Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive110

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <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)

PJR's Essay[edit]

Should really be on here, or a blog he might want to start. As others have pointed out before, an essay on a censored site is hardly engaging in open discussion. It is a pity, this is an interesting subject. --Toffeeman 13:34, 24 January 2009 (EST)

Ah, classic PJR. The best bit is that he berates scientists for revising the theory of evolution (which they haven't done. Evolution is now, and always will be the change in allelic frequency in a geographically co-located population over time.) and asks "Which explanation better fits the evidence?" but the sleight of hand is glaringly obvious. What PJR, and by extension all creationists, do is change the characteristics of their gods to best fit the evidence. Hypocrisy at its finest. What is it about Christian dogma that suggests that the Christian god would recycle his designs? Oh, that's right. Nothing. You're making it up as you go along, Philip. If you want to postulate an all-powerful creative god, and especially if you want to claim that the god isn't bound by human logic or morality, as Christians will often do in defence of the awful stuff they have to believe their god causes and sanctions, you cannot possibly make the claim that thousands of individual special creation events would lead to an appearance of phylogeny. Why exactly wouldn't there be weird aberrations either existing now or in the fossil record? Why is it that vast categories of living things have bizarre developmental features in common? Special creation explains none of this, common descent explains everything. Also, enough with the creation on the web shit already. It's like your bloody bible. The world has more than one website, you know. --JeevesMkII 15:20, 24 January 2009 (EST)
I've always been fascinated by PJR. He obviously is the most reasonable and intelligent of the conservapedians, but whenever he talks about evolution all reason seems to fly out the door.. The worst was when he was at one point actually arguing that Creationism is so much nicer than Evolution, because it has heaven and the likes..--GTac 16:23, 24 January 2009 (EST)
This may just be because I grew up in a more moderate Christian family, but why is it that fundies are so insistent that Genesis must be taken word-for-word, and defending this is more important then Jesus' actual teachings like the Sermon on the Mount (with such statements as "resist not evil, but turn the other cheek", the Beatitudes, and saying that a vast majority of Old Testament law in the scriptures is outdated and meaningless? ENorman 16:45, 24 January 2009 (EST)
I'd guess because Genesis is obviously and palpably wrong, it requires far more vocal defence than anything Jesus said. It takes a minute or two of thinking to realise that about half of the sermon on the mount is hideously immoral. People have had it drummed in to them that this is a great piece of moral teaching, so they tend to question it less. --JeevesMkII 17:11, 24 January 2009 (EST)

WTF, TK just deleted the talk page, after someone had posted a long, well thought out refutation and PJR had replied in kind and thanked him for it. Mistake, or TK being the usual flaming asshole he usually is? --Kels 18:29, 24 January 2009 (EST)

Normally, I'd say "It's TK, it's something PJR cares for, just guess!", but since TK used the Nuke extension, I'm willing that this is just a case of TK being an overenthusiastic idiot who should not be allowed access to tools that are able to blindly obliterate tons of pages. --Sid 18:47, 24 January 2009 (EST)
And he restored it: "this was part of a mass delete and not intended to be included, as it is PJR's creation" - of course he forgets to mention that his Mass Delete operation only hit that talk page since the user didn't create any other pages. Fire first, ask questions later. --Sid 19:07, 24 January 2009 (EST)

I put my last two cents here. Kalliumtalk 00:15, 25 January 2009 (EST)

He's replied Arbuthnot C Cornboggler 07:07, 25 January 2009 (EST)
Let me guess: "If New Scientist says it's huge, it must be, evolution not being true wouldn't prove creation but that doesn't matter because it's true anyway, a change to anything is a change to everything, the analogies are complete and utter non-sequitors, the examples are either made up or worthless, I'm not accusing science of not working when it did because it didn't since evolution is still around, natural selection/heritable mutation/speciation aren't the real core of evolution, natural selection and "descent with modification" have different meanings." Unless it's something significantly different from that I really have no interest in bothering to look. And the website-bouncing gets old fast anyway. Kalliumtalk 22:47, 25 January 2009 (EST)
You sure you didn't read it? That's more or less what he said, plus a bit of "NO U" and "Evolution is still around because scientists are big MEANIES!" I love how the guy he refers to on the plate tectonics thing thinks the continents got where they are now in a matter of hours, and involved Venus-like conditions. --Kels 23:03, 25 January 2009 (EST)
Nope. Honestly. Kalliumtalk 23:38, 25 January 2009 (EST)

Please recreate your account with your real first name and last initial[edit]

Cannot create account.png

I know this has been pointed out before, but it really never gets old, does it? --Marty 14:28, 24 January 2009 (EST)

The filter now blocks both "pwned" and "thighs".[1] --andy schlafly

So I went to create a sockpuppet...[edit]

And get the best code ever. Javasca₧ secret trainer of cheeses!

Hmm... "bongwaxed"? Either "bongwater" or "bangwaxed" would have been better, IMHO. :) But in the running for "best Conservapedia captcha ever", let's not forget "ghoulmoses". --Marty 17:06, 24 January 2009 (EST)
Ah, I thought for a moment it was Bangwaxed. Bongwaxed brings a rather wide grin to my face, though ghoulmoses definitely takes the cake. 17:19, 24 January 2009 (EST)
Keep on creating those socks, kids. It's only a matter of time until you get "kenishomo" --JeevesMkII 17:28, 24 January 2009 (EST)
Bother. It appears TK has blocked me for no other reason than I deigned it apt to post here, and I've no idea how to email him to have this changed: unless I am just totally oblivious to an obvious email link somewhere. (Interesting to me is that somehow my entire university is... a parodist or some such) How is it I go about rectifying this situation, as I know creating yet another account to try and discuss this is forbidden by their rules. 18:58, 24 January 2009 (EST)
Wow, I haven't seen him pull that sort of assholery in a while. He used to habitually ban any IP that showed up on here, claiming it was a sock. Including mine once, and I've never had an account on CP, sock or otherwise. --Kels 19:11, 24 January 2009 (EST)
IP dude... you're screwed, sorry. Posting here means you're *cue echo and hall effects' AN INTERNET TERRORIST and that your sole purpose of existence is to DESTROY CONSERVATISM AND CHRISTIANITY. Oh, and since you posted here, it means that you have always been here, that you are all of us and that you 100% agree with everything we do (or are alleged of doing). TK banned your IP (and a few hundred or thousand others - too lazy to check), and unless you accept to become TK's bitch by apologizing for your horrible actions via mail (and then accepting to be contacted by mail at any time), you will not be unbanned unless he's in a very good mood. And even then you'd be closely monitored. But hey, always keep in mind that they "do not ban users based on their comments elsewhere, such as on their own blog". --Sid 19:16, 24 January 2009 (EST)
He has blocked your entire range. - User 19:29, 24 January 2009 (EST)
Arrgh! How irritating! Well I found the email function and sent off a request to be unblocked. If nothing comes of it I will acquire PRJ's email and continue our discussion, as that really was the only thing that prompted me to log into a CP account I was thinking of abandoning anyway. 19:50, 24 January 2009 (EST)
This suggests a pretty obvious way to mess with ol' TK to me... 21:20, 24 January 2009 (EST)
You're unblocked over there, by the way. Forget TK, I wanna see you kick PJR around some more. --Kels 00:22, 25 January 2009 (EST)

