Conservapedia talk:Best of Conservapedia/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

General Yakkity Yak[edit]

My God, the Ignorance one cracked me up! *still cackling* And sheesh, that'll be a long list... --Sid 05:59, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

Oh, man. Auld Nick will go down hard over this. --AKjeldsen 06:16, 22 May 2007 (CDT)
I was never quite sure if Auld Nick was a hoax or not. That user always tiptoed the line between "really messed-up ultra-conservative" and "best hoax ever". Heck, even now I'm not sure - it might've been a joke or a sign of frustration. Not that it matters, the result will be the same. --Sid 06:23, 22 May 2007 (CDT)
The ignorance edit is great! IIRC Auld Nick made a good contribution to the Manual of Style too. Trashbat 06:28, 22 May 2007 (CDT), too. Guy's been busy. --AKjeldsen 08:56, 22 May 2007 (CDT)
That was pretty funny:) and valid to boot!--TimS 09:08, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

My money's still on "best hoax ever", although some part of me still holds out hope that TK's actually an elaborate parody. --Kels 19:03, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

I've been toying with that idea for a while, and may have some interesting new evidence (or maybe just of his cluelessness). His first two big articles were Conservapedia:Clement Atlee|Clement Atlee and Great Depression, both of which were shamelessly copied; the interesting bit is where they were copied from. The Atlee article is from Spartacus, a decidedly leftist UK site. Big chunks of the Depression article are from a book by Brad DeLong, a liberal-ish economist and former Clinton Administration Treasury Department official. Other bits of it are from PBS, which isn't really liberal but is seen as such by a lot of conservatives. --jtltalk 20:28, 22 May 2007 (CDT)
I know it's been said ad nauseum before, but it's just amazing how hard it is to tell the hoaxes from the real nutbars over there. The fact that we have to speculate on whether TK could be for real or not says a lot about the level of batshit insanity over there. And check out this gem. Regardless if he's serious or not, it's hilarious. --Kels 20:32, 22 May 2007 (CDT)
I have to say that hoaxing Conservapedia is rather strenuous. It's HARD for an amateur to out-crazy Fundamentalists. --Gulik 20:08, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

CPAdmin's sunlight/indoor light analogy just leaves me helplessly laughing. Honestly, I have no clue what he's trying to communicate there, it's so bad. Even the Banana Analogy is better than this! --Kels 09:10, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

It's funny, I remember Andy telling me homeschoolers are often better off academically when they enter college, I didn't believe him back then, after going over his "exam", I know I was right! MiddleMan

I think these pages speak for themselves - CP User List. Is there a best of CP vandalism page? olliegrind 10:56, 25 May 2007 (CDT)\

That's funny. Say, is there any page that shows how many editors there are minus all the blocks and bans? I remember a quote where Andy was crowing about having 4,000 editors, which I'm pretty sure he pulled out of his butt. --Kels 11:00, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
Errr, probably about 20! Here's about 5,000 editors that have been blocked so far. Trashbat 11:03, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
Nifty, I see TK unblocked my IP after all. That's pretty cool. --Kels 11:20, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
The problem with the Block Log is that it also lists unblockings and often enough multiple entries per person (I got... seven or so? And a few unblocks?), plus all temp-bans. There is some sort of "List of blocked users and IPs (which only includes currently active blocks), but that also includes the various IP autoblocks. So you'd have to do some filtering to get a more or less precise count. But let's say that I think the number of unblocked users should be fairly small, and the number of active people even smaller. --Sid 11:24, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
Oh, of course, it's not a particularly accurate way of measuring but even assuming that 50% or less of the blocks on the list are current and valid, that's a hell of a lot of blocks for a wiki with 10,000 or so articles. ; ) Trashbat 11:29, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
Well, yes. Agreed. ;) --Sid 11:40, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
There are currently 7122 user accounts on CP and 2761 active blocks. Only 31 of those are of the form 'blocked #NUMBER', which are IP-only blocks, I'm assuming. That leaves 2730 blocked users. For those 2730 blocked users, the blocking sysop counts look like:
  • Aschlafly -- 555
  • Niandra -- 288
  • MountainDew -- 274
  • Tsumetai -- 204
  • DanH -- 165
  • Hojimachong -- 162
  • David R -- 118
  • TK -- 112
  • RobS -- 98
  • Conservative -- 96
  • SharonS -- 94
  • Bohdan -- 72
  • Geo.plrd -- 67
  • Ed Poor -- 59
  • CPAdmin1 -- 55
  • Elamdri -- 48
  • BenjaminS -- 42
  • ColinR -- 40
  • NSmyth -- 31
  • Karajou -- 29
  • CPWebmaster -- 22
  • Will N. -- 20
  • TimSvendsen -- 17
  • Ymmotrojam -- 15
  • Philip J. Rayment -- 15
  • John -- 12
  • PhilipB -- 6
  • TerryH -- 5
  • Conservapedia Webmaster -- 3
  • Tmtoulouse -- 2
  • Richard -- 1
  • Goose89 -- 1
  • ChrisS -- 1
  • AustinM -- 1
Some of that seems so unlikely, I'm not sure I trust the data, but that's what it says (Tmtoulouse was a sysop there in late March?) --jtltalk 18:55, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
For about fifteen minutes, yes. ~~ Cracker 16:48, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
How would one find out some more recent statistics, such as this block count? JustineA 01:44, 17 June 2007 (CDT)
The raw data is here. Some simple Unix/perl scripting can give analyses like the above.
 $ curl '' | perl -0777 -ne 's{.*?<ul>}{}ms; s{</ul>.*}{}ms; @blocks = split(/\n/); print scalar @blocks, " active blocks\n";'
 3626 active blocks
 $ curl '' | perl -0777 -ne 's{.*?<ul>}{}ms; s{</ul>.*}{}ms; @blocks = split(/\n/); foreach (@blocks) {($u) = m/User:(.*?)"/; $c{$u}++;} END{foreach (sort {$c{$b} <=> $c{$a}} keys %c) {print "* $_ -- $c{$_}\n"}}'
  • Aschlafly -- 600
  • Niandra -- 419
  • TK -- 286
  • MountainDew -- 272
  • DanH -- 254
  • Tsumetai -- 204
  • Karajou -- 196
  • Hojimachong -- 172
  • Bohdan -- 160
  • RobS -- 128
  • SharonS -- 125
  • David_R -- 121
  • Conservative -- 104
  • Geo.plrd -- 71
  • Ed_Poor -- 59
  • Will_N. -- 55
  • CPAdmin1 -- 54
  • BenjaminS -- 49
  • Elamdri -- 48
  • ColinR -- 40
  • NSmyth -- 31
  • BethanyS -- 30
  • Crocoite -- 28
  • Ymmotrojam -- 26
  • CPWebmaster -- 24
  • Philip_J._Rayment -- 20
  • TimSvendsen -- 17
  • John -- 11
  • TerryH -- 6
  • PhilipB -- 6
  • Conservapedia_Webmaster -- 3
  • Tmtoulouse -- 2
  • RSchlafly -- 1
  • ChrisS -- 1
  • Goose89 -- 1
  • AustinM -- 1
  • Richard -- 1

