Conservapedia talk:Newcomer's Guide

Help!
I've put it on watch for the moment. Got another fairly time-consuming RW article coming up today, but I'll try to make a few edits here, too (assuming that my messed-up sleep cycle doesn't screw me over on the way). --Sid 06:01, 24 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Everyone contribute!-A m e s G 01:39, 25 June 2007 (CDT)
 * How many people do we want on the RationalWiki members? Should I include myself? 02:23, 25 June 2007 (CDT)


 * AmesG, nice beginning! Could you at least be more subtle/clever at trying to cast suspicion on me? I am soooo friendly to RW!  Please don't confuse a willingness to chat with political/tactical agreement.  --TK/MyTalk|undefined 15:14, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Everyone should add themselves especially Helios.A m e s G 15:48, 25 June 2007 (CDT)


 * "Everyone should add themselves?" Add themselves? I don't recall adding myself.  Now I am totally confused! But I suppose it was a friendly attempt by Sid & AmesG to self-describe me in a "friendly" manner, since I am a member here and all?  That is so kind!  So they will not object to me contributing my own additions to the other users descriptions, right?   --TK/MyTalk|undefined 15:58, 25 June 2007 (CDT)


 * Lipson and several other editors quit trying to moderate the articles and instead started their own website, RationalWiki.com. From there, they monitor Conservapedia. And — by their own admission — engage in acts of cyber-vandalism. Notice...not attributed to PalMD. To "they".  --DoxXox-DawkT0wk 17:07, 25 June 2007 (CDT)


 * TK, please learn how to read article histories. You would have noticed that I had not made any edits to it before you started complaining here. My only two edits happened a few minutes ago, long after your edit to PalMD's entry. Just a friendly heads-up for the future. --Sid 04:56, 26 June 2007 (CDT)


 * Sid, perhaps its your change in hours challenging you. I didn't say a word about you editing, I merely addressed the two who actually seem to have started the article.  --TK/MyTalk|undefined 05:49, 26 June 2007 (CDT)


 * Let me see. My complete involvement (prior to my two extremely recent edits and the chat with you) was the comment at the top, in which I said I might help out later because Ames said he could use help. Ever since then, I didn't have a good chance to help and thus made zero edits (until recently). How does this translate to "Sid and Ames start the article"? --Sid 05:58, 26 June 2007 (CDT)


 * If you saw anything, other than your usual desire to be an ass, Sid, it would be a miracle, no? Since you know I was looking at the page history for this page, not the article page, and was mistaken,  why not just say that instead of typing away to do what? Oh, wait, I forgot!  It is your way, and that was the reason you were blocked so many times on CP, and I suspect other sites as well, lol.  But I still love ya, Sid!  --TK/MyTalk|undefined 12:43, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

Seriously, add yourself
Please add info about yourself!!!-A m e s G 00:44, 26 June 2007 (CDT)


 * Sorry, AmesG, but as a "Less Than" user here, it has already been decided by some here that nothing I contribute will be allowed to stand. Just another example of "Liberal Deceit". --TK/MyTalk|undefined 05:46, 26 June 2007 (CDT)


 * Instead of berating Ames or whoever, you should really be thanking User:E.Wig for restoring your edit about yourself. That's the sort of thing a real friend would do, and probably deserves some credit. --Kels 13:38, 26 June 2007 (CDT)


 * Berating AmesG? TK was most certainly not berating Ames. However the pack here doesn't give users of a different idealogy much of a chance.  Proof of that is the blatant fact we have so few here, and cannot attract them, unless you make a sock and pretend to be "different", lol. I don't want any thanks from TK, thank you very much! That is another reason so few want to stick around. --Ë. 13:45, 26 June 2007 (CDT)


 * Well, I'm sure your sterling defense on his behalf helps to stem the tide of apparent bad feelings, sir. After all, you've done him many little services in the past little while, and while I'm sure you must be modest you definitely deserve congratulations for it.  Well done sir, I can't think of another here who's supported TK so consistently, and I, for one, am happy for the chance to try to steer things in a more productive, positive manner. --Kels 13:54, 26 June 2007 (CDT)


 * TK, what have you ever contributed here, aside from your incessant whining about not being a sysop? --67.102.192.7 17:00, 27 June 2007 (CDT) (oops--this is Gulik)

Sproutky's tale
Sproutky-joined just now with another TK story of assanine ignorance.