Larry Sanger, "WP co-founder," on CP?[edit]

Is this legit? Worried Porcupine 19:32, 24 January 2009 (EST)

If it is him probably attracted by Ed or RJJensen, they used to be big shots in Sanger's projects. - User 19:35, 24 January 2009 (EST)
Teh Assfly is so fu**ing stupid he can't see beyond "a very affirmative type of bias", regarding WP's trouble with neutrality. JJ4eI christen thee Sir Annoyz Alot 20:20, 24 January 2009 (EST)
Andy thinks he Larry, and that Larry CP. Odds are, Larry just googled hisself for the thousandth time, and found his "article" on CP. Andy, do you really think Larry would approve of your "version" of the facts over wikipedia's? That he might now settle in and edit and provide you with some "insights"? ħumanUser talk:Human 21:55, 24 January 2009 (EST)
I find it a little sad that he cares enough about this issue to bother trying to correct it on Conservapedia. I mean, I get that he's pissed off that Jimmy Wales is trying to hog all the credit (justifiably so), but really, Conservapedia? --IN SOVIET CANUCKISTAN, BEAVER DAMS YOU!!!YossarianThe Man from the USSR 22:40, 24 January 2009 (EST)
Maybe he is a sad pathetic man? He should find a small pond like ours if he wants to be a big fish. My impression of Wales, despite the funny images, is that he is a behind-the-scenes mastermind, just as is our Trent. Get it going and let it run... ħumanUser talk:Human 23:18, 24 January 2009 (EST)
I'd say that aside from RationalWikiWiki, Conservapedia is about as small of a pond as you get. However, that pond is controlled by a brutal facist theocracy. ENorman 00:17, 25 January 2009 (EST)
I think the Iron law of institutions is in full force at CP. Given the choice between a tightly controlled, stagnant wiki, and a growing but more chaotic one... yeah. --Gulik 02:43, 25 January 2009 (EST)
(I think we have an article on that here, too... yup) ħumanUser talk:Human 17:43, 25 January 2009 (EST)

Oh please, please let Teacake or Karajerk block him, and it IS the real Larry. --PsyGremlinWhut? 07:06, 25 January 2009 (EST)

Ed Poor was on citizendium? What can people do when a retard brakes into their encyclopedia. Its like telling a mother to ask her retarded child to stop screaming out the window on a train. Yikes. MarcusCicero 13:23, 25 January 2009 (EST)

Ideology and Curriculum?[edit]

That's not how I remember it. Wasn't it in fact the case that at the time, the Assfly blamed the Virginia Tech massacre on porn and/or video games? I don't think he'd got in to the groove of lack of school prayer causes people to shoot each other by that time. --JeevesMkII 00:12, 25 January 2009 (EST)

Hrm, yeah. I guess by the same reasoning one could argue that the reason so many different people wandalise CP is because of its ideology and curriculum. Oh, wait... -- 04:07, 25 January 2009 (EST)
I think he had the entire "Lack of God" and "Anti-Christian motives" thing nailed down even back then, but much focus seemed to be on his laptop and the "obscene Internet culture" gig. See here and here, but I can't see explicit references to the school curriculum in the News Archive. However, on that debate page, Andy did say that
The English Department that educated this killer should be scrutinized and this poem is the best place to start. Ideas do matter, and unless the mistakes are identified here than the sacrifice of innocent lives will inevitably and needlessly occur again. We owe to the victims and to future students to look critically at the University's role in allowing this massacre to happen.
So it's possible that he at least had something like that in mind? I dunno. --Sid 08:49, 25 January 2009 (EST)

So:Andy Schlafly likely isn't a Christion or an atheist[edit]

[[1]] (: You miss the point. No Christian or atheist would likely use the phrase "my Muslim faith" in any context.--Andy Schlafly 11:58, 25 January 2009 (EST)) Atlantic Ocean 12:18, 25 January 2009 (EST)

Hahaha, that's just priceless! --GTac 12:30, 25 January 2009 (EST)
I think we've just unearthed a whole new kind of stupid, nice find. -Redbackon the toilet seat 12:36, 25 January 2009 (EST)
This is like Dilbert:)--Nate River 21:05, 25 January 2009 (EST)
It’s well within the standards that we’re used to from Constipedia. Obama probably meant to say that McCain has not talked about what he (McCain) alleges is my Muslim faith.
I will now talk about my Muslim faith in this context. My Muslim faith is nonexistent. My Muslim faith always has been nonexistent. Does that make me a Muslim? Proxima Centauri 04:13, 26 January 2009 (EST)
That is a jewel! Exasperate me!Sheesh!Not the most impressive contributor here 12:46, 26 January 2009 (EST)

Dead Afghan civilians[edit]

Okay, this kinda disgusts me.

Sure, they COULD be lying, but nothing indicates this is the case right now, and it's fucking terrible to say "OH THEY ARE PROBABLY DOING IT FOR OUR MONEY OR TO HELP THE TERRORISTS" at people who are very sad and angry that a number of their civilians died. And to top it off, it's edited with a more than smug "didn't mention this, did you Joaquin...". Yeh JOAQUIN, thought you could get away with NOT MOCKING PEOPLE'S DEATH, didn't you, you SNEAKY LIBERAL?? --GTac 12:23, 25 January 2009 (EST)

Yeah, that made me a bit ill, too. But that's Compassionate Conservatism for you. --Kels 13:12, 25 January 2009 (EST)
Ah nice, someone added it to WIGO. I'd really like to add something that points out DeanS's smug commentary, since to me it just makes it twice as bad. I just can't find the proper words to add (I don't want to edit the sentence itself too much, it was someone else's addition after all). Something like "DeanS felt the need to add: They're probably lying so they can get a bigger handout, since Joaquin was trying to censor the mocking of civilian deaths".. But that's too weird.. Perhaps just append "For bonus point, notice DeanS's smug comment implying that Joaquin was being so deceitful in leaving out the mockery of civilian death". But that's shit too :-/ --GTac 15:25, 25 January 2009 (EST)
I've got an idea for good snark , if nobody minds. --Kels 15:34, 25 January 2009 (EST)
Fine with me, as long as it points out DeanS's comment. It pisses me off so much --GTac 15:56, 25 January 2009 (EST)
Perhaps a section should be added to the "Andy Schlafly- no jokes" page describing the instances (and pointing out the ones that were him personally) in which he allowed such behavior that trivializes others' deaths in an attempt to support his own CP's opinions, especially when it deliberately ignores details that he CP doesn't like. Their reporting of a church shooting a while back was my first CP-induced vomit- they assert "Christian persecution" and block/ban anyone who reminds them that the gunman was actually a devout Christian who shot up a Unitarian (I think) church because it was too liberal. The really disgusting part though was how they call numerous other groups "non-Christian" until some get slaughtered, in which case they're suddenly old best pals. That's when their behavior stopped being funny and became inhumane and utterly sickening. "CP: We hate your religion until we can capitalize on your murder for own agenda." Kalliumtalk 23:02, 25 January 2009 (EST)