--jtltalk 02:03, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

VT Poem[edit]

Did anyone actually send an email to VT English department with CP's "critique" of the poem?Prof0705 15:40, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Best Hoax Evar![edit]

I was right!! Now who's buying me a beer? --Kels 15:50, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

You were right, I was wrong, what brand of beer do you want? MiddleMan

I really really really really want to find him and another british editor who has stuff in common. no names but.. genius! αιρδισΗταλκ 15:51, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

The funniest part is, Phillip and Kinkajoo both still think they were improving the articles.
Hands up who thought Auld Nick was anything other than a hoax. Given he spent most of his time categorising the hoax articles a few of us were throwing up in the good ol' days, I thought it was pretty apparent. Still, have a beer anyway, I'm buying! Trashbat 15:54, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
Yay! And none of that American swill, either! --Kels 16:03, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
Not even Schlafly beer? Trashbat 16:04, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
Funny, it doesn't say what the alcohol content is. I must say though, Anchor Steam isn't too bad. --Kels 16:12, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

The name was a give-away but the ignorance of the CP nutters knowing no bounds seemingly failed to notice. All dues to Ed Poor though, kinda had me figured[1] when I uploaded, what he described as: a man in a skirt and frilly blouse, mislabeled as "traditional attire". That picture was used in the article to illustrate a piece of Conservative wisdom[2] I added to the article Scotland. I didn't mention who was in the picture but is was Jack McConnell, the then First Minister of Scotland (Leader of the Scottish Executive). The picture can be found here. That it was the Rt. Honourable Mr. McConnall was substantiated by others, but Conservatives were incapable of believing that the leader of a Christian country could possibly dress in such a manner an do it openly on the streets of the capital city. That started a lot of arguments about kilts which later led me to add this picture of soldiers in kilts to the article kilt some debate ensued (first comment vandalized by DpbSmith[3]) after a two hour block[4]. This version of the article fact is a gem. That's a version edited by Ed Poor which I can't believe he didn't notice and leads me to suspect that he doesn't take CP particularly seriously and is purely there for his own entertainment. By the way I was filling in for WhatIsG0ing0n while he was blocked for a month for commenting the Conservative take on the Virginia Tech massacre or some other comment about CP misinterpretation of news articles. Auld Nick 05:58, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

At times, I hadn't been sure whether or not you were a brilliant hoax. Some of your bullshit REALLY looked like something a true "good conservative" (using Andy's definition of the word) would say. Heck, some of your edits and posts made me go "GRARGH! *FIST-SHAKE!*". ;)
Anyway, I'm VERY glad you turned out to be a hoax. Welcome to The Cabal! :) --Sid 08:17, 31 May 2007 (CDT)


Schlafly v Smith[edit]

Smith needs a shower to get the blood and gore off of him. He managed to wipe the floor with Ashfly before getting his ass banned. If he's one of ours, he deserves a special userbox.DocSock 16:44, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

Did he get banned? That's hilarious, Schlafly is a total coward. --Kels 16:45, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
Actually, it looks like he hasn't been banned yet, he's not in the block log. --Kels 16:46, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
I'm 99.84% sure that Smith is in favor of censoring prayer, so it doesn't matter what he thinks. --jtltalk 17:03, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

HAHAHAHAHA!!! TK just locked Talk:Main Page! --Kels 17:14, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

Wow...Could you hear the Aschflay temper tantrum in the backround? "NO!!NO!!NO!! YOU'RE A LIAR!! LIAR!!!!I HATE YOU!!!!!"Prof0705 18:29, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

Assuming he's not a sock, I propose we tell him about RW. MiddleMan

Who of us ever actually got the Main Talk Page LOCKED. This is insane. He's amazing. I'm going to e-mail him.-AmesG 18:50, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
No specified e-mail address. Someone make a sock puppet to go invite him.-AmesG 18:57, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

Smith has been invited using the "Sheridan" account.-AmesG 19:04, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

Careful, he may lose his captain's rank over it. ;-) --Kels 19:06, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

My changes were all reverted. Could someone else make some socks to bombard Smith's page, and Schlafly's page, with invitations?

Maybe invite the two Germans ([1] and [2]) involved in the German homeschooling discussion as well, while we're at it? They got mightily pissed off over Schlafly's attitude. --AKjeldsen 19:12, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

I'm all out of Socks, IPs, and time (gotta run) but someone should invite all 3. ICEWEDGE WHERE ARE YOU.-AmesG 19:14, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

If they aren't already here, I'd also invite Auld Nick, Mcintyre and Jamest, if I could. --jtltalk 19:27, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
Isn't TK helpful? He's running around cleaning everyone's "castles", despite the fact that none of them actually invited him in. Such a proactive helper he is. --Kels 21:55, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

Wow, guys, I'm touched. I was having a look around on my first night here, when I discovered that my JohnSmith account had been blocked (If have any questions, check out the entry on United States at CP, and compare Stile4aly's last edit, and JohnSmith's first edit). I do have to say, I did so enjoy ruining Andy's day. I was especially proud of the comment I made on his talk page describing one of his attitudes as "queer" which he of course reverted out tout-suite. Stile4aly 02:31, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

True CP debating logic.[edit]

Gotta love this particular debating tactic.

Prof0705 18:53, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

Cripes, Captain HugeWallOfText strikes again! --Kels 19:02, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
Is RobS's name publicly known? I'm curious about his credentials. --jtltalk 19:27, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
OK, so Volkogonov is a solid, reputable source then, despite me handing you guys the criticism?
Read this crap from Wikipedia (Wow. WP actually has the stuff in the Hiss article now. Amazing, considering they banned me for trying to put criticism of Volkogonov in). Here's the garbage they were using

then read what is on my talk page from the above link. You guys have to decide whether or not you wanna trash Volkogonov, cause ultimately, you're not going to have it both ways (1) saying he's full of crap, and (2) saying he speaks the gospel truth. RobS 23:32, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
Has anybody here but you ever said anything about this Volkogonov guy? In any case, it's entirely possible to say he's wrong on a word origin without saying he's "full of crap". And it's possible to say he's right on some other subject without saying he "speaks the gospel truth". All you have to do in the former case is show that 1. he says a word was first used at time T1; 2. show a use of the same word at time T2; 3. show that T2 comes before T1. bingo! No need to try to figure out if he's lying, mistaken, confused, or what. And the fact that you're trying to turn something simple like that into a debate about something totally unrelated is exactly the point being made here. --jtltalk 00:29, 30 May 2007 (CDT)


I'm a bit confused about that one. The entry says he was banned prior to the ban warning, but the times say the warning (13:12) is just over 45 minutes before his block (2:30, which would be 14:30). Am I reading this wrong? --Kels 14:07, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

I was banned last night, Andy is warning me that I may be blocked as of today, but he's about 12 hours too late. Stile4aly 15:15, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
Oh, I see. So it's 0230, not 2:30 p.m. Gotcha. --Kels 15:18, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
Yeah, it's like shooting someone first and then telling them "Freeze, put up your hands." Stile4aly 15:22, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
Hmm. That sounds like a valid debating tactic to me. Should be included. What to call it though...Prof0705 15:26, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

