Conservapedia talk:Burning the Evidence/Archive1

Full text
Does somebody have the full version of the Conservative vs. the world discussion on Dawkins, right before this happened?

I think Conservative stuck it on a user/sub page. Susan speak your mind  11:26, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Oooo. Is it this: evidence--Bobbing for apples 11:44, 26 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Mmm.(nods) Susan  speak your mind  12:00, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Well done Susan. I've looked through the two texts.  Quite a few paragraphs are present in Conservative's version which are inexplicably absent from the official archived version.--Bobbing for apples 12:07, 26 October 2007 (EDT)


 * It needs copying by someone with edit rights. Susan  speak your mind  12:15, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

I am ashamed to admit that I have edit rights there. :-( Anyway, I've got a copy.--Bobbing for apples 12:26, 26 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Side- by-side? (showing variations between versions) Susan  speak your mind  12:35, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
 * I can put the text somewhere on site - but apart from that I'm multitasking at the moment, so not I. Good idea though if somebody wants to take it on.--Bobbing for apples 12:44, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
 * I've re-created it here, but I copied from the source code and TK's signature and the ISBN link are a mystery to me.  Norseman Wassail!   15:02, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

How about giving the now missing bits a different background colour? (how many talk pages have we got on this?) Susan  You don't have to talk, but ...  13:53, 27 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Could you dumb down what you just said for the non-intelligent (me)? >.<  Norseman Wassail!   15:02, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

Apparently there are some things in the saved section Conservapedia:Burning_the_Evidence/DawkinsTalk0932_20Oct07 that have not been included on the present version (?) I can't compare them & would like to see those bits highlighed by colouring the background (say) pink. (there' s another talk page @ Conservapedia_Talk:Burning_the_Evidence/DawkinsTalk0932_20Oct07 if that's what you meant) Susan  You don't have to talk, but ...  15:19, 27 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Oh, I'll continue there then, since this talk is mostly about the generalization of burninating evidence. Thanks.  Norseman Wassail!   15:32, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

He's deleted the 'evidence' page & recreated it & then protected it. What's going on? Susan You don't have to talk, but ...  18:03, 27 October 2007 (EDT)
 * He removed the last two paragraphs by TK and himself, then appears to have copied the whole thing, deleted it to burn away the edits entirely, and then pasted a recreate. Saw the editing differences just before he deleted it.  Norseman Wassail!   19:48, 27 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Seriously, don't you think you guys are a little obsessed? 74.86.17.82 20:02, 27 October 2007 (EDT)


 * (ec) Yup! Fun innit? Susan  You don't have to talk, but ...  20:09, 27 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Just me, I think.  Norseman Wassail!   20:06, 27 October 2007 (EDT)
 * It's my favourite soap opera. Eastenders can lick it! --Kels 20:12, 27 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Ok then, whatever floats your boat... 74.86.17.82 20:15, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

Wish I had noticed this before! I am a compulsive saver, and have all that stuff usually. Just ask. -- --Иight¤Ṭrain <font color="DC143C">♦Τalk ǃ 20:33, 27 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Just to give you guys a hand, you don't need an account to get the source of a page, just click the edit tab and then change "action=edit" on the end of the address to "action=raw" 74.86.17.82 07:41, 28 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Izzat true?!?! Gonna try it - thanks IP. Susan  You don't have to talk, but ...  07:51, 28 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Don't work for me : - (   Susan  You don't have to talk, but ...  08:03, 28 October 2007 (EDT)


 * It will come up as a file to download rather than a web page. A link should look something like this: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Gambling&action=raw
 * Otherwise try adding "&ctype=text/css" to the end as well, and then it will come up as a plain text web page. A link will look something like this: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Gambling&action=raw&ctype=text/css 74.86.17.82 08:39, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Burning the evidence (FBI incident)
When several users brought up the FBI incident again, TK deleted the talk page and then restored it, minus the FBI edits. Below are all the comments made by the users all deleted by TK;

Question
Don't know if this is the right place, but I want to know --if it's not very touchy for you-- about the FBI investigations on vandalism. In Christ --Eury 23:14, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, how is that investigation going, have you guys caught the Halifax troll yet? Maybe you can get the FBI after him. Oh wait I forgot they don't have any jurisdiction in Canada. Looks like you guys are shit out of luck --Cochabamba 12:09, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

So what happens to the people the FBI catches, are they sent to Gitmo? --Kucinichforlife 12:20, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Yeah they are and then the army rapes them up the ass with a broomstick --Edwards4pres 12:24, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

So why do you guys keep reverting the questions, could it be that there really is no FBI investigation and you are all lying. Looks like liberals aren't the only ones capable of deceit eh? --Cochabamba 13:03, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

So how come you guys don't have an article on Conservative deceit? This is a conservative site and it is full of it. Are you going to send the FBI after me ;) --Mikegravelforpres 13:16, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

What's wrong Karajou, does the truth hurt? Send the FBI up to Halifax to get me asshole --Osamaobama 13:32, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

What's wrong, can't stomach dissenting views. Just expunge dissenting views from the public record. Welcome to 1984 --Ronpaulvandamn 13:57, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Are you guys going to answer any questions or are you too scared? --Kucinichforlife 16:58, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Steve Carson is a hero! By the way, how is that FBI investigation going? Will the Feds catch Steve Carson? Please let us know!

WHY?
Why has the above section here been transferred to the article? Where do we want it to be? Should it be in both places?
 * CЯacke ®

We weren't showing 'em cause people were doing it just to get ratwikied. Susan ... purrrrrr ...  19:29, 9 November 2007 (EST)

Showing examples
My goal all along has been to have repositories of shallow- and deep-burned material that we have saved from the memory hole. Saving stuff is rather labor-intensive, especially if one wants to preserve all acts of censorship. One possibility is the creation of pages here on RW that sort of mirrors the history on CP. So I have just done that with a fairly small page: Fred Phelps. I imagine that the more serious ones, like the main page talk, Richard Dawkins, Assfly, and atheism, would take a lot of work.