I guess this is where I put me. I joined today 8/24/2007 around 7:15 am after being ROYALLY SCREWED and treated like human feces by sweetie pie TK. (or perhaps canine feces, it's hard to tell with him) Anyway, I had the pure audacity to edit an article on georgedubya stating that not all Christians support him which resulted in a fast and furious removal and block by TK. He refused three days for an explanation until I wrote to him and copied his "superiors" (which is apparently anyone who walks upright)...of course I had to inform him that I was including them as he isn't capable of figuring that out for himself. He responded in a sarcastic, nasty, hateful way, which for him may well be his "nice voice" which utterly....let's say it pissed me off. I talked to several sysops, I explained over and over and over and over and over (you get the picture) to no avail. Well, I went to good old wikipedia and checked the "conservapedia" entry and found this place. I feel so....so.....at home and surrounded by people who have put up with the same crap. It's wonderful. I was a horrible person and posted this on dubya's family entry after it talks about conservative christians worshipping the ground he walked on: "Other conservative Christians are beginning to disbelieve that George W. Bush's faith is sincere and fear he has used it to deceive them. Form a World Net Daily report, "Methodist leaders to Bush: Repent Clergy claim president's policies 'incompatible' with church teachings" [10] Conservative Christians are moving away from support of Bush due to actions and policies that seem to go against their Christian beliefs and values. They feel it is important to get a strong, Christian candidate for the 2008 elections to put the nation back on the right track."

Doesn't look very liberal does it? Well, apparently that statement likened me to Howard Dean himself as it resulted in an immediate block and removal. I emailed with sweetie-pie TK and ended up with this: I wrote to him, very politely: Hi, I edited an entry in the encyclopedia and then my screen said I was blocked. I don't understand why. The article I edited was about President George W Bush in the "Family" section speaking about religion. Many Conservative Christians are moving away from Mr. Bush because they don't feel he is conservative and don't feel he is really Christian because of some of his actions. Our Methodist Church Bishops have even spoken against his policies and questioned whether he is really an evangelical Christian or only claims to be. Yada, yada, yada, .

Just an explanation of what I may have done wrong is what I'm looking for. I'm not here to "overthrow the system" or as a democrat spy, I'm here as what I am, a dedicated Christian and a very patriotic American citizen. Thanks

After finally telling him and copying the email to his "bosses", I FINALLY got a reply. It was so sweet, so articulate, so caring and loving...well, just judge for yourself:

You were not responded to because I assumed (as any thinking, educated person would have) that someone was playing a joke. To describe your first email as uninformed, dishonest and demagogic would be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. It appeared as if it was crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness, so please forgive me for not thinking it was for real, and responding in earnest. The Methodist hierarchy is among the most Liberal in the nation, so I am not a bit surprised those hypocrites' object to our War on Terrorism. As for abortion, President Bush has absolutely zero control over that. Abortion law is made by the Congress and the individual States, per our Constitution. The Courts have also weighed in on the matter. The President has absolutely no legal right to do anything to stop abortion, anywhere or anytime.

Your addition to the article was almost the same as your email, and certainly not of the intellectual standard we demand. I hope this “clears the air” so to speak. Thanks for writing in. Sincerely.
 * TK

Wasn't that just the sweetest thing you've ever heard?? I feel so loved. My reply to that email wasn't as nice and polite as the first... what can I say. If you want, I'll keep you updated, I don't know if this is in the right place, if not, move it or tell me where to put it or something (no, not up my rear, that's not nice either). By what I've read here so far, I figured you may enjoy the discourse of TK's latest faux pas. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Sproutky / talk / contribs


