Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive61

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, 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>, <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>, <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>, (new)(back)

Site-wide activity[edit]

Is it just me, or if you look at 500 most recent changes on Conservapedia, are there startlingly few of them? As near as I can tell, it took almost 48 hours to make the 500 most recent edits, and during the 24 hours of 11 July 2008 (UTC), there were only 242 edits made. RationalWiki had 606 edits during that time. Granted, they have the "no talking, only article contributions" rule, while we have the "100 virgins will visit your grave if you mention 'goat' enough times" rule, but, still... Are the 500 Internal Server Errors and indiscriminate blocking having a really noticeable effect, or is the output of Special:Recentchanges over there somehow hiding something? --Interiot 13:45, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

It's a weekend, Saturdays can be slow there (and here); Aschlafly seems to be on vacation; they seem to have forgotten to feed the hamster(s), as well as all those things you mentioned. They've become so much a parody of themselves it isn't fun to wandalise no more. I saw one block today for someone called "Wikidd", for "unacceptable user name", come on! And they'll still toiling on ways to vet potential editors, by making it harder to register! Maybe a big sign saying STAY AWAY!!11! would work just as good? CЯacke® 14:29, 12 July 2008 (EDT)
Despite Andy's best efforts I would imagine that his army of homskolers has bought into the communistic public school idea that students should take vacation during July and August. Maybe they will come back in September to edit-for-credit... Even better, maybe Andy will carry through with his "Critical Thinking in Math" course.Antifly 14:53, 12 July 2008 (EDT)
Alexa (even with its flaws) doesn't seem to show any seasonal variation.
More statistics (UTC times):
number of edits per day at Fri Jul 11 Thu Jul 10 Wed Jul 9 Tue Jul 8 Mon Jul 7
Conservapedia 242 255 318 414 265
RationalWiki 606 582 613 723 421
Conservapedia [mainspace only] 110 121 167 235 134
Uncyclopedia [mainspace only] 924 1149 1112
I wish I had data going back a few months or years, I don't think it was this low before. --Interiot 15:16, 12 July 2008 (EDT)
Conservative used to have a load of various statistics for his interminable Google opmtimization projects floating around somewhere in his userspace. Don't know if it's still here. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 16:05, 12 July 2008 (EDT)
The only thing I could find was User:Conservative/Conservapediarunningstats. I don't like "page views" as a metric though, since it can reflect negative attention as well as positive. (page edits certainly can as well, though not nearly to the extent that web hits can, since something like the Digg effect can make the page-views metric spike far far more than the hangers-on metric does, since page views require so little investment in time).
Maybe someone should create a site-wide "edit counter" that tracks statistics across different namespaces, and keeps track of the net addition/removal of bytes of content, on a daily basis. The net-bytes-added metric would remove the influence of rapid reverts at least. --Interiot 17:06, 12 July 2008 (EDT)
Hahahahahaha: "Is it just me, or if you look at 500 most recent changes on Conservapedia, are there startlingly few of them?" - I count exactly 500, just as always ;) ħumanUser talk:Human 17:39, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

Ooh, he's sharp. Absolutely no activity over there at the moment - my gran could do better than them. Matt 19:26, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

Hehe. Anyway, as far as I can tell CP is completely broken. Or is it just me that can't get a page to load? ħumanUser talk:Human 19:42, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

It would seem conservapedia is fucked. Hahaha, schlalfy, you moron Ace McWicked 20:01, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

Alexa Rankings vs. Edits Someone above said that Alexa didn't show any variation. If it's true that the edits have tailed off, which doesn't surprise me, then it implies that the majority of visitors to the site are simply there to point and stare. The Lay Scientist 19:56, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

CP page views
CP does seem to be having tech trouble; last week, and especially yesterday, it kept intermittently feeding me empty (0-byte) "index.php" pages (which my Firefox decides are best viewed in a text editor). However, I bet their lack of traffic is mostly due to new-user registration being closed. As someone remarked before, wandalizing now means risking that you'll run out of socks and be unable to create new ones until God Andy knows when. Andy's also been closing up for the night earlier, and staying closed longer, which shuts out wandals and non-sysop straights alike. Marty 04:36, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
I've uploaded the latest CP page view history (above right). The big drop was when they upgraded the MediaWiki software. Jollyfish.gifGenghisOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 05:18, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, I think it dropped viewcounts of deleted pages, right? ħumanUser talk:Human 16:22, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
I believe page counts for the stats pages are kept separate from the page counts for individual pages. Each time you hit a page it increments both pages. However, deletions of pages don't decrease the site page count. When they did an upgrade it recalculated the site page counts as the sum of all current page counts - and thus all the deletions showed up at once. --Shagie 17:13, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

