess weight and study on internet usage". :) conservative 16:31, 30 May 2011 (EDT)
One other matter, does anyone want to create the article: Irreligion and smoking [1] ? Also, which well known atheists smoke or have smoked? If I am not mistaken, Katherine Hepburn, Jodie Foster, George Melly and Christopher Hitchens are atheists who engaged in the unhealthy habit of smoking. Amongst the various ill effects of smoking, it does appear that the scientific evidence suggests that smoking causes brain damage as can be seen HERE conservative 17:12, 30 May 2011 (EDT)
RE: the highest-ranked Google search for: "Atheist blogger PZ Myers, excess weight and study on internet usage." I know. I had reason to look up that exact search string just the other day. Really. LloydR 18:06, 30 May 2011 (EDT)
One of the last pictures taken of Madalyn Murray O'Hair features O'Hair standing before a cake as can be seen HERE. conservative 18:21, 30 May 2011 (EDT)
Perhaps, a better title would be Atheism and smoking. Also, wasn't Albert Camus an atheist and didn't he smoke? By the way, I can imagine there have been a lot of French atheist "intellectuals" smoking in French cafes in the past causing an untold amount self induced brain damage to themselves. conservative 18:52, 30 May 2011 (EDT)
Also, how about Atheism and homosexuality? Which atheists practice homosexuality or have practiced homosexuality in the past? The scientific evidence does point to there being a lot of disease associated with homosexuality. conservative 19:10, 30 May 2011 (EDT)
In addition, The Barna Group found regarding atheism and morality that those who hold to the worldviews of atheism or agnosticism in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use; excessive drinking; sexual relationships outside of marriage; abortion; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; obscene language; gambling; pornography and obscene sexual behavior; and engaging in homosexuality/bisexuality.[2] These might prove to be good articles too: Atheism and drug addiction and Atheism and abortion related illness. I have to believe there is a lot of scientific evidence suggesting that illegal drug use and drug addiction causes health problems. Does anyone know which atheists have used illegal drugs in the past? Also, wasn't John Lennon an atheist? Did Lennon use illegal drugs? If so, which ones did he use? conservative 19:20, 30 May 2011 (EDT)
Also, given the Barna data above, how about Atheism and alcoholism. Which atheists have engaged in amount of excessive drinking? Also, did the Soviet Union have a significant amount of alcoholism? conservative 19:24, 30 May 2011 (EDT)
It is a great irony that France was a major impetus in terms of the adoption of atheism in Europe and that a significant amount of those French intellectuals may have suffered from French Cafe smoking induced brain damage. I am looking forward to seeing if Conservapedia develops an Atheism and smoking article. :) conservative 20:49, 30 May 2011 (EDT)
It appears John Lennon was a cigarette smoker.[3] I always thought the song Imagine by John Lennon was a shabby musical work - especially when you compare it to the great musical works produced by intellectual giants. conservative 00:43, 31 May 2011 (EDT)

My head just exploded. TerryB 18:23, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

[edit] Some sanity restored

Though there are huge problems with our present government, we a fortunate to have a supreme court that still has some sense. Maybe now patriots trying to fight terrorists will be able to do their job without worrying about the government stabbing them in the back. JimmyRa 14:31, 31 May 2011 (EDT)

[edit] Page deletion and restoration

Another user has raised this on the Main Talk Page I believe, but in light of recent activity and no direct response to their question, I believe it needs to be asked once again. Why is the used called 'Conservative' deleting pages and restoring them en masse? All this does is to hide the contributions of numerous editors to the articles in question and make it appear as if Conservative is the sole author. I believe this is disingenuous and is likely to prove off-putting to potential editors if they find that their contributions are to essentially be covered-up arbitrarily. WilliamB1 08:20, 5 June 2011 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Copyright states quite explicitly that contributor's work may be altered and re-used with or without attribution, so I can't see what you're complaining about. I recommend checking your facts more closely before making inflammatory statements. Jcw 08:54, 5 June 2011 (EDT)
That refers to the actual content contribution; the question here is about changing the record as to who the original contributors are -- while preserving the content intact, as I understand it. Rob Smith 21:12, 5 June 2011 (EDT)
I have made no factual errors. The editor in question is deleting and restoring numerous pages and is thus making it appear that they are solely responsible for their content. Whether or not that particular rule can be interpreted as permitting such actions is itself questionable, and even if it does the fact remains that the editor's actions are disingenuous. Unless he has good reason for deleting/restoring these pages (and I fail to see why it would be necessary) then he is taking credit for the work of others; that is morally wrong, most especially given the aims of this website and its stated emphasis on the 'Best of the public'.
If there is a genuine reason why it was necessary for the mass deletion and restoration of articles then I will withdraw my complaint. But I fail to see how at best hiding the contributions of potentially hundreds of editors, and at worst falsely claiming their work as one's own, is in anyway beneficial to this site. What is the point in trying to recruit new editors and asking them to contribute if their efforts are going to be discarded with a few clicks of a mouse? WilliamB1 09:31, 5 June 2011 (EDT)
The poster makes some valid points (without getting into the disengenuosness or moraliy of the thing). It can indeed be a disincentive for future contrbutors and collaboration.) What would you propose? Rob Smith 21:12, 5 June 2011 (EDT)
Simple... STOP the deleting and recreating. thats sorta the only solution that makes sense.--SeanS 22:49, 5 June 2011 (EDT)

simple, elegant, won't be done. But if at least the reason for the deletion/recreation has to be stated, maybe this make some think twice... AugustO 09:06, 6 June 2011 (EDT)
Given how users like Bugler and TK were able to run roughshod over editors and the project as a whole, I think you're overestimating the capability of the project to enforce even that level of accountability. ReneH 09:39, 6 June 2011 (EDT)
Any diffs of this sort of thing? Rob Smith 17:16, 6 June 2011 (EDT)
Lot of them have been deleted, Rob. Kinda like the point of this discussion. ReneH 19:35, 6 June 2011 (EDT)

The deletion/recreation process distroyes revisions, so diffs are hard to come by. But have a look at one of the most recent examples: Talk:Atheism and obesity

There is a problem with the archive of this page - perhaps User:Conservative tried to fix it (btw, he had deleted the archive page, too). He didn't solve this problem, but he achieved something else: In the deletion log, we read that the first lines of the article were:

(content was: "archive1 Do all of these essays have the same material? -- Jeff W. LauttamusDiscussion 16:07, 30 December 2010 (EST) Those are some very int...")

The bolded comment is missing from the recreated page:

(Created page with "archive1 Those are some very interesting poll findings! I have not seen those reported or discussed ANYWHERE in the media, thanks for ge...")

