Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive106

Screenshots

I think it might be prudent for those who find some new example of TK's authoritarianism to take screenshots immediately. TK sends that stuff down the memory hole so fast, poor ol' capturebot can't keep up. Johann 06:03, 10 January 2009 (EST)

What we really need is for capturebot to run more than twice a day: it's not as if the goon squad wait before memory holing. Phantom Hoover 07:28, 10 January 2009 (EST)

At ther moment Trent doesn't seem to <shout:trent are you reading?> HAVE SWITCHED UPLOAD ON </shout> (at least its not in the toolbox) so capturebot won't work. Toast 07:37, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Don't shout so loud. I think he's sleeping after all the effort he put in over the server move. I just hope he doesn't keep unlugging it every time he needs to rechargehis Ipod. (PS I'm eating some toast with Frank Cooper's Vintage Oxford marmalade as I type.) --  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 08:01, 10 January 2009 (EST)

I've got the images of TK's talk page diffs from WIGOs 1131/1132 (browser cache), but uploading seems to be disabled right now. --Sid 07:48, 10 January 2009 (EST)

→Lily, I've just finished some Toasted (stilton) cheese on toast. Toast 08:06, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Not Colston Bassett I hope! --  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 08:13, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Colton Basset's too good to toast: Huntington! Toast 08:35, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Uploaded new versions of the CaptureBot-generated files. --Sid 18:12, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Thanks for that Sid. Capturebot had a few hiccups during the move. - User $\scriptstyle {\sqrt {12}}\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }(-3)^{-n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 20:18, 10 January 2009 (EST)

MartinTurner24 WIGO

Whoever WIGOd that needs to read recent changes a bit closer. Malign ♥JessicaT♥ at your risk... you'll have a cross Viking on your back :)

1. (Deletion log); 23:35 . . JessicaT (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Danika Burns" (Vandalism / parody: content was: 'She is well know for rescueing children from the mouths of hungry bears, which she did blindfolded, with one arm tied behind her back. these bears a...' (and the only contributor was '[[Special:Contributions/MartinTurner2)
2. (Block log); 23:34 . . JessicaT (Talk | contribs | block) blocked MartinTurner24 (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) (nonsense entry)--PsyGremlin_Whut? 10:24, 10 January 2009 (EST)

I removed the WIGO to spare us from the Wrath of a viking god -- Nx ^talk 10:34, 10 January 2009 (EST)

I am pleased. *nod* Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 11:22, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Praises be to Thor? EternalCritic 11:31, 10 January 2009 (EST)

It's okay, no need to be Thor about it. --Kels 12:45, 10 January 2009 (EST)

I wrote 3 lines about putting thome lothion on it if it was thore, but I thought better of it! Toast 12:59, 10 January 2009 (EST)

You all thuck EternalCritic 13:02, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Tho you thay! Toast 13:14, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Damn thtraight. EternalCritic 13:18, 10 January 2009 (EST)

All right you lot, no more deity jokes. --JeevesMkII 13:23, 10 January 2009 (EST)

God Damnit.EternalCritic 13:25, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Windows 7

AKA the Demyer OS. DickTurpis 16:11, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Lovely! I wonder if they also peruse CP for ideas sometimes. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 16:16, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Oh, lawd. I can see it now: Double-click on My Computer, get redirected to My Documents and instead of hearing a *click* noise, I hear a HEIL! to Hitler. Half the internet or more is blocked by the Spamwall protector because anything making sense must be avoided. All error messages or question boxes that pop up have a Hitler picture and a smiley, stating evolution is falling in decline (leaving the user troubled, since they have no idea what the message is trying to say). If the user tries to make a file or types in certain things like "evolution is true", the computer automatically restarts, losing all data pertaining to evolution. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 22:07, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Image

After all the talk of the hitler / evolution link farce on CP, I almost snarfed my beer when I saw this. I presume the picture has been discussed before, but I was wondering if anyone did the same with hitler / assfly? Crundy 16:58, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Like, oh wow, amazing. I'd never noticed the resemblance until now. But it's obvious when you think about it, isn't it. People always used to say, "you know, you never see Hitler and Darwin in the same place at the same time." Bondurant 17:34, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Well, Hitler/Assfly has been done before, kind of... could be done better, of course. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:22, 10 January 2009 (EST)

I think there was little discussion (or at least less than you'd expect) because RW had been in mid-move at the time Ken uploaded this thing for the first time. --Sid 20:44, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Here -- Nx ^talk 05:47, 11 January 2009 (EST)

That's incredible! Great job, Nx! --Sid 10:40, 11 January 2009 (EST)

My Photoshop Gimp skills rival Ken

's -- Nx ^talk 10:42, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Andy on English

"English is unique among world languages in its ability to incorporate and adapt words from other tongues." You're aware that Japan has an entire set of characters for loanwords, aren't you? How do you fail your own class this badly? --Barikada, too lazy to sign in.

One of Andy's fundamental problems is his inability to see things from others perspective. It probably never occurred to that people in countries who speak different languages would incorporate an English word if their language. - User $\scriptstyle {\sqrt {12}}\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }(-3)^{-n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 19:44, 10 January 2009 (EST)

(EC) Without a link, I can't see what your looking at. I think English probably contains more words originating from other languages (or at least a more diverse range of other languages) than any other language in the world. But that's more to do with history than it is with linguistic structure. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:46, 10 January 2009 (EST)

England has been invaded by probably everyone at some point. - User $\scriptstyle {\sqrt {12}}\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }(-3)^{-n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 19:49, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Indeed. Spent the first part of our history getting invaded & conquered by everyone else, & the second part invading & conquering everywhere else. Picked up a few words & phrases everywhere we went. That's why the language is so complex, & has more synonyms & more irregularities than probably any other. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:56, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Oh, er. Here's a link: [2] Sorry! --Barikada.

Say, what's this thing about the KJV Bible defining English and allowing it to expand? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but I don't really know the history around language in that sense, so maybe I'm just off. --Kels 19:52, 10 January 2009 (EST)

I think what he was going for there was that the KJV was one standard piece of English literature that the illiterate peasantry would be familiar with through oral tradition, and thus, it'd be easier to teach them to read it, and as a stepping stone to full literacy. That, or he's doing the "Christianity makes everything doubleplusgood." thing again. --Barikada.

Dunno what it has to do with the development of new words. Shakespeare invented a whole bunch of words, but I wouldn't've thought Bible translators would do so. It would just confuse people. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:59, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Sorry to go all anal on you, but I've always understood that the old "Shakespeare invented 1700 new words" thing is an urban myth - stemming from the fact that the OED uses Shakespeare as the earliest example of lots of words. This doesn't mean that the word was actually coined by Shakespeare, rather that his work survived when earlier or contemporaneous examples were lost. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_invented_by_Shakespeare#Words_used__by_Shakespeare Charles SubLunar ^(mr) 10:05, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Ironically, I think that they actually used language that was slightly archaeic even for that time, to make it sound more dignified. However, what Andy is probably getting at, in his own way, is that the KJV may have contributed to a standardisation of the English language in the various regions of England. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 20:22, 10 January 2009 (EST)

On the question more generally, all languages incorporate and adapt words and morphology from one another; that's how they evolve, so if they didn't, we'd all still be speaking Indo-European. I don't really think English is any more diverse in that regard than most other languages. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 20:25, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Apparently Andy has never heard of Maltese. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 03:06, 11 January 2009 (EST)

From the same page of WP: "Maltese has added loan words to its Siculo-Arabic base, but without the grammatical changes that creoles undergo or the wholesale replacement of core vocabulary seen in mixed languages. The percentage of borrowed vocabulary, 57%, excludes basic vocabulary and does not meet the typical connotation of "massive", and is substantially less than the 75% found in English." (my emphasis) fröhlich ^{"gay" and "happy"} 03:29, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Regardless of whether or not English has more borrowed words than other languages, Andy's claim that "English is unique among world languages in its ability to incorporate and adapt words from other tongues" is patently nonsense. alt 06:55, 11 January 2009 (EST)

What is unusual about English is that, at root, it's a hybrid of two (Germanic and Romance) languages - but then us Brits are a load of mongrels anyway. Silver Sloth 08:22, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Yes, but French, the source of most of the Romance in English, is itself a hybrid of Germanic and (Gallo-)Latin. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 11:34, 11 January 2009 (EST)

I wasn't trying to suggest Maltese is the exact analogue, but just off the top of my head it seems like a good example of what Assfly seems to think almighty English is supposedly so much better than everyone else for. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 14:10, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Now I'm all hungry. --Kels 14:13, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Well, I can't feed you, but I do have something that dreams are made of. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 14:26, 11 January 2009 (EST)

As I understand it the first edition of the OED was compiled using examples from books published in a 100 year or so span. Earlier uses of the words would not have been used. ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 10:29, 11 January 2009 (EST)

No. Read The Professor and the Madman and Winchester's other book about the OED. TheoryOfPractice 11:23, 11 January 2009 (EST)

TK's emails

Do you think TK's emails are so badly written they look like spam or Foxtrot is trying to avoid getting caught in TK's game? - User $\scriptstyle {\sqrt {12}}\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }(-3)^{-n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 20:26, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Don't all CP emails go straight to spam unless you configure your email account/software to treat them as non-spam? Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:43, 10 January 2009 (EST)

I think some providers auto-move CP mails to spam (how fitting), at least based on what some people said there every now and then. But Foxtrot's "Yeah, uh, I kinda discussed things with sysops in public before, and it's not really private stuff, but I'll keep it in mind for the next time... getawayfrommecreep" really makes it look like it's more than just that this time. --Sid 20:47, 10 January 2009 (EST)

I almost thought Trotty would have said HelpJazz didn't break any rules, but of course you can't expect someone who abuses said rules to care if someone is innocently banned. TK's "OMFG LOOK @ EMAIL QUICK ZOMG!" is just more evidence of ideological banning. His block reason of Jazz and the refusal to discuss it on site means he's trying to rid CP of all RW users... admitting that means he'd have to ban himself. :P Hypocrisy is a bitch. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 22:15, 10 January 2009 (EST)

I just wanted to chime in here to say that it's refreshing to see "ideological" spelled correctly for once. ħuman 16:52, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Block reasons

"POV editing/Removal of valid content/Adding material without citation": that's every sysop blocked then. Is it? fröhlich ^{"gay" and "happy"} 22:54, 10 January 2009 (EST)

... and isn't "Jeeze" blasphemous? fröhlich ^{"gay" and "happy"} 23:07, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Not really. It's one of those fake curse words to avoid being blasphemous like "gosh", "gee", "darn", "heck", etc. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:57, 11 January 2009 (EST)

JessicaT seems to have invented a new block reason too: [3]. Any idea what it means? DickTurpis 11:25, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Assuming she made a typo, asshole -- Nx ^talk 11:29, 11 January 2009 (EST)

TK in interrogation mode

The Guy maintains his cool under the spotlight. (just follow the diffs.) TK insists on using covert communications. fröhlich ^{"gay" and "happy"} 00:17, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Yes, cool until the (inevitable) end.