What are these "warnings" of which you speak? Every time I've been banned from CP, the first I knew about it was trying to log in and failing. --Gulik 16:31, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

I got a warning once ... it came in, and then less than a minute later I was banned. Jrssr5 08:43, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Abstinence article[edit]

[3] The edit that they've been working so hard to protect is an edit I made with one of my socks, after which the sock got banned. HAHAHA! Stile4aly 20:22, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

AHAHAHAHAHA! *falls off chair* --Sid 20:26, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Theistic Evolution[edit]

Didn't this get axed ages ago because it was nothing but a hit piece? My memory's a bit fuzzy, but I remember there being competing versions, the other by some kid with a serious axe to grind, and he lost. Totally refused to compromise, despite one of the sysops trying to smooth things over. --Kels 17:51, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, the theistic evolution article was by Ray Martinez, a usenet kook of the highest order. He's not just a creationist, he is a devotee of Gene Scott. Essentially, he believes that Darwinism = atheism and anyone who believes in anything other than his particular version of the history of the world (including the civilization of Atlantis, British Israelitism, and pyramidology) is an atheist. If you look through the talk history on the article, you'll probably be as amused as I was when I saw Ray called Philip Rayment a Darwinist sympathizer. This[4] is an interesting read, but might be too much of an inside joke.Stile4aly 15:15, 3 June 2007 (CDT)
Hey, did anyone notice that Ray Martinez now owns the Charles Darwin article? --Kels 15:59, 16 June 2007 (CDT)


Is it just me, or has that "Daily" Historical Quote been up there for well over a week now? And it's still ironic as hell! --Kels 09:15, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

The current set of Daily Quotes (both Bible and History) were added on May 18... --Sid 11:15, 10 June 2007 (CDT)
I think Aschlafly is trying to outsource the main page duties, Crocoite seems to be head of the news division, Ttf. I'm going to guess he's not having luck in finding a sysop to take over the "daily" crap. ~~ C®acker 11:41, 10 June 2007 (CDT)
I see RobS has turned liberal with his slating of conservative bastions of the free market because of their support for John Edwards:
  • Who are the big money donors behind John Edwards? Killer cigarette manufacturer Phillip Morris, multinational polluter Exxon, pharmaceuticals like Pfizer who make grandma eat cat food to pay for her medicine, and a few others as well.
God's peed Babel fishÅЯ†ђŮŖ ÐΣй†Now look here! 01:59, 16 June 2007 (CDT)

What's in a name?[edit]

I proffer that we change the page's name to: Conservapedia:Conservapedia Correction Page since that is the function is has taken on since RW2.0 hit the stage.~~ C®acker 09:36, 10 June 2007 (CDT)



Apparently what's fit for the main page isn't good enough for the blog, sorry, encyclopedia. And this clears up any doubt. And I thought the American health system was perfect.

This is truly a classic. Brainless, idiotic, i don't even know where to go...--PalMD-yada yada 22:39, 15 June 2007 (CDT)
Is it really that idiotic? I am trying to make an encyclopedia. Any entry that states "Conservapedia believes..." is stupid and unencyclopedic and should not be included. I did not write the main page, nor do I care about what it says. I told this user to go to someone else and inquire about the main page. Bohdan 22:47, 15 June 2007 (CDT)
You expect sanity on CP? At least here, you can have fun... let it loose! humanbe in 23:12, 15 June 2007 (CDT)
I didn't mean to imply that "Bohdan is brainless". But, B-man, that was truly weird. Someone made what was (probably) an edit designed to prod and make a point...but a good point...the issue IS on the main page, but on by TPTB, so why exclude an article? It's just,well, weird. To say "talk to someone else" makes no sense. If you're gonna go after that one edit, go after both, or none...--PalMD-yada yada 23:22, 15 June 2007 (CDT)
The main page aint my responsibility. If he objects to something, rather than pollute an article with unencyclopedic content he should go to the main page discussion, where i directed him to by the way, and take it up there. Bohdan 00:15, 16 June 2007 (CDT)
I understand the diffusion of responsibility inherent in a wiki, but still, i seemed silly from the outside...on the other hand, it was clearly designed to bait a sysop.--PalMD-yada yada 00:23, 16 June 2007 (CDT)


I honestly can't figure out what their problem with Relativity is. Is it against YEC or something? Or is it just part and parcel of "everything science is wrong"? --Kels 20:22, 16 June 2007 (CDT)

I think it's relativity >>> c is constant, but, c must have changed for the universe to be young >>> relativity is wrong or at least suspect, QED. There's also the so-called cultural aspect whihc has nothing to do with physics. The article is prety funny - it's relatively accurate, and then suddenly aligns politics and eagerness to embrace relativity near the end. 90% of liberals, eh? humanbe in 20:37, 16 June 2007 (CDT)
It's worth someone going through the history on Relativity and Einstein. Between the Schlafly bros, I'm pretty sure all of these positions have been taken at one time or another: relativity isn't science; relativity isn't true; relativity hasn't been proven; relativity isn't important; Einstein didn't invent relativity --jtltalk 20:45, 16 June 2007 (CDT)
Yeah, it poses problems for several theories in YEC. --Linus(plot evil tech) 22:02, 16 June 2007 (CDT)
What's the betting on how fast he'll be blocked? --Linus(plot evil tech) 15:46, 17 June 2007 (CDT)
Man, I bombed out with him. Oh well, it felt good. --Linus(plot evil tech) 16:30, 17 June 2007 (CDT)
Yup, Elvon's in serious danger of falling foul of the 90/10 rule. God's peed Babel fishÅЯ†ђŮŖ ÐΣй†Now look here! 16:39, 17 June 2007 (CDT)
Calling Andy a moron probably wasn't wise -- but it felt so good. --Linus(plot evil tech) 16:58, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

(Unindent a bit) I'd make a constructive edit if I were you - grab something from Andy's latest cribsheet his last entry was circuit [5]. God's peed Babel fishÅЯ†ђŮŖ ÐΣй†Now look here! 17:07, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

I warned you about that 90/10 rule! God's peed Babel fishÅЯ†ђŮŖ ÐΣй†Now look here! 17:09, 17 June 2007 (CDT)
It was relatively (hah hah! My sides!) throwaway, don't worry about it. --Linus(plot evil tech) 17:17, 17 June 2007 (CDT)
Hey, you can't walk away now. Finish off what you started. :) 17:31, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

Andy's Conciseness[edit]

from his self nominated article

No more than three commissioners may belong to the same political party. For example, there can be 3 Democrats and 2 Republicans, or 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats, but not 4 Democrats and only 1 Republican.

Well, ya gotta add something when you copy material, or people might say you plagiarized. --jtltalk 22:29, 17 June 2007 (CDT)
Its' ok though (whine). Any .gov or .mil is fair game, as it's public domain! Remember to keep adding those articles, kids! I wanna know about Ashfly's concussion, not his concision. humanbe in 23:00, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

User:Lulz remark[edit]

In reference to the point about Stephanie Simon lulz had this to say:

Good job we have articles on these important folk, or we'd sound like hypocrites.

