Information icon.svg See the 2017 Moderator election results here!

Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

What is going on?

(talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic)

As a point of etiquette, please use the [add section] tab above, or the "Add new section" link below, when adding a new topic, and the appropriate [edit] tab when commenting on existing topics. This will lessen the incidence of edit conflicts. Thank you.

When adding a link to Conservapedia that is not already on What is going on at CP? please place <capture></capture> around the link.


This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: Archive list

1990'sguy[edit]

What is the relationship between 1990'sguy and the World Net Daily? ("Excellent news and commentary source on the vast majority of issues") Is it a sockpuppet for a WND editor or just extreme brown-nosing? http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservative_news_websites&diff=1389231&oldid=1389230img Hclodge (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

And yet he didn't move it up the list. —Kazitor, pending 04:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Who is Mark Jones?[edit]

From Conservapedia:In the media#December 2017,

December 5, 2017: In the Patheos article Conservapedia, Reliability, the Genetic Fallacy, and Induction, Jonathan MS Pearce, the author of Not Seeing God: Atheism in the 21st Century, responds to a certain Mark Jones, who had cited these three Conservapedia articles when commenting on the book:
Article Revision history
Global atheism statisticsimg (Revision history of "Global atheism statistics")img
European desecularization in the 21st centuryimg (Revision history of "European desecularization in the 21st century")img
Atheist apologeticsimg (Revision history of "Atheist apologetics")img

With revision histories that look like these, it remains a mystery who Mark Jones really is.

t 14:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Wonderful responses to "Mark" including, especially, "What a small world this man lives in." That nicely defines Ken. Whoover (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Slavery in the UK[edit]

Alright Ken, as you are so averse to the truth and block anyone who calls you out on your bullshit I will post it here for all to see. It is well known that user:Conservative triumphs the immigration of Eastern European Christians to The UK to combat it's atheism problem. He then publishes a a news story about slavery in the UK. Here are the names of some people who have been convicted of these offenses.

  • Sebastian Mandzik
  • Robert Majewski
  • Pawel Majewski
  • Seweryn Szmyt.

Notice a pattern here? That's right, they, and the vast majority of other slavers are from Eastern European Christian nations that Conservative champions. All this in a week where another of his champions, Roy Moore said the USA was better off before the emancipation and stated his wish to abolish a number of amendments, including The Thirteenth. I say again Conservative, you should do your research. Remember "Pro-Sodomite Sluts And Whores". --Mercian (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

"the vast majority of other slavers are from Eastern European Christian nations?" lolwut? London Grump (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
I should have said "a large number of". My words were poorly chosen. I am anti Brexit to be clear and do not think Eastern Europeans are any better or worse than any other people. The fact is that there are criminals all over and those from Eastern Europe and other places are able to con people that they will have a utopian life in the UK when they often do not.--Mercian (talk) 09:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Conservative goes on a bizarre two day tirade trashing Britain and linking its shortcomings to Darwinism[edit]