Questions: on a scale of 9.9 to 99, how stupid is the detail I have gone into? Should people just privately save whole pages that we think are going to be deep-burned, so we can put up the last version when they get deep burned, not bothering with individual shallow episodes? Are other people saving things?

On a related note, it appears that some FBI material that had been deep burned was placed on the talk page just above. I'm inclined to move it in some form to the article page, under "examples of deep burning". Gauss 21:30, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

Incineration of Evidence
I just wondered how deletions work. If a page has something and a sysop deletes and restores with parts missing, that would constitute a deep burn, yes? In the common case of TK removing all content from the page, then deleting, that would mean restoring it would just be restoring nothing but a blank page, all information doomed to be lost. Is that still just a deep burn due to loss of lulz to a greater extent? <font face="Comic Sans MS"> Norseman <font face="Comic Sans MS"><font color = "0000EE">Wassail!   19:23, 4 November 2007 (EST)


 * Exactly. Actual deletion of a page destroys the history and all old versions, and is a "deep burn".  Archiving something using the actual archive mechanism carries over the history to the archive.  Deletion of that archive then deeply burns its contents.  (Experts:  Am I right about these technical details?)  RobS has done this a number of times.


 * What CP thugs often do (as in the FBI stuff) is deeply burn the page, and then refill the new one with their own censored content that they saved as text before they deleted.


 * I coined the term "deep burn", and the corresponding "shallow burn" through an inability to come up with a better term. Sigh.  It has occurred to me that, during Watergate, the Nixon folks (John Dean and L. Patrick Gray?) spoke of "deep sixing" a briefcase full of documents.  But there is no corresponding term "shallow sixing".  And the page is, after all, about burning.  Gauss 21:10, 4 November 2007 (EST)


 * As I understand it (or how I might do it to have the observed functionality), when a page is deleted it is moved to another table and non-sysops cannot access it (and sysops only through certain means). When a page is restored, the wiki goes and grabs the version range specified and restores that back into the main table space.  The key here is that there is only one copy of a page in either table.  What CP sysops like to do is delete a page, create a new page (empty), and then delete that page.  Thus, the copy of the page that is stored in the deleted table is empty (the older copy that had the information is purged out) - one cannot go back to the information prior to the deletion.  This explains the "page was empty" deletion messages. --Shagie 19:39, 9 November 2007 (EST)

Cover Story
(please do not archive this section)


 * I say no, it's a good article, but too CP-focused.  CP-space Headliner, certainly.   <font color="#00F0A20">DogP  20:57, 2 April 2008 (EDT)


 * Also no to cover - it seems to veer from a general discussion of evidence burning, to precise focusing on CP - in fact, the "Burning the Evidence on a Wiki" section starts off by ostensibly discussing wikis in general, only for the tone of voice to degenerate into a "persons who shall remain nameless" diatribe - before finally giving up the pretence and naming Conservapedia's "gang of four". This whole section needs some focus - separate out the CP stuff into a new section, and find examples from other wikis, if anyone knows any. Another criticism is that the article now lies in CP: space, but still keeps its mainspace range. In a nutshell, is this article about all evidence burning, or just that at CP? I'm minded to copy the mainspace stuff to a mainspace article, with a link to here for CP-only things. Anyway, end of rant. Yours trulyDear Sir 15:29, 30 January 2009 (EST)


 * [Disclaimer: I am the principal author of this, and I think it's awesome.]  I support making this a cover story.  The objection about general focus vs. CP focus has been addressed.  The general material (Orwell, Stalin, etc.) has been moved into a separate article.  This article is about the CP activity.  The phrases "burning the evidence", "shallow burning", and "deep burning" are now in common use in the lexicon here and at "that other place" (CP).  See, for example, here where TK complains that he doesn't have the authority to "deep burn".  Of course he's lying, as usual&mdash;he frequently deep burns; he just can't incinerate. Gauss 15:58, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Rename this page
I'd like to rename this page from "Conservapedia:Burning_the_Evidence" to "Conservapedia:Burning_the_Evidence_at_Conservapedia". The page was recently split into two articles&mdash;one about the general stuff and one (this one) about the CP-specific stuff. But they have the same title, differing only in the namespace. I think the title should be descriptive on its own. There is precedent for that. We have "Conservapedia:Conservapedian_mathematics" and "Conservapedia:Conservapedian_relativity", making clear, in the title itself, that the page is not just about math or relativity, but about CP's take on it. I think this page fits in that mold. Gauss 14:57, 13 February 2009 (EST)

I've changed it back. While having two pages with the same name (differing only in their namespace) has some drawbacks, everyone around here knows that the phrase "burning the evidence" refers to the CP variety of it. With 95% certainty, that is. But that's all that science requires. Gauss 10:53, 12 March 2009 (EDT)


 * I think this should be renamed Conservapedia:Burning the evidence to keep its name consistent with other pages on the wiki. I will fix up the redirect if anyone wants to move it. - User   04:16, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

You've lost your moral superiority.
Nx is losing the rag and burning edits on RW. I was under the impression that this behaviour was strictly forbidden on RW. Is there no discussion about this? Will NX simply be allowed to flaunt the rules? Will you just let this guy behave like a dictator?
 * I see you're flouting your ignorance. 14:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nx and BoN are flouncing their rules and ignorance. Faaabulously. RATIONALWIKI! GAYER THAN #wikipedia! - David Gerard (talk) 14:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)