Did you perhaps catch the fact that RationalWiki is not an encyclopedia, and therefore, much of this would be outside the scope of what we cover? Tmtoulouse 12:43, 20 June 2007 (CDT)
In addition to Tmtoulouse's point, the point was to show how CP first covers a journalist (who doesn't even seem to have a WP article) and omits people like the most likely best-known female author of this decade, a highly successful author whose works have been turned into major blockbusters, and a Nobel Peace Prize winner (who had also been Secretary-General of the United Nations). --Sid 12:47, 20 June 2007 (CDT)
Did you not perhaps think that CP doesn't (yet :P) contain all worldly knowledge, and that people - just as they do here and at wikipedia - will create articles in a somewhat organic fashion? hence, simon gets one first. Guess what? She beat Molecular machines too. You people have become so narrow minded and single issue that its almost laughable :) לול 13:04, 20 June 2007 (CDT)
Don't overgeneralize, Foxy. Overgeneralization is a conservative trait, just as deceit is a liberal trait. I agree with you that wikis develop in a certain way. It is still notable and interesting, however, given Conservapedia's pattern of behavior. Hardly a fatal flaw, tho.--PalMD-yada yada 13:09, 20 June 2007 (CDT)
But still not as laughable as Conservapedia..........but they have a head start on us there too. Tmtoulouse 13:12, 20 June 2007 (CDT)
LoL - you see, there you go again: single issue, Trent. You should get out more, get some fresh air, exercise, maybe stop and smell the roses. You're becoming obsessed :D לול 13:15, 20 June 2007 (CDT)
I enjoy how carefully composed that entry is. No mention of her liberal MSM bias. But then, they seem to think she's not[6]. MyaR 13:16, 20 June 2007 (CDT)
You have heard of Godwin's Law I imagine, your comment fits another popular Internet come back that I believe surpasses even Nazi comparisons. The "get a real life" long ago lost its effect. Tmtoulouse 13:34, 20 June 2007 (CDT)
LoL - obsessed. I merely said you should get out and get some fresh air. Stop obsessing. That ought to be changed to "whoever resorts to mentioning Godwin's Law has automatically lost the debate." לול 13:43, 20 June 2007 (CDT)
Classic Cohen's Law!!! God's peed Babel fishÅЯ†ђŮŖ ÐΣй†Now look here! 15:24, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

<-- Actually, Tmt has been out getting fresh air for weeks, and just returned. Anyway, :P! CP does have a tendency to not have articles on things you would expect. Cripes, I had to write American Flag, Pledge of Allegiance, and, I htink, Fourth of July! The point here is that because a journalist no one has really hearde of writes about them, she gets an article. Well, that makes sense. But the people mentioned are surprising blanks - Rowland writes books that Xtians have, um, issues with, Kofi Annan could surely be slammed for his mental aberrations, like HRC, by now. You'd think.

Anyway, this is just happy snark in the CP namespace. Want to help us write some bad science debunking? humanbe in 14:31, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

I,er, someone I know had to write an article on "charity" and caught crap for suggesting that it might be a nice thing to have in a xtian encyclopedia, rather than a whole lot of nasty stuff.--PalMD-yada yada 14:38, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

Banned for "Jews are the Spawn of Satan"[edit]

"Writing "Icewedge = Jesus" is worthy of being blocked for the rest of time, but claiming that Jews are the spawn of Satan only deserves a one year ban." Actually, it's been changed. I got unbanned just so I could get my deserved infinite ban. Pity.--ArmorofGod1337 00:28, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Agreed, the ban was well deserved, but it's still funny to me that Andy considered it only deserving a 1 year ban whereas others are permabanned for practically nothing. I think the ban would have only been for the year had the CPSysop in question not noticed this entry on RW. Stile4aly 11:21, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

No-edit vandal[edit]

'NGriffin' is a suspicious name though. I wonder if it was the real one? --Stevo 17:49, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Edits to now-deleted pages don't show up -- it's possible NGriffin really did vandalize some page. --jtltalk 17:51, 23 June 2007 (CDT)
Yeah, that's true too --Stevo 17:54, 23 June 2007 (CDT)
Of course, but I was watching the "recent contributions" page and NGriffin din't actually make a single edit. And if it was the real one, I'm sure he'd have plenty in common with the people on CP. Trashbat 18:07, 23 June 2007 (CDT)
I also just checked the Deletion Log. NGriffin was active for 4 minutes, and the Deletion Log shows NO deletions between his registration and now (last deletions - of the Che user and talk pages - happened one minute before he registered, and it's been almost an hour since he's been banned). So nope, no edits made. --Sid 18:20, 23 June 2007 (CDT)
I should know by now there's no point in giving CP the benefit of the doubt! "Real one"? Who's the real NGriffin? I don't recognize the name. --jtltalk 18:21, 23 June 2007 (CDT)
Nick Griffin is the leader of the British National Party, about as right wing and racist as they come in the UK. Probably considered a filthy lib'rul by US Conservative standards though...XD Trashbat 18:25, 23 June 2007 (CDT)


Does anybody know why cp:Historicity_of_Jesus does not have a talk page? HeartGold tx 04:57, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

I guess they wanted to eliminate all traces of Auld Nick there and went a bit overboard (as usual :P). --Sid 05:56, 24 June 2007 (CDT)
isn't it interesting how the "see also" section include "holocaust denial"? Denying the existence of Jesus (however bizarre) does not seem to have much to do with denying the holocaust. - Icewedge 21:49, 27 July 2007 (CDT)
thanks ice. i just took it out. It was added by someone who looks like a parodist. Resident vandal


Great minds...i added the same story to the "according to.." 23:44, 30 June 2007 (CDT)


Rob translates from Spanish. [7]

Hmmmmmmmm... the entire article is gone. (06:42, 2 July 2007 Geo.plrd (Talk | contribs) deleted "Negro" (Canned)) --Sid 15:45, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

The Obselete Man?[edit]

Weird. Just bizarre. And telling of their paranoia. No one's ever claimed they should be "removed from the Internet". Trying to cast themselves as an oppressed majority is failing more and more, and their reaction to that is consequently getting crazier and crazier. It's also interesting how their (and I speak here only of the rabid few) religion is recast into their political mold every time. "Liberal" is a bigger insult than "atheist". MyaR 10:37, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

I think some of them, Karajou definitely included, aren't even capable of distinguishing between the two anymore. Atheists are by definition Liberals. And Liberals deny the One True Interpretation of the Bible, so they are necessarily Atheists as well. It's a complete breakdown of any kind of meaningful nuance in the use of language.
I also find his choice of The Obsolete Man as an example pretty amusing. Rod Serling and The Twilight Zone as such has always seemed to me like exponents of good progressive, liberal values. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 15:37, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

CP isn't ruled by a mob![edit]

I dunno, TK. The way you run it sure reminds me of La Costra Nostra sometimes... (And if it's not run by 'a mob' (aka "democracy"), I guess it's run by an elite. Funny, considering how much time conservatives spend hissing at the idea of "elitism"...) --Gulik 13:42, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