Earlier this year I posted this on Rob Smith's talkpage after he trashed The NHS[1] Now oversited of course, but in response Conservative posted some very nasty articles in the region of Atheism and Cancer/Godless Britain and cancer. I thought he was disturbed and was just attention seeking. I have changed my mind. I now think he posts these things because he is a heartless bastard of a troll.--Mercian (talk) 11:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Tell me now that he is not trolling
--Mercian (talk) 14:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Mercian, there is no end of people who will cheer when you weep. Or fall down the stairs, or lose your job, or fuck-sake, get a dire diagnosis. These are tiny, little men, with tiny, little souls, and they want to remake the world in their simply tiny worldview, with no room for the 'other'. I went to church with these people. I was the kind of kid that asked questions about idiot doctrine (Cain's Wife? Lot's incest? Animals on islands? Meteor craters?) and the price I paid was to be pelted with gravel by my fellow Sunday School students, week after week. There's a very nice scar juuust in my left eyebrow from a particularly good strike by the biggest piece of shit in the group, who also happened to be our pastor's son. When my mother brought her blood-gushing boy into the pastor's office, the pastor said he was troubled not by the boys who'd stoned me but by my actions - my airing of doubts in Sunday School. My mother got in trouble that day because she hadn't been keeping me in line, that I'd probably been perusing some forbidden cultural item (read: all popular culture) that had corrupted me.
These people get off on controlling you, on subjecting you to their power. That's their joy in life, and it fills with me sorrow that this is the case, but I've grown to accept it and do what I can to protect myself. Most days I'm lucky, some days I'm not. On the days I'm lucky, I try to help those who aren't. On the days I'm not, I know I've got good people who are. And so we keep each other up, pushing against the machine, the bleeding hearts and the artists making their stand. I'm sorry that shitposting mound of misery got to you. Semipenultimate (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Semipenultimate.--Mercian (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Always welcome Mercian. Semipenultimate (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
It is awful how your mum and yourself were treated. It is hard for a Brit to understand such behaviour from Christians. British Christians can occasionally be a little judgemental but have more of a "come and have a cup of tea and a slice of cake" attitude. What really got to me were the people who defended Roy Moore because Joseph married the minor Mary or when Andy Schlafly appeared to excuse Moore's crimes because they happened years ago. I have seen people use the Bible to vilify homosexuality/etc but never before to defend paedophilia.--Mercian (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Why wouldn't they though? The bible was originally written in a time when such things were considered normal. GrammarCommie (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if any of you have ever had a loved one die of cancer, but odds are, you have. And when someone you love is afflicted with cancer, and you're caring for them, it can eat the heart right out of you if you're not careful. So support groups exist for caretakers, not just for those directly facing down Big C. The group I was in cut across class and race lines, and boy howdy, is there a vast difference in this country between the way the rich and poor get treated for cancer.
The lucky ones had great insurance and homes that had been going up in value year after year for 2-3 decades. They'd come in, tell their story. Had some strange pain, saw Doctor #1, then #2, then the Onco, and now their loved one is getting a good heavy chemo dose. Maybe 2-3 weeks. Of course they were also now living from savings, because only one of them could work and the other one was taking FMLA time, which is unpaid, so no income, regardless. End result: the middle class eats their retirement savings to provide healthcare for themselves.