With email blocked he won't mess up TK's personal statistics, that less than 5% complained about being blocked to him... LArron 02:11, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Jesus, I would like to say that TK is a real fucking penis but then again, he has stated that his motivation towards conservapedia is to bring the damn thing down from the inside so.....go for it TK. You're a Bugler without even needing to hide it or pretend you're something else. Good luck to you sir! Now that I have said my piece, its time for a beer and a late night bacon sandwich. Fuck my health, I'll even have a cigarette. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 04:06, 11 January 2009 (EST)

TK is a total old Communist/Fascist style secret policeman. His every move shows that. (Sunday breakfast in bed - full English: bacon, eggs, mushrooms, fried bread plus TOAST + butter + marmalade, AND jug of coffee!) Toast 04:17, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Fuck TK, the more he works his magic, the more CP will phail. Good luck to him. And, Toast, I eat guys like you for breakfast. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 04:23, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Fuck TK AND his couch! (nsfw) Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 09:38, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Oh lookie, Andy notices TheGuy is banhammered and replies to him. The old 'kick them while they're down' just do their actions justice these days. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 11:43, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Wow, what a conversation! So now, in order to avoid HPV, the abstinence must be life-long? No sex with spouse or you're not abstinent anymore??? ħuman 17:03, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Hey, you know, Andy's right again. If HPV is spread only via sexual intercourse, then 100% abstinence is a 100% defense against HPV. And no, if you have sex during marriage, you're no longer 100% abstinent. TheGuy was apparently trying (for some bizarre reason) to get Andy to admit that sex during marriage isn't sex — but Andy didn't fall for it. (Nobody in that conversation was claiming that 100% abstinence is the only defense against HPV; it just happens to be a really effective one.) --Marty 02:45, 12 January 2009 (EST)

TK is a just a real prick, not content with blocking Fox for 5 years (Fox had blocked hmself for infinite when he left so he had to unblock him first) he also deletes Fox's sig star and then protected it to prevent recreation. Does he think Fox is going to upload it again? Генгис^evolving 18:29, 11 January 2009 (EST)

It's the wiki equivalent of teabagging maybe. --Sid 18:50, 11 January 2009 (EST)

The first time I came across that term was in the short movie Billy's Dad is a Fudge Packer. A spoof of a 1950's information film rampant with innuendo. If any one can find it online then let me know, it seems to have disappeared from jibjab and ebaumsworld. Генгис^evolving 11:42, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Don't tell the YECers

"Ethnically, Norwegians are predominantly Germanic, although in the far north there are communities of Sami who came to the area more than 10,000 years ago ..." Better not let PJR &Co know that they were there before God. (Thanks to Kotomi for editing Norway!) Toast 04:28, 11 January 2009 (EST)

If memory serves, that makes the Scots, the Japs and the Norwegians who were here before god. Who else? (well, everybody actually). Ooh - you have a fan Toasty. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 04:37, 11 January 2009 (EST)

On the contrary, Kotomi, Thank you! Toast 04:55, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Jessica must be sending me messages. >_> Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 09:40, 11 January 2009 (EST)

"Secular archeology" read "everyone else but the quacks". It could be a great companion to "hey, let's not make up dates here!" ArmondikoV^theist 09:48, 11 January 2009 (EST)

LOL. Has anybody read cp:Viking? "Along with their destructive habits, Vikings were also well-known traders, explorers and settlers. They settled the islands of Iceland (870), Greenland (985) and briefly Newfoundland (around 1000), establishing a colony called Vinland nearly five centuries before Columbus." If only Andy used his blog encyclopedia as a source... --PsyGremlin_Whut? 09:56, 11 January 2009 (EST)

That's now on WIGO:CP, so it'll only be a matter of time before they notice the "mistake" and kill it. ArmondikoV^theist 08:51, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Well, I found it funny.

Finally a CP sysop reveals what their real job is :(snipped for lulz)
11 January 2009 JessicaT protected "Wingnut" ‎ [4] --PsyGremlin_Whut? 08:24, 11 January 2009 (EST)

History at Conservapedia

It's a very old edit but has anyone noticed the term Crimean War being listed as a modern (post-1900) term [5] Jammy 10:09, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Where is it written that "modern" means twentieth century? Many historians think of the "modern era" as coming into being sometime around the French Revolution, and some push the idea of modernity further back than that. "Early modern" is often used to talk about the 15th-17th centuries for that matter...TheoryOfPractice 11:18, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Where's it written? The Conservapedia page entitled: Modern Era Terms (1900 - present) which contains the entry of 'Crimean War' as quoted above, hence the reason I mentioned it. Jammy 11:34, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Early modern can extend back to the 1300s. "Modern" is often considered 17th or 18th century through 1914. - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 11:37, 11 January 2009 (EST)

hmmm. "Kirk Cameron" is a modern era term as well... DickTurpis 11:38, 11 January 2009 (EST)

The Conservapedia page entitled: Modern Era Terms (1900 - present)-> didn't see that. TheoryOfPractice 11:39, 11 January 2009 (EST)

MOAR KITTY!

What's the problem with MOAR KITTY! I thought it was pretty funny. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{MOAR KITTY:}[1] (wasn't me) 12:11, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Yeah, but you also think "turbobanners" is pretty funny....TheoryOfPractice 12:16, 11 January 2009 (EST)

What's your point? And since we document strange behavior, this fits perfectly. It is pretty strange. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{MOAR KITTY:}[1] (wasn't me) 12:18, 11 January 2009 (EST)

The WIGO isn't for wandalism. There's too much of that anyway, and as you could see from the votes (-13 last time I checked) it wasn't funny -- Nx ^talk 12:27, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Still, do we really need to comment it out? We usually only do that for ones that are duplicates, libellous, or outing undiscovered vandalism/spoofs. Let it sit there & just get voted down. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:30, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Yes, I agree. If CUR sees that people are voting it down, maybe he won't bother wigoing stuff like that again. Now he's edit warring instead -- Nx ^talk 12:33, 11 January 2009 (EST)

But this is outing undiscovered vandalism or spoofs. Phantom Hoover 12:36, 11 January 2009 (EST)

When I first checked I thought it had already been reverted (could be wrong but can't be bothered to verify). However, it is vandalism and we don't normally cover that. The residents provide more than enough lulz. Генгис^evolving 12:43, 11 January 2009 (EST)

(EC) CUR wigoed it 3 hours after GillianM's block -- Nx ^talk 12:44, 11 January 2009 (EST)

It's not so much that the cat was there. It was that it was in completely unrelated articles, and that he (?) mispeled MOAR. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{MOAR KITTY:}[1] (wasn't me) 12:46, 11 January 2009 (EST)

What, you mean it isn't speled "MOAR"?? Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:49, 11 January 2009 (EST)

(EC x 2) No it isn't undiscovered vandalism. The sock was blocked immediately after those edits & all vandalism undone within moments. We don't usually WIGO vandalism/parody (although there've been a few notable exceptions) but we don't need to comment it out unless it's undiscovered stuff we're drawing attention to. I've made the WIGO visible again. Also another WIGO above it (about treating mental illness) which had also been commented out & I couldn't see an explanation for it. There's still a WIGO about Ed Poor & Barbie commented out, because it duplicates one already posted a day or two ago. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:48, 11 January 2009 (EST)

You noticed how many edits he made. Impressive! But he probably used the random pages. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{MOAR KITTY:}[1] (wasn't me) 12:51, 11 January 2009 (EST)

I like the new one better. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{MOAR KITTY:}[1] (wasn't me) 12:59, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Is it just me, or are people purposely voting down WIGO at CP edits I make? It it's just me, someone please reword them to make them better. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{MOAR KITTY:}[1] (wasn't me) 13:27, 11 January 2009 (EST)

It's just you, your wigos suck :D On the other hand, that kitty has lovely blue eyes. I wish I had a kitty like that. --JeevesMkII 13:33, 11 January 2009 (EST)

I thought the idea of RADAR being conservative was pretty funny. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{MOAR KITTY:}[1] (wasn't me) 13:34, 11 January 2009 (EST)

It is but I think a similar entry has already been made further down the page. Jammy 14:25, 11 January 2009 (EST)

How many editors are there at Conservapedia

Just for fun, I looked how many different editors make a comment on a given day at CP:

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

Or, as a table:

Conservapedia

year	Not Blocked Editors per Day	Sysops (Light)	Blocked Editors per Day	Total Number
2007	43.4	15.3	24.4	67.8
2008	45.5	16.2	19.8	65.3

For comparison, the situation at RationalWiki:

LArron 15:54, 11 January 2009 (EST)