 * Welcome to RW, Sproutky! (I've given you your own headline and a pseudo-sig)
 * TK's reply to you was surprisingly civil. He didn't even call you a vandal, terrorist, or whatever else. Okay, he implicitly called you an idiot, so that's a start, I guess :P
 * Glad you found us, and indeed, many of TK's victims eventually end up here, so you're in good company. :) --Sid 07:01, 24 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Wait, I just re-read your edit on CP. Of course you got banned - you dared to imply that GWB used deceit! *gasp* Don't you know that only liberals use deceit?!?!?!?! Oh noes! Banhammer! Godspeed! (You can tell that I didn't get much sleep last night, can't you?) --Sid 07:07, 24 August 2007 (CDT)


 * Thanks Sid!! Wow, that's civil of him huh? Like I said, it kinda ....pissed me off. I'm not the type to fly off the handle easily, but when I do, it's a vertical liftoff right into the stratosphere. I didn't want sweetie-pie TK go without a reply so I wrote back. :

No, you bigoted, self-righteous, sarcastic, non-Christian, anti-American, unintelligent, pathetic excuse for a human being, this does NOT "clear the air". There was nothing uninformed, dishonest nor demagogic about my email, nor was it poorly written in any way. If the "intellectual standard YOU demand" is that of a ground turnip, then no, it didn't fit the bill. Your little pathetic attempt at destroying what is left of Conservative Christianity will fail. It is clear that there is nothing conservative NOR Christian about you or your website, it is merely a platform upon which to support George W Bush without regard to the fact that he has proven himself to be USING us, as Conservative Christians to do his bidding. I assure you TK, there is nothing about you and your response that would indicate you are a thinking or intelligent person. You are a hypocritical bigot hell-bent on supporting george bush regardless of reserving your own place in hell beside him due to your support of his unchristian views and policies. You are the most UNINTELLIGENT, IDIOTIC, MORONIC, SATANISTIC BASTARD of a person I have ever seen attempt to defend a position such as yours. "YOUR War on TErrorism" is exactly right, it is NOT the Conservative Christian's war on terrorism, it purely belongs to george bush. STOP USING CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIANS TO LIE YOUR WAY INTO PEOPLE'S MINDS CAUSING THEM TO THINK THERE IS ANYTHING GODLY ABOUT WHAT YOUR POLITICAL PARTY IS DOING. IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT YOUR SITE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING CONSERVATIVE OR ANYTHING CHRISTIAN. Take George W Bush and burn in hell with him where you both belong because God will not look favorably on you OR on him.

I sure hope I didn't hurt his little feelings, I tried to keep it nice. As sludge in the sewer pipe, so are the days of their lives... --Sproutky hope I did this siggy thing right... 9:17, 25 August 2007 (EDT)


 * ...I hope you have fun decorating your room here... 'cuz there's no chance in Hell you're ever going to be unbanned there now XD (Although I have to say, you sure left with a bang!)
 * And signing is easy enough. Just hit the second button from the right (just above the edit box) or type " --~ ". :) --Sid 08:25, 25 August 2007 (CDT)

Cool!! I can do that!! Guess I should look at those little buttons at the top huh? LOL.

Just in case he hadn't noticed all the other names on the TO: section, I kinda had to write him again. I was still a little pissed.

