Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive19

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 14 April 2010. 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>, <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>, <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)

Blair... Catholic... Converted? WTF?[edit]

I'm confused. Blair has been openly Catholic for at least as long as he was Prime Minister over here. I'm pretty sure he was before too. Quite aside from the stupidity of him "wanting" to be king (now, Lord Protector there's an idea. I can quite warm to the idea of another Charles having his head snicked off...) why on earth does he need to convert? --JeεvsYour signature uses all my CPU time... 19:45, 22 December 2007 (EST)

He's been a closet Catholic for years, but he was actually formally still a member of the Church of England until yesterday. As an aside, it's pretty funny how Andy apparently has grasped that there were political reasons why Blair only converted after his resignation, but still manages to completely misunderstand what they are. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 19:52, 22 December 2007 (EST)
Well, if he was closeted, it was a closet with a big transparent acrylic door and a 5 foot high neon signage with a 1Hz flash saying "See the amazing closeted Catholic!" I was going to write something about how Blair was a decent model of a Governor whose decisions were informed but not lead by his religion, but apparently little did I know he wasn't a real catholic... feh. --JeεvsYour signature uses all my CPU time... 19:58, 22 December 2007 (EST)
Cool! What's the duty cycle on that flashing sign?--Bayesupdate 20:03, 22 December 2007 (EST)
Something like that, yes. He even used to go to Catholic communion regularly, until the local bishop wrote to him and asked if he wouldn't please stop doing that as long as he hadn't converted yet. :D --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 20:07, 22 December 2007 (EST)
I've seen Church attendances in this country, I'm surprised the church feel they have the luxury of that kind of Dogma. I'd more or less assumed if they can get a warm body under the age of 60 through the door, they'd be over the moon, let alone the prime minister. --JeεvsYour signature uses all my CPU time... 20:11, 22 December 2007 (EST)
Eh, Blair at least probably went through that door years ago. Besides, they'd probablly lose more people than they'd get if they started relaxing such core parts of their beliefs.
BTW, it's pretty funny to see Andy argue for looking at the "spirit, not the letter" of the law. That doesn't seem like his usual position. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 08:53, 23 December 2007 (EST)

This has to be one of the funniest CP edits on the home page. I mean, talk about jumping to the wrong conclusion! Ajkgordon 16:42, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Funny also that Andy's initial response was to explain that his writing wasn't meant to be taken literally. A news item is clearly NOT meant to be taken literally, whereas a thousands year old book explaining how the earth came to be MUST be taken literally. Righto, Andrew. Matt 18:23, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Christianity outlasted Communism[edit]

This one seems a bit weak - the context is pretty clearly the USSR, and it did, there. It is an article about Kruschev, and the quote they are commenting on is him talking about xtianity vanishing in the USSR. Right? humanUser talk:Human 18:20, 23 December 2007 (EST)

I thought it was stupid and amusing.-Shangrala 00:32, 24 December 2007 (EST)


Since Andy couldn't get past the first page's liberal bias [1] to finish the test (and I do think they need to add a middle position, like "no opinion" or sumthin), I took it for him. Or for CP, I'm not sure which I was channelling, but it is his blog, after all. Results are here. Whodathunkit? He almost nailed the same hole in the target that our Beloved Leader of teh Free World made in a drunken rampage. humanUser talk:Human 19:08, 23 December 2007 (EST)

It never ceases to amaze me how much Andy really lives in his own little world. "...objectionable in a court of law, or at a political debate." Wait, what? --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 19:16, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Andy's compliments to DanH[edit]

This got deleted as it accused Andy of being suspicious, which is false. But it is somewhat amusing due to another thing, Andy thing it's "impressive" to refuse to believe in something without substantial sources. NightFlare 22:02, 23 December 2007 (EST)

That and the fact that Schlafly was so drippingly condescending. PFoster 22:05, 23 December 2007 (EST)
That and the fact further checking proved DanH was right! If not, Andy would have turned on Dan in a heartbeat, as is his style. --TK/MyTalk 22:25, 23 December 2007 (EST)
Something that's still puzzling me: Since it was a hoax, does this mean that a Good Conservative... used deceit? Or was it a Dirty Liberal who pretended to be a conservative who claimed to be beaten up by liberals? I was too lazy to dig for the hoax admission sources myself, so I honestly dunno. Anybody got more info? --Sid 08:55, 24 December 2007 (EST)
The former. First, he faked death threats from liberals to himself and others in his group. Then, he faked a beating by liberals.--WJThomas 13:24, 24 December 2007 (EST)

Winter Solstice[edit]

Hahahahaha: "God help him when the depression and anxiety and addiction and temptation hit.".-Shangrala 10:44, 24 December 2007 (EST)

Paraphrasing and throwing out the "ands" then switch a word here or there, then make the thing an acronym: DATA, anyone?CЯacke® 11:06, 24 December 2007 (EST)
Sweet! Depression > Anxiety > Temptation > Addiction! Teh ebil cycle of non-YECism! humanUser talk:Human 16:45, 24 December 2007 (EST)

Andy's gun control idiocy[edit]

Andy must be in some weird Christmas mood, because I find it unbelievable that even he would blame the Holocaust on gun control.-Shangrala 10:46, 24 December 2007 (EST)

That is the sickest thing I have ever read on Conservapedia. Bondurant 11:07, 24 December 2007 (EST)
Parody at its best! Now why didn't I think of that?
Add that if Native Americans had (more) guns... Auld Nick 11:35, 24 December 2007 (EST)
The above put me in mind of this for some odd reason. CЯacke®
I can't believe there's a Far Side cartoon I've never seen. Made my day.PFoster 11:45, 24 December 2007 (EST)
I particularly liked this edit... "I already know I'm right about gun control, I just need someone to find the statistics to prove it" UchihaKATON! 12:16, 24 December 2007 (EST)
I just love the way Andy likes to use the phrase "improved substantially" in his edit comments. Someone give the boy a barnstar! humanUser talk:Human 16:48, 24 December 2007 (EST)
It's just overkill! Anything Andy touches is "substantially improved", as opposed to anyone else making the same edits, which would be minor contributions, doesn't everyone know that? --TK/MyTalk 16:50, 24 December 2007 (EST)
Ooh, yeah, I forgetted that... humanUser talk:Human 16:53, 24 December 2007 (EST)

Re: Uchiha's ref, here's the salient part for those too tired to dig it out:

" uses of guns outnumber criminal uses by at least a factor of 100 to 1,<ref>(Fill in cite here about percentage of guns used for unlawful purposes.)</ref> "

Which is almost bound to be true - think of the number of bullets fired in target practice, skeet shooting, military and police practice, and hunting. Of course, even if the ratio were 10,000 to 1, it's the actual amount of criminal shooting that matters. Imagine if someone said the same thing about rape and consensual sex... humanUser talk:Human 16:52, 24 December 2007 (EST)

PS, when I mention hunting, I live in NH, where we have probably a handful of gun crimes per year, maybe a few dozen (and about 1 murder every few years), but zillions of deer and birdies get deaded every year. humanUser talk:Human 16:55, 24 December 2007 (EST)
PPS, I bet even ole' Dickless Cheney shot a hundred rounds at legitimate targets before shooting his buddy. humanUser talk:Human 16:55, 24 December 2007 (EST)