How do you have the energy?[edit]

With all the despicable and evil crap that comes out of that son of a bitch Schlafly, how can you people still have the energy to look at his blog? Every time I look at conservapedia a little bit of me dies and horrible death, and begin to lose whatever residual faith I had in humanity. WHY??? MarcusCicero 13:21, 25 January 2009 (EST)

Those are the weak parts of you dying. You are now stronger. ENorman 13:25, 25 January 2009 (EST)
Are you kidding? Conservapedia is the ultimate pick-me-up. Every time I feel bad about myself, or embarrassed because I said something stupid, one look at Conservapedia will help set things right again. It's one of those "it could always be a lot worse" situations. Yeah, they may lower my overall opinion of humanity by a couple of notches, but it's worth it for the laughs. -Redbackon the toilet seat 13:31, 25 January 2009 (EST)
Because I'm a horrible person who would also laugh if a disabled person fell down. It's a sick kind of amusement, but if I couldn't laugh at it the world would become very depressing --GTac 13:41, 25 January 2009 (EST)

(EC)Good quality lulz for us therians- they especially like the idea that centuries of left-wing brainwashing made people like cats. Especially since some of the are cats (mentally). Meow! Yes, we cats are part of an evil left-wing conspiracy! --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiodehas no half-life 13:42, 25 January 2009 (EST)

I'm a political junkie and I love every second I spend at CP, the same reason I read Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin and Larry Elder and all those other idiots.... I just enjoy politics, and I try to figure out how someone can hold such a POV. SirChuckBI brake for Schukky 11:50, 26 January 2009 (EST)
I just prefer to read stuff that I disagree with. I'm fairly confident and secure about my views on the world so I read the Daily Mail, Conservapedia and it actually makes me more confident that I'm right, as opposed to others who may try to avoid digesting dissenting opinions. ArmondikoVbomination 12:12, 26 January 2009 (EST)

Andy vs. World History[edit]

Wow, just had a look at his World History One lecture, and there's just so much insanity there, it's scary. I especially like this bit:

History books speculate at length about "prehistory", which predates writing. But there is no reliable evidence to support this speculation, and not worth spending time on. There is no reason to think that man existed for thousands of years without ever expressing himself in written form.

Pretty sweet how he just handwaves away whole disciplines of anthropology, ain't it? --Kels 13:32, 25 January 2009 (EST)

Wow. Just, wow. As an Anthropology major, I raged. I'd like to point out to him that many natives of both North and South America, as well as the Bushmen have no written language. So by Andy's logic, I guess they don't exist. ENorman 13:39, 25 January 2009 (EST)
Wow, you mean to say I didn't exist until I was four or five years old, who knew? -Redbackon the toilet seat 13:45, 25 January 2009 (EST)
And so it begins again. Those poor kids. Any indication of what exams he's prepping them for this time? Or has he abandoned claims of the AP this time? Any mention of a textbook? --Too tired to log in 13:47, 25 January 2009 (EST)
I like the idea that man has always had the ability to write, and has always had written language. I would personally go a little bit further, and say that mankind has only been around for 30 years, as there's no reason to think that man existed for thousands of years without expressing himself in a Usenet article. (And to those who say written texts have been around for longer, I say shut up, and stick my fingers in my ears so I can't hear you). Dreaded Walrus 14:57, 25 January 2009 (EST)

I just read through a SHORT bit of cp:World_History_Lecture_Seven, and was horrified. Apparently, evil historians want you to believe that the Renaissance was atheistic, and apparently, humanists never used the term humanist! Both are utter lies, as they did use the term humanista, and no sane historian questions the thoroughly religious nature of the renaissance. But Schafly-Statistics ahoy! "Perhaps 90% of more of its achievements were inspired by Christian beliefs and faith." As a professional history educator, I'm scared for anyone who takes this course. - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 13:53, 25 January 2009 (EST)

Fixed your link. But yeah, this is less a History course and more a YEC fundie propaganda session. ENorman 13:55, 25 January 2009 (EST)
I consider myself a sane historian, and I don't feel the Renaissance was thoroughly religious in nature. I feel that it was nominally religious because the church held a near monopoly on education, and were the single largest patron for the arts. The advances themselves were not so much religiously motivated in and of themselves. -EternalCritic Not logged in.
Depends on what one means by "religious in nature", but I guess it's meant as a counterpoint to the old Whiggish/Burckhardian idea that the Renaissance was a sort of proto-Enlightenment where people "threw off the veil of the Middle Ages" or whatever it was Burckhard said. That idea is unfortunately still around. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 14:37, 25 January 2009 (EST)
Sorry, I should phrase that more clearly. I mean to say it was integrated into, rather than a rejection of Christianity. Humanism was not atheistic, deistic, or an assault on religion as Andy is claiming. Petrarch cited God continually, the northern humanists had religious agendas, and the subject matter was as often Christian as it was pagan. Nominal? You bet, a lot of the time, but only Machiavelli outright rejected Christian religion. - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 14:42, 25 January 2009 (EST)
While I (and others) would argue that Petrarch was pre-Renaissance, I don't feel it detracts from your point, or my agreeance with it. -EC Not logged in.

Addendum: Oh shit, "Galileo was not as bright as Kepler or Copernicus, and was a bit of an entertaining showman who made a lively party guest," from cp:World_History_Lecture_Eight. - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 13:56, 25 January 2009 (EST)

"...American history concerns only about 400 years..." I'm so glad we have an article on the forgotten century. ħumanUser talk:Human 16:21, 25 January 2009 (EST)

I think that Andy's lectures would make wonderful blow-by-blow material was anybody willing to be up to the task. I could probably do some of it, but I think I would lose my mind if I did all of them ENorman 16:24, 25 January 2009 (EST)
It would take a staggering amount of energy. Choose a historical topic that you have some knowledge about, go to Andy's lecture section on it, and you almost immediately find fundamental errors, downright lies, and horrifying ignorance. - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 16:33, 25 January 2009 (EST)
I would like to contribute to such a project. I will get my waders for all the bullshit.--Snotbowst 21:31, 25 January 2009 (EST)
Just a warning, it's rough... I started to do a side by side of his grading, pointing out places where things should have been marked off or corrected, and I kept waking up with blood on my keyboard and strange pain in my forehead. SirChuckBI brake for Schukky 11:54, 26 January 2009 (EST)

Essay:Does Conservapedia Simulate a Principled Open Mind?[edit]

Conservapedians are the smartest and most open minded people. Liberals are dicks. (a start, please add and improve) --GTac 15:17, 25 January 2009 (EST)