So either this half-year-old comment got lost accidentally in a legitimate action, or this action was used to censor the comment, or - and this is the worst case scenario - the whole deletion/recreation process was only performed to censor this single comment.

Accidents could be prevented by reducing deletion/recreation to the few necessary occasions. Active acts of censorship, well, that's another matter...

AugustO 11:58, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

First I should say that I'm not familiar with the content that's being deleted/re-created here, but I'm pretty confident it has nothing to do with 'censorship'. Good-faith discussion is welcomed here, as this continuing thread shows: if there was any censorship going on, the first thing to be censored would be discussion of the censorship. You yourself describe the removed comment as 'half-year-old' - surely you've answered your own question there? If the comment in question was six months old and didn't have any discussion associated with it, why shouldn't it be removed? The fact that people are crying 'censorship' based on something so innocuous is rather revealing. Again I refer to Conservapedia:Copyright, which makes it quite clear that CP can handle material provided by editors in exactly this way. Jcw 13:08, 7 June 2011 (EDT)
Ok, I'm somewhat confused. the original allegagion had to do with mainspace contributions -- someone taking credit for another editors work. But now we are also discussing deleting and/or altering other users comments on discussion pages, as well? Rob Smith 17:45, 7 June 2011 (EDT)
I think that's right, Rob - the log snippets posted by AugustO are for a talk page, and the complaint there appears to be that an old comment was left out of the re-created page; that was what I was referring to in my second comment above. At the beginning the discussion seemed to be about mainspace pages, but no-one provided any examples of that. Jcw 18:04, 7 June 2011 (EDT)
I present the evidence for the prosecution: [4] As you can see, the user in question (it does appear to only be the one user) has deleted and restored multiple mainspace pages in recent days. Although most of the restorations don't show up because of how I've filtered the logs, you can see by visiting the pages that they have been restored and all of the numerous edits have been effectively erased from the history. WilliamB1 18:18, 7 June 2011 (EDT)
Ok thank you WilliamB1. Can we focus on clearly articulating recommended language for a guideline, or perhaps a policy, regarding the courtousy of leaving responsible users civil discussion comments intact, which seems to be lacking in Conserfvapedia. Then we can also address mainspace contributions. We're not trying another users actions here, we are forward looking in building a spirit of comity and civility in a collaborative environment among users of diverse backgrounds and views. Rob Smith 22:26, 7 June 2011 (EDT)
Assuming good faith, I would think that Conservative is perhaps using the deletion tool as a way to oversight abusive edits; Conservative has been around long enough that perhaps (assuming he doesn't have it) the oversight tool should be at his disposal - but obviously that's not for me to decide. That being said I do second Rob's call for a guideline.--IDuan 23:33, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

@RobSmith: Here is my original comment at the main talk page - quoted by User:WilliamB1 at the beginning of this thread:

Though no one addressed my concerns about archiving, I want to point out another policy which irks me: the constant deletion and recreations of pages and talk pages. I understand that such an action may be necessary on some rare occasions, but this is done all the time! It plays havoc withe your list of contributions, making it impossible to find the comments of editors via this tool. And have a look at Sun Tzu: you get the impression that User:Conservative wrote the article, but it has been a collaboration of various editors. How can it be reasonable to conceal their efforts? AugustO 10:17, 4 June 2011 (EDT)

I think it is a bad practise for pages and talk-pages: not only because of taking credit for another man's work, but generally because of the loss of information it causes. For instance, you can't check any longer all contributions of a user's contribution to various discussions via Special:Contributions/AugustO, you have to search for his signiture - http://conservapedia.com/index.php?&title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=1&search=AugustO&fulltext=Search&ns1=1&redirs=1&title=Special%3ASearch&advanced=1&fulltext=Advanced+search

That is very inconvenient.

@JCW: Any sysop has the ability to compare the deleted page and the recreated one. He can see for himself whether the omitted comments were abusive - or just outdated. But even outdated edits shouldn't be erased without leaving a trace: there is quite a difference between a question unanswered and a question unasked!

Aschlafly says that Wikipedia's deletion-of-entries practices amount to censorship of the worst kind. Surely, such practices should be avoided here at Conservapedia!

In my original comment I gave an example for the deletion/recreation of a mainspace page: Sun Tzu. And while Conservapedia:Copyright allows for the display, copying, reuse or editing of your information, edits and entries, with or without attribution. , it doesn't state that your work may be attributed to someone else.

@Iduan: Accoding to this list, Conservative already has oversight. User talk:Conservative is a protected page, only sysops can edit it. How abusive were the comments his fellow sysops (or he himself) left there that Conservative had to invoke this deletion tool? Repeatedly?

AugustO 10:59, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

AugustO, I agree. Nothing is more frustrating than trying to retieve some work, a comment, or active discussion from the past and being further inconvenienced by having it tampered with. I propose three steps at this point:
1) a review of Conservapedia's written civility clauses and user conduct rules;
2) can a link be provided for the Aschlafly paraphrase cited above?
3) proposed language for a written guideline regarding alterations, changes, removal or deletion of another users comments on talk pages (other than an editor's own user talk).
Also, please note again, another editor is not on trial here. I propose we work together to develop language for guidelines on civility & user conduct, of which altering another good faith user's comments is one aspect. We should be forward looking and encouraging of other users to adopt certain standards useful in discusion and debate. We should help editors become more effective in their arguments with others, not seek to reprimand people forv something there may be no guidelines at this tyiome to assist them with. Rob Smith 20:01, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

Also, Rob: the notice you left on Conservative's talk page asking him not to delete and recreate talk pages? He deleted and recreated his talk page so that it wouldn't show anymore. ReneH 18:19, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

ReneH, your significant content creation to talk ratio was quite low. Your ability to kvetch has been curtailed. I would suggest editing at Kvetchapedia or Bellyacheapedia. conservative 20:26, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
Conservative, are you being civil? --PeterBr 23:02, 9 June 2011 (EDT)
PeterBr, Solomon wrote: "Answer a fool as his folly deserves, That he not be wise in his own eyes." conservative 01:06, 11 June 2011 (EDT)

[edit] Reviewed comments above and saw that some good feedback was made

I just reviewed all the comments that were made above. I do endeavor to take into consideration the wishes of other editors. While I personally don't care if I get credit for content I create, I do understand that not everyone feels the same as me. I also understand that deleting the main space article in question that others participated in removed their username for that article. My apologies. I will endeavor to not due this in the future unless their is a good reason to delete an article. In addition, I do understand that some people like to see how many views a particular article has obtained that they contributed to and deleting an article unfortunately sets the view counter to zero. I regret any ill feelings that I unintentionally caused for editors who are making good faith edits. conservative 20:56, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