Oh, I was under the impression that he meant something a little less... obvious and redundant, and a little more impressive. But apparently he was just taking a "well, duh" statistic and trying to twist/reword to seem like some sort of devastating argument against gun control. I'd still be surprised if he found a source, though, as most people wouldn't consider that a serious point in any argument, let alone one requiring substantiation... UchihaKATON! 15:36, 27 December 2007 (EST)

Gay veterans not wanted here: where's your charity & forgiveness now?[edit]

Was it that BudAndMiles was an "all American" queer that so incensed Karajou that he had to banhammmer him on Christmas day with instructions that only Aschlafly could overrule it? 06:06, 25 December 2007 (EST)

(I fixed your link, hope you don't mind.) Well, the last part is easy enough: Pretty much all of Karajou's bans come with the "Only Andy can overrule/unban" tag. The reason? Last time I checked, Karajou was one of the idiot sysops who hadn't enabled the "Others can send mails to me" checkbox (on purpose), so it's not like anybody can contact him (other than through socks, which is forbidden). Karajou simply doesn't want to take on any responsibility. He bans, and that's that. There is no way to discuss with him, no way to ask him, no way to tell him how he made a mistake, and that's how he loves it. Fair trial is a very liberal concept, I guess.
But it gets worse: Did you ever try to mail Andy with an unban request? Or with anything else, for that matter? I did. Fairly often, even. And guess what, it pretty much never works. If you even get a reply, it'll usually be the default "I trust my sysops. They most likely had good reason to do what they did. Think about what you did and try not to bother them." reply. --Sid 07:37, 25 December 2007 (EST)
Conservapedia is so fucking stupid. -- 15:48, 25 December 2007 (EST)

I think that Karajou is such a bigot. WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH BEING GAY ANYWAY?!?! -- 15:53, 25 December 2007 (EST)

I'm sure if you asked him he'd be happy to tell you. Or you can consult the many fair and balanced articles dealing with the issue found here. --BillOhannitygodvelocity. 20:19, 25 December 2007 (EST)

Tell me I'm wrong[edit]

But is PJR really advocating using charity in disasters and personal tragedy as a way to get your foot in the door and sell them Christianity? Because that's pretty sickening. --Kels 00:54, 26 December 2007 (EST)

Actually, I think he's saying that although it's unfortunate that people die from not having clean water, we can console ourselves by knowing that the True Believers (TM) among them end up with God. My problem with that is that it's a short step from there to "we shouldn't worry about providing clean drinking water at all." I very nearly posted something to this effect, but an edit conflict prevented my longest running sock from getting banhammered. Thank you, Santa. Stile4aly 00:58, 26 December 2007 (EST)
It seems to me that this is what Andy's arguing, despite his disclaimer that he does give some money, it's overall a general "get your damn hands off my cash" attitude. Give 'em spiritual help instead, but begrudge them the dollars. -- 10:48, 26 December 2007 (EST)
It's bread and butter for the Salvation Army, victims of house fires get shelter, firemen get coffee and doughnuts (with holes, of course because "doughnuts" w/o holes aren't doughnuts they're just pastries) those willing to listen to the spiel get that too. CЯacke® 01:00, 26 December 2007 (EST)
This is pretty much US Govt policy since Bush the Punk took office. Why are you so surprised? humanUser talk:Human 01:12, 26 December 2007 (EST)
But...but Brownie did a heckuva job! --BillOhannitygodvelocity. 14:51, 26 December 2007 (EST)

I wonder what will come of this[edit]

Will they fight it or will they just let it be? - Icewedge 20:34, 26 December 2007 (EST)

If by "they", you mean Andy and the other CP dudes... officially, yes. I think they once said that it's perfectly fine to export to WP/CW/etc, but God knows what changed since then. I assume it'll be on their "Examples of Bias" page soon, with a racy headline like "See how Wikipedia clusters it with ugly templates blah blah NPOV blah etc". --Sid 23:01, 26 December 2007 (EST)
Maybe kendoll will now be inspired to export his gay sequence to WP? humanUser talk:Human 16:56, 27 December 2007 (EST)
Oh dear God, that would be hilarious. --Sid 17:00, 27 December 2007 (EST)


With the level of lulz contained in his Parthian Shot, I hope he considers coming over to the dark side. User:PalMD

Hm, quite true. But I wonder if they'll ever, you know, learn from these various goodbye messages. After a while, somebody surely has to go "Hmmm... people keep leaving... maybe I should make a less hostile environment?"
Thanks to Lurker, btw. Stupid mistake on my side: I looked at the Recent Changes while writing the entry and must've slipped in the line. --Sid 16:37, 27 December 2007 (EST)
No problem, Sid.
The weird thing about Stryker is that he hadn't edited since mid-August. I don't buy that he's been lurking for 4 1/2 months and got outraged enough to quit, but never got outraged enough to say anything. Lurker 16:45, 27 December 2007 (EST)
How could I have edited if all the IP's from Cornell University are blocked? I asked TK once about it in an e-mail, but he feigned ignorance of the issue, even though he clearly levied the IP bans. Stryker 16:50, 27 December 2007 (EST)
Well, well, well, if it isn't the man of the hour! And I'm sorry to hear that you became a victim of CP's overkill range-blocking. Good thing you're here, though! :D --Sid 16:58, 27 December 2007 (EST)
Look, just between us liberuls, we all know that the Ivy League is a hotbed of liberal, baby-killing, atheist buggery (except for Skull and Bones---that's only buggery).--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 17:24, 27 December 2007 (EST)
Of course. But we Cornellians filter into the Quill and Dagger, rather than the Skull and Bones :) . Anyways, I got fed up with CP a long time ago, and I've read this site forever. I was home over break and I remembered, "I can edit that POS again!" So, I decided to formally declare my views on their pathetic project. Stryker 02:28, 28 December 2007 (EST)
My parents house in rural midwest is blocked as part of a /16 of a block of a university 4 states away... but I can edit from the wireless at Stanford or Berkley. --Shagie 13:01, 28 December 2007 (EST)

This was short, but funny..[edit]

Did this guy get deleted yet?

Transitionalform Exists

Oh, and HELLO EVERYBODY! I luffs me some RationalWiki. — Unsigned, by: TheRogueX / talk / contribs

Oh hai! Please sign talk page posts with four tildes like this: ~~~~ humanUser talk:Human 17:42, 27 December 2007 (EST)
Hai! Sorry! I'm still learning how to edit. I edited a couple times on Wikipedia, but it's been awhile and I forget. Thanks! TheRogueX 18:13, 27 December 2007 (EST)


First Person Shooter? That's what we in the gaming field use it for. Researcher 19:06, 27 December 2007 (EST)

Yeah, that was my first reaction, too. With the second thought being "frames per second". But... frivolous? Especially compared to the other sysop names? I just don't get it... --Sid 19:10, 27 December 2007 (EST)
I think you guys are thinking too much. Tada! Dan even references it when he unblocks the guy. Lurker 19:17, 27 December 2007 (EST)
...I feel kinda dumb now for missing a freaking RW reference. --Sid 19:20, 27 December 2007 (EST)
I might not have caught it except that I've never heard of the word pernicious before I read Heart's essay. Lurker 19:23, 27 December 2007 (EST)
I had actually misunderstood, and thought the abbreviation thing was about the abbreviation FPS, rather than of Michael Hunt. Serves me right for not actually following the links. Researcher 19:22, 27 December 2007 (EST)
Well, Dan's comment wasn't entirely clear whether the abbreviation thing applies only to Hunt, and I didn't get either when I abbreviated them, so I couldn't even guess which name he had in mind. --Sid 19:26, 27 December 2007 (EST)