I quite agree Andy. I can haz bloc rights bak nao? - RodWeathers EddyP 15:22, 25 January 2009 (EST)

Poor Rod. If I had a bet, I'd bet he didn't play along enough in the runup to sysopship. I'm sure that CP, terrified of another MexMax, won't sysop anyone who doesn't give physical contact info, address, and substantiate IRL name. If Rod didn't jump through any of those hoops, he shouldn't be surprised that he was passed over and de-semi-sysopped; and if that's the case, he should freaking substantiate it (ask Brian Ugler how that went).-Diadochus 15:38, 25 January 2009 (EST)
Meh, I find it quite amusing how low he's fallen. He's been reduced to following Andy around the site, agreeing on everything and practically begging to get his rights back. EddyP 15:48, 25 January 2009 (EST)
OMG that title is precious! It's not a typo! Now I'm laughing even harder! ħumanUser talk:Human 16:29, 25 January 2009 (EST)
Can anyone explain to me why on earth RW hasn't been blocked, burned, and had his ashes scattered into a black-hole cast into hell? - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 16:37, 25 January 2009 (EST)

Auto-archiving and auto-moving "end EZ edit section" header[edit]

Are these currently not functioning? ħumanUser talk:Human 17:53, 25 January 2009 (EST)

I dunno, I archived manually earlier because the page was getting HUGE. I wasn't aware there was an auto-archive function, honestly. --Kels 18:27, 25 January 2009 (EST)
I think that now would be a good time to clarify who is talking about WIGO and who about T:WIGO ;) --Sid 18:44, 25 January 2009 (EST)
I'm talking about T:WIGO, and assumed Human was too, since he posted shortly after I'd archived. --Kels 18:56, 25 January 2009 (EST)
Nope, WIGO. After I got tired of moving the EX edit end thing manually, Trent automated it to be moved each night. Also, I'm pretty sure the archiving was automated too. Today I noticed when tyoping something that the "EZ edit" section was huge, and that the WIGO list as a whole also seemed a bit large. So I axed here. It could just be a much higher rate of WIGOing lately, of course. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:10, 25 January 2009 (EST)
There was talk about making an auto-archiver for dormant sections of the T:WIGO page, so I thought maybe I'd missed Trent installing something. --Kels 19:12, 25 January 2009 (EST)

Conservative and preview[edit]

Is this really news? Haven't we had the "same" WIGO a half dozen times over the last year or two? Just askin', is all. Like maybe it should say "still"? ħumanUser talk:Human 19:13, 25 January 2009 (EST)

Either way it's still funny as hell --Snotbowst 20:15, 25 January 2009 (EST)

CP's Broken[edit]

I get a very odd error message. Can anyone who knows computers see if there's anything useful in it?-Diadochus 20:10, 25 January 2009 (EST)

Guess what I did as Karajou today. . . --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiodehas no half-life 20:13, 25 January 2009 (EST)
Holy shit they got bombed. What happened? --Snotbowst 20:17, 25 January 2009 (EST)

The only "useful" thing that sometimes gets displayed when you break MediaWiki is the server password. Hey Andy—we know your password for root access now! Hooray for cyberterrorism! Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 20:18, 25 January 2009 (EST)

This is better than I ever imagined. . . We can shut them down in one fell swoop! Yippee! Let's turn it into an outpost for RW! Yippee! --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiodehas no half-life 20:19, 25 January 2009 (EST)
Careful saying things like that, they're likely dumb enough to actually believe it. Pinto's5150 Talk 22:37, 25 January 2009 (EST)
Which was exactly what I was hoping for. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:16, 26 January 2009 (EST)

Excellent. Everything is going as plannedPOWER! UNLIMITED POWER!You paid the price for your lack of vision 20:22, 25 January 2009 (EST)

Precisely, sock of myself. Initiating Plan Beta. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiodehas no half-life 20:23, 25 January 2009 (EST)

I really envy someone's hacking skills. --Snotbowst 21:28, 25 January 2009 (EST)

Damn n00bs, CP breaks about once every 3 months when CPwebmaster tries to update or install a new extensions. They should just give everyone a weeks notice and take it off-line properly, instead of subjecting everyone to PhilipB's half-assness. - User 21:32, 25 January 2009 (EST)
"Damn n00bs, CP breaks about once every 3" days ħumanUser talk:Human 23:46, 25 January 2009 (EST)
Either that or someone with powerz cocked something up - either Andy or an oversighter, although Inote that there are references to versions of MYSQL. fröhlich "gay" and "happy" 21:34, 25 January 2009 (EST)

I guess the FBI is busy polishing their assault rifles...-- Antifly Now with 50% less retirement! 22:04, 25 January 2009 (EST)

So was this a hack or an epic server fail.-Diadochus 22:05, 25 January 2009 (EST)
It is a maintenance. It goes on all the time. We don't have these problems as often as we don't keep ourselves as up to date as CP does. Also Trent is competent. - User 22:17, 25 January 2009 (EST)
This is what happens when prayer is your idea of tech support. Also, ther's no way we actually got his password, is tehre?-Diadochus 22:36, 25 January 2009 (EST)

It appears they did something like install an extension (mabye flagged revisions to shut people up) and it caused the server to do a lot of things at once, overloading itself. This is another example of their incompetence when it comes to mediawiki software. However this would be a good time for a server break im if anyone is interested in doing so.

"Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice." (Grey's law. fröhlich "gay" and "happy" 22:54, 25 January 2009 (EST)

Just according to keikaku. --Barikada, lazy.

Since it seems to have been down for some hours, I guess the sysadmin has gone to bed. Nice going on the uptime there, CP. --JeevesMkII 02:44, 26 January 2009 (EST)
Note that the message is addressed to 'Conservapedians'. Are they saying that nobody really visits the site, outside of their own small community?--Kriss AkabusiAAAAWOOOOGAAAR!!1 06:18, 26 January 2009 (EST)
No, they're saying that anybody who ever visited the site is a "Conservapedian". That way, there are thousands of Conservapedians worldwide! This site is growing rapidly! Godspeed! --Sid 07:12, 26 January 2009 (EST)

This last day has made me realize something, I can't remember how I used to entertain myself before Conservapedia came along. I think I'm going into withdraw... is this what it'll be like if when CP finally dies? True, there's always FSTDT for lulz, but CP is so much better (in a manner of speaking). -Redbackon the toilet seat 08:42, 26 January 2009 (EST)

Free Republic? --Gulik 00:46, 27 January 2009 (EST)

I am stunned[edit]

To discover that Conservapedia has "staff". Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 06:15, 26 January 2009 (EST)


Although I do find this latest iteration of CP's "we fucked up" screen to be the nicest so far. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 06:15, 26 January 2009 (EST)

I prefer "CP has a problem" as a message. ArmondikoVbomination 07:05, 26 January 2009 (EST)
So, what does shortly mean? LArron 07:11, 26 January 2009 (EST)
It would be a lot more reassuring if there was a giant picture of Hitler under the maintenance message. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:16, 26 January 2009 (EST)
"Operation Drydock" is taking a bit longer than expected, it seems... --SpinyNorman 09:10, 26 January 2009 (EST)

I'm sure this is what they meant to say. -Redbackon the toilet seat 10:05, 26 January 2009 (EST)

Redback FTW! Z3ro 10:33, 26 January 2009 (EST)
Jesus is my SQL debugger. Stile4aly 11:55, 26 January 2009 (EST)

While we are all bored...[edit]

Here are some good interweb games to play

  1. Bubble Spinner - Personal high score, 5162
  2. Hands of War - Took me hours to beat it
  3. Replica - Is there a nicer term for "Stop beating yourself!"?
  4. 3D Logic - That game is a mother to beat.
  5. Incredibots - Do whatever you want to, build... anything!
  6. Untangle - Another good logic game.