Pwned Conservapedia Again![edit]

Beer+ego-fuelled rant here, but thanks to someone posting an article on, I doubled the Conservapedes' traffic on Thursday :) Screw you Schlafly :P The Lay Scientist 19:59, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia and the Poe Paradox?[edit]

Any new member of the CP project who's not as Conservative as them is liable to be chucked out. However, any new member who is as Conservative as them is in serious danger of being called a parodist, and chucked out. Is this the first living example of a Poe Paradox? The Lay Scientist 20:25, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

Seems like it. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 20:57, 12 July 2008 (EDT)
Poe's Paradox, certainly worth adding to the urban dictionary and rational wiki to see if it takes off as much as the original meme has. Armondikov 16:35, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

"Flaws in Lenski paper"[edit]

Okay, I really, really feel like I must ask the following, pressing question:


He is, once again, opening himself up to public ridicule, for no. Good. Reason. It's like he's absolutely desperate to be shown up as an idiot. --λινυσ()

Did he spend his entire summer vacation working on this? Wow. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:24, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

Now, it seems, Assfly is trying to list 'flaws' in Lenski's project. He's not doing very well, though. He starts with an outright lie (that Lenski refused to release ay data), then seems to state 'flaws' that show he is utterly unfamiliar with Lenski's work (such as removing the data that confirms Lenski's hypothesis, then saying 'when that data is removed, Lenski's hypothesis is disproved'), basic scientific practice (such as looking at all the data, not just the data you want to see), or both, and of course, engaging in that old creationist favorite, quotemining, by a rather whopping degree, as, as far as I can tell, he quotemined this (copy-pasted from Lenski's paper):

To calculate the significance of these data, we performed Monte Carlo resampling tests (shuffling without replacement) by using the Statistics101 Re-sampling Simulator version 1.0.6 ( For each experiment, we compared the observed mean generation of those clones that yielded Cit� variants to the mean expected under the null hypothesis that clones from all generations have equal likelihood.The deviations from the null expectations range from 'marginally to highly significant in the three experiments, and in all cases they support the historical-contingency hypothesis, according to which clones from later generations have greater propensity to evolve the Cit� phenotype (Table 2). Although the third experiment was the largest, it was the least significant, owing primarily to the production of two Cit� mutants by a 20,000-generation clone. We also used the Z-transformation method (49) to combine the probabilities from our three experiments, and the result is extremely significant (P � 0.0001) whether or not the experiments are weighted by the number of independent Cit� mutants observed in each one. Furthermore, the potentiation effect in later generations is underestimated by these tests, because the number of cells trended lower in later-generation cultures owing to the evolution of larger cells that reach lower population density (24, 25, 41, 50).

Into saying that the third experiment was "marginally ... significant". Zmidponk 22:35, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

Hehe - guess you two must have been typing that whilst I was typing mine. merging the sections, and, for ease of perusing the insanity, linky. Zmidponk 22:43, 12 July 2008 (EDT)
Bolding by me for clarity. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:08, 12 July 2008 (EDT)
p-value of 0.0001, that means that there is a 1 in 10,000 chance that the experimental results were a result of random sampling. (More accurately if you preform the experiment an infinite amount of time 1 in 10000 times would result in a different conclusion) Actually they used Bayesian statistics so this interpretion is correct. That is phenomenally small, there is a clear statistical difference. \approx\pi 22:45, 12 July 2008 (EDT)
Bayesian statistics are probably a little foreign to Andy "I have taken twice as many statistics courses as you" Schlafly. I don't know why Bayes was a preacher, whilst Fisher was a evolution/eugenics supporter (he was both two). \approx\pi 23:05, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

He's adding Schlaflogy to the talk page already. I predict an 8 on the lulz scale for this newest article (1 being not so very lulzy, 10 being LAWLz0r) NorsemanWassail! 01:02, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

My quick 2am perusal is that Schlafly's complaints mostly focus on the third experiment. It is 3/4 of his complaints, and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of statistics or the tests that were used. I would love to see Schlafly's math on how results are non-significant. His other complaint about including later generations cultures is just abject no excuse ignorance and idiocy. The paper goes to great lengths to explain how the researchers tested the hypothesis that the Cit+ mutants were all ready in place before plating. They were not, the fact that they evolved Cit+ so quickly is clearly related to potentiating mutations. So it is basically hand waving claims of magic stats math without showing the actual math or token understanding of the stats the paper went over, and an amazingly obtuse lack of reading comprehension. 01:42, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