What I find hilarious is that CP's users blocked per day is almost the same amount as their edits by normal users per day, confirming that most of CP's traffic and edits are by drive-by vandals. Phantom Hoover 16:19, 11 January 2009 (EST)

As I thought, there hasn't ever been nearly as much activity (or, I would bet, traffic) since the original huge blogburst back in 2006 that brought most of the old-timers (yes, like me) to the site. Back when blogs were laughing about the Kangaroo article and the Northwestern Arboreal Octopus (which they then tried to claim was humour, very strange for an encyclopedia) and other insanity. Amazing, less than a year of existance and they'd already jumped the shark. --Kels 16:31, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Looking at the names is interesting too. taking 200 entries in recent changes, there's only the following (in terms of edits)

- Editors

• AlanE
• AmerICan
• BenjaminLe
• BHarlan
• Bhathorn
• Breadan43
• ETrundel
• ForeverPeace
• FrankA
• FranL
• GillianP
• Inbloom
• JeanLucY
• JohnD
• Kencaesi
• Mattsort
• RodWeathers

- Sysop-Light

• Foxtrot
• JY23
• Taj

- Sysop

• AddisonDM
• Aschlafly
• JessicaT
• Joaquín Martínez
• RJJensen

Same old names really. and 2 of the editors (Inbloom & JeanLucY) are blocked. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 16:39, 11 January 2009 (EST)

I haven't been watching CP as often lately and I still know that half the editors listed were blocked for some reason or other, banhammer is waiting to fall on 'em. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 19:11, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Hands

Anyone have any idea what Andy's problem is with this edit?--ScottA 18:56, 11 January 2009 (EST) User was blocked for the entry too.

Best guess is that he didn't like JHill removing lots of stuff on this talk page, and just automatically started reverting the user's other contributions as well (I've noticed him do that a few times before). alt 19:00, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Too many facts which diluted God's contribution. Генгис^evolving 19:41, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Apparently the human hand is far too liberal.... Jammy 20:01, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Ugh, stop Assfly. Sentences like "No other animal has a limb like it, except [long list]" don't belong in any article. The guy is doing you a favour by deleting it. Crazy arsehole must be under the impression you guys want to build an encyclopaedia. I guess you showed him, huh? --JeevesMkII 20:10, 11 January 2009 (EST)

No surprises who originally wrote that rubbish... No, with sandwiches 05:02, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Oh come on, there's nothing as classic as watching an admin revert a quality edit to a parodist one, which is certainly what the current hand article is. All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us? DickTurpis 20:18, 11 January 2009 (EST)

What the f**k is liberal about a straightforward anatomical description? ArmondikoV^theist 08:21, 12 January 2009 (EST)

It's correct? Jammy 08:22, 12 January 2009 (EST)

I think it was the section on hands in the animal kingdom which sailed dangerously close to the wind of evolution. Генгис^evolving 11:44, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Big Bang

So, Fred Hoyle invented the term "Big Bang" in order to mock the idea, did he? Yeah, except no. Also, I can't help but laugh at their continued insistence that liberals and conservatives (in the American sense of the words) have been around forever, probably always fighting against the mainstream media and Big Science. Dreaded Walrus 19:09, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Actually dude, every thing I have read on the subject suggests the Hoyle was using the term in a pejorative sense. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 19:13, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Ooh, interesting. WP says "It is popularly reported that Hoyle intended this to be pejorative, but the script from which he read aloud clearly shows that he intended the expression to help his listeners.[5] In addition, Hoyle explicitly denied that he was being insulting and said it was just a striking image meant to emphasize the difference between the two theories for radio listeners.[6]". Now I don't know who to believe! :) Dreaded Walrus 19:34, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Whilst it may simply have been meant as a short and snappy description of a theory, Hoyle was opposed to the theory and so although CPs statement may not be entirely accurate I don't think it's particularly bad. Jammy 19:57, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Has TK just lost it?

I'm just trying to figure out what this is all about. He blocks the guy for 5 years last month then unblocks him today then blocks him instantly again for the same length of time and for the same reason. Jammy 20:00, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Now he is blocked for 1 month longer. Most likely he forgot what he was doing and realising he unblocked the wrong person quickly reblocked him. I always imagined TK has a spreadsheet with all his block and people he intend to block with all the information he can get on them using check user, maybe he copied the wrong name out of it? - User $\scriptstyle {\sqrt {12}}\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }(-3)^{-n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 20:05, 11 January 2009 (EST)

He must be going for a record or something Jammy 20:13, 11 January 2009 (EST)

It's cute really...DeanS is trying to impress TK Jammy 20:24, 11 January 2009 (EST)

(EC) He's unblocking them so that he can block their ability to email other users when he blocks them again. From now on I reckon he'll be disabling email abilities every time he blocks, as well as catching the IP addresses, so no blocks can be appealed at all. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:27, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Yes, that was something he gloated about that I supposedly "knew" in email - that email from a blocked user could be disabled. I agree with your hypothesis. ħuman 00:20, 12 January 2009 (EST)

I notice that he's blocked a substantial number of UK subscribers::

# 14:45, 10 January 2009 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 92.8.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 1 year (account creation disabled) ‎ (IP of vandal(s): Lordpolverston - Carphone Warehouse Broadband Services , Manchester, UK) (they're pretty big here) Toast 20:30, 11 January 2009 (EST)

and an MIT Tor server (is that really true?):

# 17:28, 10 January 2009 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 18.85.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 1 year (account creation disabled) ‎ (IP of vandal(s): CharlesF | TOR proxy server; Massachusetts Institute of Technology--ephemera.media.mit.edu) Toast 20:37, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Wow, TK really believes most strongly in overkill. A whole /16 for one address? Still, one more university unable to contribute to Conservapedia. TK's goal of killing the project comes just a little bit closer. --JeevesMkII 21:08, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Well, he actually under did it with the 18.85 -- that is a class A network with an old site. If you look at an old assigned numbers RFC such as 990, you will see that MIT owns all of 18.x.y.z. The only problem being, you can't block a /8. (anyone write that patch for Andy?) The people could probably walk across the street and get another network. TK needs to block all 256x 18.y.0.0/16 addresses to get them all. --Shagie 21:24, 11 January 2009 (EST)

someone who's better at network adminstration

than I am can probably figure this out, but why has DeanS blocked an IP address in the 192 range? I thought the 192 range was private:

14:30, 9 January 2009, DeanS (Talk | contribs) blocked 192.235.1.34 (Talk) (expires 14:30, 9 January 2014, account creation blocked) (Abusing multiple accounts: Zan, BHarlan)

--Simple 20:27, 11 January 2009 (EST)

I don't no, but he's infamous for range blocks. It's been a month since he blocked me, and I'm still blocked. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{MOAR KITTY:}[1] (wasn't me) 20:29, 11 January 2009 (EST)

I think 192.168 is private but normal IPs can have 192 at the start i think. Jammy 20:31, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Diablo Valley College, Pleasant Hill, CA. Another Uni how unsurprising. - User $\scriptstyle {\sqrt {12}}\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }(-3)^{-n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 20:32, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Since i was blocked a while ago i think the whole of Oxford University may be off limits too. Jammy 20:35, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Just click view source on the main page when not logger in, it will tell you if you can't edit and if one of the reasons is your IP then Oxford is gone. My uni is blocked too. - User $\scriptstyle {\sqrt {12}}\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }(-3)^{-n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 20:38, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Oxford is blocked? That explains why so-called Professor Richard Dawkins doesn't edit more regularly then... Matt 06:52, 12 January 2009 (EST)

I have just relised the entire 192.xxx.xxx.xxx is populated by Universities. Trent could write them an extension so TK can just go 192.0.0.0/6 and block everyone of them smarty-pants students and elitist, ivory tower academics once and for all. - User $\scriptstyle {\sqrt {12}}\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }(-3)^{-n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 21:50, 11 January 2009 (EST)

They rangeblocked universities? Isn't the point of his course to get his students into universities or are pro-creation (as opposed to procreation, which is what other universities are for) unis outside this range? ArmondikoV^theist 08:26, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Well TK appears to have blocked someone else because they go to Oxford Uni, or 'Oxfored Uni' as he likes to call it. Jammy 08:28, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Actually he probably has read this and found out what Oxford's IP address is , well done you didn't even have to edit. - User $\scriptstyle {\sqrt {12}}\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }(-3)^{-n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 17:22, 12 January 2009 (EST)

I wouldn't have thought it would be that hard to find anyway. Besides, I cannot think of a greater compliment to pay Oxford Uni than to completely block it from CP :D Jammy 17:25, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Well, TK claims that he didn't block Oxford:

Oxford’s IP range is: 129.67.0.0 - 129.67.255.255 and isn’t involved in any range blocks. This is just another example of the liberal trolls and vandals at certain sites use of the "big lie technique", which they spam out to everyone with block rights, to raise a false flag issue. --₮K/Admin/Talk 18:04, 12 January 2009 (EST)

--LArron 21:16, 12 January 2009 (EST)

(He seemed to look up only their main page, i.e. www.ox.ac.uk : For example, Balliol College - or the maths department - lies in the range 163.1.0.0 - 163.1.255.255 . So, not the whole of Oxford university may be covered by his range blocks...--LArron)

Pre-emptive forgiveness

I will soon be going back undercover at Conservapedia (3rd time lucky), may I ask your collective forgiveness for the conservative rubbish I will be typing there :p Jammy 21:07, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Go, Jammy! Go, Jammy! - User $\scriptstyle {\sqrt {12}}\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }(-3)^{-n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 21:10, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Who were you previously? Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:11, 11 January 2009 (EST)