Javasca₧ secret trainer of cheeses!

Alternately, download Big Love from last night. Oh those crazy Mormons!-Diadochus 09:54, 26 January 2009 (EST)

That 3D Logic one reminds me a little of the 4D and 5D Rubick's Cubes. ArmondikoVbomination 10:52, 26 January 2009 (EST)

On such a sad occasion a prayer:

Dear Assfly, who art in CP,
Ridiculed be thy name.
Thy update come,
thy will be done,
on CP as it is in heaven
Give us this day our daily lulz.
And give us more guffaws,
as we yet guffaw with those amongst us.
And lead us right into convulsions,
please deliver us from the doldrums.
For thine is the blog, the logic and the faith. for ever and ever. God speed Auld Nick 11:12, 26 January 2009 (EST)
THAT is an awesome poem :).-Diadochus 14:36, 26 January 2009 (EST)

Probably pretty bad[edit]

They've been down for 18h now. I think it might be safe to count CP out for at least a few days. Any theories as to what they lost, and whether there might be permanent damage, which would be awesome?-Diadochus 14:36, 26 January 2009 (EST)

which would be awesome that would be terrible! What would we do for lulz? It's like a friend that plays the same sport, but when the sports over, you have nothing to talk about. Z3roh3ro 14:44, 26 January 2009 (EST)
My guess is that he's finally killed the poor gerbil. Wouldn't have happened with a Long-eared jerboa. --JeevesMkII 14:45, 26 January 2009 (EST)
This seems to happen periodically - I don't know what causes it, perhaps MW upgrades? Or, as someone joked above, someone might have oversighted something huge, deleted and attempted to recreate a page with a zillion edits, or they tried to implement something that ground the DB down to an effective halt. One thing we do know is that they'll never say what happened. ħumanUser talk:Human 15:08, 26 January 2009 (EST)
Hmm, unless someone ToPped the datatabase, it certainly looks like more than maintenance. I would guess at a hardware problem so it depends when they last did a complete backup. They may be able to recover a little of the intervening stuff with incrementals but I doubt that they can keep up with Ken's petty edits so he may have lost a whole "sentence". I'm sure they're hosted by big capitalist outfit unlike our socialistic server maintained by Comrade Trentsky. Can they claim compensation? - I expect Andy's lawyery instincts to start twitching. I'm surprised that the error page doesn't say "Would all Conservapedians please pray that we haven't lost any valuable edits and that we are back up as soon as possible". Or is God not a geek? Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 15:19, 26 January 2009 (EST)
In these troubled times, it behoves us to spare a thought for Ken. Imagine the poor little blighter at home right now, fervently begging god that the googlebot doesn't visit while the site is down. Imagine what it'll do to his precious, precious rankings! --JeevesMkII 15:24, 26 January 2009 (EST)
Right now, my fantasy explanation for this down time is that the Powers that Be did spot the Republican Governors/Democrat Senators page and cross-refrenced that with the Obama page. At 04:00 EST Teh Assfly's door was kicked in, his hardware seized and the site taken down. Even now Andy is being probed, just to make sure he hasn't keistered any explosives or poisons, before being extensively questioned. Or fantasy number 2, given the recent hysterical (well, more hysterical than normal) knee-jerk responses (Fox News' crowd estimates were deliberately wrong because they are sucking up to the Administration, etc.), Andy has been hauled off by the men in white coats. Even as I type it is being determined by his psychiatrist that he will be an in-patient for at least 3 months, because when he was brought in all Andy would say was that it had been organised by that 'filthy muslim Obama', who has had it in for him ever since Obama stole the Harvard Law Review position. In fact, according to Andy, the entire Obama political career has just be done to get to Teh Assfly and shut him up before he can reveal the truth. Ah, fantasies to keep you warm on a cold night.--stunteddwarf 15:49, 26 January 2009 (EST)
My conspiracy is that Andy is wiping all traces of embarrassment from the database - Bugler, the hitlist, the other parodists etc. Cubic bastard Hoover! 15:53, 26 January 2009 (EST)
A likely theory, that one. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiodehas no half-life 16:00, 26 January 2009 (EST)
If he does that, he might as well just start over with a blank site. --Gulik 00:46, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Yes the error messages we saw suggest a pretty bad corruption of the data, if you check siteground policy here on backups they could lose as much as a weeks worth of edits depending on their own personal backup policy. Anyone have any bets on the likelihood that they implemented a resonable backup scheme? tmtoulouse 16:03, 26 January 2009 (EST)

Definitely zero percent. Most definitely. Though. . . maybe the corruption of data will turn Conservapedia into Wikipedia with a liberal bias, eh? --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiodehas no half-life 16:07, 26 January 2009 (EST)
In Soviet Stalinist Republic of Conservapedia, Conservapedia boycotts you! ħumanUser talk:Human 19:21, 26 January 2009 (EST)

My personal fantasy is my little note to the NY Times about multiple copyright violations resulted in their lawyers giving Andy an order to take it down while they sift though it with a fine tooth comb. But alas, such are dreams. --Kels 19:28, 26 January 2009 (EST)

Did the NFL ever get back to you over Manning? - User 19:32, 26 January 2009 (EST)
Now that you mention it, I don't think they did. At least the NYT acknowledged receiving my message. --Kels 19:41, 26 January 2009 (EST)
Hmm, unless someone ToPped the datatabase Thanks. I've never been immortalised like that before. TheoryOfPractice 20:13, 26 January 2009 (EST)
It's not every day that you become a verb, you know! CorryBaby, you got a stew going. 01:08, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Range-Blocks redux[edit]

Old Version
Absolute Numbers of Blocks
Contributions of the Different Ranges

The new version (3rd pic) of the first pic shows how many IPs are blocked by blocks covering different ranges.

The second pic show the absolute number of blocks: A /32 block is just a single blocked IP: That was the first thing they learned to do. Today, some 700 individual IPs are blocked.

Blocking ranges was discovered later on, the first range block being

  • 15:44, 9 July 2007 Aschlafly blocked with an expiry time of 2 hours (test)

As this worked, other blocks followed quickly. It took some time to figure out that there are other block ranges but /16, and TK subsequently split some of the blocks into smaller once in September 20082007.