P.S. I just need to reiterate one more time just how stupid his issues are, the fact that he would broadcast them so triumphantly..............just defies imagination. My "cp bashing" has slowed a great deal over time as my personal interest has waned and I have focused more on building RW. But the mind blowing ignorance displayed here...I just need to say it again: what a total idiot. tmtoulouse harass 01:48, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
Andy's grudge seems to be table 2 of the of Lenski's above paper. Experiment 3 has a p-value of 0.0823. This means that Lenski has excepted the alternative hypothesis (e.g, that they are historically contingent, rather the null hypothesis would be a random mutation each time) with a probability of being wrong of 8.23% rather than the usual 5%. Also he uses Bayesian statistics rather than the normal until about 10 years ago of frequentist. Andy is probably unfamiliar with them and so like Ed "maths expert" Poor, fells that if he doesn't understand it it must be wrong. \approx\pi 02:56, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
Btu Aynd is ar teecher, hee undtersdands evryting! — Unsigned, by: Homskollar One / talk / contribs

The quote mining is just a step too far, and leads me back to what I said before - that this is just posturing, he knows himself it's bollocks, and he's just throwing as much mud as possible to see if anything sticks, using the "argumentum ad nauseum" approach in the hope that if he says it enough, eventually other people will assume it must be true. Not that it seems to be working yet... The Lay Scientist 05:32, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

The LS is correct. He has no idea whether his analysis is correct or not. It doesn't matter. All he is aiming for is to sow seeds of doubt. It's all about the volume.
I keep saying it but you must remember what his target audience is. Public ridicule is irrelevant. Ajkgordon 06:07, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
From Andy's posturing it seems clear that he hates being proven wrong. Yes what he's saying is desperate, but I truly believe that the second response from Lenski hurt him badly. He probably does know that what he's sayung is bollocks but it's just desperation. 10:57, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
Could be. But if he just just keeps posturing CP and does nothing then that's going to hurt him as well. If he's so totally convinced he's right then his acolytes are going to expect him to act - and if he acts he'll look stupid again. On the other hand I'm sure he's convinced he is right - he must be right because evolution is wrong. So Lenski must be mistaken or a fraud - for Andy there is no other option. So will he continue posturing and look weak - or act and look stupid? Should continue to be interesting.--Bobbing up 11:18, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
Perhaps Andy should take his findings, write it up all formal-like, and submit it to PNAS...--WJThomas 11:53, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
He is being goaded into doing exactly that[1]. I suspect he'll resist though and just sow the seeds of doubt on his own website where he can control the debate.--Damo2353 12:01, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
Indeed.. it's not in his interests to formalize his arguments. The Lay Scientist 12:12, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
"Jump! Jump! Jump! Jump!" :D --Gulik 16:01, 13 July 2008 (EDT)


I'm willing to bet that at this point Andy has zero interest in actually submitting any of this nonsense to PNAS. What he's looking to do is set up an "official" internet repository of supposedly objective objections to Lenski's work, that other fundies will look to as being authorative. If he submits to PNAS he'll get pwned, but this way other sites will look to this as being authorative and true, without checking it themselves. Notice how the page makes no mention of who came up with these objections? It's just put out there for folks to take as the truth, and as long as it stays as a page in AndyLand he can censor out any objections that show it to be B.S. --SpinyNorman 12:03, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

(EC) I think someone should do exactly that - write up Andy's objections as an article, send it to PNAS signed "on behalf of the Conservapedia community," and then present it to Andy as a fait accompli. Fun for the whole family.PFoster 12:06, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
That would be a wonderful thing. --Gulik 16:01, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
Nice to see I'm not the only one who noticed the passive voice in the Lenski articles. It's bad style. Lenski received a request, objections were raised, etc. etc. It's a nice fog cover for him. It's also called deceit when used consciously like that to hide the truth. --Sid 12:12, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
CP is riddled with it, and I think you see it quite a lot in conspiracy theories too, where people conceal the source in order to increase the authority... The Lay Scientist 12:19, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

None of this is hurting Schlafly. This guy has been brainwashed from birth. If he was upset by ridicule, he would have stopped opening his mouth about three weeks after he learned how to talk. He's obviously not going to take any further action, since he's effectively ruled it out every time people on CP bring it up (saying it'll be futile), and so what he'll do now is what he's doing already - repeating the claim ad nauseum. Does it make him look stupid or weak? Frankly that's debatable.