MichaelHunt Hint[edit]

Micheal shortens to Mike. Get it yet? Lurker 19:09, 27 December 2007 (EST)

Oh, MichaelHunt I would have gotten right off. (I didn't follow that link until just now.) Researcher 19:12, 27 December 2007 (EST)
...*FACEPALMS* God damn, this is FARFETCHED in my book (In light of Researcher also instantly seeing it, this might just be my monthly blonde moment, though...). Okay, somebody now explain FPS (which was his first choice), please. --Sid 19:14, 27 December 2007 (EST)
Ok, I didn't get the FPS connection so I actually answered this above. I didn't realise you were abbreviating his name. Lurker 19:19, 27 December 2007 (EST)

--Cheers,RyanIcons-flag-au.pngǂ wuz here ǂ 20:17, 27 December 2007 (EST)

Is TerryH really that clueless?[edit]

That he can't see the enormous irony in bitching about ad hominems after a whole section full of straw men? --Kels 20:42, 27 December 2007 (EST)

Ew. It makes me sick to see someone misrepresent the arguments like he's doing there. :x GrandSoviet 11:24, 28 December 2007 (EST)
As usual, the biggest Bible-botherers tend to ignore that whole "Thou shalt not bear false witness" thing when it's inconvenient. --Gulik 15:48, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Famous African Americans[edit]

And then there were none! 02:23, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Probably for the better. A list of "famous African Americans" kind of sounds like how when people call someone a racist, and then they go "no way I can't be racist, I know a couple black people!". Lurker 13:45, 28 December 2007 (EST)
You'd think they could have come up with a better "short list" though. Clarence Thomas, Dr. Condi Rice, Colin Powell (maybe), Alan Keyes... right up their alley. humanUser talk:Human 15:06, 28 December 2007 (EST)
"They" might have, but the guy who added it is a bit nutty. All of his articles are about pop figures. Lurker 15:18, 28 December 2007 (EST)

An oldie but goody (it made me giggle!)[edit]

The power cap'n, I cannae handle the power:

This course will harness the power of Conservapedia to build an online constitutional law treatise for the U.S. Supreme Court of the future.
Utilizing the full power of Conservapedia, this course will incorporate important news about the Court as it occurs and anticipate issues that will dominate political discourse in the upcoming election season.

(my emphasi emphasises emphases.) 03:17, 28 December 2007 (EST)

"By the power of Greyskull Conservapedia!" --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 05:03, 28 December 2007 (EST)
I must say I'm slightly offended that this proverbial power is attributed to Conservapedia and not to MediaWiki. --Linus(plot evil tech) 19:38, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Offsite harassment[edit]

So, who is and what did Thegovernator do offsite to deserve a lifelong ban? Any insights? Ed @Thanks SusanG for my nick 14:03, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Asked myself the same question, actually. Considering how poor Mr. Veteran still hasn't enabled his CP mail, I assume it must've happened on some blog or other site. Good thing that Conservapedia doesn't claim that they won't ban for offsite comments. Oh wait, they do ;) --Sid 14:11, 28 December 2007 (EST)
Re above link, see #15. (as of this date) humanUser talk:Human 15:07, 28 December 2007 (EST)
What #15? 15:11, 28 December 2007 (EST)
I assume he means #15 of the list I linked to ("How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia"): "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." Which is apparently exactly what Karajou did when he banned that guy. --Sid 16:30, 28 December 2007 (EST)
It's nothing new, though. Lurker 16:33, 28 December 2007 (EST)
Yeah, that's true. (Explanation for those who don't know what this means: Quite a few RW members got banned on CP because sysops didn't stick to this rule. IPs that edited here occasionally got banned on CP (even if they never accessed CP), IPs of CP editors posting here led to said editors being banned on CP, and of course editors posting with the same name here being banned over there. And since CP sysops have zero accountability, nobody over there really cares that the rules get broken.) --Sid 16:37, 28 December 2007 (EST)
It is unusual that they acknowledge it though. Most times they block for some other reason or don't give a reason. I can only think of a couple situations where a sysop flat out said that they were blocking for actions on another site. Lurker 16:54, 28 December 2007 (EST)
Hmmmmm... quite true, yeah. I think the last time I remember was actually back when somebody got banned after saying something on the CP Column blog. They even had a full link to the post in the block comment... --Sid 17:25, 28 December 2007 (EST)
Don't forget Jazzman. Rob actually put a link to teh Hellspawn Palace itself! Lurker 20:24, 28 December 2007 (EST)
Huh, you're right, of course! Shows how bad my memory really is, I guess. --Sid 20:42, 28 December 2007 (EST)
I have a random memory for that kind of stuff. Like the FPS thing yesterday. I know, I'm amazing :) Lurker 20:46, 28 December 2007 (EST)

I remember that some of the more prominent sysops used to troll here and ban every IP that showed up. I assume I've been banned a number of times myself as a result. --Kels 21:30, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Pardon my naivete, but there are things about this that I just don't understand:

  • Can visitors to this site find the IP addresses by which other people visit this site? Could I do it?
  • Is it only sysops that can do this?
  • If so, why do we give sysop powers to such manifestly evil people to facilitate such manifestly evil behavior?

I think anyone using IP info to block people from CP should not be able to access IP info on RW. Gauss 19:10, 29 December 2007 (EST)

I think they mean (I hope they mean) that CP sysops would see "anonymous" IP users here (read above and you will see many an IP address freely displayed) then promptly block that IP address on CP. Certain sysops have (and at one point, all CP sysops had) the ability to link an IP address to a username on CP (but not RW). They could then see an IP addy on RW and block both the IP and any users using said IP from editing CP. The practice has lessened quite a bit since TK left (not entirely because he was the only one who did it; there's just a correlation there), but I'm sure it still happens every once and a while (and if anyone did it it would be Karajou). Lurker 19:16, 29 December 2007 (EST)
We don't have checkuser any more here, I don't think, since it was decided that the Cabal's power should not be completely all-pervading, but I think that Trent still has some fairly impressive powaz by running the server. I know I've badgered him into finding out who's linking to us (there was some stuff on some minor WN forum, but it's gone now. Duh-lay-ted. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!

Betting is open![edit]

How long before our friend and editor Dolittle gets a block for life? Ed @Thanks SusanG for my nick 15:19, 28 December 2007 (EST)

I almost feel sorry for him. Banninated before 10 PM, EST. PFoster 15:20, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Sorry for spoiling your bets - I did try and warn him. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!