The unlucky ones were stuck with bad insurance or no insurance and so were stuck with the county hospital. Four weeks to see Doctor #1. Another few weeks to see Doctor #2. Another few weeks to see the Onco. Another few weeks to get your biopsy done. Story after story: "It was two months before I started to get treatment." "Twelve weeks from the first visit to chemo." "the hospital confused my file and there was another month gone." "I saw the wrong doctor and they had to reschedule a month out." "My day care fell through and I couldn't go." "My bus was late and they reassigned my spot." Again and again and again this happened. Nobody, and I mean nobody, had a good thing to say about the quality of services made available to the poor or in-need. For these people, two months of waiting is on the low side with respect to waiting time.
Now, to address the cowards posting out of reach of their victims. Please know, I'll never edit a word you say. I might correct your phrasing in a reply back to you without the weasel words, but I won't delete or alter your content, unlike the mass censorship of ideas unacceptable to Andrew Schalfly's delicate fucking sensibilities (like the careful scrubbing just recently done of any of the 'Boy Roy Moore sure gonna win' content - your slip is showing, Andy). This is not a calling out, and there's no fucking debate here, so put your hard-on away, Cons. Just making a point.
When the Berlin Wall was built, it put the lie to all the flowery language the Commies used about their rotten little system. Anyone could see that their words were wind, their stated motivations false, and their hidden motives made incredibly obvious. So too it goes with Conservapedia, where only Conservapedians may speak, and even then, not freely... and Rationalwiki, where both Conservapedians and Rationalwikians may speak freely. Draw your own conclusions. Feliz Navidad. Semipenultimate (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
My treatment was quick, 11 days from diagnosis to operation, so that dispels Ken "I got the power" point.[2]. He also accuses us of having less machismo than someone called Heather Wilson. Not that it is your business Ken, and it is not something I shout about (I have never mentioned it on this wiki) but I was part of the First Gulf War, Bosnia and 3 tours of Northern Ireland. What have you done but spiel hate from your mother's basement? Machismo indeed--Mercian (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, if he can't bother to walk over here to say it, I'm not reading it. Fucksakes, he's obviously already here reading it. What's the point of him replying to our comments here in a place where nobody he's talking to can reply? Oh, right, he's a bullying shite who only talks on wikis where he has absolute power. Semipenultimate (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Apologies for butting in, but I know Ken's reading, so I'd just like to point him to Voodoo Ray by A Guy Called Gerald. Carry on. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Loved that record.--Mercian (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Ken, by the way I have noticed you have acknowledged that you are called Ken, here is a thing about me not being a US Navy Seal, I am not an American. --Mercian (talk) 14:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Joaquín. This is another instance of him opening his mouth without thinking but in a twisted way he is correct. Britain has been involved in too many wars since 1990 but in all that time the greatest operational (not accidental) loss of life in a single incident was when an USAF A-10 attacked a British Army column killing 9 soldiers.--Mercian (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Believe me Cons, we already know that your vision of the future is a boot stamping on an atheist face forever. You say it many times, and many different ways, over and over again! But far be it from me to discourage you from doing what it takes to get stimulated. Just make sure to loosen the belt right before you come; you wouldn't want to go like David Carradine did. Semipenultimate (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. Machismo indeed. Olé, olé, olé!
Atheists and genetic mutations
I admit that he got to me so I shared it with my friends on Facebook. A friend of mine replied "Merry Xmas Mercian. We all know the term American Conservative is another way of saying he's a bellend :) and I bet he's jingling all the way in his gimp mask while fitting his but plug and nappy.(Diaper)"--Mercian (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Mercian, mate, why on earth are you engaging with this half-whit? Ajkgordon (talk) 09:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