Well thank you, Conservative. Conservapedia:Guidelines#Civility reads,
  • Your user page/discussion pages, are indeed your castle, from which you can agree, disagree and discuss issues as you will. However you cannot use them to bully, ridicule (make fun of) or attack (denigrate) Conservapedia or other users, and their opinions
I propose to add,
  • Users are free to delete at will comments to their own user talk pages. (or some such language).
A second guideline proposal would be to strengthen, or clarify, under what circumstances registered user's comments may be removed from mainspace and project discussion pages. In general, other user's comments should not be removed (this could be qualified further to, "registered users comments", or "established users comments", or "good faith editors comments", etc). Conservapedia:Guidelines#Member_Accounts now reads,
  • We welcome opposing views, but are not interested in users who come here only to change articles to their ideology, or disrupt by constantly arguing on the article talk pages that we are "wrong".
The concept makes sense, I agree in principle that redundant arguments get tiresome. But can the question of alternative language be thrown to non-sysops in this disscussion, who may have some ideas under what crcumstances an editor has ceased working in good faith, and crossed the line into trolling? Rob Smith 22:10, 9 June 2011 (EDT)

@all: Before someone questions my content creation to talk ratio: I'm mainly interested in some minor aspects of the CBP. To achieve the change of a couple of words, I made quite a few comments on talk pages to discuss these translations with Aschlafly. This discussion is still ongoing, in fact, Aschlafly announced an upcoming answer to my last extensive comment. The debate isn't exactly fast-paced: we all have other things to do, so it's not unusual to wait a couple of days for an answer. In this way for very little content creation a lot of talk is done. I don't feel bad about this: I learned quite a lot (mainly about antique time keeping) and it follows a long tradition of reading and translating the Bible.

@RobSmith: Thanks for trying to get this right. It's hard not to make this personal - as of over thirty sysops only one has the habit of deleting/recreating pages. It's surprising that you need a guideline for a behavior which almost everyone gets right in the first place! As for the politics: deleting one's own talk page seems to be a widespread habit. But everyone is aware of it, so that's not much of a problem. My proposal for a guideline is simple:

For the deletion of pages other than your own User talk page a valid reason has to be given.

This, I assume, refers to article talk page and project page discussions, correct? The complaint seems to be using deletion and oversight as a weapon rather than a maintenance tool. Rob Smith 17:38, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

BTW: I took Aschlafly's quote from User_talk:Aschlafly#Interview Request.

@Conservative: For a day or so I was quite optimistic. But then you deleted Talk:Overweight Obama administration officials, just to recreate a couple of minutes later, omitting the first sentence: Oh goodie, more "haha fatty, fatty, fat, fat" "articles"! DevonJ 01:49, 10 June 2011 (EDT) Was this the only reason to do so? In my eyes, that's not a valid one. I don't think you know how hurtful your essays are to overweight Christians! But again, why are you the only sysop who feels such a strong need to delete articles just to recreate them? Is everybody else missing something? Are the other sysops neglecting their duty?

AugustO 07:58, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

AugustO, I have no regrets. I don't believe this user was a 15 year old mostly apolitical Christian homeschooler as was reported on their user page. If you decide to review his/her edits and come to a different conclusion, then so be it. But I don't think my fellow Admins are going to reverse my block. conservative 01:26, 11 June 2011 (EDT)
What does this have to do with the current discussion? This is about deleting/recreating (talk) pages, and the loss of information generated by this technique - which is used virtually exclusively by you.
So you deleted/recreated the page mentioned above because you were annoyed by the comment Oh goodie, more "haha fatty, fatty, fat, fat" "articles"! DevonJ 01:49, 10 June 2011 (EDT), and you used the same method yesterday for the main talk page, presumably to get rid of other unflattering comments.
Was the language of these comments so despicable that it wasn't enough to delete them, but that they had to be erased from the wiki?
AugustO 10:45, 11 June 2011 (EDT)
Ok, thanks to everybody. Before we get into deletion/recreation, can we focus on removing other users comments from talk pages? In most instances this is a simple revert that even a non-sysop could perform. While some wiki's don't allow an editor to remove garbage from his own talk page, I don't think anyone here at CP disagrees with allowing any user to remove any other users comments from his or her own talk page for any reason and without having to give a reason. Can we ge agreement on that?
Outdside one's own talk, however, that is another matter. Under what circumstances is it appropriate to revert other users's talk page comments? Rob Smith 15:31, 11 June 2011 (EDT)

[edit] Guideline review

Ok, so some changes have been added to user guidelines which apply to all users. Users are now free to remove other users comments from their own user pages for whatever reason without having to explain why. Certain trolling comments may also (and in some instances should) be removed from mainspace and project discussion pages. This can be done by any user. I suspect we will need to tighten up what is meant by terms suchs as "troll", "trolling", "vandalism", etc. We should also discuss Sysop guidelines, and what actions may be considered inappropriate or misuse of sysop privileges. Any one wish to comment? Rob Smith 13:21, 12 June 2011 (EDT)

[edit] Living subjects

We will also need a guideline for sysops to follow in dealing with living subjects who ask for input on information published about them. Rob Smith 00:06, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

[edit] A reminder

Discussion moved from talk:Main Page

Naming no names, but some may wish to take note of the instructions on Template:Attack_page: {{Attack_page}}
which seems to detail what is the standard for these sorts of articles, under the rules of this site. Guymessage me 11:51, 11 June 2011 (EDT)

It would help to give us some context. Rob Smith 21:20, 12 June 2011 (EDT)

[edit] Locked and redirected article talk pages

The talk page for this article redirects to the talk page for this article which redirects to the talk page to This article. Having the talk page for an article double-redirect three pages away makes it hard to discuss any changes to a senior admin's pet project. ReneH 18:16, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

ReneH, I don't foresee you doing a lot of future discussing.conservative 20:16, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
(ec)ReneH, my response was lost in edit conflict.
User:Conservative: please do not disrupt this ongoing, civil discussion. Thank you. Rob Smith 20:31, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
RobSmith, I have no problem with the civil participants with good motives. At the same time, I do feel that not all the participants had good motives and that has been addressed. conservative 20:39, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
Conservative: blocking them does not stop them from coming back, or from us continuing a discussion, all it does is encourage sockpuppetry and waste more of everybodies time. So please, just leave them alone for now, unless one commits a gross violation, like obsvcenities or the like. Thank you. Rob Smith 20:43, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
RobSmith, no disrespect intended, but I am not concerned if I make things less convenient for people who are not good faith editors. conservative 20:59, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
Why do you think they are not editing in good faith? TerryB 22:25, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
It's generally pretty easy to tell. If they don't make any meaningful mainspace edits and spend their time contesting site policy and article content without contributing, then you're likely just dealing with a troll or troublemaker.--CamilleT 22:31, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
Some people make token edits but never create a substantive amount of content. In addition, atheists often engage in unwarranted mockery of Christianity because that is all they have (ask an atheist what proof and evidence they have that proves atheism is true and then ask them how many Christian apologetics books they have read), but have paper thin skins when the foolish worldview of atheism is mocked. ReneH, apppears to be such a person and he seems to be upset at the fact that he can't respond to Conservapedia's collection of satires about atheism. conservative 22:42, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
That's fine. But we are not discussing athiesm here. We are discussing development of user conduct guidelines, one of which is to establish what a good faith user is. Rob Smith 15:59, 9 June 2011 (EDT)
RobS, best wishes on this project. conservative 01:44, 12 June 2011 (EDT)

[edit] Are we really allowed to discuss the community?