No one of any interest unfortunately, i only managed a couple of edits each time before being blocked...and they were all perfectly reasonable ones too :) Jammy 21:13, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Reasonable?? No wonder you were blocked! You're doing it all wrong. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:16, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Don't forget to bring your peanut butter with you! :3 Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 21:34, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Godspeed! Good luck!!! --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 02:45, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Have fun storming the castle! Corry^{It is a rock, though. Should beat everything.} 07:40, 12 January 2009 (EST)

BWatson

Oh, someone has not been reading our guide to villainy, and has made his first edits quite reasonable, but then inexplicably went batshit crazy (even trying to land a BarackHusseinOsama) with his subsequent ones, fully exposing his parodistness for all to see. There's a reason why we tell people to start over if they suddenly decide to embrace their inner Bugler after a brief tryst in the well of reasonableness. Schizophrenia don't sell. DickTurpis 21:46, 11 January 2009 (EST)

I came this close to posting his comments about "the Assfly" and loving MexMax onto TK's talk page, but I'm down to my last few sox...TheoryOfPractice 22:43, 11 January 2009 (EST)

I'm such an idiot, I didn't even know to start at the bottom of the talk page. I feel like an embarrassment to RW and parodists everywhere. I'll start over once I learn me some proper tactics... --NTemple 23:23, 11 January 2009 (EST)

I don't have socks, but it's got to be difficult right now, in that what you need to do to be successful is so counter-intuitive. You would think that being a complete, lockstep sycophant would be a dead giveaway that you're a junior Bugler trying to grow up, but no. That doesn't seem to be the case at all. Corry^{It is a rock, though. Should beat everything.} 07:47, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Joaquins Welcoming Rampage

Yeah he welcomed me after my page was moved becuase a one Mr. Schlafly moved it my real name, despite my talk page being covered with hate from Karajou. Also my userpage was librul to say the least. If anyone cares or cares to add it the link to my CP page is on my user page here --Snotbowst 22:23, 11 January 2009 (EST)

You know Ken...

....You would probably find masturbation a hell of a lot more pleasurable and productive than this sort of thing. Just putting it out there. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 23:35, 11 January 2009 (EST)

So his little SEO is working. Still doesn't take away from the fact there are at most 20 editors there and a pile of our socks, as that 20 declines that is going to kill it. - User $\scriptstyle {\sqrt {12}}\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }(-3)^{-n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 23:41, 11 January 2009 (EST)

I make no assumption on the death of conservapedia but Ken, dude, find a hobby, man. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 23:45, 11 January 2009 (EST)

At least he is taking an interest in the French revolution. It is good to see him expand his interests. - User $\scriptstyle {\sqrt {12}}\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }(-3)^{-n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 23:50, 11 January 2009 (EST)

P.S. Ken - maybe you should join one of Ed's writing classes? Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 23:45, 11 January 2009 (EST)

If they were #1 on google for anything it'd only be because people were pointing at it to laugh. (with cheese)_{talk to Toast} 00:00, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Can anyone explain how he's getting these ranking numbers? He claims a ranking of #7 for the "french revolution," yet I just queried it on google, and CP wasn't in the top HUNDRED. - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 00:20, 12 January 2009 (EST)

I went one further and searched "French Revolution Atheism" and still, nothing. Ken man, come on - pull your shit together. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 00:26, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Ken, as you seem to be reading this for some god-forsaken reason: you're retarded. Not only do I know how to clear cookies, but CP's French Rev article shows up at (drum roll) #203! Well done. - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 01:48, 12 January 2009 (EST)

1. I don't think that the death of CP is imminent, unless Andy cuts his losses, a lingering agony is guaranteed
2. Yep, Ken's google searches seem to be personalized, for "French revolution" or French revolution didn't come up in the Top 20...

LArron 02:12, 12 January 2009 (EST)

How many people do you think go beyond Wikipedia as the first result? - User $\scriptstyle {\sqrt {12}}\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }(-3)^{-n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 02:33, 12 January 2009 (EST)

All but Ken? LArron 02:41, 12 January 2009 (EST)

I second that, both "French revolution" and French revolution don't appear in the top 100 on my office machine with a clean cache or any of my home machines. The sad thing is how much Ken takes all of this thing to heart. Ken, take your meds and get a good rest from all of this stuff. It can't be doing your health any good. Go out and meet people rather than obsessing over Google rankings. Генгис^evolving 03:55, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Now I feel really bad, I just read that doing two Google searches uses as much energy as boiling a kettle. For pity's sake Ken, please think of little kittens when you do all these searches. Генгис^evolving 04:06, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Well, you need only have an elementary grasp of arithmetic to realise there is something screwy about the headline figure there. Unless Google have data centres the size of Belgium, then dissipating that much heat would be impractical. My guess is journalistic excess, plus overzealous headline grabbing press release. --JeevesMkII 06:39, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Maybe if you're setting old tires ablaze for your heat source... Corry^{It is a rock, though. Should beat everything.} 07:55, 12 January 2009 (EST)

(EC) Google says that his estimate is way off, and I've yet to see any explanation at how the guy arrived at his result. To summarise Google's response: they say a search uses 1 kJ of energy (cf about 8000 kJ per day of food burnt by a typical person), or equivalent to 0.2g of CO2 emission (cf the 7g claim reported in the BBC story above). alt 07:57, 12 January 2009 (EST)

I think the key is they included the energy to run the end user's computer, so they get to add in a few minutes of what, 300-500 watts of electricity? And the innertubes use energy getting the data back and forth of course. ħuman 13:49, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Well, I'm pleased to say none of my computers dissipate any more than 90 watts. However, even butch computers with huge hungry graphics cards and big spinny disks don't come anywhere close to using the same amount of power as a kettle. Kettles will typically draw 5-6 odd amps at 240v, which is why in the US where they use an incredibly stupid 110v, kettles suck ridiculous numbers of amps and typically need an entire ring main more or less to themselves if you don't want to start tripping the current breakers. --JeevesMkII 14:57, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Hey Ken - you're really badly wrong on this. Really. You're no where near the top 10 with French Revolution. Could you provide a screen shot so we can see what you're doing wrong and all have a good laugh please? Also a picture of Hitler. Thanks StarFish 07:42, 12 January 2009 (EST)

I just Googled it myself and clicked Next quite a bit before I found you. You're in position 202. Well done. By the way a lot of the sites I scrolled past looked a lot more fun than yours. As you have posted on CP that you're reading this page I would just like to take this opportunity to point out that all your articles are fucking rubbish. Hey Ken. Your articles are fucking rubbish. StarFish 07:59, 12 January 2009 (EST)

I just love the way even Andy has the sense to ignore him. Good job, Ken. Good job. EddyP 09:39, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Ken continues to talk to a brick wall. Please stop, Ken. He's not going to give you any attention. EddyP 10:09, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Ken thinks it is because we're not using Extract Factor. However a quick test from my machine shows

Sorry if I'm not that impressed, Ken Silver Sloth 10:28, 12 January 2009 (EST)

And here's my good old fashioned Google search. I'd like to see Ken produce something similar with a ranking of less than 10. By the way do you like my yellow arrow. I drew it myself. Do you want me to make some medals for you? StarFish 10:45, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Don't stop! Keep filling up Andy's talk page! No matter what you think, Ken, he's not really your friend! Corry^{It is a rock, though. Should beat everything.} 11:03, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Ken, I fixed your statement for you

I underlined the fixed parts. I don't have time to fix it any further, but it is a good improvement so far. :D

Andy, certain wingnuts keep reporting the imminent death of Atheism and I think their projections are rather irrational. These idiots are rather obsessed with Atheism and I really think they need to get out more. Perhaps, a break from their obsessiveness would give them a fresh perspective.

While I do not agree with everything in regards to homosexuality, I do think that the wingnuts' reports of the imminent death of homosexuality are greatly exaggerated due to what I see happening at the major search engines and website tracking companies. Conservapedia now ranks #6 at Google for the search "communism" a search which gets over 1,700 searches at the 3 major search engines (Google, Yahoo, and MSN) due to my spamming and deceit. The Yahoo search engine ranks conservapedia's communism article #11. In addition, Conservapedia is ranked far beyond #200 at Google for the search "French Revolution" which is a search which gets over 2,080 searches a day from the top three search engines. In addition, according to Quantcast and Compete the number of unique visitors visiting Conservapedia to get a good laugh has seen a very big erection in the last year. [6][7]

By the way, given that the theory of evolution is coincidentally related to Communism, I linked the articles together at Conservapedia, and might link them with homosexuality. I also emailed RobS to tell him about the Google and Yahoo search engine rankings for the communism article. Perhaps RobS will return to perform various sex acts on me. (I didn't change anything on the communism search, simply because his projected numbers are quite small anyway) Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 09:16, 12 January 2009 (EST)

CAUSE FOUND!