It's a mob of elitists, I'd say. --Sid 13:54, 16 July 2007 (CDT)
Remember, CP is no longer just absolutely not WP - they also are the polar opposite of RW, either! I can understand our obsession with them, but what's up with theirs about us? humanbe in 13:59, 16 July 2007 (CDT)
This is fun.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 21:28, 16 July 2007 (CDT)
Oh God, the discussion actually went on. LOVE Conservative's logic: "TK, I do think the Panel's decision in regards to "changed in a major way" is somewhat unspecific. However, I do think a reasonable inference is that they want to keep it 100% anti-evolution." --Sid 05:58, 17 July 2007 (CDT)
I think there's a 96.388452% probability that his analysis is correct. I'm also looking forward to seeing what comes of TK's reference to the Vatican Archives just above. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 07:08, 17 July 2007 (CDT)
What's the likelihood that he's actually going to try inserting the material? I suspect it's all just bluster and Conservative won't even bother to respond. --Kels 07:13, 17 July 2007 (CDT)
Hold on... I make it to .29963%, adjusted for the .93185% probability that he would actually have access to such material in the first place. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 07:17, 17 July 2007 (CDT)
It's most likely what Andy The Panel will approve of, yes. And Conservative had been editing the article ever since the Panel decision, anyway. Side note: Thanks for catching that silly PJR/TerryH mistake! Must've slipped into the last posting there when looking for the source. --Sid 07:18, 17 July 2007 (CDT)
If TK finds anything "from the Vatican Archives", he should oughta give it to crocoite to insert. Just imagine user:C's reaction to RCC stuff insert by a Mitt loving Mormon. CЯacke® 10:37, 17 July 2007 (CDT)


Apparently they fixed the problem, and the article no longer mentions African-Americans at all. --Kels 07:05, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Now it mentions that it features African Americans chanting over beats. Priceless.


I don't really get this one. Someone want to give me a duh! moment? ДιЯɖі$ɧ ɥοםЄʟβЯƏакĐΩωΝ 10:55, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

I'm... not really sure, either... --Sid 11:00, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

TK and Wikipedia[edit]

It's amusing that TK can act surprised that is a mirror of Wikipedia, since I told him that exact thing in an e-mail exchange almost a month ago after pointing out the copying on the talk pages. [8][9] I was banned for making "false accusations" about that copying, and I'm sure Jinkas isn't far away from that same fate, since TK thinks he's my sock [10], which, for the record, is completely untrue as any person with a functioning brain can tell by the vast differences in our edit histories [11][12] --Brian 13:32, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

And Jinkas goes down... Sandman 13:34, 18 July 2007 (CDT)
I updated the story on the article page here. TK's seriously one of the biggest retards ever, I'm surprised survival of the fittest hasn't caught up with him yet. Jrssr5 13:41, 18 July 2007 (CDT)
Brian, the sock accusation could mean many things. I, too, poked TK about his rampant copying in the past. Get used to it, TK likes to throw such accusations around whenever a new face brings up an old and unfixed issue. And I love how the pointing out of the 1:1 copy once again become "bold statements of copying when you ignore the facts, and simply state publicly as fact, what you cannot possibly be 100% sure of" ([13]) --Sid 14:05, 18 July 2007 (CDT)
I just assumed the sock accusation was about me, since I'm the one who brought up those pages before, and the accusation came right after Jinkas brought TK's comments to me on the talk page [14]. But, there I go assuming things again [15]. I just feel left out, because nobody has accused me of having a sock yet :( --Brian 14:14, 18 July 2007 (CDT)
Oh, my bad! :) I didn't notice that it was you on that talk page. I thought TK was just rambling in general. Then yeah, those sock-accusation points go to you. Congrats! --Sid 14:15, 18 July 2007 (CDT)
And now Jinkas was perma-banned for asking "I honestly don't know what you mean. Could you please be more clear?" after TK's most recent threat/accusation/warning. --Sid 16:36, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

Spider-Man = low budget?[edit]

Okay, I'm no movie buff, but "Budget: $139,000,000" doesn't exactly sound like "low budget" to me... I mean, the same source (WP) lists the budget of The Matrix as $63,000,000... --Sid 14:44, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

Edit: Ah, Hoji apparently shares my doubts... --Sid 14:45, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

(Insert joke about superheroes-jesus-spiderman-fictional-the-passion-andy-mixing-up-the-movies here) ДιЯɖі$ɧ ɥοםЄʟβЯƏакĐΩωΝ 03:38, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

Diana Rose[edit]

Perhaps it's actually the actress who played Dr. Pascal in Chained Heat?

"No respect for experts"[edit]

Right now, the CP front page features (under "Breaking News") a (current) article about something Larry Sanger said... in 2001.

But it gets better - it's the bit about WP having no respect for experts. I think Doc or somebody who followed his conflicts with Andy more closely should add something about that either here or on the "According to" page. Maybe with a link to the LA Times article, where Doc's adventures were mentioned. Or alternatively, point out Conservative's complete refusal to publish his qualifications for editing the Evolution article. The possibilities are endless since this is a hilarious case of CP posting just the wrong thing right on the front page. --Sid 14:36, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

I, of course, have it all documented and a few places.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 14:46, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

Hypocrisy in Conservapedia[edit]

This is priceless: 18:11, 23 July 2007 DeborahB. (Talk | contribs) deleted "Conservative hypocrisy" (entirely inappropriate, not encyclopedic content)[16] Even DanH is bit taken a back by this deletion[17] Had a good laugh of 5 minutes (yes, im easy to entertain) TimoT 17:54, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

They had an article on Furry fandom? 0.o --Kels 18:05, 23 July 2007 (CDT)
Well, cp:Furry was apparently created by you? --Sid 18:16, 23 July 2007 (CDT)
O.O That wasn't me, I've never had a cp account. Ever. Not even a sock. --Kels 18:28, 23 July 2007 (CDT)
Wasn't there another account already that was accused of being you? Or was that just somebody accusing you here of having a sock on CP? --Sid 18:30, 23 July 2007 (CDT)
Oh, that was TK believing he'd gotten AKjeldsen's IP when I forgot to log in one time. Apparently he couldn't tell our names apart at the time. --Kels 18:34, 23 July 2007 (CDT)
Even Karajou agreed that there should be an entry for Conservative hypocrisy - way before the deletion, even. --Sid 18:15, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

So much WTF in just one discussion[edit]

Discussion here (that's the currently most recent version)

I first wanted to go for the easy entry ("News to me and Ed Poor. (As I am his spokesperson) --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 22:57, 24 July 2007 (EDT)"), but I then read on and found the apparent plan to deal with the 22k red links: Remove the references to them!

I'm a bit sketchy on whether that really is the plan, but some comments made me go "Huh?". For example, Andy's "In fact, dead-end links in general are to be avoided unless it is so important that an entry must and will be created for that link.", followed later by TK's "We need to trim the list of 22,000+ broken links in half, now that our category list is almost done."

I don't like the sound of that somehow. The point of the Wanted Pages is that they're WANTED. As in, somebody wants you to create them. I'm fairly certain that some entries are redundant (like linking to the plural form of an article that exists in in singular form), but the current trend seems to be to at least remove all direct date reference wikilinking.