From December 2008 2007until November 20092008, few new range blocks were issued, and some of the older once even expired, but this situation changed in December 20092008.

It is a tedious task to take the whole internet out one block at a time - ~60,000 blocks of range /16 would be necessary - but it is worth a try! LArron 02:47, 26 January 2009 (EST)

I know we're probably in different time zones and all, but is it really December 2009 already where you are? --Marty 03:01, 26 January 2009 (EST)
upps! LArron 03:04, 26 January 2009 (EST)

Presidential Faith[edit]

I remember a news item on the CP front page about Obama not attending a church service since the inauguration, and the usual flouncing about how terrible this was. On a related note, I happened to read on another forum that George W. rarely, if ever, attended church services during his tenure as president, and never joined a congregation. No idea how accurate that information is (although a quick Google suggests that it's not an uncommon comment) - now how likely are the CP elite to allow comment on it? ... er.. yeah, that's what I thought... Worm (t | c) 05:27, 26 January 2009 (EST)

Well, considering President is pretty much the most full-time job you can get, I can't see them even having time for Church. ArmondikoVbomination 07:07, 26 January 2009 (EST)
Not only that, its a major hassle for the church he attends -- metal detectors, Secret Service agents, the whole works, at what would presumably be a place that takes an "everybody welcome, come as you are" philosophy. (The Washington Post had an article a few weeks back on the number of DC churches that invited the Obamas to join them. It basically boiled down to "its quite an honor to be the President's church, but its a major pain when he actually attends.) I think if any President wants to "go to church", the polite thing to do would be to have church come to him -- invite some local pastor to come to the residential section of the White House and conduct a service for the First Family. Yes, that's a bit of a hassle for the reverend invited, but its also quite an honor. Heck, the President could even invite a new pastor every Sunday, so no one gets to say he's "the President's personal minister." MDB 07:34, 26 January 2009 (EST)
Considering the OTT security that follows a US President everywhere, I'm suprised anyone would want him anywhere near him at any time. Though from what I can guess of Obama's faith, it's very personal to him and not something to be made as a massive song and dance. Going to an actual designated building isn't going to be high on his list of priorities. Surely teh LORD will understand that, right? ArmondikoVbomination 10:50, 26 January 2009 (EST)
From what I've heard the majority of presidents weren't big churchgoers once they had reached the White House. On the road there it's important to be a 'man of faith' - the US would never elect an atheist - but once there the security excuse allows for a more relaxed approach to religious attendance. Silver Sloth 11:08, 26 January 2009 (EST)
Followup quote re St Ronnie

In a November 14 article, Time magazine senior editor Amy Sullivan noted that "Ronald Reagan didn't go to church at all"

Silver Sloth 11:13, 26 January 2009 (EST)
St. Ronald of Bonzo doesn't go to church. Churches are built to St. Ronald of Bonzo. That's why His holy name is necessarily invoked by every Republican in a public debate. CorryBaby, you got a stew going. 11:38, 26 January 2009 (EST)
I would hazard a guess that all but the most die-hard theists would accept that, between the demands of the job and the difficulties it presents to the church itself, a President can be forgiven for not actually physically attending a public worship service. MDB 12:03, 26 January 2009 (EST)
Not if they're Democrats.... You see, Democratic presidents are so bad they must physically attend worship service no less than four days a week to wash the unclean liberalness off of them. Republican presidents, however, are saints by nature and can simply red telephone God at any juncture for some face time. SirChuckBI brake for Schukky 15:07, 26 January 2009 (EST)
During the inauguration it was mentioned that Obama was expected to involve himself in the DC social scene while Prez. Evidently Dubya only went out for a meal 21 times in 8 years. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 15:23, 26 January 2009 (EST)
If I had their chef I'd stay home too... anybody ever read about the person they brought in? Specialized in the spicy, healthy, southwestern food they have a preference for. That guy would have made a great commissioner of baseball... ħumanUser talk:Human 16:42, 26 January 2009 (EST)

Wikipedia's FlaggedRevs[edit]

So, it seems that the hell is breaking loose all over the net again...

Too bad CP is down so I can't see what exactly Andy is saying about Wikipedia's plan to try out the FlaggedRevs extension, so I have to trust WIGO's report that Andy is "complaining" about them.

I knew that news would be on WIGO today, because there's been a lot of fear and paranoia going on elsewhere as well, just like when Wikipedia last implemented a feature that "limited" "free editing" (yeah, I'm talking about something that is quite mundane, accepted and yawn-inducing now - semi-protection. Remember that little feature? When was the last time you had to bug an admin to get edits approved?)

So, for those who haven't heard the latest hulabaloo from Wikipedia, here's a little bit of interpretation (disclaimer: I've seen the extension in action, but I haven't personally tested the specific proposed configuration):

Hint: FlaggedRevs will not mean that the sky is falling. It just means that people have to specifically choose to see the bleeding-edge version - by default, you get the sighted one.

Hint 2: I think people who completely, unconditionally disable anonymous editing and specifically limit the editing abilities of even registered users are in no position to criticise a system that still lets unregistered people edit and see their edits some way or other. But hey, that's just my opinion! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:05, 26 January 2009 (EST)

Okay, I've read the description according to Mediawiki... I really can't see an issue with it. If anything it just seems kind of pointless. ArmondikoVbomination 10:33, 26 January 2009 (EST)

For reference, here's the bit from the Main Page (taken from cache):

After raising millions from the public, Wikipedia now moves to shut the public out of immediate editing. New edits "would not be published until they get approved by one of Wikipedia's trusted team of editors" under the proposal.[9] And how liberal is that "trusted team of editors"???

(Yes, it was all-bold. Guess Andy wanted to mark it as extra-important) --Sid 15:13, 26 January 2009 (EST)

Didn't they also have "After" italicised? As if to suggest that Flaggedrevs is a new proposal, rather than something which has been discussed for ages, and implemented on the German Wikipedia since May or June? Dreaded Walrus 15:28, 26 January 2009 (EST)
Yes, you're right, I forgot to add that during the copypaste. --Sid 22:06, 26 January 2009 (EST)

Will CP jump too?[edit]

Here's the main question: will CP add flagrevs too? I'd vote yes: just because it's one additional step to closing CP altogether to public editors.-Diadochus 10:16, 26 January 2009 (EST)