This guy has balls, at least. And proved nicely the "differences between conservapedia and ratwiki" as if we needed to compile an encyclopedic "brag list". humanUser talk:Human 15:53, 28 December 2007 (EST)
Oh, wait, he's not banninated yet. Still.... humanUser talk:Human 15:54, 28 December 2007 (EST)

100 Examples of Bias in Wikipedia[edit]

The towering abomination that is Examples of Bias in Wikipedia approaches critical mass. UchihaKATON! 17:16, 28 December 2007 (EST)

But things are being added @ the beginning - effing up all the refs on the talk page! 17:25, 28 December 2007 (EST)
Transparency is BAD! --Sid 17:26, 28 December 2007 (EST)
We need to refer to them by a formula then - to count up from the bottom. if X = total number at any time, and the ref (Y) is say, 30 from the bottom, it's # X-Y, and will stay that way unless they start adding them in the middle. humanUser talk:Human 17:58, 28 December 2007 (EST)
Their talk page I meant. 20:37, 28 December 2007 (EST)
Well, entries sometimes do move or get inserted at spots other than the top slot (though both happens somewhat rarely, I think). --Sid 20:43, 28 December 2007 (EST)
They should just tag each entry with a timestamp or other form of ID, come to think of it. --Sid 20:44, 28 December 2007 (EST)
  • You guys made me end my Ripken-esque streak of days ignoring conservapedia. I browsed through some of their references and came across this little bit: reference number 82 says that they used this and this to determine that 3 times as many editors on wikipedia are liberal as opposed to conservative (point number 57). Probably not the worst one on the list but it's the first one that caught my eye before I closed the page in disgust. It shouldn't be a big surprise that he comes up with 100 examples of bias when he changes the definition of bias to be "anything I don't like".--BillOhannitygodvelocity. 20:57, 28 December 2007 (EST)
Number 59 also caught my attention, since until they erased and recreated them, conservative's homosexuality articles were the most viewed articles on their site:
One can confirm that sex-related entries are attracting many to Wikipedia, including young viewers, by viewing Wikipedia statistics. But Wikipedia gives no specific warning to parents or viewers about the pornographic images on popular pages, and Wikipedia would probably be disabled in many homes and schools if a proper warning were given.
--BillOhannitygodvelocity. 21:00, 28 December 2007 (EST)
Huh, looks like forces from all over the place are trying to dismantle Andy's "100 before 2008" project: JakeC points out that the weird "John Birch Society" entry is stretched over six entries, and Ed has a more... progressive approach to lowering the count. --Sid 18:13, 29 December 2007 (EST)
That's weird simply for the reason it'd be like if the ACLU complained WP "smeared" folks for getting endorsements from "People for the American Way". Aren't the Eagle Forum and the JBS on the same side? I guess not! CЯacke® 19:02, 29 December 2007 (EST)
I never did understand why Andy hated the JBS so much. Granted, I'm not old enough to have known of them in their heyday, but I looked them up (on WP no less) and the JBS holds a lot of the same views. I asked Andy to explain why he hates them and his answer was somewhere along the lines of "you are destroying your own credibility if you can't even tell why we don't like them." Thanks a lot. I later found out that people think the JBS is crazy. Buuuuuut I bet if the JBS had a blog/wiki, on their "Bias of X group" page they would say "so and so linked us with Conservapedia and dem bitches is CRAZY". Takes one to know one. Lurker 19:08, 29 December 2007 (EST)
I think Mommie dearest wrote tracts for JBS back in the fifties or early 60's maybe they didn't pay her or thought she was kooky? (maybe a findlaw for Schalfly vs JBS would find something?) CЯacke®

Those Damn Arrows That I Keep Forgetting to Put the Code in For.[edit]

Are those going to put things in the "Best of" page, or are we just going to use them as a running popularity contest? PFoster 21:07, 28 December 2007 (EST)

The "plan" is to use those for BoC page, though if they're clearly good enough they can be added to both pages. The one you just put up (IMO) qualifies for both. I like especially how Schlafly comes up with a statistic and then, when confronted on it, tells the questioner to "google" the information for themselves, as in, "I don't have all the time in the world to look up proof for what I know to be true, just take my word for it". Yeah, and there's candy in your van, uh huh.
CЯacke® 21:15, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Last Wordism[edit]

Anybody catch this gem from here? I suppose if you just make up shit and put it in blue, your arguement will be stronger.-- Offeep 23:29, 28 December 2007 (EST)

He shot an arrow while building a wall to mask his escape. NorsemanWassail! 00:28, 29 December 2007 (EST)
I don't get why he would bother to make that argument in the first place. I mean, I know that Andy's not always so logical, but how hard can it be to see that if he succeeds in his goal (getting Order to stop talking by accusing him of last wordism) then Andy will then himself have the last word! Not only that, but by definition Order can't have the last word if Andy butts in and says "you always try to get the last word". Complete and utter lack of forthought. Lurker 00:49, 29 December 2007 (EST)
Ah, but you forget, dear Lurker, that Aschlafly is incapable of doing any instance of last wordism because LW is a liberal technique. Schlafly, not being a liberal, cannot be guilty of it. Ever. Besides, it (accusation of LW) is only used to send a veiled threat to block, since the liberal in question is exposing the weak argument(s) that serve as Conservapedian "logic". CЯacke® 00:58, 29 December 2007 (EST)
Foiled again. Shoulda known my logical skillz could never stand up to teh superior logic of TEH SCHLAFLINATOR. Lurker 01:04, 29 December 2007 (EST)
It's a gem, indeed. Assfly is off the frickin' rails. So I googled "Thomas Nast" in quotes. 175,000 hits. I also googled "Thomas Nast" and "german". 67.300. If you constrain it to "Thomas Nast" + exactly "German-American" you get 3,800. Wow!!!!!, Andy is right!!!! And phails at "brains". As if he would accept "google" results if they did not agree with his twisted view of the world? He is asking "google" which is by definition "a mob" for help on his ludicrous worldview? Oh, Andy Assfly, what we love is that you put this stuff in public on the web!!! humanUser talk:Human 01:10, 29 December 2007 (EST)
A nice example of last wordism can be found here. But it can also work out the other way.Tohuvavohu 19:01, 29 December 2007 (EST)

<= Added CP's Asimov page that bends over backwards to NOT say he was an American. Apparently his parents were from Russia but somehow also emigrated to the USA. CЯacke® 14:54, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Andy using Google or WP search or whatever other search is always interesting:
Large number of results "agreeing" with his point? "See, the majority agrees, so I'm right."
Large number of results NOT "agreeing" with his point? "See, the liberals are trying to censor Free Speech, so I'm right."
No matter what the result of his search is, he always finds a way to use it to support his view. --Sid 15:04, 29 December 2007 (EST)
And if all else fails, Google is of course a part of the big media/Intarnets liberal conspiracy, so their search results obviously aren't trusworthy. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 15:18, 29 December 2007 (EST)
It's the magicks of teh inernets!18:31, 29 December 2007 (EST) CЯacke®