YOUR SUPERIORS HAVE BEEN SENT THIS REPLY. YOU CAN ATTEMPT TO INSULT PEOPLE ALL YOU WANT BUT YOU KNOW THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IT A LIE. THE INFORMATION I ADDED WAS IN THE CORRECT FORM, SUPPORTED WITH THE CORRECT TYPE OF REFERENCES AND PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE. YOU CHOSE TO REMOVE IT FOR PERSONAL REASONS THROUGH UNEDUCATED IGNORANCE ON YOUR OWN BEHALF. YOUR 98 IQ LEVEL AND USE OF A HOTMAIL ACCOUNT TO ATTEMPT TO BE A COCKY BASTARD HAS FAILED. THE "WAR ON TERROR" IS NOT CONSERVATIVE, NOR IS IT CHRISTIAN, IT IS A BUSH POLICY. IT IS EXTREMELY CLEAR YOU CARE MORE ABOUT BUSH POLICY THAN YOU DO ABOUT GOD, CHRISTIANS OR THE CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIANS OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WHO NOW UNDERSTAND HOW BUSH HAS USED THEM. YOUR IGNORANCE AND APPARENT INABILITY TO COMPREHEND EVEN THE MOST SIMPLE OF IDEAS SHOWS YOU TO BE INCOMPETENT IN THE POSITION YOU HOLD WITH THIS WEBSITE AND IT IS NECESSARY THAT YOU BE REMOVED FROM THAT POSITION TO PREVENT THE DESTRUCTION OF THE DREAM THE CREATOR OF THE SITE HAD. YOUR JIHADIST ATTITUDES AND RADICAL TERRORISTIC ACTIONS WILL NOT BE TOLERATED WITHOUT REPERCUSSION. MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON YOUR SOUL FOR YOUR FALSE WORSHIP OF HIM, USING HIM IN EVEN WORSE WAYS THAN THE ATHIESTS, AGNOSTICS AND ANTI-CHRISTIAN PROTESTORS COULD EVER HOPE TO. YOU ARE EXACTLY WHAT OUR GREAT COUNTRY IS FIGHTING AT THIS TIME. YOU ARE A RADICAL EXTREMIST, CLAIMING GOD GIVES YOU THE AUTHORITY TO DO EVIL. IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY AND YOUR JIHAD IS OVER. YOU ARE NOT A CONSERVATIVE, YOU ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN, YOU ARE NOTHING BUT ANOTHER TERRORIST TRYING TO DESTROY AMERICA.

Can you believe I never got another email from him? How rude! At least his boss wrote back:

''I go by Geo.plrd on Conservapedia. I would like to take this opportunity to inform you that Conservapedia is not our President's yes man. I feel your email to TK may have been a bit.. excessive. Please feel free to contact me for further discussion. I look forward to the resolution of this matter Your Brother through Christ; Siteadmin Geoff Plourde''

I tried explaining to him and he got obstinate too. I retold the whole story to him and this is what I get back: ''Since the time CP started to allow the self creation of accounts, we have been under a concerted attack by liberal elements. Part of this is a very subtle form of vandalism. Due to this and the fact that you edited a contentious article was probably why you were blocked.''

I just didn't feel that was adequate. After laying out a situation in great detail with explanations a third grade dropout like TK could understand, no progress. So I figured that since shouting was the only thing they responded to, there should be more of it. I replied to Plourde:

''Since my account is STILL blocked by TK, I'll just take it that it's ok that he treats people this way even when they are legitimate conservatives, not an attacking liberal. I'll give him until tomorrow to remove it at which time, I plan to carry through on my original statements of spreading through email, newsgroups, my own church and offline contacts, my students (conservative theological seminary), blogs and every other means of communication I have available to me what this site does, ie, block anyone who disagrees with George Bush and could care less about Conservative Christians since that is the bone of the contention. This is in no way a threat, it is a promise of what action will take place. I don't have the original edit, but TK should have it or it should be on your system somewhere. I demand that the block be removed and the original edit be restored or I have no choice but to disbelieve what you are saying and go on the assumption that "tk" is being backed up in his removal of anything that doesn't fit the bush agenda even if bush's agenda goes against conservatism and Christianity. I'm tired of explaining this over and over and I'm tired of being jerked around. I don't have the time nor the inclination to continue explaining my position when I was well within the guidelines, the philosophy of the site and the facts of the statements made. My edit supported Conservative Christians stating that many are turning against bush due to his actions and well supported by viable sources (even actual news reports from Fox) as stipulated in the guidelines. There was nothing liberal about the edit in any way, shape or form and it is the prevailing thought of a fair majority of Conservative Christians yet it was removed by TK. This can only point to the site being "The President's yes man" regardless of whether it is admitted or not. It won't be attacks by liberal elements that shuts down the site, it will be the outrage of Conservative Christians who refuse to be used for Mr. Bush's gain that shuts it down. If you are going to call yourself "Conservapedia", then be conservative. If you are going to do nothing but support Mr. Bush, regardless of how wrong he may be, call yourself "Bushapedia" as to not confuse Conservatives into thinking the site actually applies to them. I've proven my side several times over to several people now and, quite frankly, I'm tired of being marginalized and disrespected. Even in your own guidelines, it states that if there is a contention, the block is removed while it is discussed until a resolution can be made. There have been two sysops who have agreed with me against TK in what went on which constitutes it being a disagreement between sysops as well which also stipulates non-blocking and discourse in coming to a resolution. If you wish to not only support Bush blindly but also ignore the rules set forth by the site itself, there is really no other stance that I can justify taking than this and will go forward with my promised actions. Good day.''