Thoughts, opinions, predictions? --Sid 13:22, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

Genghis Schlafly seems to have decided that CP is nearing perfection. I predict the gradual locking of all articles to follow the purging of wikilinks.
Seriously, though, this sounds a little odd. I thought that the idea behind making an encyclopedia on a wiki was to take advantage of the massive trove of knowledge available online to create more articles than a traditional encyclopedia could write or publish. Of course, it's hard to patrol a large site as rabidly as they can the current one.--MountainTiger 13:42, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
I'd guess it isn't the size of the site, it's the number of users. And given their tendencies to ruthlessly cull the editors at whim, they're probably not going to grow much on that account, either. --Gulik 15:51, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
Well, here's the thing that I've noticed about a great many hard-core Christian types: they like to mimic the forms of secular society, but not the principles. But we already knew that. There's a freeware RPG out there called DragonRaid that is essentially a highly structured, very Christianized dungeon crawl that is designed to satisfy a desire on the part of Christian kids for high fantasy (throwing in the obligatory Bible quote confetti). Yes, it's an RPG, but it doesn't encourage the kind of creativity that a more open-ended system like GURPS or d20 (i.e. the D&D system, the bane of fundy child "experts" everywhere) does. The Knights of Columbus have always been considered a cheap Catholic version of the Masons, and Conservapedia is... well, I'm not even sure why it was implemented as a wiki, honestly. Wikis are all about Tim Berners-Lee's original conception of the World Wide Web as a peer-collaborative environment, and Conservapedia is... well, it's collaborative, but the way it's run it's a complete farce. (One might, in fact, say that wikis have an inherently liberal bias :-) ) EVDebs 14:13, 27 July 2007 (CDT)

Donner party eats its own (TK gone wild)[edit]

TK just vandalized the crap out of talk pages at CP by unprotecting and deleting my signature templates, and then, after that, he blocked me for his vandalism. Take a look here and here, [18] for details.

I think what really ticked him off, though, was my creation of TK (Team killling) article. HeartGoldSwarm like a hive 16:33, 26 July 2007 (CDT)

Nice, lol. - Icewedge 16:37, 26 July 2007 (CDT)
Just now, he is finally figuring out that he made a mistake (I warned him on his talk page, but he wouldn't listen). I do not condone vandalism, especially by TK. He is correcting his mistake, but covering his tracks by removing my warning to him, and my told you so to him, on his talk page. HeartGoldSwarm like a hive 16:38, 26 July 2007 (CDT)
More evidence for TK obsessively refreshing the "Recent changes" page on RW, maybe? --Kels 16:41, 26 July 2007 (CDT)
This is the edit where I said "told you so"....this might have been what made him ban me as a vandal (he was the one who vandalized, albeit through stupidity). HeartGoldSwarm like a hive 16:44, 26 July 2007 (CDT)

For those of us who aren't so wiki-savvy, please explain what happened. I'm assuming your signature template was somehow involved in the vandalism, but I'm not sure exactly how. This might be fun to do in the future. Sandman 17:32, 26 July 2007 (CDT)

TK deleted my signature templates and then redirected them to a deleted page message. Consequently, all of my sigs on all of the talk pages got destroyed. (In fact, I asked him to re-protect the signatures, because another system admin had protected them per my requestion, but TK had some ownership issues (jealousy that another admin was interfacing with me), and unprotected them. I warned him in advance not to delete it, but he did it anyway. I told him afterward it was his mess and he had to clean it up. He blocked me for vandalism, even though I tried to prevent him from vandalizing. HeartGoldSwarm like a hive 19:37, 26 July 2007 (CDT)

Hey, HG, just asking here, if you want to be "unretired", obviously you can edit your user/talk pages. But, at least, was this a little perspective on how we are different from CP (so very differnt, we don't need to define ourselves by that?) What did you do to piss them off so much!? (other than editing) 20:45, 26 July 2007 (CDT) (shit, and I forgot to sign! humanbe in 21:31, 26 July 2007 (CDT) )
So did his redirect cause all of the talk pages with your sig on them to redirect as well? Or did it just cause all of your comments to become unsigned. Either way, it's pretty awesome. And congrats on the range ban; 65K IP address just to pin you down! Sandman 21:26, 26 July 2007 (CDT)
That was you, HG? Nice one! And WTF at TK's behavior (although I have to say that I'm not surprised).
Oh, and here's a nice follow-up: Complaining about sysop abuse? Your request will be ignored for being in the wrong location, and you will be banned for trolling. Sure, that's a nice way of dealing with sysop abuse: One monkey closes his eyes and shouts "LA LA LA CAN'T HEAR YOU!" while the other monkey quickly gets rid of whoever pointed it out. --Sid 00:32, 27 July 2007 (CDT)

Makes perfect sense.... I'm not the first to comment on this, but CP censors worse than Stalin, Castro and Hitler ever did.... The few times they don't actively delete comments they don't like, they simply ban any users they learn lean left..... Wow, that's hypocrisy and Irony on a grand scale.... GodSpeed Bitches SirChuckB 01:40, 27 July 2007 (CDT)

One new editor insults Andy, but ends his post with "Yours in Christ." He has not been banned yet. Is this a way to vandalize CP and not get banned?--Franklin 10:40, 27 July 2007 (CDT)
"But, at least, was this a little perspective on how we are different from CP (so very differnt, we don't need to define ourselves by that?)" My recent run in at CP does make me think that they are at least as bad as WP (and in some ways, worse. E.g., WP does provide an appeal process, but new users usually over-react and do not use it to their own benefit). HeartGoldSwarm like a hive 15:17, 27 July 2007 (CDT) - bigotted & extremist[edit]

This seems too small and brief to me to be one of the "Best of Conservapedia," but it certainly deserves a mention. RobS takes us to new lows of pot-calling-the-kettle-black with this beautiful edit summary. I've always been a fan of always seemed to do a very good job of presenting facts about different religions or religious beliefs whenever I had a question--but apparently I was dead wrong. Who new that they were so intolerant over there?!? I guess it's because they consider Mormons Christians, which apparently is a bad thing. Sandman 10:36, 27 July 2007 (CDT)

Has Fox been converted? Perhaps he should change his signature. goats pæd LQ


"[liberals show] resistance to quantifying things, such as liberal bias or openmindedness" -Aschafly

Please tell me how you quantify psycological dispositions. There is no test in the world that measures such things! - Icewedge 13:42, 27 July 2007 (CDT)

Haha, well, actually, what AS has observed (besides liberal mockery) is that liberals show resistance to his made up or poorly contrived quantifications that support his dogma. I'm 95% certain of that. humanbe in 13:46, 27 July 2007 (CDT)
Also keep in mind that CP actually has a test to quantify your openmindedness :P --Sid 14:54, 27 July 2007 (CDT)
uhm, yeah it was derived from that formula by which you judge whether a pound of BS or a pound of horse manure weighs more. Ashfly is just going crazy. I can't belive people let him teach their kids. Exasperate me!Sheesh!I said what? 19:54, 27 July 2007 (CDT)

bad links?[edit]

  • Apparently, in addition to his stunning ignorance about scientific matters, and his abject lack of proficiency with technology, Conservative apparently doesn't understand standard mathematical notation[19]. ("Exponents? Those must be in subscript.") There is some doubt as to whether he actually understands what all this highly complex, terribly confounding, hideously cruel exponential notation means, or that he even understands what is meant by the word "combinatorics".