It's interesting that most, if not all, of the articles Poor Ed unprotected were protected by only one Sysop. Wonder if they're just going through the record now? --Kels 20:49, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Yeah, I noticed the pattern, too. Especially interesting since this includes CP Hot Zones like "Deceit", "Richard Dawkins", "Liberal Hate Speech", etc. Those articles were protected with good reason ("good reason" in the CP mindset at least). And it's an empty promise, anyway. I dare anybody to try and remove some of the more "WTF" claims from those articles and see how fast they get reverted. --Sid 21:36, 29 December 2007 (EST)
There's evidence they're shifting out TK's previous actions and whatnot, because it's easier to slowly shuffle the coprse under the rug in silence and phase him out of history of CP. They've unblocked users, changed that manual style thing (whatever it was), and now unprotected articles TK did. Because accountability is a LIBRUL trait. NorsemanWassail! 21:41, 29 December 2007 (EST)
They've unblocked users? That one must've slipped past me... Your point is spot-on, though. The sysops are doing a good job at pretending that TK never existed. Haven't seen anybody mentioning him, even. And Ed's "Oh, gosh darn, I have no idea why this was locked..." line looks hilarious in some cases when you have seen how Ed and TK seemingly worked hand in hand on-wiki back then. --Sid 21:59, 29 December 2007 (EST)
Ah, just one or two users unblocked, but I think it was Jallen who did a whole bunch if IP unblockings, should've clarified. :D NorsemanWassail! 22:10, 29 December 2007 (EST)
  • I'm guessing that they're doing this (at least in part) to weed out some of the more sane (or, to use their terminology, "liberal") editors by inviting them to edit some of their garbage articles, then instantly reverting and blocking. --BillOhannitygodvelocity. 22:08, 29 December 2007 (EST)
If anything, I think it shows how afraid people were of TK. Lurker 01:25, 30 December 2007 (EST)

archive names[edit]

What are we going to do next June when we run out of months? humanUser talk:Human 23:44, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Curse your Vulcan logic! --Kels 23:53, 29 December 2007 (EST)
June2? BiJune? June Messiah? --JeεvsYour signature uses all my CPU time... 23:58, 29 December 2007 (EST)
I see what you did there... --Kels 00:22, 30 December 2007 (EST)
I think when we hit January, we should start appending the year. So only 2007 will be "yearless". We'll have to explain it to the grandkids someday, of course. humanUser talk:Human 00:00, 30 December 2007 (EST)

rottweiler control[edit]

What looniverse is assfly living in? BHL's have attempted to regulate many breeds of dogs that are perceived to be dangerous in urban/suburban locales. Sheesh. humanUser talk:Human 23:56, 29 December 2007 (EST)

He lives in the universe where you can make up "facts" about issues you don't have any real knowledge of to support some twisted worldview you're pushing. Liberals are bad, therefore we must be on the side of God and anything we say is the truth, amen. --JeεvsYour signature uses all my CPU time... 00:01, 30 December 2007 (EST)
Because that 7 year-old wasn't armed with a semi-automatic strapped around her back when carrying the baby, I guess that's the only logic to link a dog attack with gun control? "Stocks drop tremendously, the housing market is slumped, AS A RESULT OF GUN CONTROL!" :O NorsemanWassail! 00:25, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Both the cities I've lived in have gone through a number of debates regarding control or bans of rottweilers and pit bulls. It's a pretty common event over the past, I dunno, twenty years or so. --Kels 00:21, 30 December 2007 (EST)

It's an extraordinary connection to make - using the horrific death of an infant to somehow argue the case against liberals who oppose gun control... or simply liberals, period. So much for the season of goodwill towards all men. It's debasing the spirit of this season and Mr Schlafly should be thoroughly ashamed of himself. I know lots of devout Christians and they would all, without exception, be horrified at such tortured pomposity. Ajkgordon 09:47, 30 December 2007 (EST)

I just got finished reading the whole page, and it's interesting how it falls out with the "old guard" (Andy, Poor Ed and Kajagoogoo) on one side, and everybody else on the other, with Andy's side doing nothing but changing the subject, making irrelevant comments and generally being clear idiots not because they don't understand but because they refuse to back off from anything they've said. It's a common trend on the hard right, actually, and you don't have to look very far for it. Andy's attached a cost in pride to admitting a mistake here, so you can bet no matter how much of an idiot he ends up looking like, he won't back down for anything. --Kels 11:00, 30 December 2007 (EST)
Conservatives are all for guns for self-defence but don't want people to have tanks or short-range nuclear missiles. How are people to defend themselves against criminals in tanks or a nuclear state intent on genocide? Kinda liberal and spooky. Are they going soft? Auld Nick 19:35, 30 December 2007 (EST)
Let's hope they try and defend themselves with an M388. (See talk page for it :P) NorsemanWassail! 19:43, 30 December 2007 (EST)

It's interesting. This "debate" has set Aschlafly off on a well-trodden path. He writes something faintly unsavoury which is bound to raise the hackles of the more reasonable CP contributors, he then adds in more little anti-liberal digs at every point made by opposing voices, and ends up with the complete clusterfuck we have now. It's like a Pavlovian response. The man's not well. Ajkgordon 05:41, 31 December 2007 (EST)

A heartening trend towards sanity?[edit]

Over the last couple of weeks, several of the great Assfly's pronouncements that were wacky enough to merit inclusion here have ended up with "pwned" updates on them where someone else has successfully pointed out his folly without instant banination. Now, it seems the trend towards locking everything, ostensibly to prevent vandalism but really to prevent differing views is being challenged. Who knows what the new year may bring, perhaps open criticism of the excesses of young earth creationist stupidity or the deletion of vast tracts of codex homosexual? --JeεvsYour signature uses all my CPU time... 00:28, 30 December 2007 (EST)

I agree. With Uncle Eddy apparently the new second-in-command-type-thing, he's actually surprisingly not awful. And SSchultz, well, to go against the Shlafalynator not once, but twice, that's impressive.-- Offeep 00:34, 30 December 2007 (EST)
I imagine things will slowly get locked up again over time as more and more ridiculous statements get challenged by the handful there with a brain in their heads. As far as Ed's reign as number 2, it has been surprisingly calm which is both good and bad. Although the number of ideological blocks have dropped off, I can only imagine this is giving Andy terrible headaches. He's going to start to feel like he's being overrun by the liberal hordes and install another strongman type who does nothing but block and bitch. Andy's going to see very shortly that TK actually played an important role in maintaining a lot of the administrative type work at CP, but of course his pride will never let him admit it. Stile4aly 00:59, 30 December 2007 (EST)


Karajou for number2!

Karajou for number2!
Karajou for number2!
Karajou for number2!

He's the only one mad enough (and American) to replace TK 01:12, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Not to mention his absense of accountability with that "email problem" he's got. He has the potential to surpass even TK! NorsemanWassail! 01:33, 30 December 2007 (EST)
Yeah, but then he couldn't, you know, just publish his email address on his talk page. like rianbeuapgh AT that'd be too ob(l)ivous. CЯacke® 11:00, 30 December 2007 (EST)
It's a pity that PJR's not American though! 01:38, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Is it?-αmεσ (orator) 01:42, 30 December 2007 (EST)


is evil

P.S. The Nazis did it. NightFlare 02:06, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Without CP, I never would have learned that "Christians" are opposed to cremation. Ergo, anyone being cremated isn't a Christian. Does that mean only Mormons and the like are cremated? :P --TK/MyTalk 02:29, 30 December 2007 (EST)
Apparently, Nazis cremated a lot of people. And, yes, mostly Jews. Bad Nazis. humanUser talk:Human 02:36, 30 December 2007 (EST)
Have you ever been to a Mormon cemetery? They don't get cremated (In large numbers at least). Pinto's5150 Talk 02:39, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Well, according to past posts by PJR, those Mormons ain't Christians anyways..... --TK/MyTalk 03:04, 30 December 2007 (EST)