A user asked why Conservative is abusing his status as an admin but gets reverted and blocked by Karajou. Why do we have a portal? TerryB 23:42, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

And while I wrote this, Conservative removed another question about why he's removing questions. RobS, what's going on? TerryB 23:44, 10 June 2011 (EDT)
I certainly will grant that WilliamB1 made some constructive criticism. I certainly don't mind reasonable criticism expressed in a cordial manner and amending how I do things. At the same time, a few years back if memory serves liberals tried to unsuccessfully paint me as abusive Admin because they were upset at my content and their nonsense gained zero traction. This false charge is not going to gain traction this time either. If you think Andy, Jpatt, TerryH and Karajou are going to take the position that I am an abusive Admin, good luck with that. You'll need it. I do find it amusing that some individuals are trying to create tempests in teapots though. conservative 00:06, 11 June 2011 (EDT)
If you're trying to prove you're not, reverting then blocking is the worst thing you can do. And in my opinion, Conservative, the fact that the admins don't hold each other accountable is what makes people give up on this site. Good luck retaining experienced editors and having a relevant website if this is the way you're going to go. You'll need it. TerryB 10:25, 11 June 2011 (EDT)
I am not working very hard to prove I am not. I created over 100 plus pages worth of written content at this website that is high traffic material and I diligently cite my sources. I also cut good faith editors who create content rather than engage in liberal "arguefest" on talk pages a lot of slack. If someone is not happy with that, I am frankly not concerned. I have better things to be concerned about. conservative 17:08, 11 June 2011 (EDT)

[edit] Preview

Yesterday I read something about not using preview - button. I can't find this entry, but here are my two cents: Help etiquette No. 7 states:

"Using the Show preview button to check how your edit will look will reduce the number of changes to the article, keeping the edit history shorter. It can be irritating to other editors to have to step through a lot of very minor changes that could have been avoided if the Show preview button was used."

But not using the preview button is not only irritating for your fellow editors, it is a waste of resources, too: With each edit, the whole text of the page is saved to Conservapedia's database. Of course due to clever storing this doesn't mean that for correcting a single letter at Evolution, 150 Kbyte of place are wasted, but a large amount of such unnecessary will take its toll.

And deleting the page doesn't erase the old revisions from the database: this is obvious, as you are able to restore the revisions.

Disc space is cheap, but nevertheless it shouldn't be wasted, if this can be avoided by using a little common sense.

{{AugustO}} 10:32, 12 June 2011 (EDT)

Seconded. PatOMalley 12:29, 15 June 2011 (EDT)
Ok, I understand the etiquette question; how does this relate to size of the Evolution article? Thank you. Rob Smith 20:58, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
With each minuscule revision the whole article is stored. That's not much for the Special:ShortPages, but it matters for the Special:LongPages - and some equally long talk pages. Evolution was just an example, as it's ~ 150kByte. AugustO 11:08, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

[edit] Preview Pt. II

Conservative, could you look here? Thanks, AugustO 12:10, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

I'm sorry if this has been answered before, but Conservative, what exactly is your rationale behind not using the preview button? PatOMalley 12:16, 15 June 2011 (EDT)
Pat, ancient Chinese secret. Listen to this song and meditate upon your question, grasshopper. conservative 12:37, 15 June 2011 (EDT)
That's not an answer. This is a reasonable question about site policy, as it appears you are in near-constant violation of a Conservapedia Commandment. Stop trying to change the subject and respond to my question. PatOMalley 12:39, 15 June 2011 (EDT)
Pat: "That's not an answer." Very observant. By the way, thanks for saying I am not a constant violator of failing to use the preview button. Your kind remark has not gone unnoticed. conservative 18:28, 15 June 2011 (EDT)
Pat, maybe you should have used the preview button for your own post - I noticed you took two edits to make a single response. --AaronT 20:39, 15 June 2011 (EDT)
Mr. Thou shalt use the preview button failed to use the preview button? Shame! By the way, as far as your charge that I am violating a Conservapedia Commandment, Conservapedia has 7 commandments and "Thou shalt use the preview button" is not among them. :} conservative 21:22, 15 June 2011 (EDT)
AaronT- I added something to my post, which you easily could have seen by checking this talk page's edit history, hence the 2 edits. Conservative has spent most of the day filling up Recent Changes with edits to the Keynes essay. Also, one of the commandments says that edits should be concise; it can be reasonably assumed that that stretches to the number and expansiveness of these edits. And Conservative still has not provided an answer to my question. PatOMalley 22:44, 15 June 2011 (EDT)
空穴來風未必無因 conservative 05:17, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
Conservative, did you look at Conservapedia:Community_Portal#Preview? Could you please answer to the point mentioned there, preferably in plain English? AugustO 10:04, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
開閉只眼 conservative 06:24, 18 June 2011 (EDT)
When you deleted and recreated this talk page, you made a previous version of your comment disappear. I assumed that - after rereading and reflection - you came to the same conclusion which I had: your musing about the movie The Miracle, together with some quotes made you look silly. But here I erred, otherwise you would not have come back as a fortune cookie! So, I repeat: Conservative, did you look at Conservapedia:Community_Portal#Preview? Could you please answer to the point mentioned there, preferably in plain English?
AugustO 09:30, 18 June 2011 (EDT)
Perhaps conservative will understand this: 停止避免问题并且编辑象一个人,不是一只疯狂的猴子。 TracyS 09:48, 18 June 2011 (EDT)
所有的人可以看到這些戰術,讓我征服,但沒有人能看到的是戰略,其中的勝利是進化而來的。 :) conservative 13:30, 18 June 2011 (EDT)
This is ridiculous. Conservative, you're not answering the questions because you know you're wrong. No one is impressed with your ability to use google translate (or whatever). Like I said, why even have this portal if issues aren't going to be resolved adult like? Reading this thread made me feel like I was on a playground in elementary school. TerryB 17:47, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
Ok, reading this thread we see several editors talking past each other. Now, can the specific points regarding etiquette, appropriate conduct, and sysop actions be spelled out in plain English, WITHOUT, I repeat WITHOUT reference to specific users, or engaging in subtle personal attacks. Obviously, these users have a long editing history together and know each other fairly well. We need not get in to substantive content disputes. Let's focus on setting out what would be proper behavior guidelines for both registered users, and Conservapedia sysops. Thank you. Rob Smith 21:11, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
well, I addressed it to a specific user, but generally I would state:
  • not using the preview function is annoying and wasteful
  • deleting/recreating of articles may sometimes be justified, but is very disruptive when used constantly.
A proper behavior guideline should discourage both behaviors. Frankly, the Help:Editing etiquette are quite clear on the first point and I assume they are a guideline already. They just should be followed... AugustO 11:17, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
The deleting/recreating discussion pages, as well as mainspace pages would be sysop guidelines, I agree. Under certain circumstances it has been necessary to delete and recreate mainspace pages, and these things are usually done by agreement among senior sysops. I see no reason to delete in entirety discussion pages, unless someone has explained it somewhere. Problems usually are done with a simple revert or in extreme cases oversight. I think we may need oversight guidelines, too. But I suggest for now we begin with really really the basics, like defining "good faith", "good faith user", "good faith edit and editing", etc. Also, what specifically is "vandalism", and when is it a blockable offense, and for what duration, etc. So we need both sysop and editor guidelines. This would be helpful to everyone. Rob Smith 00:24, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