I think actually Andy's biggest problem isn't his tackling of Lenski per se, it's that he's trying to use Conservapedia for a purpose different to that which it was created for. The plan at the beginning of this project was that Conservapedia would be an encyclopaedic resource for his home-schooling classes that eliminated the perceived liberal bias in Wikipedia. At that point, he had a good idea. Things went wrong when he decided to start publicizing it, and using it as a public outreach tool, which a wiki just isn't an appropriate technology for. Getting a message successfully across to an audience relies on making clear, concise, well-framed, on-message statements - something that wikis with their scattered links and multiple editors are abysmal at doing.

The result is that he's trying to use wiki technology to run a wiki, a forum, and a blog, and the result is a big mess. A Wiki is simply not a good way for somebody like Andy to try and propagate his views, and if I were his advisor right now, I'd recommend him to lock up Conservapedia for home-school groups and trusted editors only, and switch to a blog for trying to take his argument to the public.

His problem isn't the debate, it's his shitty use of web technology. The Lay Scientist 12:11, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

I think your "this is just posturing" argument would have more bite if it weren't for stuff like the Liberal "x" articles and the idiot Mystery series. This is the man, remember, who genuinely sees off-message liberal bias in a Bible he otherwise believes to be the inerrant Word of God. He is a stone-cold crank and deadly serious. --Robledo 12:15, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
I didn't say myself that he was just posturing. What I've said here and in the past is that his strategy is to just keep repeating the assertions ad nauseum until they perhaps stick. Whether that's intentional, or just a result of his crank-itude, that's still what he's doing. The Lay Scientist 12:24, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
Dunno how long you've been following CP, Lay Scientist, but this has been an issue since day one, basically. The entire "We lock articles forever and only let select few people edit them" premise (which pretty much started with Conservative and the Evolution article way back then) is connected to this. It all goes against the spirit of a wiki, which normally promotes openness and freedom. Andy forced a wiki into a blog set-up. The sysops are the blog authors, and everybody else is just commenting. --Sid 12:16, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
About a year or so, on and off. It's just interesting because this Lenski mess is such a good example, in that he wouldn't have this headache to deal with at all if he'd just released a statement like AiG did. I'm just trying to point out that it's not writing to Lenski that's got him into trouble here, it's his communications strategy. The Lay Scientist 12:24, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
I agree some and I disagree some. I doubt Andy would have many people reading him if he just had a conventional blog.--Damo2353 12:31, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
A fair point Damo, the use of wiki software gives the illusion that people can join in and be an interactive part of the whole. So people dive in mistakenly thinking that they can help improve it like a democracy. Conservapedia has become the Zimbabwe of wikis, with the sysops stifling dissent and beating up anyone who dares oppose President Schlafly. Jollyfish.gifGenghisOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 12:46, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
Maybe part of it is 1) the fact that it attracts contributors, but I think it's more that 2) the fact that it's the "anti-Wikipedia", during a time when news editors were looking to do stories on Wikipedia, but 3) even moreso, the wiki format encourages Andy and his group to enumerate exactly what their beliefs are, making it so easy for detractors to point and laugh... in all other formats, they might have kept some of these details less out in the open. --Toiretni 12:56, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
I agree with LS that it's an inappropriate technology for what he wants to do. But I love this from Genghis "Conservapedia has become the Zimbabwe of wikis,...". Quote of the week for me.--Bobbing up 13:08, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

<-- If only there was a spelling error or typo in the Lenski paper! That would negate everything Lenski has EVER published and he could move on! CЯacke® 14:30, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

I just read the "professionalism" comment on WIGO. How can we expect Andy to understand anything about statistics when he apparently thinks that more people read CP than do PNAS...Antifly 14:39, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
Moreover, the size of the audience doesn't really matter. Most people (including me) don't have enough knowledge to be able to accurately evaluate a scientific paper (and still wouldn't even if they devote an entire vacation to it).
As luck would have it though, most readers of Conservapedia are blithely unaware of their limitations. --Toiretni 15:01, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
Toiretni, I think that, actually, most CP readers are perfectly aware of their limitations. It's only the people who read it and don't laugh their head off that are unaware of them. Zmidponk 15:37, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
@Antifly, agreed. A quick check with Alexa shows that RW is closer to CP than CP to PNAS. CP barely reached PNAS numbers at its one or two sharp peaks. ħumanUser talk:Human 16:29, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
The PNAS also has more than just its site to reach people... and despite Andy's apparent aversion against anything in print (except for his mother's books), the printed media are still widely used... --Sid 17:21, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
There's no comparison with PNAS, since PNAS's readers are genuine readers, while the majority of Conservapedia's audience in those peaks consisted of people going there to point and laugh at the retards. Andy's effective audience is probably less than 50. Discount the home-schoolers, probably barely a couple of dozen. So he's not in the same league as PNAS. The Lay Scientist 19:26, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

