Conservapedia talk:The Conservapedia mystery

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Delete tag[edit]

I tried to make the article read as though a literate person was writing it. I would rather see it dead. Strong agree. TeenageWasteland (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but let's wait to see how this develops (ducks to avoid thrown fruit). It was started by a new editor and ... well ... let's hold off for a bit. I don't claim expertise, but I needed some time to reach my own advanced beginner status. MarmotHead (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to thank TeenageWasteland for cleaning up this article. I was writing in a hurry and was not able to re-read and finalize it, but did not want to lose everything that was already written (I lacked the ability to save it to a word doc.). But thank you for taking care of this article, I'm not the greatest at wiki-ing if you couldn't tell. Crustacean27 (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
It's the first new CP article for about five years. However it also does nothing, says nothing and links to nothing and it's still better than Ed Poor's efforts, so it's can't stay like this. SophieWilderModerator 14:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Well for fuck sakes get it up on afd as soon as fucking possible. We can't have new people writing things about cp that aren't as good, long, or complete as things from 5 years ago. I'm blocking Crustacean27 for good measure. One can never be too careful. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, I was going to have a long, well written article that actually would have looked god but... Yeah. Oh, and thanks for traveling back in time to block me Nutty. I just want to be popular! Someone tell me I'm pretty. Crustacean27 (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
You have a loverly iridescent carapace. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh, you noticed? I just had it done. But seriously, I've tried to improve the page a little and provided a link to the original article. I hope this improvement will be well received. Crustacean27 (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

This is horrible. What exactly do you hope to accomplish by writing an article on an obscure CP page that's been edited three times in the last two years +? How does that make RW a more valuable resource? TeenageWasteland (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Does RW have other articles about the ways in which deluded people believe their own bullshit? This could be one of them. By the way, it has been restored at User:Crustacean27/The Conservapedia mystery in case anyone is interested. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I was going to make the whole article about all the different "mysteries" that the conservatives are "investigating." Would it even be worth it? Crustacean27 (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
If you can make it that way I'd be for supporting it. Your article is waiting for you in userspace. Zero (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I also think it would be worth it, and would definitely be interested in reading it. - Grant (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll get to work on it, but it will take me a little while. Crustacean27 (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion Discussion[edit]

Consensus: Delete Zero (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow. 2 days to deletion! You guys' deletion machine is even more efficient than WP's! Maybe write a bot to do this for you all and you'll get rid of all of Conservapedia space by summer. A+ effort! Nutty Roux (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)