I didn't know about the "Christians Against Cremation" (sounds like a club...) bit, either. But then again, I also didn't know that I as a Christian believe "that when Jesus returns to earth, he will physically raise all those who have died, giving them back the bodies they lost at death" (Reference 5).
I like the current article, though. It goes from religion to Nazis to religion to more religion to legal text copypastes (at least I assume those are copypastes). It's really a good demonstration of what CP really is. --Sid 07:53, 30 December 2007 (EST)
Some history regarding the practice. CЯacke®
"In conclusion, it must be remembered that there is nothing directly opposed to any dogma of the Church in the practice of cremation, and that, if ever the leaders of this sinister movement so far control the governments of the world as to make this custom universal, it would not be a lapse in the faith confided to her were she obliged to conform." Man, I love Catholic Encyclopedia. It's so wonderfully pre-Vatican 2. :D --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 11:18, 30 December 2007 (EST)
Mormonism is a Christian schism the same way Christianity is a Jewish schism. --Gulik 13:41, 31 December 2007 (EST)

It presents an amusing mental image. The all powerful god puffed out by having to reconstruct so many people from nothing but ash. Well, by the time of the second coming he will be about 6000 years old eh? Its only surprising that he won't need a Stana stair lift to ascend in to heaven. Lo, the lord nedeth Red Bull to get through the day. --JeεvsYour signature uses all my CPU time... 11:40, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Come to think of it, the article implies the body stays the same when resurrection happens. God truly is a jerk if he's going to resurrect people with missing organs, blood and/or head who've been rotting for years.
According to Church of the SubGenius prophecy, "The Rapture" may well look like the Night of the Living Dead, with the 'Saved' revenants shambling and hungry for the FLESH OF UNBELIEVERS fnord. --Gulik 13:41, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Consistency of article quality[edit]

Does anyone else wonder about the probability theory contributions by Qwestor, for example Marginal distribution, given the expected target and the general quality of most CP articles, in particular the current Probability theory article by our esteemed Andy himself? A probabilistic Ed @CP and RW 07:28, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Fairly typical examples: someone qualified to discuss a subject goes over the top & someone qualified to clean the latrines puts his all into it. 08:06, 30 December 2007 (EST)
Susan, please come back as the real you! Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 14:38, 30 December 2007 (EST)

The wisdom of Ed Poor[edit]

Dunno if these are WIGO worthy:

Ed poor the scientist:

"Carbon dioxide helps plants grow, and it does not have a significant (let alone harmful) effect on climate. But reducing CO2 emissions will hurt the US economy and reduce its influence."

Ed Poor the Socialist:

"Now I have nothing against the core ideals of socialism. When a group is small enough (like a family), there is a lot of sharing. The wealthy parents support their children until they reach maturity and independence. Many children support their elderly parents. But it can't be force, or it doesn't work."

(both main page talk. Just thought they were amusing) 09:24, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Here is his whole "contribution". Amusing yes, but I don't know if I should laugh or cry. Andy's subsequent replies are classic too. Ed @CP and RW 10:09, 30 December 2007 (EST)

This one is pretty disturbing too, especially the last line. I wonder how many shots it takes for Ed to get the taste of Schlafly wang out of his mouth? --Kels 10:55, 30 December 2007 (EST)
As images go you just implanted a real nasty one Kels. But Ed managed to justify it! 11:02, 30 December 2007 (EST)
Speaking of which, has anyone noticed a general absence of Rob Smith and his spittle-flecked McCarthy worship? --Kels 11:07, 30 December 2007 (EST)
He's doubtless been seconded to the secret service to lend his expertese to guard aginst Xmas attacks on the US of A. 11:28, 30 December 2007 (EST)
Ed's having all sorts of fun at Wikipedia right now too.Shangrala 12:39, 30 December 2007 (EST)

And now he took Conservapedia for his family homepage. (Sorry, Ed @CP and RW 14:03, 30 December 2007 (EST))

You'll have to admit, it is true and verifiable. --Kels 14:25, 30 December 2007 (EST)
Is it? Is it really? I thought your poor were somewhere in the middle of hierarchy of the lower classes, nestled between your tired and your huddled masses. --JeεvsYour signature uses all my CPU time... 14:29, 30 December 2007 (EST)
I meant more in terms of Mr. Poor, going by his activities to date. --Kels 14:37, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Why was he looking?[edit]

love me, love my dog - no comment. 09:46, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Hahaha. Excellent. Their "higher standards" prevent them from exploring zoophilia, but not apparently from plumbing the extreme depths of homophobia. Perhaps pointing out that zoophilia is clearly a liberal lifestyle would help, after all if you believe you're descended from a monkey it makes sense to have sex with a monkey... right? --JeεvsYour signature uses all my CPU time... 11:03, 30 December 2007 (EST)
I'll add here that the admitted zoophiles I've spoken to (but can't for the life of me understand or agree with on that topic) have been either gay or bisexual males. Maybe that'll be the goat goad Conservative needs to get down and dirty in the cesspit. --Kels 11:05, 30 December 2007 (EST)
Speaking of Conservative... where is he? Christmas break? Ran out of conservative organizations to cite? --Sid 11:29, 30 December 2007 (EST)
New boyfriend? PFoster 11:31, 30 December 2007 (EST)
His work here on earth is complete. He was probably crucified by some gays and has ascended to the right hand of his father, Fred Phelps. --JeεvsYour signature uses all my CPU time... 11:32, 30 December 2007 (EST)
Dammit - we jinxed it. --Sid 14:05, 30 December 2007 (EST)
His new boyfriend must have been a teenager. Ed @CP and RW 14:07, 30 December 2007 (EST)
Is that because Teen Homosexuality is now third most popular article at CP? Unsigned cos I can't find the fucking tilde on this French Apple keyboard; — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
Chances are it's at Option-n. At least that's where it is on my German Apple layout. And we got a "signature and time stamp" button above the edit box (second from the right).
And I thought Ed@ just made the comment because "Teen Homosexuality" was Conservative's first edit after the break. Didn't check the stats myself yet. --Sid 06:38, 31 December 2007 (EST)


Can someone who talks to editors over there tell them it's not necessary to do this:[[wikipedia]] to every instance of the word on the Examples of Bias in Wikipedia page? Okay it's not every except the the first score and ten. The least they could do is provide the link to the article they're talking about instead of their own page. CЯacke® 14:18, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Less than 36 hours and 6 entries left to make! Can Andy achieve his goal? He even said he could make 150 entries before New Years, so this is quite amusing. Thank goodness someone archived part of the talk page, it was absurdly long. NorsemanWassail! 14:32, 30 December 2007 (EST)
No suprises, Andy failed! - Icewedge 11:41, 1 January 2008 (EST)

"Happy 2008 Andy!"[edit]

Best whises Best wihses Best wishes!