I really wanted to read this, but the links have nothing to do with the commentary. Copy/paste error, perhaps? humanbe in 18:41, 28 July 2007 (CDT)

No, the links had been working at the time, but Conservative... went nuts. I really can't put it in another way. Here's my subjective timeline, although it's guesstimated to a certain extend:
  1. People create "Flagellum"
  2. Conservative mutilates it
  3. A couple of days later, Conservative created "Bacterial flagellum and Intelligent Design" and then "Bacterial flagellum and intelligent design" (with one redirecting to the other, but the redirect was vaped again). One of those articles was created by him copy-pasting the content of "Flagellum" into it. The info was removed from "Flagellum"
  4. Unhappy with his work, he deleted the new article and moved things back into "Flagellum"
Now... since the original is still there (cp:Flagellum), the links can be switched to it. However, the funny thing is that Conservative didn't add the math stuff, from what I see (this was not evident in the new articles because he didn't properly move them). Just a heads-up before this gets put back blindly. --Sid 21:03, 28 July 2007 (CDT)
Thanks for the explanation... I tried to follow your new links, but, um, CP seems to be off the air right now. HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!111!!!pwned!1111. Maybe. Anyway, hopefully those links will work once Andy feeds the fucking hamster again. humanbe in 21:07, 28 July 2007 (CDT)
Ah, good. I thought it was just my connection. *lost connection between Recent Changes and Andy's talk page* --Sid 21:09, 28 July 2007 (CDT)
Their servers are committing suicide, User:C's request that the ugly pink/purple colors get replaced with the pretty blue ones, might have pushed the hardware over the edge.CЯacke® 21:14, 28 July 2007 (CDT)
Sid, you bastid. Aren't you our "early warning system", ie, GM-2 or so? What the hell are you doing up at this hour?! humanbe in 21:30, 28 July 2007 (CDT)
Oh and, by the way, shouldn't that deleted CP content be here on RW? Looks good to me... humanbe in 21:32, 28 July 2007 (CDT)
Well, it's 4:40am (plus a few minutes), but that's what you get when you celebrate the end of your exam phase with Civilization 3 and Cave Story... but yeah, I'm off now (and I'll be around around my noon again, knowing my messed-up sleep cycle). --Sid 21:47, 28 July 2007 (CDT)
Argh! I still haven't finished Cave Story, dammit! *replays Persona 2 instead* --Kels 21:59, 28 July 2007 (CDT)
Persona 3 is due out next month. I'm looking forward to it. --Gulik 18:10, 29 July 2007 (CDT)


I need lots of help moving these articles, which document the successful advertising campaign of the Pokemon empire created by Nintendo. The liberal editors of Wikipedia are trying to replace the history of all Pokemons with mere stubs because they fall outside the realm of socialist-approved academia. As free-market conservatives, it is critical that we do not let this history be forgotten!


Made me chuckle, but I cannot approve. HeartGoldSwarm like a hive 23:09, 28 July 2007 (CDT)

Where's Hoji?[edit]

If you're around CP, try deleting (and then recreating) cp:Homosexuality, it's numbers are too high. ~~ CЯacke® 13:37, 29 July 2007 (CDT)

Big C and TeamKilla[edit]

The funny part is, C-man is right. ToE, Homosexuality and so forth are bringing in more traffic than all the cut-and-paste stubs combined. Sure, it's bringing in mockers and gawkers, and making CP look like a bunch of uneducated bigots (which they happen to be), but you can't deny they're big draws. On the other side, TeeKay isn't exactly a "practice what you preach" type when it comes to actually building concensus, so his arguments seem a wee bit hollow. --Kels 15:34, 29 July 2007 (CDT)

TK builds consensus by asserting the existence of a silent majority. Which is just his way of saying "I say this is consensus/policy, and Andy and Ed smiled and nodded, so I dare you to challenge me.", I guess. --Sid 15:41, 29 July 2007 (CDT)

This is just such a great example of sysop in-fighting at CP. And it's not the first time that TK and Conservative have clashed about changes to the commandments. This is what you get when you put together a whole bunch of cranky old men, each of whom thinks that he is absolutely correct and that everyone else is worthless. What was that quote about absolute power? "Absolute power corrupts absolutely"? What happens when everyone thinks that he deserves absolute power? Sandman 15:45, 29 July 2007 (CDT)

On a not-quite-related note, how is this masterly work the 8th most popular article on CP? Sandman 15:46, 29 July 2007 (CDT)
Uhm... well... compared to the rest of CP, this isn't actually a bad article! XD And maybe people like the shiny picture! ...yeah, okay, I have no idea, either. --Sid 17:28, 29 July 2007 (CDT)
TK and Conservative clash relatively often, I think. Mostly because Conservative usually implements his ideas on the fly (and they're technically good ones, often enough) while TK insists on everything being blessed by the sysops (read: "by him"). --Sid 17:28, 29 July 2007 (CDT)

Floating Presidents and Prime Ministers[edit]

Right there. In the Ocean. Seems like an unusual place for two old men to meet. Must have been a bit cold. [20]. In case they fix it, it was RobS [21] Doggedpersistance

Now, now please for to not do a TeeKay and misread the histories, the actual edit was done by SharonS here, almost six months ago. CЯacke® 15:23, 30 July 2007 (CDT)

Fair enough! Not reading the full article history is typical liberal deceit. Doggedpersistance 15:37, 30 July 2007 (CDT)

To be followed with vigorous liberal mockery! --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 15:40, 30 July 2007 (CDT)

Signing best ofs[edit]

Should I have signed? I get confused as the system logs me out at random intervals. LateralQuercus 20:13, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

Updating this page[edit]

The introduction needs to reflect the new mechanism of of getting "best of" and section titles should be standardized and archives setup similar to WIGO. Lets get this page looking RW professional! I am going to bed though...... tmtoulouse torment 03:18, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Why don't we make all the months subpages, like the archived ones, and just make this a list of links to them? Or only keep the current month on the page? And I agree on the archive names, we might have to arbitrarily split that 0712/0801 section into two, though. ħumanUser talk:Human 14:50, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Oh, and add a "dead link" warning like at WIGO per bunchanumbers comment above? ħumanUser talk:Human 14:50, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Explain to me this months as subpage idea more verbosely? 15:03, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Take each month, at least before the current one, and make a subpage, like "Conservapedia:Best of Conservapedia/0804" for April 2008, and link to them all like we do at WIGO using dpl. Look at the WIGO CP page to see how it works. I hope that's slightly clearer. ħumanUser talk:Human 15:14, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Like I am doing now? tmtoulouse torment 15:15, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Probably... ħumanUser talk:Human 15:33, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
What about that "news" subpage? Is that really either 0705, or from RW 1.0? ħumanUser talk:Human 15:36, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
It is the archive from when we were dumping WIGO on the main page of the site, before "according to" changed that. Not sure what to do with it. tmtoulouse torment 18:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Hmmm... is it pretty much May 07 then? It could get shoved into a WIGO archive (0705 or 0706) maybe. I suppose I'd better look more closely at it. How come it doesn't turn up in the "archive" list? I thought that showed all subpages... ħumanUser talk:Human 18:44, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
I shoved it in june as its own section. It is still "here" but I doubt anyone is attached to it so just found it a home. tmtoulouse torment 18:45, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Yes, I see it went bye bye. Makes sense. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:46, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Way too many for August 08[edit]