A festive poem shared by a prominent Conservapedian[edit]

Mr. Militant Atheist is a super freak mutant atheist

Mr. Militant Atheist is a super freaky mutant atheist.

He's the kind religious girls don't take home to mother.

He's the kind to scowl at your mother's picture of Jesus.

He's a super freak, super freak,

He's super freaky, super freak, super freak.

Mr. Militant Atheist is a super freak.

That guy is pretty wild now.

The guy's a super freak.

He's a super freak, super freak,

He's super freaky, super freak, super freak.

Merry Christmas everybody:)--Mercian (talk) 11:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
I have just read that while listening to Rick James' "Super Freak" and I can honestly say that the version above is an utterly shite parody. Anyway, Ken, you've revealed that you've been listening to a song celebrating casual sex and cunnilingus with a video designed to give you a woody. If you were one of Andy's students and he knew you'd been doing that, he'd be obliged to whoop your ass in an attempt to save your immortal soul. Spud (talk) 12:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
I have just seen this.Conservapedia:Debating Kendoll Is it really true that this "person" deprived a charity $20,000 dollars because he was too cowardly to debate? And I let him get me. What a loser, many good people give up their time to to earn a few dollars $ for charity whilst this person turned down 20 grand because he did not want to lose face. So much for Christianity and charity.--Mercian (talk) 14:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Danth's Law in action.
My dear Conservative, again I urge you to do your homework before you post because you have walked right into this one. You all but declared victory and pronounced me beaten. During the Korean War Douglas MacArthur all but declared victory and pronounced North Korea beaten. What happened next was that MacArthur got his behind kicked to such an extent that he campaigned to use nuclear weapons and was considered so unstable that Harry Truman had to sack him.--Mercian (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
P.S.S. You are beaten. I would beat you more, but at this juncture, I do not wish to beat a dead horse
Keyboard warrior analyzing the tactics of the 101st Chairborne Division. Born to type, not serve.
Yeah I am beaten. You have thrown the proverbial acid in my face, Vox Day will be proud of you. I stand in shame, instead of being beaten by a man of honour I have been flogged (I guess as you are one with the gimp mask and butt plug you do enjoy a flogging) by a man who is anti "sodomite sluts and whores" who spent most of last night over-siting lies and bullshit.
I submit to your superiority. Oh, if you do not get sarcasm, this is it.--Mercian (talk) 14:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
PS, I went to the outpatients today and I have been cancer free for 6 months, I am cured. Unfortunately for you there is [3].--Mercian (talk) 14:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Ken, the fact that you need to cite your own "essays" to prove your case rather than peer reviewed journals is a sign of how little you can prove. Comrade GC (talk) 14:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Ken is correct when he says that the US led UN force and South Korea came out on top. This was due to General Matthew Ridgway taking command, in my opinion one of the best General Officers in modern history. MacArthur was a good administrator, he did a good job helping to rebuild and reshape Japan after WW2 but he was a poor general. That period had more than it's fair share of prima-donna commanders, most notably Montgomery and Patton but unlike MacArthur these two gentleman were actually good at their job. He is also correct in his assessment that I served neither as a commissioned officer or as special forces. I did serve though. Ken can make some good points, in some ways he is more rational and reasonable than other CP editors. Although he supports Trump he does not regard him as being beyond reproach like Andy does. He objected to Northwest's idea that The Democratic Party should be banned creating a de-facto one party state and then he loses it. This can be observed in the screenshot above. --Mercian (talk) 17:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

1990s guy, I'm not JohnZ, but apologies for mistaking you. --Mercian (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
In fairness, Northwest is a complete fucktard. 2600:387:5:802:0:0:0:87 (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Essay:British atheist acknowledges the reasonableness of a User:Conservative editor
Main Page Right

Congratulations, Mercian. You made the headlines on Main Page Right and got your own Ken essay. He's a troll and you fed him... London Grump (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Joaquín Martínez asked for it[edit]

Action-Conservapedia-2017-40.svg

This is a svg(raphic), much of the information is linked in it and can be viewed by mouse-over. To enjoy the full experience, you have to look at

https://rationalwiki.org/w/images/3/36/Action-Conservapedia-2017-40.svg

Happy New Year, larron (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be cool to see a chart of banned users to new active users that year. БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 16:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think so: from the graphic you can see that more than 70% of all edits were made by just 10 editors, so it is a group blog of an odd mix of true believers and venerated parodists with a steady influx of less successful trolls/parodists/vandals.
I'm aware that CP is just a couple of presidential tweets away from becoming an internet sensation (luckily Andy isn't able to suck up to the Donald on twitter...), but until then, I won't produce more stats.
--larron (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
What about a chart showing which CP articles got the most page views in 2017? It would show what on CP got the most attention in the Trump era, compared to just many edits by the registered editors.98.223.136.22 (talk) 02:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
How to you propose to gather this data? --larron (talk) 08:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
That's the question. Since the bottom of CP's articles shows the total page views, is there a way to find how many total page views for all the pages was on 1/1/2017 and 12/31/2017 and then compare the difference (or just the later date for pages created in 2017)?98.223.136.22 (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
If you are interested in only a few pages, you can use the wayback machine: Here, e.g.,, you can calculate that the top-billed article on the 2nd LoT was viewed less than 41 times a day over the last year. --larron (talk) 11:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
How was this chart made?—HamburgerPlateSpinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 02:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
The very short version: I looked up the data via the api and came up with some R programs. Here are some details. -- larron (talk) 08:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Conservapedia proven right.[edit]

How does this work exactly?. I have noticed a few times that Andy posts a "Conservapedia proven right" headline although there was no such prediction on the relevant page, unless Andy adds it afterwards.--Mercian (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)