Conservapedia talk:Hijacked articles

Whoops! Clean talk! VirileSterileum 16:07, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Is there room for some wording about how the blocking/editing sysop will often deceitfully claim that they're not the only ones editing the article, pointing to someone way back before it was protected? Conservative is especially guilty of this frankly disgraceful behaviour. --Kels 17:09, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Feel free... VirileSterileum 17:18, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

What other articles are needed here? Also I need to write some text for each article. VirileSterileum 15:54, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Well, this tool (warning, the load time will be long) gives a few more examples of where Conservative at least was:

Mainspace 1087	cp:Theory of Evolution] 793	cp:Homosexuality 748	cp:Atheism 351	cp:Young Earth Creationism 169	cp:Dinosaur 152	cp:Creationism 115	cp:Intelligent design 106	cp:Charles Darwin 100	cp:Hamilton Square Baptist Church Riot 92	cp:Planned Parenthood 83	cp:Astronomy 80	cp:Origin of Life 63	cp:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia 62	cp:Communism 57	cp:Jesus Christ
 * Might give you a few ideas (and you can simply change the name in the URL there to check other "suspects" of course). --Sid 16:34, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Ah, yes, the good ol' "make up a 90/10 violation" page. VirileSterileum 18:27, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

nice article
The graphics really look good, nice work! I did some, uh, proofreading on the words. I'm gonna go submit this to "best of", the RW front page TOC category. human be in 17:09, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
 * This article does kick. Should all the images be thumb'd?- 17:26, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
 * I was thinking about that, but the little timeline gifs seem to work well the way they are. Feel free, of course, to muck with it... human be in 17:29, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Thanks for your work. I've been pondering formats for a while (thumbing, or putting things in a table), but I haven't come to a good conclusion what to do.  Any thoughts are good!
 * I gotta run. VirileSterileum 17:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

I think it's great now. What I'd like to do is add more critique, etc., to the parts about each individual article. Portray the battle of die-hard, and eventually died-hard, non-sysops.- 17:50, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Yeah, refs are good...VirileSterileum 17:53, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

I really must commend the contributors to this article on the unusually high frequency of pie diagrams in color and 3D. As we all know, there is no article so good that it can't be made better through the addition of a few pie diagrams in color and 3D. So keep up the good work! -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 13:47, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
 * I agree! Our Google hits have increased 0.099954% with the addition of high-quality graphics! ----ИїģḥŤ¤Ṭŗáìṇ  ♦Τάļќ ǃ 15:09, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Indeed! This site is growing rapidly! -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 15:40, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Not to be a skeptic, but that's probably within the error of teh intertubes' traffic... VirileSterileum 17:12, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
 * "RationalWiki: Marginally on teh innertubes!" eh, not as funny as it was before I typed it... human be in 17:15, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Made me laugh! (Doesn't take much, though) VirileSterilepie chart? 17:16, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Sterile, please don't post here with negative comments, okay? It has been proven in many major studies, and reported on several blogs that you are incorrect. Please be of help and add positive edits and articles to this project.  Godspeed! ----ИїģḥŤ¤Ṭŗáìṇ  ♦Τάļќ ǃ 17:54, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

be careful putting images side by side
At article 9, they are too wide for my screen, and since they are in a table, they can't wrap.

"thumbing" the pies made sense to me, since that lets the wiki software wrap things for various screen widths. human be in 17:49, 30 September 2007 (EDT)


 * I put the tables at 100% except that last one, which didn't scale well. Do the others look OK? VirileSterilepie chart? 17:54, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
 * A table can't be "forced down" to 100% - if its contents are too big, it makes the page wider. One of the pies is hard to read because it's a bit shrunk.  I don't think the tables are the way to go, really.  But keep hacking away at it.  Oh, yeah, I mentioned at its talk page, "BiasWtime.gif" is larger than the other timeline images, can ya redo it at the same scale, etc.? human be in 18:03, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
 * I didn't save but the gif, darnit. I'll have to do it over.  It's an easier one, however, because it's mostly blocked. VirileSterilepie chart? 18:06, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

further "improvements"
Keep in mind these is only my opinonz.
 * 1) I think we should drop the "article x:" part of the headers, as it makes reorganizing difficult.
 * 2) I think #7, "front page news", needs to go unless it gets some content.
 * 3) the time line at "examples of bias in WP" is still "oversized", should I try to shrink it a bit?
 * 4) last, but not least, re: organization - should these be in the order in which they were either created or first protected?