Hmmm wheres PJR? usually he'd be right in there with his "science". Seems he is on sabbatical Ace McWicked 18:25, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

An alternative hypothesis[edit]

Maybe Andy does know he is wrong and looks like an idiot, but like a wrestler carries on making a fool of himself for the publicity it generates. Maybe he is doing this to get his traffic ratings up so he can finally launch his dot-com company. Why else is Conservapedia a dot-com if not for profit, why not dot-org or dot-net? \approx\pi 20:40, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

Nice thought, but three big flaws. Firstly, there's no real way to monetize Conservapedia. Secondly, he's demonstrated precisely zero ability to harness web technology (if he had any, he wouldn't be pushing this Lenski crap on a wiki). Thirdly, his traffic there is tiny, and the growth potential is limited (the only real boost he ever gets is from rational bloggers like Pharyngula linking to him), so it's unlikely to get any bigger. Even a top blog like Pharyngula only makes tens of dollars a month.The Lay Scientist 21:36, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
Not that I believe this conspiracy theory, but isn't that kind of like saying there's no way to monetise religion? Donations from the failful, yo! (In that sentence "failful" was a real, actual typo... I liked it so much I left it in.) -- 01:17, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
I think you're stretching that a bit :P My point was that Conservapedia is basIcally worthless. In its current form, I doubt it could generate much more than the hosting fees. Websites monetize themselves by having a big readership, and they don't have one. The Lay Scientist 12:09, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

Nah...CP is just an ego stroke for Andy, a way to make himself feel like less of a loser, a way to pretend that he's fighting A Big Important Battle and Making A Difference in the world, a way to tear down those who are better than him. He hit middle age and found himself babysitting a bunch of homeschoolers in a basement in Jersey while his contemporaries were becoming judges and CEOs and senators. I doubt it coincidence that he started CP just as his arch-nemesis and former classmate Barack Obama started gearing up for a run at PotUS.--WJThomas 22:44, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

Lamb to the Slaughter[edit]

Moving away from Lenski for a minute, any bets on how long Icspeks lasts? The sequence of events will probably be

  • Banned for name
  • If he survives that, "I've taught SAT maths" will come up, followed by
  • "Too much jargon";
  • "We don't accept liberal claims of false qualifications here";
  • "Godspeed"

--PsygremlinWhut? 22:21, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

Another will feels Ed's sticky wrath after this number Ace McWicked 01:15, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

"Please Ed, stick to subjects you know something about." That's never stopped our Jack of all trades (and master of none) before. Either Ed will confess to have spent several years supporting St. Helens or the article will be zapped/merged for not being notable. Jollyfish.gifGenghisOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 01:53, 14 July 2008 (EDT)



  • CЯacke®
  • ħumanUser talk:Human The lolz will always be in the archives, and I think it would be fun to boycott now that I have started editing again. Plus, I'm always up for a boycott.
  • Rylon I signed-up during the last boycott. (At least, I think it was the last boycott.) I think it's good for us to boycott once in a while. It gives us a chance to create new articles and polish the languishing ones. Rylon 02:47, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

Boycott or else just mock and ridicule. AKA Manderson Wismike 09:14, 14 July 2008 (EDT)