[edit] Double redirects

Use of preview aside, there are also a number of double redirects which cannot be fixed, due to them being protected. This makes effective housekeeping on Conservapedia impossible. Please can these be either fixed, or unprotected so others can clean up the mess? TracyS 08:29, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

So these could only be fixed by a user with sysop rights, correct? Rob Smith 21:21, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
That is correct. --SeanS 22:40, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

[edit] "Voodoo pedophile economics"

Since the author so kindly locked and redirected the talk page to this essay along with his own talk page, I'll post this here. "Voodoo economics" has traditionally been used as a snarl word against Reagan's economic policies and then supply-side economics. I'm sure Keynesian economics has its own pejorative.--CamilleT 13:30, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

I am not a fan of Reagan's budget deficits and I am not a fan of Obama's deficits either which have been even larger as a percentage of GDP.[5] If memory serves, and it may not, I believe Margaret Thatcher said the Soviet Union would have fallen without Reagan's ambitious military spending in a reasonable time frame. If I am correct about Thatcher, I agree with Margaret Thatcher who thought the Soviet Union would have fallen from within without Reagan's big military spending. I also think Reagan should have pushed hard to eliminate the Federal Reserve's close connection with U.S. government and had the dollar's value tied to a physical asset such as gold. Lastly, I believe I brought forth sufficient evidence re: Keynes pederasty. So I standby the title. conservative 07:25, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
I will say this about Reagan, generally speaking, you knew what you were getting. Obama is very phony and there are a lot of gullible Americans who voted for him. Who really thought that all the healthcare discussions and deals would be done all in front of C-Span, etc. etc. or that he was a competent person who would bring hope and change. Obama is all showmanship/salesmanship, but he overpromises and underdelivers. Americans should have picked a solid and reputable state governor or businessman who kept his house in order. Not someone who lacked executive experience and was all hype. conservative 07:39, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
Let's say Keynes was a pedophile. What does that have to do with his economic policies? Anyways, I don't want to defend Keynes. The only economist I'd be (somewhat) willing to defend would be Amartya Sen--CamilleT 09:39, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
This book gives an excellent contrast of the lives of Keynes & Schumpeter; unfortunately the next several pages after where it starts here are not available for preview. Rob Smith 15:56, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
Camille, how many instances can you give me of very wicked people, producing a significant amount of notable good and worthwhile fruit? While it is true that if Hitler said 2 plus 2 equals 4 it would not make this statement false, I have noticed many historical examples of wicked ideologies coming forth from wicked and deceptive men. Mat 12:33 "Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit." - Jesus Mat 7:18 "A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit." - Jesus conservative 17:21, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
First of all, I don't believe Obama has ever specifically advocated Keynesian economics. Second of all, your primary reference, Keynes at Harvard, does not explicitly say that he was a pedophile, and tries to imply it only with referring to him having gone to places where pedophilia is common. You know, I've been to Disneyland but I never went on the "Space Mountain" ride.
Next I'd like to point out a certain French philosopher Michel Foucault. You know how the right is always talking about things like "encroaching big government" and "Islam is more than a religion, it is a nationality?" Well, that comes from Foucault. In fact, nearly all the Islamophobia you see today is from Foucault's essay "A Powder Keg Called Islam."(Sadly, I failed to find an online copy for your reference. I'm sure they have one at your local university, if you wish to look into it further-or maybe one of Foucault's compilations exists at your local library) Long before Margaret Thatcher and Ron Paul, there was Foucault talking about "pastoral powers." Foucault wrote entire books about the evils of government overstepping its bounds. He was also the inspiration for the French "new philosophy" movement, containing figures such as Bernard Henri Levi, and greatly influencing the French centre-right (and the world's right!). But then, Foucault was also a member of the European equivalent of NAMBLA.
Even as an atheist, I too believe that no good can come from evil. But I have a different take on it. For me, the evil in question is somatic. I believe it is wrong to use Nazi research on Malaria, even if it would be very helpful, because it legitimizes their actions. But if, say, they were evil, but wrote about malaria without experimenting on prisoners? Then I would hold no objection. Supposing Keynes was a pedophile, pedophilia still has no place in his economic policies. By adhering to his economic ideals (which I, personally, do not), you are not condoning his behavior. You are not encouraging his behavior. Let me give a final example: living in a house built by slave labor is wrong, but living in a house whose architect is a slaver is not.

I should point out, though, that originally, I only said that "voodoo economics" referred to reagonomics. Perhaps you are trying to reclaim the term, but in the meanwhile, you are only causing confusion.