Immature, I know - but it gave me a laugh. That's alright Joaquin, everybody makes mistakes (though only liberals are harassed for it). UchihaKATON! 22:27, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Yeah, hilarious! Has anyone documented PJRayment's premature Happy New Year yet? He has apparently been saving DST hours and used them this year to get an extra day! Although, I must say, it was all taken in the spirit and CP rulzord the lulz for themselves, for once. humanUser talk:Human 23:16, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Top Conservative Achievements of 2007[edit]

Did anyone notice this? If conservapedia was the 8th best conservative achievement of the year then it must have been a dreadful year for conservatives. I love how he actually thinks that he is somehow bringing down wikipedia, which according to this gets more page views in a day than conservapedia has had total in its entire history. --BillOhannitygodvelocity. 00:03, 31 December 2007 (EST)

"Exposing the failed liberal agenda of the Democratic-controlled Congress such that it has record-high disapproval ratings." What the fuck does that even mean?Shangrala 00:14, 31 December 2007 (EST)
I think he's gloating about the poor approval ratings Congress has. Funny thing--I hear the main reason Congress has such bad poll numbers is because they haven't impeached Bush yet, since the Repubs won't let that happen. 2009 can't get here fast enough for me... --Gulik 13:50, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Alleged Abortion Assault[edit]

Isn't it funny how none of the media have covered this? I don't just mean the major media, I mean NONE OF THE MEDIA. Not even the local newspaper has even a peep. Not so much as a letter to the editor. Nothing. But you know, the story has to come from somewhere, right? Hmmmm... --Kels 07:15, 31 December 2007 (EST)

"Founded in 1973, the American TFP was formed to resist, in the realm of ideas, the liberal, socialist and communist trends of the times and proudly affirm the positive values of tradition, family and property. " - In other words, a completely independent, reliable, and notable source on CP. ;) --Sid 08:46, 31 December 2007 (EST)

0% CP material[edit]

counting down 10, 9, 8, 7, ...Bannnnnhammerrrrrrr! 11:09, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Initiating interrogation - what a lovely way to say hello! --Sid 11:35, 31 December 2007 (EST)
That's Kajagooogooo for you! 11:39, 31 December 2007 (EST)
He's really taking on the #2 mantle, isn't he? Susanpurrrrr ... 12:11, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Meanwhile ...[edit]

Editorial Ed thinks red links improve articles. And accepts an alibi - wonders never cease. 13:21, 31 December 2007 (EST)

What's with the huge one-man article creation drive on washed-up has-been geriatric yuppie rockers? I thought Schlafly didn't want entries on celebrities in his blog encyclopedia. PFoster 14:28, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Really not sure myself. As usual, it's mindless copypasting with all the side effects: No article formatting aside from linebreaks, no sources, no links, no categories, tons of work for the people who volunteer to clean up behind him.
Interesting notes: Conflict of Interest time, and the "John Rook" article was deleted from WP because of lacking notability and proper sourcing. Yep, CP really got a winner there, assuming that it's actually him. --Sid 15:22, 31 December 2007 (EST)
When I was reading that John Rook article, my hand kept twitching towards the CSD button. Criterion G11 (blatant advertising) anyone? That "article" wouldn't have gotten past New Page Patrol on Wikipedia. Well, CP can now legitimately claim to have more information on him than Wikipedia does. Of course, if they created Category:Fictional toilets over at CP, they would also be more comprehensive in that subject than Wikipedia. assume  15:43, 31 December 2007 (EST)
For those who don't speak Wikipedia: Criteria for Speedy Deletion, General Criteria, number 11: "Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic."
And a category for fictional toilets? I don't even want to know if there were articles in it - knowing my luck, somebody created "List of toilets on Deep Space Nine" or something XD; --Sid 16:22, 31 December 2007 (EST)
Well, it was deleted. It's currently listed under "Categories with freaky titles" in some archived "Silly Things" subpage somewhere on Wikipedia. Which gives me an idea: I should nominate it for Featured Category next April Fools Day! assume  16:54, 31 December 2007 (EST)

The one ring[edit]

Middle Earth (cat) 39 members! Dunno about Supreme Court cases - they'll soon be the reference for Tolkien. 16:53, 31 December 2007 (EST)

I'm surprised they don't call it "pagan heresy" or something. Aren't they concerned about all the horrible lies corrupting innocent young children's minds? assume  16:59, 31 December 2007 (EST)
Naw, it's allegorical or sumfink - triumph of good over evil (read guns for magic throughout) 17:04, 31 December 2007 (EST)
The people who read fantasy are all librulz, and librulz aren't really people. So they don't care. 18:03, 31 December 2007 (EST)
Tolkein obviously isn't fantasy, because he was CHRISTIAN and there are NO liberal Christians!!! Lurker 18:23, 31 December 2007 (EST)
Actually, there are plenty of conservatives who love fantasy, particularly Tolkein. (My boss when I worked at a political science scholarship program was a conservative, and tried to work Tolkein into EVERYTHING.) Researcher 21:19, 31 December 2007 (EST)
LIES! TOLKEN WAS A -- oh wait nevermind. It's hard being a nonsensical reactionary! Lurker 21:51, 31 December 2007 (EST)
To hear David Brin talk about it, Tolkien was a reactionary propagandist. (Fun essay, if maybe a trifle overwrought.) --Gulik 00:32, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Interesting conversation[edit]

Here. Maybe I'm misreading this, but it seems like Crocoite tells Maestro to do the research instead of adding [citation needed] tags when he sees something he doesn't think is true, then tells him NOT to remove statements that he finds to be incorrect. Did I miss something there?--BillOhannitygodvelocity. 17:28, 31 December 2007 (EST) I know they don't like fact tags, but damn, this is ridiculous. Heck, even Ed is doing it! And the "Do not remove and do not ask for sources" thing is a WTF-class Catch-22. So apparently the best solution is to just look away when you see something you know is wrong. --Sid 17:34, 31 December 2007 (EST)
... but it's a bloody good way of getting rid of good editors. 17:39, 31 December 2007 (EST)
Yeeeeep. CP has a few such cases, actually. Like 90/10 and the Paper Castle Rule. But this one is the most idiotic example, I think. Don't we have a "Category:CP Anti-Editor Tactics"? If not, why not? --Sid 17:49, 31 December 2007 (EST)
Because you haven't created it yet? --Gulik 18:13, 31 December 2007 (EST)
How much research have you done, though? On the surface Crocoite sounds like a big meany, but in reality Maestro is just going around adding fact tags instead of doing his own research. The guy claims to be a librarian but can't be bothered to find things that take two minutes to Google. I'm not sure what Crocoite is talking about when he says not to delete things, unless Maestro got in trouble in the past for deleting things he simply didn't agree with. Lurker 18:03, 31 December 2007 (EST)
If I recall correctly, this isn't the only case. Others have also been dissed for removing stuff Andy masturbated to. (Heck, just check ToE or Atheism to see people trying to remove idiotic stuff.) Same goes for the fact-tag issue. I don't have specific examples at hand right now, though. However, while it's possible that Maestro went overboard (haven't checked it myself), some fact-tagging was justified. For example here by Maestro, which led to the deletion by HelpJazz, followed by Andy saying that the "International Women's Health Coalition" is an "abortion group" (haven't checked it myself, although I wouldn't be TOO surprised if this is just another case of Andy hyping things again). --Sid 18:29, 31 December 2007 (EST)
True true. I was talking more about cp:PETA for example. He placed the tag and with hours there were three references to support it [2]. You are right, they do sometimes go overboard, and one should always check to make sure a sysop (or God forbid Andy himself) wasn't the one who added the "fact". Case in point: Friends. This one made me laugh. Lurker 19:17, 31 December 2007 (EST)
"In reality the statement should either stand or be removed and, based upon who put it in, I'm in no rush to remove it." - Wow, Learn Together isn't even bothering anymore to hide that sysops define truth on CP. Shows how well he has adapted to CP. *shakes head* --Sid 21:01, 31 December 2007 (EST)