Need to prune that list by about 2/3rds Stile4aly 19:50, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

You know it's automated now, right? It's any WIGO item that gets over ten net up votes, I think. Perhaps we should raise the threshold? (or get better voters!) ħumanUser talk:Human 19:57, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Best of Best of[edit]

How about we load the server up even more and allow up/down voting on these, which would automatically a Best Of Best Of? DogP 21:31, 6 December 2008 (EST)


I was looking through this for some good links and the (presumably) very best one, with 141 votes, was broken. Every single link was censored by our good friends at Conservapedia. From the description, it seems I'm missing out on some great stuff, along with all the other RWikians here... does anyone have logs of what was on those pages previously? 23:06, 30 December 2008 (EST)

Click the little "img" beside each link, it all seems to be intact. --Kels 23:09, 30 December 2008 (EST)
So that's what it's for! All right, thanks! (forgot to log in previously) Cheddarius 23:13, 30 December 2008 (EST)

1 new link[edit]

conservapedist discussing why did god allow 9/11 to happend and other say "STFU atheist" because they dared to think god did something wrong. hilarious! 06:41, 3 March 2009 (EST)

That is not quite how this page works. Nice try though, better luck next time. - User 06:47, 3 March 2009 (EST)

Odd anti- Americn comment at the end by JPatt.

Cutoff thingy not working?[edit]

For me, the cutoff value thingy doesn't work. Pick a value, Submit, nothing changes. Pick a value, hit enter, I go to the Search page. Am on Safari - could it be a browser issue? DogP 13:23, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

No, because it works fine for me on Safari 4.0. Try altering the value in the box to 100, then scroll to the bottom of the screen, then set the cutoff to 20, scroll, and see if there's any difference. Time word Hoover! 13:29, 29 March 2009 (EDT)
Ah, it appears that the page will be truncated when you raise the cutoff, but cannot become extended when you lower it. I can't think of any way to solve this except make Trent or Nx take a look at it. Time word Hoover! 13:31, 29 March 2009 (EDT)
Works for me. --  Nx/talk  13:37, 29 March 2009 (EDT)
So it works on Firefox, but not Safari. End this (fascistic) discrimination against users of Safari! Rise, comrades! Time word Hoover! 13:40, 29 March 2009 (EDT)
I would, but I can't see where the problem is (other than a safari bug). The javascript replaces the entire contents of the div, it doesn't add or remove entries. --  Nx/talk  13:48, 29 March 2009 (EDT)
OK, panic over. It appears to be working now. Perhaps I was drunk at the time. Must try harder next time. DogP 10:42, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

Wheaton College is teh winnah![edit]

Isn't it strange/interesting etc that of all our WiGO's, its the recent Wheaton College one that is winning? It was certainly a real classic, but it's just kind of surprising. Actually, looking over the list, it seems some of the real classics are pretty low ranked simply because we didn't have as many editors and votey bits back then. Interesting, this BOC list, isn't it? DogP 05:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

i.e. PNAS. Can anything really top a renowned journal bitchslapping Andy? PubliusTalk 05:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah... nowadays, hitting +60 is pretty typical. Back then, 20-30 or so was tops. Oh well. This site is growing rabidly! ħumanUser talk:Human 05:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. I wonder if we can't engineer a final bake-off somehow? Like, some way to create the all-time Top Ten WIGO's? Is there way to do that, to allow voting again on these? Is it all too much trouble and should I simply return to my fine 12-year old Rum? DogP 05:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Go back to drinking ;) Lenski is so last year, most "activity" and voting on this stuff is very ephemeral, very news-feedy. But that's no reason not to compile a personal best of best of list! ħumanUser talk:Human 05:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, could we get Larron to create a scaled graph of best of? So each "peak" is equalized as time goes by? ħumanUser talk:Human 05:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Now that's not a bad idea - he could scale BO #'s by average number of editors per week or month, no doubt. larron?!! LARRON??!!! I know Lenski is last year but in due course CP will be dead and we need something simpler - and more accurate - than this to synopsize their wingnuttery and batshittery. I mean, way down the list is Obama is a Muslim because he doesn't like dancing, no great non-German composers, Hollywood Breast Cancers, and Foxtrot's review of a movie he hadn't seen, just to name a few of my own personal all-time favs. There's just such good material in there, and this list just confuses it. DogP 05:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
There are numerous ways to weight the wigos - I applied a few of them here resp. here. Enjoy! larronsicut fur in nocte 13:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
You are, as usual, the most spectacular contributor to this damn site we've ever had Larron. It's a total pleasure to see you do your thing. I hope you make a fine living out of doing this kind of stuff, as you've got such a grasp on it. Thank, many thanks. I think this brings some major perspective on these WIGO's. DogP 17:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the flattering remarks! larronsicut fur in nocte 18:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
As a quick example, I'm thrilled to see that Bethany's episode of disagreeing with Andy's blatant sexism over the educational program for girls is, for many of the different weightings, the 'real' Number One. That's a very proper WIGO to have as number one in my book. DogP 19:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Common era ([edit]

"The established calendar dating system is based on the approximate birthday of Jesus, and no one disputes that. But this birth did not begin a "common" era, or any immediate change in history. The 1997 Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary gives a date of 1889 for the origin of the term "Common Era," but there is no indication of who began using it then, and why. Some claim it is a substitute for an occasional reference to the "Vulgar Era," with "vulgar" being Latin for "common" but acquiring a derogatory English meaning over time.

While use of "Common Era" attempts to erase recognition for the Christian basis of the calendar, there are not similar attempts to erase non-Christian religious names from the calendar, such as the days of the week named after Norse gods. Numerous texts, particularly schoolbooks, have replaced "B.C./A.D." with "Common Era" symbols over the past decade.

Consider this frank question and answer with a rabbi about the use of "Common Era," which illustrates that the term "Common Era" did not come from Judaism:[1]

Dear Rabbi:

I would like to know why we say "before the Common Era" and "Common Era" (BCE and CE).

I mean, why do we call it "common?" ...

Dear Viviane [],

When I was a school boy I thought that CE stood for "The Common Error."

Now, 25 years and a number of common errors later, I assume that Common Era simply means "the date commonly accepted and used." But the truth is that I don't know, so I asked your question to a professor of European history. He didn't know either. "

- Laughed my head off

Well, i guess if nothing else, it means the "liberals" get "one more word" to help balance the "number of new words" by which Andy judges all things.--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"Such is life." 15:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

New Leader[edit]

Andy's Conservapedia's Law surges ahead of Wheaton Collage by 26 votes and counting. Thoughts?

I think we need to move the default threshold to 30 votes. - π 04:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
How about a percentage of the highest vote to date? Like 10%, or your suggestion, 30%? That way it will keep up with our ever tumescing readership? ħumanUser talk:Human 05:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)