Conservapedia talk:Burning the Evidence

	This Conservapedia related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.
Editorial notes Too many in jokes Only one cite

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Shout out to PZ Myers - Can I read this somewhere?!

I am intrigued.

Random comment

This is a random comment, inserted in to a talk page. --^{Ask me about your mother} 15:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a reply to that random comment which attempts to derail serious conversation with the insertion of sophomoric humour, or perhaps a reference to memes. Omnomnomnom cocks. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh heh. Touché. --^{Ask me about your mother} 15:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm just here for the food. LordSlug ^{All Heil Me!} 04:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

And I'm Backin' Up, 'cos my Daddy taught me good. DogP (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

An Automated Means of Uncovering Oversighted Articles?

I imagine work has already began, but if not - there is a relatively simple (conceptually, but the code would be a b!tch) way for someone with the appropriate skills to uncover oversights. One would need to create a bot (or many, really) that performs binary comparison on each diff of each article, systematically. More realistically, a tool could be created that compares every diff of a single article. This would reveal, as far as I can see, any additional, un-logged edits that occurred between the 'old' and 'new' version of the article. Has anyone started (or completed!) development on a tool of this nature?

Talkpage entries are also deleted on Wikipedia

true story.

Sometimes the edit history is taken with it. 24.85.161.72 (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

And your point is…? --Luigifan18 (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Replying to a BON 11 (ELEVEN!) years late! Scream!! (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Why is the article showing up right aligned?

After a certain point in the Richard Dawkins discussion, all the paragraphs are flush right and ragged left. Can someone fix this? Bootmii(Nomic) 05:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Appears to be intentional (see 'align="right"' in div). No idea why. It does make for an uncomfortable read. Scream!! (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Needs more subpages

Holy crap, this page is huge. Do you think we could move some of our archives of burned evidence over to their own pages? --Luigifan18 (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)