Ken uses an utterly retarded tool which puts "gl=us" into the search query. What does this mean? Unlike everyone else on the planet, he is limiting his search results to those physically located in the United States. - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 11:11, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Well spotted Publius! Hey Ken - I think Andy needs to hear about this. StarFish 11:20, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Hahaha. DECEIT! Even Andy knows to stay away. Ken's talking to himself! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 11:22, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Does anyone know if that's a default setting for Google in the US or something? I mean realistically will anyone be getting this article in the top 10? StarFish 11:24, 12 January 2009 (EST)

If you search french revolution without the quotations, it comes up number 9. if you search "french revolution" with quotations, it is buried deep. --CPAdmin1 10:34, 15 January 2009 (EST)

I've just boiled a couple of dozen kettles trying to find any search hits for French Revolution that link to CP, even using the gl=us thing. Maybe outside the US Google still points to respected sources. But Ken's claim of #7 is pure fantasyland, with Wikipedia, Britannica, Encarta, dozens of specialist history sites and books on Amazon which would obviously come out ahead of a minor blog. I even tried "French Revolution" + "homosexuality" not a peep. Генгис^evolving 12:08, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Unfortunately, Ken has spotted that we lieberals are bad at computer science. In his brain, altering google parameters to render impossible search rankings is computer science, unlike, say, programming computers. Thank god I opened my mind today and learned something. And why does he keep addressing his nonsensical messages to Andy, who never gives him the time of day. - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 12:48, 12 January 2009 (EST)

While searching for what links to Ken

's beloved French Revolution article (answer: nothing, more or less) I discovered that someone has set up a Conservapedia alias failpedia.com. Good going whoever that was :D Also, I love Ken's accusation that we all suck at Computer Science here. Ken, I have a degree in same, whereas you're an illiterate who can't work out how to create a wiki page without first writing a link to it. Finding a bunch of stupid SEO tools on the internet and typing things in to them is not computer science. You'll also note that rationalwiki has lots of pretty bells and whistles that are the result of actual software engineering, whereas Conservapedia is run by a moron who took about 2 years to figure out how to create a cron job. --JeevesMkII 13:07, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Wow the delusion is strong, there is absolutely no comparison in the general technological skill and knowledge of RW versus CP. Hell Andy himself has cribbed some of our templates. You know, our vandal brake would be pretty useful at CP don't you think Conservative? Why don't you code one up for them, then you might actually get sysops to pay attention to your random gibberish. tmtoulouse 13:25, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Oh, by the way, Ken: I study computer science, and in September I attended a small course that focused on searching for academic information (and was a bit puzzled by the lack of googlefu among the fellow students, but everyone improved, I'm sure). You may be surprised to learn that the course was not offered by our department, but by the university library... because as surprising it may seem, computer science and informatics are separate branches of science. tl;dr: competence in building systems that process and retrieve information doesn't mean you're automatically an ace in using them effectively. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:37, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Um

I pasted French Revolution into my homemade Google search box. The resulting url is http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=French+Revolution&btnG=Go and the CP article is, approximately as advertised, #8 on the list of results. Ken must have infected my computer. ħuman 13:55, 12 January 2009 (EST)

#197 for me. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 14:11, 12 January 2009 (EST)

#196 for me, following that link you supplied. --Sid 14:18, 12 January 2009 (EST)

#196 for me, ditto, same link --LArron 14:20, 12 January 2009 (EST)

#206 for me using link - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 14:38, 12 January 2009 (EST)

#198 for me, Google.co.uk I guess Google tries to keep Conservapedia from the rest of the world. Ken don't you know Conservapedia is being censored? It's as bad as China here! Генгис^evolving 15:17, 12 January 2009 (EST)

#196 for me using human's linky. Генгис^evolving 15:22, 12 January 2009 (EST)

#190 for me. I just searched 'French Revolution' in Google and went to the 180+ part and started looking. Going up in the world Ken! EddyP 15:29, 12 January 2009 (EST)

#155 for me, Google.ie Генгис^evolving

#147 for me, Google.no Генгис^evolving

#147 for me, Google.es Генгис^evolving

#147 for me, Google.it Генгис^evolving

#147 for me, Google.de Генгис^evolving

#156 for me, Google.nl Генгис^evolving

#158 for me, Google.au $\pi$

#8 for me. Corry^{It is a rock, though. Should beat everything.} 17:40, 12 January 2009 (EST)

#208 for me. Anyone lower? alt 17:47, 12 January 2009 (EST)

#156 for me, Google.ca (Soviet Canuckistan). More damning is that uncyclopedia ranks #112. When I use google.com conservapedia comes up #199 versus #129 for uncyclopedia... -- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 17:52, 12 January 2009 (EST)

I gave up after no. 400 on the UK version and didn't come across CP once. Jammy 17:58, 12 January 2009 (EST)

#200 for me on Google.co.uk MaybeHuman is Ken?? Worm ^{(t | c)} 20:13, 12 January 2009 (EST)

#7 for me - wow! That's only 3 of us, me, Human, and Correy that get it in the first ten results. Refugee^{talk page} 20:36, 12 January 2009 (EST)

#7 for me too. Can I still be a gentleman at this website?--Bayes 20:50, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Interesting. Without quotes I get CP in the top 10. With quotes it's not in the top 100. Anyone know the reason for this? DickTurpis 21:01, 12 January 2009 (EST)

#9 with the link,

#8 with "french Revolution",

#7 for "French Revolution" and "French revolution",

#6 for "french revolution" for me- but no variation is in top ten when in quotes. Kallium^talk 21:11, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Number six for me. Crazy, isn't it. And scary. Very scary. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{MOAR KITTY:}[1] (wasn't me) 21:13, 12 January 2009 (EST)

It's certainly interesting that there's such a huge difference. Could it be that those of us outside of the US get a low search ranking and those in the US get a high one, because it's an American site? --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 21:19, 12 January 2009 (EST)

That seems to bear out. I'm in Canada, and I get 209. --Kels 21:23, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Why does inclusion in quotes seem to drop it from top ten to off the radar? Does that make sense to anyone? 67.242.66.251 21:46, 12 January 2009 (EST)

#200 here (After hours of clickery)  ^{(with butter!)} _{talk to Toast} 00:07, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Wow, that does seem to be the key. I googled it without quotes, FYI. ħuman 00:14, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Well now I don't get it in the top 50 with or without the quotes. Did google pick up on Ken's chicanery and drop CP's article entirely? DickTurpis 00:25, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Well, I used CCleaner to make absolutely sure there were no lingering cookies, then, just to make doubly sure, fired up Internet Explorer for the first time in several months (I normally use Firefox), and did several Google searches, running CCleaner between each one. Whether each word was capitalized or uncapitalized, in quotes or not, every time I got it at 192. Zmidponk 14:54, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Lowkey's open letter

LowKey has reinserted his open letter on Bugler from Dec 10th, this time on his own user-page, and not on Andy's talk page. Sadly, he remarks:

What follows is the open letter I posted in December 2008. It has been expunged from Andy's talk page and I have copied it here (with my update) to retain it. Unfortunately the related discussions are probably lost forever.

Well, Andy created a new memory hole on Jan 4th, but rejoice, I saved the complete discussion earlier. At the moment, it is stored here...

At your service, LArron 23:55, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Directly after this, there was a nice discussion about the capitalization of HELL (that's the only way to write it correctly), which I conserved at the same place. LArron 08:17, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Nice! You deserve a goat or two. Preserving statements like Lowkey's that were explicitly ignored before and after Bugler's parody spree does great justice. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 09:19, 12 January 2009 (EST)

I bet that TK will ban LowKey in the near future, with a reason like satanical accuracy of prophecies LArron 12:01, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Elliot Institute: "forced abortion"

Ought we to send an e-mail demanding the full data (a la Andy → Lenski). as far as I've ben able to dig, the 'data' seems to be one pdf document consisting largely of hearsay with no apparent back up. It may be there somewhere, but I can't find it. (can we upload pdf to RW?) (with cheese)_{talk to Toast} 03:11, 12 January 2009 (EST)

I just tried uploading the pdf and the RW won't accept it ("no pages to load" it says. Just link to it instead. Totnesmartin 09:02, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Here's the abstract for the article used for the 64% coercion number [8]. There is a comment on the article [9] that for some reason was three years after the fact. My school evidently lacks a subscription to this journal, so I can only read the abstract, and can't tell if the 64% value is being used properly. I can't help but this that the case is being overstated, although I have no doubt that some women are coerced into abortions. This should, of course, not be allowed. What this guy seems to be doing, though, is taking a handful of very tragic incidents and implying that they are occurring systemically. Corry^{It is a rock, though. Should beat everything.} 10:58, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Sadly, a typical tactic used by those who have no real point to stand on See also: Voter fraud claims from the right and slaughterhouse abuse claims from the (truly loony) left. There seems to be a real "one case means they all do it" mentality from people these days. SirChuckB^{Further bulletins as events warrant} 13:58, 12 January 2009 (EST)

When I read the CP borken headline yesterday I saw the word "pressure" in the quote, and thought, doh. I'm surprised that 36% didn't feel any "pressure"! The error is in taking whatever pressures a pregnant woman may feel from others and conflating it with "coercion", I think. ħuman 14:05, 12 January 2009 (EST)

I think you're spot on in your assessment Human, I also find it kinda interesting that Andy et al just gloss over some interesting details in that...ahem "article." First off, they mention two anecdotes about forced abortions... one of them comes from Georgia, not known as a haven of liberals and the other from Maine. I question, at the risk of stereotyping the left and right, who is more likely to try and force an abortion? As a liberal, should my sister (or daughter if I ever have one) become pregnant and decide she wants to have a child, I would never consider trying to force her into having an abortion for any reason. However, I don't think it's a far stretch to imagine a good church going family reacting with shock and horror to the idea that their teenager was having sex..... Not that I have anything to go off of but a strong educated guess, but I would throw my money against these cases being "liberals trying to force abortion on the unwilling." I also laughed at the irony of a pro woman piece wiki-linking to the Conservapedia article for Women.... If you don't know why, read it. SirChuckB^{Further bulletins as events warrant} 15:49, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Of course, there is no discussion of women coerced into having children that they are, for one reason or another, unable or unwilling to care for. Nor is there a discussion of forced adoptions- I don't know if they still happen, but evidently before Roe v. Wade many young women were coerced by their families to have their babies and put them up for adoption. Corry^{It is a rock, though. Should beat everything.} 16:18, 12 January 2009 (EST)

DinsdaleP unearthed the basis of the statistic, and unsurprisingly, it is being used in a misleading manner. Also unsurprising are the fake numbers that Andy starts to make up. Corry^{It is a rock, though. Should beat everything.} 16:38, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Headspin quote of the day: "I don't know what your specific point is; you did not respond to two specific examples I've recently heard. In fact, I'd be surprised if the number of coerced abortions were not higher." - Assflight. This after Dinsy repeats his specific (and simple) point for the third time. Andy's two "specific examples" were irrelevant, of course, and "lalalalalala I can't hear you..." Nice work Dins. ħuman 18:21, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Blocking for "other places"

User talk:StevenB‎; 23:46 . . (-1) . . TK (Talk | contribs) (→Signing: Thanks. FYI, bragging or making fun otherpalces will get your IP blocked.)