The last thing I heard from him was this: ''First off, I do not support Bush 100% or even 50% most likely. You wanted a reason for being blocked and i gave you a highly plausible explanation. TK was right on several aspects. 1. Bush does not determine the legality of abortion 2. The Supreme Court violated the 10th amendment by usurping a power reserved to the state I agree he may have been a bit out of line in some of his comments and will discuss your case with him later tonight. Please do not send me any emails denigrating my character as I will forward them on to my local US Attorney as harassment. In Christ; Geoff Plourde''

I sent a few more "reminders" but haven't heard anything since. I'm "sure" they just haven't had a chance to get back to me...surely they wouldn't just run and hide LMAO --Sproutky 08:55, 25 August 2007 (CDT)

oh, I kinda made up two or three more names for their site using an IP blocker/reassignment since IP addresses are the only things they can track, pretty simple actually. I'm not finished with them. Hell hath no fury ya know.... --Sproutky 08:55, 25 August 2007 (CDT)

oh, and my edit didn't say anything about abortions or the 10th ammendment, it just said that conservative christians were moving away from him. here's the whole darn thing: ''Other conservative Christians are beginning to disbelieve that George W. Bush's faith is sincere and fear he has used it to deceive them. Form a World Net Daily report, "Methodist leaders to Bush: Repent Clergy claim president's policies 'incompatible' with church teachings" [10]

Conservative Christians are moving away from support of Bush due to actions and policies that seem to go against their Christian beliefs and values. They feel it is important to get a strong, Christian candidate for the 2008 elections to put the nation back on the right track.''

that's it, the entire edit I did. Downright evil huh? OK I think I'm finished now LOL Thanks for letting me vent! --Sproutky 09:09, 25 August 2007 (CDT)

Purge/ blunt knives
TK:.... "One of the leaders (perhaps a follower?) in Karajou's night of the blunt knives."

He was either the leader, or principal tool, since he did all the banning. Perhaps this should be reworded. Heck, I think I'll go do it! human be in 16:26, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Just wanted to jump in and let everyone know, they never did unblock me over at conservapedia-ophile so I guess I should take it as a hint that they don't want me. ::sigh:: Oh well. Can't believe they didn't believe I was a sheeple republican, I even used that special deer urine to throw them off my scent. I guess that even through the deer urine, they still smelled traces of Howard Dean and Denis Kucinich. Must be software written by a liberal and exploited by them since they aren't capable of such high level thought. My other names are still doing well, have a randomized IP mask to use over there so they can't block my IP to keep me out and a spyware to catch those little registry bits they try to write to your hard drive to invade your privacy. Hope everybody has a great Labor Day weekend! --Sproutky 20:17, 1 September 2007 (CDT)

Omissions
Nothing on Ed Poop?
 * I stubbed him up. Feel free to elaborate. human <font color="#00AA00">be in 18:13, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Saner? Seriously? I know he comes off that way but he is one of the worst. I prefer to work with Conservative and even TK over Ed. But thats just me. Tmtoulouse 18:19, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Ed never swore at me and called me names when asking why I was blocked. TK did.  Anyway, as I said, it is just a stub, feel free to enrich it with some truth-0-serum.  I only wrote what I know, the writing plans and trust things.  Oh, and I thought we were supposed to sarcastically make them all sound like nice people? Make note of the parenthetical after I say he is "saner"!<font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human <font color="#00AA00">be in 21:45, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
 * I know I know, but we all have our own opinion, I am not going to get involved. Just stating that Ed bugged me more than just about any other sysop...no pretty much more than any of them. Schlafly is up there, but all the rest of the players like TK, Conservative, Karajou I can handle. Ed is just like nails down a chalkboard. I think its the swarmy self-righteousness masked in this weird pseudo "good faith" thing he has going on. Tmtoulouse 21:49, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Can I add that? Or you? "swarmy self-righteousness masked in this weird pseudo "good faith" thing"? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human <font color="#00AA00">be in 21:54, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Quote-mine me ad libitum my friend. Tmtoulouse 21:56, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Where are the rest?
I added two more sysops, Geo.plrd and CP Webmaster. Can someone build bios? Dagomar 13:56, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Interesting
...it seems in reply to Conservapedia's criticism of Wikipedia having "deceit" redirect to "lie", it was instead redirected to the Conservapedia article! How unencyclopedic and frankly childish of Wikipedia! But then again, maybe they shouldn't be blamed for the actions of new users like LearnTogether... oops wrong place before... Feebas factor 20:48, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