Finally, I will explain my stance on economics to clear up any wonderment and confusion: I do not believe in economics because the entire field operates under a flawed paradigm. Whether we are talking about Amartya Sen, Alan Greenspan, or Milton Friedman, I believe we need to completely overhaul our perception of resources (labor resources in particular) to improve our society in any meaningful way. To put it simply (too simply, I wager- how quickly will you lump me in with the likes of stalin, whom I abhor?), I am something of a communist.--CamilleT 18:07, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
Keynes or Marx, take your pick, either way Obama pursued a discredited economic theory. Obama could be considered quite reactionary then, in this sense. Rob Smith 20:00, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
and you really should unlock your user talk page. It'd make discussion far easier.--CamilleT 18:08, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

Conservapedia's policy is that a person's talk page is their castle. Due to certain people who suffer from compulsive and obsessive behavior, I decided to install a moat to my castle. :) conservative 18:32, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

noted, but perhaps you could try reopening it for a bit, just to see? because you often lock and redirect other talk pages, and it makes it rather difficult to address you directly--CamilleT 18:40, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
It is now reopened. conservative 03:01, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

I have decided to close my talk page as I believe some obsessive underachievers with no lives wanted to use it for trifling purposes. The email system can be used to contact me and I have posted a notice on my talk page concerning sending me an appropriate email.conservative 23:05, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

[edit] Conservative's talk page, or lack thereof

Why does administrator Conservative not have a talk page? Without one there is no accountability for his actions and no venue to discuss edits and articles with him. I feel he should have a non-protected talk page, and I invite him to defend his lack of one. PatOMalley 23:13, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

I would suggest you work on some articles before discussing site policy. I'm not saying you don't have a point, I'm saying you have nothing to stand on except two minor mainspace edits--CamilleT 23:31, 15 June 2011 (EDT)
I'm aware of the policy, but I find it ridiculous that admins use it as a crutch to escape embarrassing comments from new users. PatOMalley 23:41, 15 June 2011 (EDT)
I have a hard time motivating myself to work on mainspace articles with things like this happening. Why would I want to spend my spare time writing for this website when edits are deleted, talk pages are burned, and editors are unperson'd? I really would like to work on this site, but I just can't bring myself to do it. TerryB 23:57, 15 June 2011 (EDT)
Obviously, Pat needs to pick up a book on basic logic. There have been numerous posts on the talk pages of my popular articles at Conservapedia. Also, his posting on this page makes his errant and self-refuting statement concerning lack of an available web page to attempt to enforce accountability rather humorous. I believe symptoms #6 and # 8 apply here. Pat is just upset because he can't find a single factual error in my articles. :) conservative 17:30, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
Clearly you must be a brave man to speak to haughtily to someone who cannot speak in return. ErichM 17:58, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
ErichM, I have made no declarations concerning my gender at Conservapedia, I think symptom # 8 applies here. conservative 18:35, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
And if ErichM had written Clearly you must be a brave woman or man, someone would have cried Political correctness gone mad!. Most of us who followed the recommendation User names based on your real name or initials are preferred. made a declaration concerning our gender (unless our first name was Storm). But you are above recommendations and etiquettes... AugustO 09:23, 18 June 2011 (EDT)


As per a request by RobS, I reopened my user talk page for posts along with posting some reasonable guidelines for posting to my talk page. Best wishes to RobS as far as his new initiative. conservative 01:58, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
I have decided to close my talk page as I believe some obsessive underachievers with no lives wanted to use it for trifling purposes. The email system can be used to contact me and I have posted a notice on my talk page concerning sending me an appropriate email. conservative 23:04, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

[edit] Rabbit holes

I'm a little bit concerned about the frequent claims of people being cowards and living in intellectual rabbit holes and not wanting to debate, when the person making those claims has the standard response of deleting and over-sighting anything he disagrees with, rather than having to respond to it.

The latest example was the deletion of the "Sasayaki answers Conservapedia's challenge to atheist Penn Jillette", which set out answers to the challenge Conservative had set. And yet it is deleted and he makes calls on the main page for a debate. The reason given for deletion was on the flimsiest of grounds and you even claimed you were no longer going to read the page. Where's the intellectual sincerity in that. I also believe that when your last challenge to a debate was taken up, you backed down, saying you were going to be busy for the next 90-days, and yet you carried on editing here unabated. What do you say to that?

There is the old adage about removing the speck from your eye, before taking the log from your opponent's eye. You cannot argue moral authority while adopting similar tactics to those you accuse. TracyS 09:29, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

It's a shame when even complaining about censorship gets censored.SeamusC 10:17, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
It's not 'censorship' to remove inflammatory rants like the above. TracyS has expressed herself in a very uncivil way, apparently in order to provoke Conservative. In fact, much of this page is liberal editors attempting to smear Conservative, something which I find very distasteful. Jcw 10:23, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
Again, I apologise for the rant. However, it's also a little unfair to label everybody who complains a "liberal". Although Conservapedia does have a problem with parodists, why constantly assume bad faith? In this case, if all the complaints are aimed at one person, then surely where there is smoke there is fire? If it's liberal to care about a project I put my name to, then by all means, call me liberal. (Don't take that literally!) TracyS 10:44, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
It's not a "rant" to avoid sugar-coating an opinion. You deleted a comment of mine (I assume for some civility-transgression) that simply declared that there was nothing wrong with Tracy's comment and that to delete it was censorship. My contributions to the original discussion were deleted along with the essay page. I was also blocked (later unblocked when Conservative realised he'd blocked the wrong person). Tracy's point still stands: there is a definite tendency on this site to remove opinions for the sole reason that they express disagreement. (In fact, that something disagrees will lead to it being held to be "uncivil", as were Sasayaki's, mine and Tracy's comments.)SeamusC 11:00, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
Conservapedia does not provide free advertising to a website filled with obsessive underachievers who have a penchant for wiki vandalism. It is not going to happen. If they want to advertise that is not a problem, but let them go to an advertising agency and pay for it. I would suggest that the party in question transfer the material in question to another website and move forward. conservative 13:37, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
"I will let readers decide if Sayasaki answered the fifteen questions..." You didn't though. SeamusC 13:59, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
Sayasaki didn't even try to answer them. He linked to a site that claimed to but in fact didn't. All this argumentation is a distraction from the fact that no-one has yet managed to answer the questions. Jcw 14:03, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
"I will let readers decide..." SeamusC 14:09, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
Seamusc, there is a ton of free places on the internet to put web content. There is absolutely nothing preventing Sayasaki from transferring the 15 question material to another website rather than a website with a penchant for wiki vandalism. I would suggest blogspot for example. If you want to move forward, you can. If not, that is your choice. Plus, among other things it is absurd for anyone to dodge the "chemical evolution" (origin of life) question. Evobabble is a hopelessly intellectually bankrupt philosophy (not science) and putting the material on a vandal site is not going to redeem it. I would suggest transferring the trashy material on the wiki vandal site to one of the many free websites on the internet and not have the material refer to a wiki vandal site. conservative 14:41, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
What are your conditions for accepting that the questions that cannot be answered have been? What is the quantification in "15 questions that cannot be answered..."? Are you saying that not all of the questions can be answered or that none of the questions can be answered?SeamusC 16:28, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

Seamusc, given what the atheist Daniel Came declared which can be found HERE, I think you urgently need to spend less time pretending the 15 questions can be answered and instead spend your time gathering atheists to plead for Penn Jillette to debate Conservapedia and for Richard Dawkins to debate Dr. William Lane Craig. I would also urgently gather atheists to plead that Matt Dillahunty and AronRa debate Shockofgod concerning the 15 questions given Shockofgod's Texas Question evolution! campaign initiative.