For CP, it would make perfect sense. If I've understood it correctly, it might make vandalism so much less fun that they end up being able to make editing more open.--Kriss AkabusiAAAAWOOOOGAAAR!!1 10:32, 26 January 2009 (EST)
Naturally, they'll add it along with a twisted argument as to why this feature is good and noble at CP but evil and socialist at WP. I'm a bit on the fence about its use at WP. Those empowered to promote new versions of articles to the default version will inevitably introduce some top-down bias. One can imagine that a particular "decider" might not want WP to have "too many" pop culture articles, for example, and thus only approve new articles for celebs and such that they recognize (edit summary: I've never heard of this person -DENIED). Not a tragedy by itself perhaps but certainly a blow to comprehensiveness and inclusion--two of the primary beauties of WP. Shakespeare was once pop culture. Exasperate me!Sheesh!Not the most impressive contributor here 10:57, 26 January 2009 (EST)
It has been quite a while since I read up about Flaggedrevs, but I don't think it will determine which new articles can be seen. Rather, on existing articles it just means that people who are logged out (i.e. most readers) will see a version that has been approved. This will mean that most vandalism (which would otherwise be on display for, say, a minute, and thus be seen by a few hundred people if it's the day's FA) would not be seen at all by the average visitor to WP.
Regardless, I'm quite indifferent on it too, especially as I'm becoming less active on WP by the day. Dreaded Walrus 11:20, 26 January 2009 (EST)
FlaggedRevs is highly configurable. In all likelihood, I think Wikipedia is going to grant sighting rights to the majority of users automatically, kind of like autoconfirmation (i.e., ability to edit semi-protected pages) is granted after a few days. Picking endorsed versions could be folded to the existing processes (i.e. grant those rights to people who are in charge of promotion and demotion of featured articles). But all this remains to be seen. If CP implements this too, I'd really like to see what sort of a weird messed-up configuration they'll get... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:24, 26 January 2009 (EST)
(And when I say "endorsed versions", note that there's difference between "sighted" and specifically endorsed versions of articles.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:26, 26 January 2009 (EST)
I actually can see CP abusing this to no end. If they don't like a guy, they can withhold his edits he's made and only pass the talk ones. And BOOM! fabricated 90/10. Not that anybody ever actually meets the 90/10 ratio when blocked for it anyways. I was at about 62% article page edits when I got hit with the banhammer. ENorman 10:58, 26 January 2009 (EST)
I'm sure Ed would love the way it could add teeth to his "Writing Plan" assignments. "Deliver what I ask for, and I'll decide if you get them accepted." --SpinyNorman 11:14, 26 January 2009 (EST)
I think the edits will still be counted, and they'll all be available in the history for those who want to look, it's just the general public will see an approved version. As above though it's been a good year or so since I last read up on Flaggedrevs. Dreaded Walrus 11:20, 26 January 2009 (EST)
The possible 90/10 abuse is moot, as it's just used as an excuse to banhammer people for ideological reasons. Plenty of people get bloxored for 90/10 without technically satisfying the requirements. CorryBaby, you got a stew going. 11:35, 26 January 2009 (EST)

If anything, I think this will make CP all the more hilarious. Possibilities are 1) Ed and Andy will spend more of their time going over changes they'd never pay attention to otherwise, and thus find reason to object to all sorts of perfectly normal content, or 2) Admins will scan material at far too low a rate, further harming the project by discouraging contributions. - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 11:39, 26 January 2009 (EST)

I think you're right. A few admins will be the content masters. TK, Uncle Ed, and Karajou spring to mind. Not Andy, though, he has too much to contribute. But the end result will be that it will be used as a further way to drive off most editors. The random pure vandalism (MOAR HITLER) will no longer be worthwhile, but the more subversive parody will be impossible to stop without reviewing everything. Poe's law guarantees that the writings of true believers will get caught in the net, and you know that anything liberal will be kept out as well. It will quickly devolve (even moreso) into a totally private blog for the sysops and the homeschoolers. Stile4aly 11:55, 26 January 2009 (EST)
Yeah, the whole 90/10 has earned Andy a lot of critism, and some very funny moments.... If I remember correctly, when DrCB made his last posting he listed out every edit he had made and then insulted Andy over it. SirChuckBI brake for Schukky 12:04, 26 January 2009 (EST)
Now that I think of it, it would also mean a much smaller need for users with block rights, since rapid vandalism reversion and blocking would become a moot point. So the admin pool would be even more restrictive. - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 13:22, 26 January 2009 (EST)

It will improve the quality of the game though. The trick will be now to see how obvious of parody can you get approved into an article. Moar skill, less Hitler vandalism. I am all for it. tmtoulouse 13:23, 26 January 2009 (EST)

Absolutely. Sadly, a silent game, as we can't brag about our wondrous parody exploits. - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 13:33, 26 January 2009 (EST)
They can't implement it, not enough manpower. Let's say that 10 people make an account each, and each make a small edit (like correcting spelling)once per minute. Someone would have to look at those and clear them, and I can't see them clearing all 10 in a minute. They'll be overloaded with stuff to check, and people will probably keep editing pages to say 'are you having fun?' etc. just to annoy them. But if they do put it in, it'll be much more satisfactory if you can get parody, extreme right-wing viewpoints or just utterly wrong informaion and facts through. EddyP 13:33, 26 January 2009 (EST)
And with this system, if utter parody does slip through, it will have staff approval, none of this "oh, we didn't know about the hitlist, we didn't approve it". Z3rohero 13:48, 26 January 2009 (EST)
That is just it we can brag about parody once it is approved. They would have two choices, either defend the parody as "real" or admit a mistake.......which do you think they would choose? tmtoulouse 13:49, 26 January 2009 (EST)

I like the idea of CP adding the feature. Imagine what a Bugler-type could let slip by. --Edgerunner76Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter 14:31, 26 January 2009 (EST)

In my eyes, EddyP made a good point: CP doesn't have enough trusted sysops to patrol each and every contribution. Heck, before Addison's "I'm new as a sysop and eager to prove myself!" spree, they had tons of Move and Delete Requests, most of them several months old. So if the sysops can't even (or rather: "aren't even willing to") make time for that, how would they do an in-depth scan of daily contribs? Not even to mention the usual problem of CP: The sysops don't cover much ground in terms of subjects. So they would have to do their own research to verify the claims, and that can cost more time than it takes to make the edits. No, I honestly don't see them implementing this. Or if they do, it will be the equivalent of closing registrations. --Sid 15:24, 26 January 2009 (EST)
Thank you n_n . Yeah, if they do do it there won't be any decent contributions anymore, cos all the sysops (who are the only ones who make decent contribs) will be busy checking pictures of Hitler, pictures of kitties and Ken's mad ramblings (eight edits to make one full sentence, the 'tard). EddyP 15:50, 26 January 2009 (EST)

One thing that I found amusing is that this "new" feature is actually softer than "semi-protection", which it will probably replace. The "trusted editors" are any logged in users who have been around for, what is it, three days? IOW, if one could edit an SP article before, one can "flag" edits as good. IOW Andy is one! ħumanUser talk:Human 16:45, 26 January 2009 (EST) and the inaugural address[edit]

Before CP went down (I do not want to think about Andy Schlafly "going down", though), there were some noises made that the text of the Inaugural Address had disappeared from, with the veiled implication that there was some sort of cover-up (of an event witnessed by nearly two million in person, and hundreds of millions via TV, the internets, radio...) going on. Well, it's back up. I suppose when CP is back on-line itself, one of the first things they do will be to correct that error.... MDB 12:08, 26 January 2009 (EST)

Yeah, right before they say complimentary things about Obama and fix the deceit article. EternalCritic 13:57, 26 January 2009 (EST)

It Lives![edit]

I'm getting named pages with no html content what so ever now. The server rises! It lives! StarFish 16:25, 26 January 2009 (EST)

This is a momentus moment in CP history. For the next few minutes Conservapedia contains NO ERRORS! StarFish 16:27, 26 January 2009 (EST)
She's not been well. Now she's saying this...