Thank you
for corrections to Fox's desysop-'in.- 21:02, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Extremism
Here's a list from their Extremism article that sounds like a definition of CP itself. Might be amusing to find the best cites within CP for each and every one of 'em? Build away! Some sock might put it back there...


 * 1) character assassination;
 * 2) name calling and labeling;
 * 3) irresponsible sweeping generalizations;
 * 4) inadequate proof for assertions;
 * 5) advocacy of double standards;
 * 6) tendency to view opponents and critics as essentially evil;
 * 7) Manichean worldview;
 * 8) advocacy of some degree of censorship or repression of opponents and/or critics;
 * 9) a tendency to identify themselves in terms of who their enemies are: whom they hate and who hates them;
 * 10) tendency toward argument by intimidation;
 * 11) use of slogans, buzzwords, and thought stopping clichés;
 * 12) assumption of moral or other superiority over others;
 * 13) doomsday thinking;
 * 14) a belief that doing bad things in the service of a “good” cause is permissible;
 * 15) emphasis on emotional responses, and, correspondingly, less importance to reasoning and logical analysis;
 * 16) hypersensitivity and vigilance;
 * 17) use of supernatural rationale for beliefs and actions;
 * 18) problems tolerating ambiguity and uncertainty;
 * 19) inclination toward "groupthink";
 * 20) tendency to personalize hostility;
 * 21) a feeling that the “system” is no good unless they win; and
 * 22) tendency to believe in far-reaching conspiracy theories. (hint: RobS!)

"two meters"?
What was the cp:two meters page about? It's been deleted. Coarb 11:22, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Poor Ed. He's apparently two meters tall. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  04:01, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

"Peons" section
I'm pretty sure that it is wildly out of date, but moreover, is this section really sustainable? I mean, with the rate that churls are shown the door, these "characters" are nigh red-shirts. Cataloging them seems futile. --<font color="#99CCFF">Arcan  ¡ollǝɥ  02:28, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Agree, but there's the new nearly sysops (Block, Edit rights) 02:55, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Don't they have their own section? Or is that at CP:sysops? "Pawns"?  "Knights" might be better - short on ability, easily disposed of, but above the rank and file? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  04:03, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Yes, we're getting a bit of dooplication here methinx. 04:06, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

What about me?
I don't like writing about myself so someone please summarize my existence for a blurb on this page. Thank you 21:16, 28 July 2008 (EDT)
 * You're on the RW members list already. I was going to add:


 * DLerner - exists as a summary blurb. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  21:49, 28 July 2008 (EDT)
 * SURELY I provide enough lulz to be more than a "summary blurb"... 21:58, 28 July 2008 (EDT)
 * So add a summary of your existence to the existing blurb. Or at least, remind us, in 500 words or less, what your lulzophonic achievements have brought to the goat's sanctuary? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  22:00, 28 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I've already written about me, but I think the musical was a fantastic idea (ME), my arguments on CP are a golden see cp:Talk:Liberals and friendship‎ for a sample of lulziness for pure unadulterated lulziness, see here. 22:07, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