  • I think it might be worth waiting until Lenski has completely blown over as we may miss something even funnier. 3.14159 (not signed in)
The problem with a boycott now is, like the last one during the contest, is that it is a high traffic time for them. The boycotts were primarily from my understanding to find out how many people actually us CP and how many are just as. If there is no noticeable increase in traffic over the next week ie, Andy's latest stunt in turning CP into journal paper rebuttal site goes without notice on the science blogs, then we should have a boycott. \approx\pi 00:05, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
Actually, they were, historically, to wean us off this CP-centric addiction by showing that we could have fun and build the site without input from CP. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:14, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
Okay Andy's crazyness can wait. There are a few things I should do around here that are not directly CP related (although somewhat inspired). \approx\pi 02:27, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
  • I agree. Especially now that Andy's on his "I've found a mistake na-na-nana" drive. Might be worth watching fora bit longer, to see where it goes --PsygremlinWhut? 23:43, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
Blah blah, Andy boring with the new Lenski article. It will still be there in a week... ħumanUser talk:Human 01:14, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
  • People are heading here as a destination for information on Schlafly v. Lenski and the rebuttals. To say "nope we're not going to talk about CP" turns away potential people and makes us that much less of a reliable source (if something that is desirable if we are ever to win that "is rational wiki a reliable source" debate that occasionally pops up at wikipedia). As we become more of a destination, the whims of admin types need to be less of an influence. (If you don't want to read about Conservapedia, don't. Take WIGO off your watch list, bribe Tmt to make a group called boycott that can't see Conservapedia articles, whatever... but don't make those who are actively rebutting and refuting or looking for said rebuttals and refutements go somewhere else - they might not come back). Part of the google ranking (and thus the visibility of all of the other pages on google) is people linking to us - Andy's continued follies on Lenski remains a good source of links from other blogs. --Shagie 01:03, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
If we show that we do other things, that is good. Your argument is that all we are is WIGO CP, basically. We strive to be more than a parasite on conservapedia. New visitors won;t care if we aren't updating WIGO CP - there's a lot here to enjoy. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:14, 14 July 2008 (EDT) More: Seriously, Shagie, we are more than a google destination whore. As long as we yoke ourselves to the Schlafly chain, we will be trivial. We must move beyond this minor thing we do (not to say we don't do it well) and remind ourselves that there are other idiots out there to refute. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:12, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
I think we should wait until I go on vacation. Jollyfish.gifGenghisOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 01:58, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
You're lazy ;) ħumanUser talk:Human 02:12, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

I wonder if the point is that we should move on to other things to broaden the wiki, agreed. However I don't think this should be at the exclusion of CP. Any ideas as to something else I could write about? Give us a writing plan Ed.--Damo2353 02:44, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

  • With CP down as much as it has been lately, a boycott would pointless, superfluous.--WJThomas 09:08, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

The biggest and most obvious reasons against a boycott are that the site is screwed anyway, and that with the Lenski traffic surge it'll make no impact anyway. The Lay Scientist 11:46, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

RationalWiki Direction[edit]

Re: all the comments above, should we have a separate debate on this on another page somewhere? My own personal view is that RW has no chance of expanding from its current base until it diversifies from just being a commentary on Conservapedia. Of course if that's all you want it to be, then fine. The Lay Scientist 11:47, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

We debate this from time to time LS and many want to go beyond CP. There are a few closely related things that keep us with CP though. 1) people are familiar with the site and its personalities. 2) A very large percentage of our user base found us through CP. 3) A very large percentage of our new user base still comes to us from CP and and they immediately want to talk about CP. 4) We are, in the end, simply a reflection of the interests of our editors. If they want to write about CP then that's what happens.
Having said all that I think we should widen our targets, but no target-widening project seems to have yet inspired the collective imagination.--Bobbing up 12:19, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
Something else to keep in mind (which is also a potential stepping stone into brief bursts of expansion) is that CP is a nice collection of several target groups. We got the YEC crowd, the ID crowd, the global warming denial crowd, the openly anti-science crowd... all available on a single site! --Sid 13:10, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
They're like the Crazy Combo. If only they came with fries... :( Barikada 14:15, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
The best collection of target groups has to be the vaccines-cause-autism crowd. 14:17, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

I think that a lot of liberals who are interested in Conservapedia share an interest in the scientific skepticism movement, even if they wouldn't label themselves as that. Those who want to be good at explaining the basics of science to anti-science people need to understand what anti-science people's beliefs are, and Conservapedia provides a unique glimpse into that. RationalWiki has some skepticism content that I think is unique and explains some things better than I've seen elsewhere: Lower limit on the age of the universe, Evidence against a recent creation, Cdesign proponentsists, Gish gallop. --Interiot 15:00, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

See also RationalWiki_talk:Constitutional_Convention,_April_2008#What_we_ought_to_be and RationalWiki:Constitutional_Convention,_April_2008 Sterilesnore! 18:27, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

Account creation[edit]

What's the deal with CP account creation right now? I haven't been able to see the "Create a new user" button for at least a week now, but the user creation log is full of new users, many of them obvious trolls. How are they getting in? Is it that CP has finally blocked my IP(s) from account creation? or is it due to rogue admins who have access to the user creation mechanism? or you just have to know the right URL to create an account?   02:16, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

They usually switch it on and off arbitrarily and without any sort of announcement - just like you'd have to rely on trial-and-error to figure out when the nightly lockdown goes into effect. When it's enabled, you should see the "Create account" link/button on the log-in screen. --Sid 05:37, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

Meanwhile, on Kenservapedia[edit]