The reason I say this is that atheism is rapidly developing the reputation for yellow bellied cowardice thanks to Richard Dawkins and a host of other atheists (Please see: Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates). If this keeps up, more male atheists may turn into Nancy boys due to the fairer sex rejecting them due to their cowardice. :) By the way, is PZ Myers' wife an atheists or like many well known male atheists such as David Silverman and Austin Cline, has he been unable to convince his spouse that the foolish worldview of atheism is true? Please ask PZ Myers if his wife is an atheist. It would be interesting to find out this question given that Atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women. Perhaps, if atheists men had more machismo, their spouses might found atheism less cowardly (please see: Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?. conservative Of course, this applies to male atheists who managed to obtain wives (please see: Atheism and marriageability ). conservative 17:47, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

From what I see the questions cannot be answered because:
- You refuse to specify what an answer would be, so you can deny any answer is an answer and
- You delete answers and block those who answer
Show some machismo, answer my two questions and allow others to answer. SeamusC 17:22, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
SeamusC, your claim that I block those who answer, is most interesting, considering that Penn Jillette has not yet accepted the debate and that Richard Dawkins refuses to debate William Lane Craig and Bible believing creation scientists. Show Conservapedians the questions can be answered. Ask a prominent evolutionists to debate a creation scientist regarding the 15 questions. Unless of course, deep down you know atheism is a cowardly religion. You have 30 days to get a prominent evolutionists to debate a Bible believing creation scientists concerning the 15 questions. No excuses will be accepted for failure on your part. Now I would suggest spending less time wrangling here and to get busy complying with my most reasonable request. July 26, 2011 is approaching and there is no time to waste. conservative 17:43, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
I'm beginning to make too many "talk" edits. Please email me. SeamusC 17:47, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

Conservative, has it occurred to you that Seamus probably has no sway with prominent atheists, and cannot convince one to meet your challenge? Nor would they give a hoot about questions posed by a nobody on an uninfluential website. If you actually care about answer to your 15 questions (and I'm not at all convinced you do), why should it matter who answers them, provided they can be answered? Are only prominent scientists qualified to do so? What happened to the Best of the Public? JacobD 18:29, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

Oh, I am sorry. I thought SeamusC possessed the same "superior atheist intellect" that all atheists have (with the exception of the Soviet Union of course). I am still willing to give SeamusC the benefit of the doubt though and I suggest he/she focus his/her high powered intellect in reading some salesmanship books and persuade Penn Jillette to debate the toughest Bible believing opponent he can find willing to debate him. Given the urgency of rescuing atheism from its growing reputation for cowardice, I definitely did write: "If Penn Jillete decides to dodge this debate offer, Conservapedia is giving Penn Jillette 150 days from 6/23/11 to publicly debate the toughest Bible believing Christian debate opponent he can find concerning the existence of God. By November 20, 2011, we will see if Penn Jillette believes he can defend atheism against biblical Christianity." I am having my doubts at this point that atheism has evolved a backbone. conservative 19:13, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
That's pretty rich coming from you. You consistently duck debates on atheism and then immediately turn around and post here about the cowardice of atheists. You should put up or shut up. You debate me Conservative. Show us all that you have machismo. I hereby challenge you publicly to a debate on religion versus atheism. Show some backbone. --XavierC 19:22, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

XavierC, sorry but that dog will not hunt. The talk pages for the 3-4 main articles I wrote have archives of responses from me. Tell you what, given that atheism is in global decline in terms of adherents, why don't you do two things: 1) Get prominent evolutionists to once again debate creation scientists like they did in the 1970s (they lost those debates). 2) Given that Conservapedia has one of the most well trafficked web articles on atheism which I significantly contributed to in term of content, please have a very well known atheists/evolutionists give me a debate offer I can't refuse (I would suggest asking an American atheist since atheism is but a squeak in American society and may soon be a half a squeak).

Best of luck on stopping the continuing global decline of atheism, you'll need it! At this time, I am considering retiring from this page since the atheists have yet to offer proof and evidence that atheism is true. Please let me know if any prominent atheist decided to debate me and please be aware that prominence in girth does not count. :) conservative 00:50, 27 June 2011 (EDT)

Just as I suspected. You spout that Penn Jillete must debate some unnamed "Bible believing Christian" or he's a coward. As far as I am aware he is not a spokesperson for atheism. You, on the other hand, the author of the "well trafficked web articles on atheism" here on Conservapedia get challenged to a debate on atheism versus religion and suddenly "that dog will not hunt". I think we can all draw our own conclusions as to who the coward is in this scenario.
Now you had better get busy with a bit of blocking and oversighting so that no-one sees the sort of spineless behaviour that some internet Christians are capable of.  :) --XavierC 01:56, 27 June 2011 (EDT)
Look, I think atheism is on the decline in the world and given its falsity that isn't a bad thing (see: Atheism). In the Eastern World, Christianity is exploding in terms of growth. I also see Western conservative populism and more limited government on the rise for financial reasons. In case you didn't know, neither of these things are good for atheism. So why should I debate obscure atheists who are invariably ill informed and recalcitrant when I have adequately addressed them on the talk pages of the respective articles? Why? Sell me on the idea with your high powered atheist intellect. The truth is, you can't and we both know it. There would have to be a very powerful reason before I would consider debating an obscure atheists. Face it, Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary community and Penn Jillette with their atheistic tripe they are unwilling to defend are making atheism a laughingstock and there will be no atheist revival.conservative 04:35, 27 June 2011 (EDT)
Please show us the best example you can find of you adequately addressing anyone on any point regarding any of your captive articles. I don't think you can debate or accept legitimate criticism very well. In the year I've been here I've seen a good amount of hateful sneering assertion and name calling from you, including you very nearly calling my Catholic faith a faux religion, but nothing resembling an adequate response to any point critical of anything you've written or done. TK told me you were given special treatment because these monstrosities you've written bring traffic to the site. You've been taking advantage of these good people's fear of losing that by valuing your contributions over anyone else's and badly abusing newer editors. You frequently give sneering responses filled with references to bizarre articles you've written that elevate creationism and Biblical literalism over Christian faith but fail to logically argue any point, delete people's posts, block, and bully to protect yourself and have the gall to call anyone else a coward. You are personally the reason I am losing faith in this site - four people from my church and men's group I recommended to Mr. Schlafly's otherwise excellent project found content you created to conflate your Biblical literalism with all of Christianity, and in that way misrepresent Catholic perspectives, and found your obsessive editing of all these bizarre "essays" about ponies, Chuck Norris, peanut butter, and intellectual rabbit holes nothing they wanted anything to do with. Please consider praying or seeking guidance from your minister over your conduct here and any further responses you give on this website. Nate 09:35, 27 June 2011 (EDT)
Where something is hosted has no bearing on its content or relevancy and as I stated above, deleting it on those grounds alone was a flimsy excuse. In addition, I find it hard to believe that somebody can claim to hold the moral high ground and call others chicken for not debating, when there is no evidence of you ever having debated yourself. Mr. Schlafly has been on various media defending and promoting Conservapedia, TerryH writes an excellent blog and is prepared to debate with his detractors there. However, nowhere do I see you engaging with atheists, besides making strange essays on Conservapedia, which they will probably never read anyway.
To get back to my point that you never answered - is it true that when your previous demands for a debate were met, you suddenly backed off, claiming you were "very busy for the 90 days" - a claim not backed up by your editing history on Conservapedia? Why did you do this, when your conditions had been met? In addition, to use your quote from the main page - have you ever debated an atheist and if not, why not? TracyS 10:18, 27 June 2011 (EDT)
Because nobody wants to debate conservative, everybody can see it: he just won't answer any question but continue to make silly accusations that have no relevance to the philosophic problem in question. And, of course, because he would only get laughed at. --StevenAA 12:27, 27 June 2011 (EDT)