Some useful information for prospective CP vandals
If you are thinking about causing disruption at Conservapedia, then the edits that I have just made will help your cause. Then again, is it really worth it, given that CP is already a collection of silly articles anyway? Anyway, for those who have not already realised, Conservapedia is not protected from abuse from open proxies. This means that anyone who wants to edit Conservapedia but wants to retain a high level of privacy can simply install TOR on their machines, configure their web browser appropriately and then head straight for the new user account page in secret! They can then sign up a user account and start editing right away knowing that the conservapedia sysops will never see their real IP address as long as TOR is on for every access to Conservapedia. 122.105.148.57 08:12, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Thanks for the info, anonymous editor. Why not create an account with us, too?  We've been trying to contact you, but your IP keeps changing!  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 08:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Attack of the "Liberals"
Mark my words. Within a few months time, Conservapedia sysops and their followers will be dealing with a a symphony of Liberalist sockpuppets. Yes, thats right; they will be reeling, kicking and utterly frustrated that they simply do not have enough people on their side to fight "vandals" at their pathetic web site.

For the record, there is a user account at Conservapedia that has begun the action under the Liberalist banner right now. It is called Liberalist954. Of course, some one has already managed to block it as it inserted a parody about the United States. Stand by for more sockpuppets and their increasingly sneaky antics.

May be I should post a list of Liberalist socks as they emerge. The only trouble is that some spy might be reading this too. 193.174.33.200 22:00, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
 * This guy must be new around here. JazzMan 00:28, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
 * What's a "Liberalist"? --Kels 22:28, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
 * As has been said, aren't most of those who already follow the sysops, socks anyway? --PsyGremlinWhut? 00:40, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Update/Vanity cruft
Most of this is out of date and doesn't serve as a good glossary of terms for a newbie. This list also contains a lot of crap about RationalWikians who are not overall important to Conservapedia. If this is not cleaned up can we at least remove it from the nav box along with banwatch? Perhaps some sort of "this page is dead but is being kept as an archive, please do not edit" is in order. 03:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well, this article always sucked and was always out-of-date and full of cruft. Hell, it's in the CP namespace, my standards for quality here are an order of magnitude lower than main.  I agree, pull from template, perhaps even add that "historical" or whatever template to it.  What we really need to do (or at least, someone who gives a shit needs to do) is keep that conservapedia template slightly up to date with more recent works, since so much gets written and then abandoned, only to be ancient history of no interest to anyone born since last March.  05:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Is last March a coincidence or did you look up when I first registered? 05:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Random coincidence. You think I would bother to research creepy stuff like that, even to make a joke? Sorry if it spooked you.  05:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The real pity is this should be a good and useful article. I'll look into it when I have the time, may be a lexicon and a shortened list of who is important would help. Some of this could go into a history, so in 5 years time when people are wondering why they are getting blocked for being a sock of Ames they can find out. I really need to finish that year in a review, at the moment most of that stuff is just being kept in our oral history, we need to write it down. 05:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right, but I don't think enough people care. Most CP-fiends are ephemereal wigo-chasers.  Luckily, we have the timeline, which you kind of took over and kept at the same level of quality.  Yeah, "year in review" articles might be cooler than a "newcomer's guide", which was written mostly by people 2 years ago, so much has changed...  05:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * While I'm 100% behind your cuts, are you planning on sticking back in the info about sysops but in a more reduced and useful form? You can't give a "newcomers guide" without at least mentioning the big players they're likely to cross. 11:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Working on that. Most have articles so I'll just link back to those. 11:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

What I would like to add
I am still thinking of adding What I would ultimately like to add is a FAQ box down the side that links to the answer. So the question "Why can't I create an account?" links to the section on the random turning on and off about account creation. Any one have any comments? 12:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) More introduction
 * 2) More on the important people there
 * 3) More on editing
 * 4) More important terms
 * Just that I agree with the idea of CP based FAQ. 12:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it might be worth adding a description of our relationship with CP here. 12:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how much that would be relevant. If people want to concentrate on CP, then RW has little to do with it other than give out information. Maybe just leave it to a brief description of how the WIGO works and leave the rest out. After all "newcomers" are unlikely to need to know of "Gentlemen" or the "Cabal" or the legal threats. 12:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen should be added to the Conservapedia concepts list though. I think there is a lot more work that needs doing then what I thought I could do. 12:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)