Ken struggles to make a coherent article without his customary quote-spamming about a really, really significant blog. The sheer quality of Conservapedia continues to grow! If blogs are now significant enough to be featured as an encyclopedia item, then can we haz a PZ Meyers article with linkies to his blog, please, Ken? Bondurant 07:48, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

Actually Ken is making a whole series of articles about anti-athiest/atheism blogs. I can only presume that this is one of his puerile "exciting dvelopments" that he promised. I imagine that he is trading plugs on thes blogs to give the assorted melange of quotes he tries to pass off as encyclopedic articles, a boost in the Google rankings. It is typical of Ken is that every article he touches gets locked to prevent anyone else making any contribution. Jollyfish.gifGenghisOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 09:34, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
Bwahaha. World domination imminent. Atheism has been pwned. Go Ken. Bondurant 11:19, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
I won't be happy until TLS is on there. Hey, it's all publicity. The Lay Scientist 11:52, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
Hah, Ken is such a freakin jerk! While some of the blogs that he has featured link to his Atheism - Article of the Year the cp:Sam Harris - Myth Buster or Myth Maker?‎, cp:Richard Dawkins - Zeitgeist Weltanschauung and cp:Dan Barker - One of America's Leading Atheists are all his own blogs featuring copious links back to his (and only his) articles at Conservapedia. In fact the top post in all of them is the same. He also links to his links back to the private blogs from all the CP articles. Jollyfish.gifGenghisOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 12:55, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
Dear readership;
I thought to point out some interesting articles I have run across lately including “Atheism” which was voted “article of the year.”
Also of interest in this regard is “Atheism Quotes.”
Regarding science debates “Theory of Evolution” and “Creation Science.”
Also of interest might be Homosexuality.
I like the way he says the Atheism article was "voted" article of the year. I think it was just one vote. Jollyfish.gifGenghisOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 13:02, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
(Edit Conflict) Dead on, GK:
Ken's linkspamming like crazy and is going to give every blog an article as long as it fuels his agenda. Notability be damned. And why do they play along? Well, here's a comparison of CP, Atheism is Dead, and three of Mariano's blogs. I set smoothing to the lowest setting so you see anything. If you crank it up to its default value, you'll basically only see the line for Atheism is Dead while the three Mariano blogs effectively drop off the graph.
And is Ken Mariano? You seem to imply it, but I sorta doubt it. Then again, I didn't look deeper into it. --Sid 13:04, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
Sid, Ken very kindly gives a list of all his homopages at the side of his blogs. Yes, Atheism is dead is one of them, but many of the others also have the same recent entry at the top. Jollyfish.gifGenghisOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 13:08, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
Doesn't seem that Ken is Mariano, but then again why would the same person have three different anti-atheism blogs? Only Ken would do something like that. But seriously, I can't see Ken pretending to be Jewish. Seems that Ken, in his incessant googling, found this guy and told him he'd write CP articles on his blogs if his blogs would like to CP's atheism articles. Wow, Ken. Those developments are exciting. Maybe I can get my nephew (who's 2) to link to CP on his blog? Imagine what that would do for traffic! DickTurpis 13:11, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
It looks like you are both right. Mariano appears to be a serial blogger from Albuquerque and has done a deal with Ken as it is obvious Ken wrote it for him. Jollyfish.gifGenghisOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 13:15, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

I know, GK - I visited them as you can see. But the ones with the same entry at the top also have this:
Shalom, my name is Mariano. I am married and the father of four little treasures. I teach apologetics as a hobby and a service. I have lectured at the Santa Fe Conference on Biblical Discernment. I have traveled to the United States of America, Peru, Mexico, Israel, The Bahamas, Curacao, Aruba and Bonaire. I have lived in Buenos Aires, Miami-FL. and Albuquerque.
And when you check out the full profile, you'll see that this "Mariano" guy is also on tons of other blogs. So I think that that's just yet another guy who made a deal with Ken - not Ken himself. Unless we're somehow having a misunderstanding of sorts? I just come from training, so my reading comprehension may not be 100% up to speed yet. --Sid 13:15, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

What this is really about[edit]