HTTP/1.1 207 Temporary Redirect Location: Content-Type: text/html Temporary Move

Conservapedia has temporarily moved to StarFish 16:28, 26 January 2009 (EST)

Hah, it's back and seemingly missing a week's worth of edits. Backups are for suckers, apparently. --JeevesMkII 16:30, 26 January 2009 (EST)
Hah! Just as I thought! Andy has been deep burning from the database itself! Cubic bastard Hoover! 16:31, 26 January 2009 (EST)
Looks like the Senate Democrat hit list has been memory holed. Stile4aly 16:34, 26 January 2009 (EST)
And parrot Darwin is gone! For shame! --JeevesMkII 16:36, 26 January 2009 (EST)
What can that accomplish? Someone will have to recreate it clandestinely. - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 16:38, 26 January 2009 (EST)
If it's really a full week's worth of edits that are gone, then Addison and WesleyS must be ready to hang themselves over all the recats and page moves that must have been undone by Andy's failure to maintain a proper backup file. Stile4aly 16:43, 26 January 2009 (EST)
Well, RC starts at Jan 19... I doubt they have anything to "fill in the holes". Wow. ħumanUser talk:Human 16:48, 26 January 2009 (EST)
Hmmmm, that must also mean a weeks' worth of new editors and their blocks have disappeared as well? Good thing we have capturebot... ħumanUser talk:Human 16:49, 26 January 2009 (EST)
That's great. I'm unblocked. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiodehas no half-life 16:50, 26 January 2009 (EST)
And Iduan gets a second chance for not coming back ... l'arronsicut fur in nocte 16:51, 26 January 2009 (EST)
Oh god, Iduan put in well over a thousand edits in that week, in his rehabilitation effort. Can anyone explain his story, and why on earth he's back? - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 16:52, 26 January 2009 (EST)
Ugh, its as if my parodist account (created a couple of days ago) never existed, all the "good" work I did :( BadgerBadger 16:57, 26 January 2009 (EST)
His general story is that he's one of those principled believers who actually believes the project could have merit but disagrees with Andy enough that he can't be trusted. He had been begging for sysop rights in the past and kept getting turned down before Andy agreed to review his request provided that his teacher sent in a letter of recommendation. What Andy received was a letter claiming that Iduan was a parodist all along, but Iduan claimed it was sent by a student who had logged on to their teacher's PC. Andy banhammered him, of course. He left RW at that point as well, and we all wished him well and hoped his actual skill at editing would be better put to use by someone who actually respected him. As to why he's back, noone knows. Either his self respect is low enough to go groveling back to Andy and promise to tow the party line, or Andy (or more likely TK) realized that they need someone to do all the grunt work and asked him to come back. Stile4aly 16:59, 26 January 2009 (EST)
Oh, the hilarity. And here I thought Andy had only recently gotten paranoid re: sysop nominee references. But why would TK want grunts onboard? Seems his MO is to make it as difficult to get work on CP done as is possible (the twitchy banhammer, range blocks, never actually adding content) - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 17:17, 26 January 2009 (EST)

(Undent) I guess that's what Andy meant when he mused about the past not existing... --Sid 16:54, 26 January 2009 (EST)

Is CP editable at the moment or are we looking at an archive? - User 16:55, 26 January 2009 (EST)
Recent changes showing the time lapse:
Recent changes - Conservapedia 1233006489388.png
Love² 16:57, 26 January 2009 (EST)
Editing isn't open at the moment; the database is locked. alt 16:59, 26 January 2009 (EST)
Ha! Pure unadulterated WIN, Sid. Stile4aly 17:00, 26 January 2009 (EST)
Andy simply wanted to go back to the time when George Bush was still President. -- 17:00, 26 January 2009 (EST)
Database is locked so no editing. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 17:01, 26 January 2009 (EST) (Damned ECs)
Which would suggest the current version has not been lost, and this version is just something to fill the space until he can get the current one back up.BadgerBadger 17:08, 26 January 2009 (EST)
Memory hole WHEEEE!!!! Now we get to see robots go crazy once more when they decide to move Obama to BarackHUSSEINOMGHESAMOOSLEMTERRORISTOSAMABINLADEN!!!!!! ENorman 17:07, 26 January 2009 (EST)
@ BON, that's hilarious. Just imagine if CP were permanently stuck on the day before Obama was inaugurated! Sweet poetic justice... ħumanUser talk:Human 17:13, 26 January 2009 (EST)
And the only reason they made the database dump was obviously because they fully expected the new administration to cart all of the CP admins to one of those alleged FEMA concentration camps... =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:37, 26 January 2009 (EST)

Just a note - it has now been over seven days since the last edit to CP. When looking at recent changes, you will need to make it a longer range or you won't see any edits. --Shagie 19:20, 26 January 2009 (EST)

That is a sweet coincidence! The "filler wiki" ought at least have an explanation or something that "things are borkened (more than usual)". ħumanUser talk:Human 19:42, 26 January 2009 (EST)
Nope. I guess it's part of the cover-up. Just like last time, there will be no mention of this once it's fixed (unless Andy can blame Liberal Hackers), and any "What happened?" query will be answered with "It's fixed now, thanks". Always remember that There Was No Downtime and that There Was No Data Loss. Admitting that data was lost would imply that Conservapedia is less than a perfect utopia, and we can't have that now, can we? --Sid 20:24, 26 January 2009 (EST)

Where was CP hosted...?[edit]

Sure, you could file this under "Highly Ironic Timing", but I kinda like the silly idea that CP was hosted on Bush's Outlook servers and that Andy sacrificed CP in a desperate move to fry the servers of the Obama-era White House. ;) --Sid 22:10, 26 January 2009 (EST)

What are the chances?[edit]

So I go to the "new old" CE, and for kicks click "random" to test it. Up comes an article I created (Lunar_eclipse)... I like the "new old" CE! ħumanUser talk:Human 21:06, 26 January 2009 (EST)


Is CE looking really messed up for anyone else, too? (quick link) It seems it's only happening on certain pages for me. But that's one of them. Is it just me? Dreaded Walrus 21:23, 26 January 2009 (EST)

Math is always the first to die. That's what LaTeX does when it throws up. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:35, 26 January 2009 (EST)
The bias and hate on the site is so overwhelmingly gut-wrenching the very internet is rebelling in order to expunge it from the server ENorman 21:45, 26 January 2009 (EST)
Hrm, that's new. The user whose home directory the site was in used to be "conserv8" now it's "conency." I wonder if this was some cunning scheme of theirs gone horribly wrong. --JeevesMkII 02:06, 27 January 2009 (EST)