TK is not even pretending to follow the "We do not ban users based on their comments elsewhere, such as on their own blog. Wikipedia will monitor users' blogs and ban them for their exercise of free speech on their own blogs." rule. Shouldn't a "trustworthy" place tell the truth about itself at least? --BoredCPer 07:38, 12 January 2009 (EST)

If they did, there probably wouldn't be a RW at all. Corry^{It is a rock, though. Should beat everything.} 07:53, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Does Wikipedia even do that? ArmondikoV^theist 08:15, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Well, you read it on CP......so probably not :) Jammy 08:20, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Obviously 'no participation at RW' is the big unwritten rule at CP now. Cf. blocks of Human, CPAdmin1, HelpJazz, Fox, AKjeldsen, etc. (even though most of those people had already left of their own choice). Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:37, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Well, I was happily editing away when Schlafly pwned me. But I suspect the "silly editing pattern" was pointed out to him by TK, in that my editing often started somewhere linked to from talk:WIGO CP that day, although I usually branched out from my starting points. ħuman 14:07, 12 January 2009 (EST)

There have been rare occasions of people having off-wiki things held against them on Wikipedia. For example, Ed Poor's most recent RfA failed almost entirely thanks to his CP antics being brought to light. In addition, Bedford was de-sysopped (by Jimbo himself!) for - among other things - Myspace posts relating to Wikipedia users ("She would be best to avoid insinuations: I have sworn that anyone who brings up certain slanders about me will get a visit from me, and she's in an area I want to revisit"). There are likely others too, but those are the two that come to mind for me instantly. Dreaded Walrus 11:56, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Moar Hell

Andy's obsession with HELL!! continues. Eternal, fiery damnation is absolutely central to his belief.--Kriss Akabusi^{AAAAWOOOOGAAAR!!1} 09:12, 12 January 2009 (EST)

I propose a project that involves burning a huge number of socks - whenever Andy makes a spelling mistake in any post, we need to have a user correct him in the same snarky way he enjoys using. -Lardashe

"I propose"? From Andy? Riiiiight. His "ahd" made me snicker, too. :P

1) Someone objects. "LIBERAL ATHEIST TROLL!" and banhammer. Nobody objects afterwards.

2) Someone with authority objects. Andy trolls them in circles, they give up, and he gets what he wants. OR Andy just does it anyway and refuses to talk about it.

3) Nobody objects. Andy makes the change. Anyone who objects afterward gets banhammered, or at the very least, threatened and accused of liberal deceit.

4) (likely scenario) Andy makes the change and reverts anyone without discussion, even though his change has absurd reasons that even sysops would disagree with.

Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 09:37, 12 January 2009 (EST)

I like the idea of correcting his spelling constantly. My very first visit to CP resulted in being told by The Manboy that I need to learn English. True, I did make a spelling error, but generally I am a little more sloppy on talk pages, and scrupulous on article pages. Of course, once he got past the spelling, he proceeding to make two mistakes himself, but being a chosen child of Baal, I suppose that's permissable. I wouldn't mind him being told constantly to "open his mind." Jimaginator 09:42, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Oh, I don't doubt that everyone would get banned. The idea is that every time he makes a post like that "ahd," someone would be there to correct him. No followup beyond that. It's not about the record that it would create, it's more about pestering Andy with his own medicine. -Lardashe

There's hope for some fun here though. This isn't just any article he's changing. It's Ken's prize winning, number one google ranking, single editor article 'Atheism'. Ken and Andy normally give each other a fairly wide birth. I can't see him being too keen to have anyone (even Andy) getting his fingers in his favorite article. "Think Andy. Think how it will effect my Google ratings. I am currently in the top 7 for the search phrase 'Ken is a fucking idiot' which gets 65,348 searches per day." StarFish 09:47, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Starfish, (if that is your real name) it's "wide berth" not "wide birth." A "wide birth" is when a conservative, abstinence-only-taught daughter has a child out of wedlock, and the media is instructed that they should stay clear of the topic. Ohpen yur mynd! Lern two spel! Baalspeed. Jimaginator 10:50, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Oh my God - the image is tooooo much. Sorry everyone. Just sorry.... StarFish 11:22, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Maybe the atheism article ought to start with a list of everything Atheism denies the existence of, like a city of the gods atop mount Olympus, bifrost, Ra's chariot, etc. etc. etc. --JeevesMkII 13:37, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Ironically, due to a WIGO last night I went to cp:hell. Then I noticed a goodly number of instances of the word "hell" without a capital "H" and I was quite offended. ħuman 14:08, 12 January 2009 (EST)

PS, it might have been fixed by now, I'm a-lookin' at the histoire to check on my claim. ħuman 14:09, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Ah, I see, a "fix" was done about 1/4, but the editor missed one (at least). Also, TK "undeleted" that creepy image. ħuman 14:29, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Conservapedia Study

I'm sure that some of you have heard about that plague in WoW which spread around the gameworld and killed many users. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4272418.stm . If you look around the site some more (I can't be bothered :D ) you'll find something about how scientists are interested in studying how players act in these situations, to see how people would act in a real epidemic. So I got to thinking: why can't scientists run a study on Conservapedia? That way, they'll be able to study how a dysfunctional despotism operates and the type of people who thrive in such situations, as well as learning how best to survive under such oppressive conditions. Big Science will love it. Your thoughts? EddyP 09:54, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Great idea! Scientists could also study Counterstrike to learn about the evolution of successful military command structures, SimCity to learn how communities react following devastating natural disasters, or Second Life to learn about the aerodynamics of penises. After all, the Internet is totally a mirror of real life, being SRS BIZNESS and all. --Marty 11:57, 12 January 2009 (EST) BRB COCKS

Ah, but you forget. Conservapedia is serious buisness; it will free us from our foolish liberal atheist homosexual bigoted illusions and bring us into a world without hate and where the sun always shines and where everyone has a mostly defensive weapon of gun. Serious buisness indeed. (And to be serious, look at the Third Reich - competence didn't matter; as long as you obeyed the Fuhrer and didn't argue with him, you were pretty safe; competent generals such as Rommel were forced to commit suicide if they told the truth - that after D-Day the war was lost. See any comparisons between these guys and CP?) EddyP 12:18, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Rather humorously, I've often described CP as a horrifying study into how totalitarianism and ideological purges work. Scientific? No. But damned if it isn't good comparison to historical events. Andy is like Robespierre, except that Robespierre was brilliant and charismatic in a unique way, and had actual power, and wasn't a tool. - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 12:56, 12 January 2009 (EST)

But in the end the revolutionaries got Robespierre too, right? Watch out Andy.....TK is coming for you! EddyP 14:31, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Sure you could, and I've tried something similar myself. Social groups tend to operate according to certain principles of group psychology and social dymanics, and I don't think they change very much in cyberspace, even if the environment is of course different. However, a problem with Conservapedia is the lack of data. Most of the interaction between the sysops seems to take place in emails and AIM and such (although not all of it, to TK's dismay), and that makes it difficult to get a clear picture of the underlying structures. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 14:49, 12 January 2009 (EST)

I don't think you can attribute CP's functioning to charisma (no one beyond Andy's brainwashed students have any faith in or devotion to him). Rather, Andy's "legitimacy" comes from a subset of the legal-rational. He owns the site; he sets the rules. We all agree that this makes sense and conforms to law. Were CP in-and-of-itself a state, this would be totalitarianism, but luckily, users opt-in to the system. - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 15:12, 12 January 2009 (EST)

If you see CP in the context of the surrounding society, that's true - his control of CP is legitimized by property laws. But my point with the essay was to examine CP as a contained entity - why is it that users choose to opt-in, to stay around, and to obey the sysops. And at least at the time that essay was written, it was very much a question of charisma. Of course, these days, it's often just a question of brute, unlegitimised force - "obey or be banned" - but the sysops weren't always quite that trigger-happy. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 15:38, 12 January 2009 (EST)

What makes CP such a wonderful place to observe totalitarianism is that it doesn't have a body count. Guilt-free SCIENCE! --Gulik 15:30, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Unless you think about the blocked users, of course. That's a high mortality rate. EddyP 15:37, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Well, some people may think that being blocked from a wiki is a corporal injury and deeply psychologically scarring, but of course, most CP blockees did it (provoked the block) for fun, intentionally. A few didn't, of course (gee, like me), but seriously, any injuries sustained can be treated with simple outpatient procedures, and usually only a 4-6 week course of psychotherapy is enough to get the trauma behind oneself and return to work. Long term (well, medium term, in the long term we are all dead), there is, as Gulik said, no body count. ħuman 18:31, 12 January 2009 (EST)

CP reminds me of the Stanford prison study done in '71. In the experiment, people playing jailers had absolute power over people playing prisoners. The results were really horrifying. Check it out here [10].--Nate River 21:06, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Conservative Words are on the Rise!