This isn't the place for evolution debates so please, editors and Conservative, you can defend yourselves and your beliefs here. http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_15_questions_for_evolutionists ameda 17:07, 27 June 2011 (EDT)

This isn't an evolution debate. This is a discussion about the hypocrisy displayed by Conservative in running around this site accusing various people and groups of cowardice for not debating. @conservative: I don't seek to convince you of anything. You can debate me or not. Your choice. If you do then fine. If you don't then people can draw their own conclusions. Your choice. --XavierC 17:20, 27 June 2011 (EDT)
Hello? Conservative? Hello? --XavierC 17:23, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
Ok, here's how you get User:Conservative's attention: Proverbs 14:4 says,
  • Where no oxen are, the crib is clean: but much increase is by the strength of the ox. [6]
Obviously, a camparison to User:Conservatives talk page, and a clean stall in a barn. Then the reference that rolling up your sleeves, and getting knee deep in cow dung, is where the payoff is.
Let's look at it in spiritual terms: the ox is a metaphor for Christian ministry (1 Tim 5:17-20) and the "increase" is the harvest of souls (1 Cor 3:6-9). And to User:Conservative let me add "if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully...Consider what I say...", and here Paul is specifically speaking of the Christian Minister's right to get paid, (i.e., that is to say, financially gain or profit), from Christian ministry. So don't misunderstand the part about "strive lawfully", I just threw it in. But we do need some clear understanding on sysop rights, duties, and accountability to the project.
And for the record, I'll insert the whole text from 1 Timothy, cause I think some of it does apply.
  • 17Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. 18For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward. 19Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. 20Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. Rob Smith 15:57, 2 July 2011 (EDT)

[edit] re: Not participating at community portal anymore

There is a person who was blocked at another wiki in the past. I feel this person is is obsessed with me and an unreasonable and contentious person. His/her modus operandi is very apparent now. He/she plays armchair internet psychologist and likes to endlessly ruminate about me and no doubt Conservapedia as well. He/she is also obsessed with the comedy/satires of atheism and evolution that I created and I suspect they rub salt in his foolish atheist religious beliefs. Needless to say, I have better things to do with my time. I will not be participating or reading this community portal anymore. I did appreciate some of the feedback and am happy with accede to reasonable requests. I wish RobS the best in his new initiative. conservative 04:48, 7 July 2011 (EDT)

This is not the response I would have expected from somebody who makes a habit out of calling out people who refuse to respond to, or debate, issues. One can therefore assume that people like Dawkins have better things to do with their time than answer calls for debates - especially from people who do not debate themselves - and thus we can now expect all such demands to cease?
That said, I'm glad to see you did take note of the calls for the locking and redirection of talk pages to be removed. TracyS 08:27, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
Tracy, I returned to tie up a loose end in my discussion with Nate. With that being said, perhaps you have a limitless time budget to respond to every and obscure Tom, Dick and Harry adherent of the foolish atheist religion. I wish to do more important things. I have kept the door open to debate more prominent members of the atheist religion though if they presented me the right offer. There is nothing stopping obscure adherents of atheism from asking the more prominent members of their religion to debate me with an attractive debate offer. In addition, I have made a debate offer to the atheist Penn Jillette. conservative 18:20, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
Clarification: It seems as though there is some misunderstanding among some obscure atheists. I thought I had made it clear that global atheism was both errant, foolish and in decline in its number of adherents. So while I did use the term "prominent atheist" I merely was using the term in relation to their standing among their fellow foolish atheists. I was certainly not meaning to give the impression that they have "high standing" in the world and before God. Scripture does declare: "Men of low degree are only vanity and men of rank are a lie; In the balances they go up; They are together lighter than breath." I also cite this from CP's article entitled Views on Atheists: Dr. Sam Harris is a founder of the New Atheism movement. Sam Harris is quite aware of the stigma surrounding atheism and has even advocated that atheists no longer call themselves atheists.[2] In fact, Dr. Harris has said concerning the label of atheist, "It's right next to child molester as a designation."[3] Even before the 20th century mass murder spree by atheists, atheism was associated with immorality. Webster's dictionary says the very word atheism was synonymous with "wickedness/immorality".[7] I hope I cleared things up. So if obscure atheists want to ask their more prominent members within their foolish community to debate me, I am still willing to do so if an attractive offer was presented despite the sordid and deceitful history of atheism (see: Atheism and Mass Murder and Atheism and deception and Atheism and morality). Also, since repetition is the mother of learning, I did want to stress that it would not be due to my debating prowess that I would win such a debate effortlessly and unequivocally, but merely due to utter weakness of the atheist position. Conservative 22:39, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
You've done a lot for Conservapedia. You deserve a break. BradB 00:02, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
Whereas it is very noble of you to offer to debate people, you should also realise that nobody is going to debate a faceless individual, especially one who demands money - or rather some monetary guarantee - to debate. As far as I can tell, nobody knows who you are - and that includes your fellow admins here at CP. You have presence on the internet outside of CP, and besides your anonymous calls for debates, you have no published papers on creationism, or homosexuality, or atheism. In other words, you have no credentials, nor presence that anybody is aware of. And nobody is going to debate somebody who runs around calling himself "Conservative". Build up some street cred, put a name and credentials behind your demands for a debate and maybe then people will take you seriously. But once again, nobody is going to look twice at an anonymous nobody shouting at them from behind locked pages. Get out there, make a name - your own name - for yourself and then people might take you seriously. TracyS 07:56, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
If so, why belabor the point? Rob Smith 13:33, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
Personal tools