(undent) Quite frankly if I wanted to edit an article and found that it had been last or mostly edited by a sysop then I just wouldn't - unless I wanted to be kicked out. 18:28, 31 December 2007 (EST)

That's an almost completely crippling self-restriction. :P --Sid 18:31, 31 December 2007 (EST)
And that's JUST the way Andy & Co. like it. --Gulik 19:49, 31 December 2007 (EST)
True. Kinda makes you wonder why this site even has open registration. Is it just so they got the occasional supply of raw material like with this John "I will copypaste dozens of music entries" Rook guy? --Sid 21:04, 31 December 2007 (EST)


I wonder if Phyllis is writing up her will? Andy's been pulling a Ken spending a lot of time writing about Cremation [3]. Also for some reason he deleted it the other day then restored the most recent revision. Dunno why. Lurker 18:06, 31 December 2007 (EST)

I guess he wants all the glory for himself. Hence the memory-holing of everything before his edit spree. The first delete-restore gig actually left a few errors about non-existent diffs, I think, so he went all the way. But that's not deceit, of course. --Sid 18:17, 31 December 2007 (EST)
I don't know, he was on a bit of an edit spree before the delete as well. It's unusual for Andy to memory hole stuff. Up until yesterday I wasn't even sure he understood the implications of deleting and recreating pages. Lurker 18:21, 31 December 2007 (EST)
Quite possible, but it just strikes me as terribly convenient that there is suddenly no trace of the previous edits, making Andy's edit look like the first one. If this is an accident, it's a dumb one. Why test the deletion feature on a real article? --Sid 18:33, 31 December 2007 (EST)
Oh I agree something is suspicious. I just can't seem to fathom his motives at all. Unless he's going to make it a featured article for January or something. But even then, why would he care if someone else edited it? I think I'm going to place this in the file called "Things I Will Probably Never Understand And Should Probably Just Stop Trying." Lurker 19:07, 31 December 2007 (EST)
Yeah, that sounds like a good idea. Trying to make sense of sysops is usually futile because they often seamlessly combine agenda with incompetence. --Sid 21:03, 31 December 2007 (EST)

What the H?[edit]

Is this an appropriate use of the H word? 18:10, 31 December 2007 (EST)

And no apology, right? It's amazing to me how Wikipedia causes so much harm and almost never apologies or admits it was wrong. I guess that is the atheistic culture.--Aschlafly 11:38, 31 December 2007 (EST)
Can't....breathe....irony....too....thick.... --Gulik 18:12, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Going on and on[edit]

Fantasy on CP: Middle Earth; Magic: the Gathering; Dungeons and Dragons; oh! and Vampire: the Masquerade - none of which are frowned on, surprisingly. 18:57, 31 December 2007 (EST)

How odd. And their article on Demons is rather vague on whether the Party Line is that they're really real or not....probably because the True Believers are busy fulminating against Evilution & gayness. --Gulik 20:00, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Amusing discussion going on about evangelical atheists[edit]

Check out cp:Talk:Evangelical atheist. There's quite a good debate going on between one of my socks and Aschlafly; there's even a more experienced Conservapedian getting involved on my side now! I'm unsure of how this will turn out, but I suspect they'll catch on and block me sooner or later.

Think they're bright enough to catch on to my last remark? (Read only the first letter of each sentence.) What do ya'll think about my attempts at reasonable discussion? assume  21:56, 31 December 2007 (EST)

If you can post a paragraph in that debate where the first letter of each sentence spells "Rationalwiki," I'll buy you a beer.PFoster 22:03, 31 December 2007 (EST)
That probably wasn't wise. Lurker 22:03, 31 December 2007 (EST)
Random access tutorials in ordered neologisms and loaded words is killing I. Dang. humanUser talk:Human 22:08, 31 December 2007 (EST)
Best. Sentence. Ever. --BillOhannitygodvelocity. 22:16, 31 December 2007 (EST)
Really, Andy, this insistence on ... That's as far as I've gotten. Stile4aly 22:35, 31 December 2007 (EST)
I'm well aware of what a bad idea that was, but it was just too tempting. And PFoster, if I get the chance, I'll try. Oh, and I was wondering, how prominent is User:SSchultz in the CP hierarchy? Because I'd rather not have my supporter get in trouble. Yet. assume  22:19, 31 December 2007 (EST)
Ah well, they caught me. Worth it, though. They're still arguing. assume  22:29, 31 December 2007 (EST)
I don't think he's too high up. He was too controversial during Contest 3, and was too loyal to TK, and despite being a lapdog early on, he's been challenging Andy more often lately. Stile4aly 22:36, 31 December 2007 (EST)
Schultz isn't anywhere in the hierarchy. He was fellating Andy for a while then gave up. Now he has a lot of arguments, but surprisingly is kept around anyway.
And I just KNEW Jose read RW. I bet he's a sock here which one of you is him? You sure are annoying, whoever it is. Lurker 22:43, 31 December 2007 (EST)
Meh. He caught me, all right. More of a bantwig than a banhammer, if you ask me, though. 3 day ban for Sir Trout, it seems. "T. Otru"... =P assume  22:50, 31 December 2007 (EST)
It still might get extended if a sysop meanders over hear. I thought that the username was an anagram but I never was any good at anagrams :p Lurker 22:56, 31 December 2007 (EST)
If a sysop from CP sees this, they might also initiate a spree of fish-related bannings as suspected sockpuppets. Halibut? Smiiiite! assume  23:09, 31 December 2007 (EST)
One never knows when it comes to sysop logic. Lurker 23:12, 31 December 2007 (EST)
If I knew any proxies they hadn't blocked, I would be over there making fish-named socks right now. Master Bra'tacKree! 23:26, 31 December 2007 (EST)
Updated to.... "WOTANG"? I don't get that one... --Eira yay! 03:20, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Could Somebody Explain This?[edit]

I came across this during Poor Ed's unprotecting spree... He unprotected Ann Coulter *gasp* and posted this on the talk page. I was under the impression he was trying to take advantage of all these unprotections to reinforce his "reasonable" persona (and perhaps try to show that CP can be "reasonable" as well), but I actually have no idea what he was trying to say here... Suggestions? UchihaKATON! 02:22, 1 January 2008 (EST)

I can't tell what Ed means there either, but I'm surprised Feebasfactor is still around being sane. NightFlare 02:52, 1 January 2008 (EST)
The whole situation there is somewhat unsettling... Ed seeming to step up his game to reinforce his position as cp's great white hope is just a little piece of the subtle and not so subtle internal power struggling that is visible since TKs departure left something of a power vacuum. Sox Fox is also putting himself across as a voice of reason, and interestingly appears to be gently butting heads with Ed over seemingly trivial articles. He seems to have a dislike of fundamentalism and yet is keeping his skirmishes away from the real battleground articles and debates - fear or cunning? 08:02, 1 January 2008 (EST)
Heh Hes far more dangerous than that. Stop trying to make me fit your template. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs


I really need to vent about how much I hate Stupid PeopleTM - revert if needed.


That is all. Thank you for tuning in.
--Ζωροάστρης 03:32, 1 January 2008 (EST)

You're welcome. NightFlare 03:35, 1 January 2008 (EST)