A perfect example of Conservapedia as feedback loop. Andy creates an "essay" about "conservative words." The term "conservative word" is not defined, and a rigourous definition is difficult to infer from the content of the essay. Andy then adds to the page some examples that occur to him off the top of his head; there does not appear to be any kind of methodical search used to find these words. So far, so good... Then Andy decides to do some numerical analysis. See Andy; this is why everyone rolls their eyes when you start talking about statistics...-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 10:04, 12 January 2009 (EST)

I'm convinced Andy does stuff like this (obviously idiotic things that people have repeatedly pointed out as being idiotic) simply to goad people he considers his enemies (basically every one who doesn't submit to him unreservedly). He knows his methods are shakey and his conclusions meaningless but he doesn't care because it givens him one more chance to say "you're clueless" and "godspeed" to a nay-sayer and that sweet moment is Andy's main motivation for his involvement with CP. It's not about the truth per se but the ability to use what you claim is true to belittle your opponents. You see the same sort of motivation in Andy's recent exchanges with PJR. It's not about content, it's about posture. ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 10:18, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Sheesh, I think you're probably right--the only alternative is that Andy is completely insane and a total moron. While I'm sure he's both a little whack and not all that clever, he can't be as crazy and dumb as his behaviour on things like this would indicate and still function in society/work as a teacher/ earn degrees from two of the most prestigious universities in the world....it's gotta be deliberate. Which makes him not totally insane, or totally stupid, but a total asshole, which I can relate to, being one myself...TheoryOfPractice 10:55, 12 January 2009 (EST)

A new one was added Auld Nick 11:01, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Sheesh!: You might be right. But every once in a while, he says something that is completely insane. I nearly spewed coffee on my computer when I read that Conservapedia is going to dominate Wikipedia in five years. Statements like this demonstrate a complete disassociation with reality.-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 11:25, 12 January 2009 (EST)

To my mind Conservapedia is like the old East Germany and Wikipedia like the United States, so his analogy is puzzling. Генгис^evolving 12:20, 12 January 2009 (EST)

I hereby claim to have invented one of his "Conservative words not yet developed". As the ancient Hebrew name for the underworld was sheol then those who deny hELL exists are asheols. Генгис^evolving 12:26, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Just a question: Is there any word more conservative than santorum? Why is it missing from Andy's list? Lack of socks? LArron 12:48, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Don't forget trusworthy and truthiness! Etc 15:06, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Liberal words

I am amused by the liberal words listing 'atheist' as being 1571. In 399 BC, Socrates was accused of being atheos. There are many fun atheists around that time - History of atheism. --Shagie 15:23, 12 January 2009 (EST)

We know little of Socrates' accusers, but let's look at the evidence. They accused him of atheism, of corrupting youth with his deceit, hated him for his criticism of high ranking figures. Thus I can guarantee you one thing; they probably had a creepy grin, troglodytic nasal voice, and went on rants about how he denied the existence of Hell, had atheistic views about beauty, and they likely decided that Pythagorean mathematics was conservative. - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 15:40, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Off-Topic, but...

Anyone know what happened to RationalWikiWiki? Haven't seen the site up since the server migration. -SpinyNorman 12:42, 12 January 2009 (EST)

This is the sort of thing that should go in Saloon Bar. WIGO gets filled up fast enough as it is. Генгис^evolving 12:56, 12 January 2009 (EST)

It's up & running. I can get it into it fine. http://rationalwikiwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:13, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Conservapedia vs Wikipedia

Inspired by Andy's prediction that CP would overtake WP in five years, West German style - I started to look up some statistic on WP to compare. Will someone look at this and help me out since I'm not so good with teh maths? Did WP really receive 5,212 million page views in December of 2008? 5.212 billion? Damn, that's a lot. Bjones 15:07, 12 January 2009 (EST)

And that's English, which makes up only half. - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 15:42, 12 January 2009 (EST)

I wonder how Andy envisions supporting these billions of hits? Sitegrounds an't gonna be able to support it that's for sure! I am sure to Schlafly a squid server is a relative to the pacific northwest tree octopus. tmtoulouse 15:45, 12 January 2009 (EST)

This [11] and this [12] are fairly interesting. As of November, 4000 wikipedians have in excess of 7500 edits apiece (the top few are bots, of course). WP has 200-250,000 edits per day. That means all activity in CP's history is eclipsed by WP in three days. Godspeed-up, Andy. - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 15:57, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Well, keep in mind he probably picked the 5 year threshold for a reason: the 5 year bans will all be up then, and the vandals can once again descend upon the unlucky site. Maybe 200,000 edits a day isn't so far off? Wonder if they can revert that many with 4 or 5 active sysops. DickTurpis 17:56, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Hissmania

Can anyone explain what on earth is going on here? CP:Alger Hiss[[13]] is monstrous, the second longest article on CP, consisting of a year's edits from one user. Who is he and what is wrong with him? - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 16:05, 12 January 2009 (EST)

CP tends to attract these one issue freaks, though I was surprised the freak in question here wasn't RobS. CP gives a platform to people like the KAL007 nutter. Where a more reputable site like wikipedia would moderate their craziness with people asking awkward questions like "Is that actually true?", CP is happy enough for people to toil away in their dark little corners making these vast articles. As long as they never question that abortion causes breast cancer, or that vaccines kill all children everywhere then they're more or less free to do as they please. --JeevesMkII 17:46, 12 January 2009 (EST)

That's bizarre ... hundreds of edits to the same article, that guy really has a thing for Alger Hiss. The fun thing with CP is, that when you least expect it, Andy or one of his goons will step in and sadistically trim the article down to a stub saying something like "Alger Hiss was a communist." The edit comment will be "rmv liberal bias", and CP:User:FOIA will bang his head against the wall. Etc 22:29, 12 January 2009 (EST)

I have noted that Hiss thing before. It's pretty obscure to me, but I think the key to understanding it is the UN connection. As in "A commie spy was involved in establishing the UN = OMG TEH UN IZ TEH COMMUNIST!!!!!1!". --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 23:01, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Ken's IP

Ken recently made an edit to his talk page here as an IP; out of curiosity I used whois on it. It came up as registered to a healthcare provider in Buffalo, NY. Should I go on? Phantom Hoover 16:17, 12 January 2009 (EST)

That's a bit stalker-ish, isn't it? Bondurant 16:30, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Exactly. So, you know, carry on with your evil-self. Bjones 16:32, 12 January 2009 (EST)

(EC)Not really, all the information is publicly available. It's not as if I've followed him to work or anything. Phantom Hoover 16:33, 12 January 2009 (EST)

How does 'whois' work?Czolgolz 16:48, 12 January 2009 (EST)

It's a command on Unix based systems that gives you information about a particular IP. Phantom Hoover 16:53, 12 January 2009 (EST)

The site guideline is that "Personal information about other users that is not volunteered by that user should not be posted on this site". Since this relates to a contact at RW rather than CP, we should really keep to that. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:03, 12 January 2009 (EST)

So you don't want a scan of his birth certificate too?? Jammy 17:49, 12 January 2009 (EST)

I want a full listing of his visas and all the information contained on his Passport.</joking> SirChuckB^{Further bulletins as events warrant} 17:51, 12 January 2009 (EST)

IP's count as volunteered information...-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 17:54, 12 January 2009 (EST)

So does this mean Kendoll has a job where he gets to sit at a computer? I always had him figured as one of those drooling nutters who retrieve the trolleys at supermarkets. You surprise me, Ken

. --JeevesMkII 17:58, 12 January 2009 (EST)

One Hour Photo? Генгис^evolving 18:11, 12 January 2009 (EST)

I think that identifying a user's ISP if they post as a BoN is not personal information. It's like putting up big sign and saying "I am here". There are all sorts of whois sites on the net which will supply that info at the click of a button, how do you think TK knows what IPs are Oxford Uni or a particular proxy server? CP has given several sysops checkuser powers (for them that don't know, that's the ability to see from what IP a particluar user made an edit) and TK is obviously making good use of it. I was actually quite shocked that Andy had returned checkuser to him before he had been reinstated as a sysop, many of the other sysops don't have it and I can only assume there was some behind the scenes communications going on. Note that at RW we have always considered checkuser an infringement of personal privacy. That's why we request that you sign up with a user name to keep your IP anonymous. On Rationalwiki no-one has checkuser, not even Trent. The facility has been disabled. So if you post here as a BoN then you are giving yourself away and anyone can go look up who provides your IP. Now I don't know if it has been mentioned anywhere before but if you insist on vandalising CP (particularly with obscenity) on no account do it with an account that you may have accessed from work or somwhere that you would not want people to know what you were doing. We may laugh about the FBI incident but a CP sysop once told me that Andy had supplied evidence of vandalism to someone's employer by following up on the IP address. I imagine many people access CP from work and it just gets overlooked in the company server logs, however a complaint like that which may bring the company into disrepute, could have serious repercussions. You have been warned! Генгис^evolving 18:09, 12 January 2009 (EST)

See, this is one of the manifold joys of working for yourself. You can actually pay yourself to wandalise CP. Y'all should try it. --JeevesMkII 18:17, 12 January 2009 (EST)

True, if you own the IP yourself then there's not a lot of comeback. Генгис^evolving 18:21, 12 January 2009 (EST)

whois and nslookup

When a person registers a domain name, they enter in a bit of personal information. Part of this is from the days of old where if something went wrong with your server (your mail server stopped accepting mail, you were spewing line noise on UUCP, etc...) another sysadmin could look up your contact info and give you a holler. Many large sites continue this open policy. If you glance at google, there is an address and a phone number. The same is true of conservapedia. There's Andy's phone number in the public records (so if someone wants to call him up about DMCA violations they can). The first thing to do when finding an ip is to see what domain it is registered with. A quick look with nslookup can give a wealth of information (this site automatically cross refrences it with whois). The point of this though is that this is public information. If you sign your driver license number instead of your name on a piece of paper, that is your mistake - not the mistake of anyone trying to figure out who it was that signed some strange number. --Shagie 18:34, 12 January 2009 (EST)