'tis all for now. human be in 16:37, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
 * 1 sounds good with me. #3 I'll get to--probably Wed or Thurs--still busy.  #2 pains me, because the front page news is so mindnumbingly biased, but I'm too lazy to write something else at the current.  It can go.  #4... I think Theory of Evolution should be first no matter what, because of its prominence at CP; otherwise,I don't particularly mind any order. VirileSterilepie chart? 08:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Hamilton Square Baptist Church Riot
The Hamilton Square Baptist Church Riot article is not protected! I just looked at it right now. It hasn't been protected all day! Feel free to research it more and edit it (as long as you haven't been banned from Conservapedia). You can buy a the video A Nation Adrift  here if you want to do more research: http://www.amazon.com/NATION-Chronicle-Americas-Providential-Heritage/dp/0005092663 Newton 19:39, 1 October 2007 (EDT)


 * WOW!!! All day!!!! Amazing!! Kenny, haven't you ever learned that unlocked should be the "normal" status of ALL articles, unless subject to real (as opposed to simple ideological differences) and substantial, repeated vandalism?  And then only for as short of time as possible? No, I guess you haven't.  You are too busy protecting monuments to yourself.  --<font color="#00FFAA" face="Berlin Sans FP">--ИїģḥŤ¤Ṭŗáìṇ  <font color="DC143C">♦Τάļќ ǃ 19:49, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
 * A 20 something year old "riot"...pffffft, big fucking deal.CЯacke ®

* 09:41, 30 September 2007 DanH unprotected "Hamilton Square Baptist Church Riot" *15:23, 8 July 2007 Conservative m (Protected "Hamilton Square Baptist Church riot":      same reason as homosexuality [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
 * Ken had it locked for three months! And he's here crowing about it being open for one day?  Yes, indeed Cracker, I agree, BFD. --<font color="#00FFAA" face="Berlin Sans FP">--ИїģḥŤ¤Ṭŗáìṇ  <font color="DC143C">♦Τάļќ ǃ 20:16, 1 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Brief note: I inserted a linebreak into NightTrain's post to avoid horizontal scrollbars
 * I'm not sure what cracks me up the most:
 * The fact that Conservative is trying to show off one day (which we only got thanks to DanH) as some sort of great gift
 * The fact that pretty much everybody here is banned on CP and thus can't edit.
 * The fact that Conservative would revert any rational change anyway.
 * The fact that even if I ordered the video right now, there is a pretty good chance of Conservative having locked the article again by the time it arrived at my home.
 * Ah, gotta love the post-midnight-Lulz... :D --Sid 20:32, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
 * High five, as it were.... we pwnzorzzzz!!!!!11!!! <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human <font color="#00AA00">be in 00:19, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Great, "your place" unlocked one article. What about the rest? VirileSterilepie chart? 08:38, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
 * BTW, an editor of the riot article (who is not me, banned for sock/vandal, both unproven) might want to learn how to do repeated references. I mean 9 to 24 are the same reference.  As are 36 to 46.  Sloppy, sloppy I say. VirileSterilepie chart? 14:58, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
 * I think they could learn how quite easily at our help files... <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human <font color="#00AA00">be in 16:47, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

That wuld rguire reeding. --<font color="#00FFAA" face="Berlin Sans FP">--ИїģḥŤ¤Ṭŗáìṇ <font color="DC143C">♦Τάļќ ǃ 16:55, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Uncle Ed wanders by
Great page, love getting a piece of the pie. One of the big embarassments at CP is the "hijacked article" (never had a name for it before), it was a kind of elephant in the living room.

I personally believe every page should be left unprotected, unless it's a genuine "graffiti target". Edits which simply are disagreeable should be dealt with on talk pages; only in case of edit wars should such disagreements lead to page protection - and then only temporarily.

A better way to deal with edit wars is to block one or both warriors. Why should the page suffer? --Uncle Ed bug me 19:03, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia sysop "conservative" has a user page that is too precious to be missed!
http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Conservative And this guy has contributed the vast majority to the conservapedia Dinosaurs article? It's just silly.
 * True, but the transitional species joke is good. Totnesmartin 17:59, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Creative vandalism on Conservapedia
Is there a page for such entries?

Thus:

"The Dalek race is fiercely resistant to malign outside influence, and the purity of their race is of the utmost concern to them. The liberal BBC paint these characteristics in a most negative manner since the Daleks are essentially a conservative race."

And see earlier versions of falafel and Milton Keynes for further examples. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Conservapedia:Parodist and Category:Conservapedia spoofs. Only save them if they're really funny or managed to survive a long time or were approved by someone who should know better.   Don't reveal parody that hasn't been noticed yet.  & Don't pimp your own vandalism - people can usually tell.   18:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Dates
The inedible ones - can we have something more recent than 2008? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)