For those who are unixen challenged, there are tools online to do these things. The IP address assignment databases are handled by regional authorities who have web interfaces. ARIN for the Americas, RIPE for Europe. Plus there are about a million web front ends to nslookup out there on t'internet. Search for "whois" --JeevesMkII 18:44, 12 January 2009 (EST)

our group's history

In the case of IP-ing Ken, it's instructive to consider what role Checkuser plays in this site's foundation and recent history. Speaking for the old Cabal, TK used our IP's to very creepily cyber-stalk us and - when anonymous users wrote on this page and he was still around - harass anon. users by creepily asking "how the weather in XXXX" is. Because we experienced the creepiness of "breaking the internet's fourth wall," we uninstalled Checkuser from the site and wrote into community standards that harassment of users, on- or off-line, based on private information like IP is impermissible. Thanks for asking Hoover, and I'd say no :-/, but you're free to enjoy it yourself.caius (tinker) 23:57, 12 January 2009 (EST)

No, Caius, there's a giant difference between "volunteering" one's IP by editing with it and the use of Checkuser to associate a named editor with an IP. The former is volunteered information, the latter can amount to stalking. ħuman 23:40, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Technically true, but I thought we resolved that both were, if not equally creepy, at least both over the line.-caius (tinker) 23:57, 12 January 2009 (EST)

As for the argument that IP info is "volunteered," that's technically correct but that's the same argument the Bush administration uses to justify wiretapping & warrantless PEN registers. Just sayin'.-caius (tinker) 20:21, 12 January 2009 (EST)

I've been kicking this one around in my head all day, and I finally came to the conclusion of don't bother. I mean, if we really wanted to know, any of us could look it up ourselves. Besides, finding out where people work and harrassing them over it is what holier than thou religious organizations and PETA do. You can't really think that Ken, or Andy or TK or Ed..... Ok, maybe ED, but anyway, they're obviously not the same people in real life that they are online. I have no doubt that they're people I wouldn't want to deal with, but nobody could act the way they do and function. It's all fun and games when we're attacking a relatively anonymous poster on a blog, it goes to a whole different level when we start going further. So ends my opinion SirChuckB^{Further bulletins as events warrant} 20:43, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Caius: I'm not advocating taking this any further. I'm simply pointing out that IP addresses, and the information attached to them, is public; and that posting one's IP is tantamount to volunteering information. I can't comment on the arguments made by the Bush administration, but looking up an IP is completely different than wiretapping and PEN registers.-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 20:55, 12 January 2009 (EST)

I see that, yes, but pulling information and then discussing it to break the fourth wall amounts to a little creepiness, is all.-caius (tinker) 23:57, 12 January 2009 (EST)

I do see it as rather hypocritical that some people are getting worked up about publicly available information which Conservative revealed by not concealing his IP, but we quite openly use private information about his identity that he has NEVER revealed on RationalWiki or Conservapedia - his actual name! Генгис^evolving 02:45, 13 January 2009 (EST)

How did we get his name then? - User $\scriptstyle {\sqrt {12}}\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }(-3)^{-n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 06:22, 13 January 2009 (EST)

He has a block history from Wikipedia where he was kdbuffalo and I think it was there that his name was posted after evading blocks using the local (Buffalo, NY) university library. There are also several places where he has identified himself on fundy blogs or message boards. Normally he tends to use aliases but his writing style is unique so he gives the game away. Генгис^evolving 10:28, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Given that, I've added it to his page. Phantom Hoover 12:23, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Open mind?

Have we got "Open mind" down as a "Schlaflyism?  (with butter!) _{talk to Toast} 21:35, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Feel free to create and article on it. - User $\scriptstyle {\sqrt {12}}\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }(-3)^{-n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 22:07, 12 January 2009 (EST)

I have come to think that the phrases "open minded" and "closed minded" are just about meaningless. Saying that somebody is closed minded is pretty much a way of venting that somebody won't agree with you, regardless of how much valid (or invalid) argument you present. And yes, my opinions on this are heavily influenced by the CP usage of these words. Corry^{It is a rock, though. Should beat everything.} 22:16, 12 January 2009 (EST)

If I ever were to be unfortunate enough to meet Assfly in person and he used the phrase "open your mind" to me I would probably literally kick him in the nuts. He is, almost without a doubt, the most close-minded person I've ever encountered. His smarmy use of the phrase is nauseating. It's a shame Phyllis wasn't one of the 64% of women who were pressured into abortions. It's a miracle that unfuckable hag got knocked up in th first place, really. DickTurpis 23:02, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Not a fan i take it? Jammy 23:06, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Shoot, did I tip my hand? DickTurpis 23:10, 12 January 2009 (EST)

I'm very good at reading into these very cryptic posts. Jammy 23:15, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Presumably she wasn't always the old harridan we see today. Back then, she would have been a young harridan. --Kels 23:21, 12 January 2009 (EST)

I think Conservapedia:Open your mind could be a very funny article. ħuman 23:41, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Without the ancestry (& money?) he'd just be one of those guys wandering down the road shouting at passers by, dogs and cars. As it is he's got a platform & "followers" Ugh!.  ^{(with butter!)} _{talk to Toast} 23:42, 12 January 2009 (EST)

He's a meathead. Open your mind by closing it to liberal/rational ideas. Bloody brilliant.--Nate River 23:54, 12 January 2009 (EST)

When Andy says "open your mind", I'm thinking goatse for the brain. Etc 02:20, 14 January 2009 (EST)

By Request, By Request!

Oh my Lord, if I hear one more person call Obama "Barack Hussein Obama" or "Hussein Osama" (or in this case B. Hussein Osa- Obama [wtf???]) I will make the top story on the news. However, before that happens, will someone please virtually slap BWatson on Conservapedia or something? Perhaps I just need to vent, but COME ON! 75.169.208.188 22:03, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Done. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:16, 12 January 2009 (EST)

BWatson is a parodist. If he isn't, I will pretend he is so that I can be happier. Commodore Guff (what a ridiculous name) 22:11, 12 January 2009 (EST)

No need to pretend, he is, or at least was, a parodist. He has since seen the light and joined RW. Jammy 22:18, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Oh. I should probably try and read here more. At least I've got my Reality Isolation Bubble. Commodore Guff (what a ridiculous name) 22:22, 12 January 2009 (EST)

I prefer the Reality Filter X3000 Jammy 22:25, 12 January 2009 (EST)

I think they put out a recall on that after they found out it lets in too much well-researched criticism. Commodore Guff (what a ridiculous name) 22:27, 12 January 2009 (EST)

That's where the Peril Sensitive Glasses^TM come in. Corry^{It is a rock, though. Should beat everything.} 22:34, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Oh, Mr Weasel, you are truly a saint. Sometimes, things get done the best through this way. Ah, the internet :) 75.169.208.188 22:35, 12 January 2009 (EST)

A bit late with the recall notice; my Reality Filter just backfired and now there's liberal deceit everywhere! Jammy 22:42, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Oh dear. I just realized the guy was a parodist. Ugh, please rescind all of what I said and tell the RW BWatson I apologize (but not to the Conservapedia BWatson). In fact, I'll just do that right now. 75.169.208.188 23:44, 12 January 2009 (EST)

You can tell him yourself :) Jammy 08:32, 13 January 2009 (EST)

I find Obama's name very useful in helping me to evaluate political blogs and net-posts. If they mention Obama as "B. Hussein Obama", "Barack HUSSEIN!!@!one! Obama", or similar such, then they are 95% likely to be idiotic blowhards. (mind you, that's only 5% more likely than for political posts in general.) --Gulik 17:37, 13 January 2009 (EST)

This is an archive page, last updated 1 April 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>

, (new)(back)

Bullshit rhetorical analysis

I just WIGOed this, but I'm kind of tired and can't think of how to punch it up much. Please snarkify if you want. I think the article is great, though: rating a politician's level of conservatism by how many times they say "dumb down" and whatever other "best new conservative words." Maybe he'll include RADAR, as well. Corry^{It is a rock, though. Should beat everything.} 22:33, 12 January 2009 (EST)

They should just start with the basics for Palin....just see if she can string a coherent sentence together Jammy 22:38, 12 January 2009 (EST)

I like how "self-indulgence" and "victimization" are Conservative terms. They are, but not in the way Andy thinks. --Kels 23:16, 12 January 2009 (EST)

He forgot the obvious- just count the uses of "maverick". Once you hear it in your sleep, they've reached the threshold. Kallium^talk 23:49, 12 January 2009 (EST)

If they can't mention 9/11 more than 100 times in a two-minute sound-bite, they're not REAL Americans. --Gulik 17:39, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Or at least they're not Rudy Giuliani. Corry^{It is a rock, though. Should beat everything.} 17:51, 13 January 2009 (EST)

"But, what about the terrorists?" Kallium^talk 22:52, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Not Wigo Worthy

but can TK do anything without being a dick? I mean really... Here you have StephenK very politely pointing out that the AP (and other sources) are reporting something completely different than the shit they've plastered on the main page, which requires extrapolating comments that can be taken many ways. Instead of any type of civility, TK just comes back and says "fuck you, you're nobody." TK, if you're reading this, and I'm sure you are.... This is SirChuckB, remember our little conversation from before, you know the one, when you admitted that you like to ban people just because they're liberals... Yeah, that SirChuckB... anyway, YOU'RE A DICK! That being said, I hope StephenK refuses to take the bait. That way, TK has nothing to go after him for. SirChuckB^{Further bulletins as events warrant} 22:58, 12 January 2009 (EST)

(Sits in chair, glasses resting on nose, writing intently on a clipboard glancing at the patient lying on the sofa)...."So...could you just clarify your feelings towards TK?" Jammy 23:04, 12 January 2009 (EST)

There are few people I can't stand, but he's just a giant dick... literally, the man is a walking penis. SirChuckB^{Further bulletins as events warrant} 23:37, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Well, keep in mind, the dick has done and is doing more damage to CP than any other person out there. DickTurpis 23:43, 12 January 2009 (EST)

After I got banned, for my freakin' username, TK went and tacked on vandal to my account. Although I did publicly admit that I was a liberal, the guy is a dick with little, little balls. Wouldn't even send my resignation to Andy.--Nate River 23:59, 12 January 2009 (EST)