Regarding the Alexa rankings, the link spamming probably won't be about generating traffic per se, but about having lots of links back to his pages. It's the same sort of tactic you see from nutters like Joseph Obi, designed to boost their position on Google, and in the Technorati rankings. The Lay Scientist 14:22, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
It looks like Mariano has posted Ken's spam on nearly all - what is it, 24? - of his blogs, despite some of them have been dormant for nearly 3 years (last post for the Eucharist one was November 2005) and having received no comments whatsoever. He also posted the links on his blatantly (yet sparse) anti-Mormon blog. I wonder how DeanS feels about the linking to Kens's articles from a Mormonophobe. Although wasn't Ken one of the Mormon critics who had previously upset Crocoite before UltimaHero's foray?
@TLS - While Ken likes to boast of the Alexa traffic, his present spamfest is designed to boost his Google ranking. Jollyfish.gifGenghisOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 14:30, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
Agreed with TLS and GK - it's all about Google rankings for Ken. I just pulled out Alexa to show why the bloggers so readily agreed to whore themselves out: They get linked to from a site with relatively high traffic for free, and since a sysop created the articles, these ads will be there to stay. It's the same Ken did with Peter Labababababa from "Closet Homosexuals Americans for Truth". Much subtler than him creating a bazillion socks and trolling in blog comments and forums (which he usually does to pimp his Google rank), at least. --Sid 15:13, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
PS: Since this section is getting long and because TLS and GK brought up a very good point, I've created a sub-header. --Sid 15:15, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

With spamming blogs for google rankings, the thing to do is tell google its being done. --Shagie 17:53, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

As much as I'd see Ken being taken down by a Google Strike Team, I think he's not actually violating the Webmaster Guidelines. He's definitely gaming the system with his SEO antics, but that's it, from what I know.
However, rest assured that he's making CP look even more idiotic in order to maximize his Google impact: The reason why he began to re-integrate each and every "satellite article" (like "Homosexuality and smoking" or all the quotes) into the main piece is to have as many potential search terms as possible on a single page. The result is a completely bloated article that triggers "TL;DR" reflexes in most users. --Sid 18:22, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
I contend that this is exactly what the spam report is designed to address. Not violating the letter of the guidelines, but certainly abusing the spirit. "If you believe that another site is abusing Google's quality guidelines, please report that site at Google prefers developing scalable and automated solutions to problems, so we attempt to minimize hand-to-hand spam fighting. The spam reports we receive are used to create scalable algorithms that recognize and block future spam attempts." --Shagie 21:06, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

Ed and Maths, again[edit]

Just found an old contribution from Ed which illustrates just how fantastic his maths is. The article on electrical resistance gives the formula R=V/I. Ed then comments on the talk page about the "different formula", V=IR, and asks if it is "true, or even useful". Truly, the man is a mathematical genius. alt 08:16, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

The man cannot rearrange a fraction. People have let him tutor their students for SATs. I am going to go cry now. \approx\pi 08:30, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
Now you know why conservatives have to go to crappy places like Liberty University--Franklin 10:42, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
*scream of agony* :( --λινυσ() 09:46, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
I actually feel physically ill now. That may be from something else, but it was fun to say. --λινυσ() 09:52, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
V=IR sounds like liberal claptrap to me. 10:20, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
Who said anything about V=IR? Ed only mentioned the formula V=R*I, and I haven't seen any proof that those equations are equivalent. You seem to enjoy changing the subject. Maybe your contributions would be better off at Wikipedia. Godspeed, --Marty 12:37, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
That made me laugh maniacally for some reason… --λινυσ() 13:55, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
Well, commutativity is liberal relativism after all. Honestly, if you didn't know better you'd have to say Uncle Ed is a parodist.Maybe he's burrowing from within! Call RobS! -- 14:56, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
Ed Poor has a long and storied history at Wikipedia, it's unlikely he's a parodist.[2][3][4][5] --Toiretni 15:19, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

Assyrian Empire[edit]

Is the CP hamster struggling again - I'm getting very poor response. Silver Sloth 10:07, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

They don't have an angel investor as cool as ours? --Toiretni 10:46, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
Connection Interrupted
The document contains no data.--- It must be New Error Message Day at CP. I've never seen that one before...PFoster 10:54, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
Actually that's ingenious. Andy knows that lately all his traffic is driven by Lenski. Users will try to find information on Lenski's study, and are greeted with "document contains no data."Shangrala 11:12, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

New Parodist?[edit]

This guy definitely seems like a troll. One thing's for sure; he's way funnier than Bugler! Heathen 12:39, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

No outing parodists, or anyone else you suspect of being undercover for that matter. It's not in our interest to be spoiling their fun or ours. DogP 18:01, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

Barack Obama cover[edit]

I don't understand what assfly is getting at here[6]. Who is he criticising? Has he a point?--Damo2353 15:35, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

I think he's... I don't know, the only thing I can think of if you do some mental gymnastics is accusing liberals of hypocricy for not standing up in arms against the magazine. NightFlareStill doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article. 15:53, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
I'm not sure what he's getting at. I think he's making fun of liberals for complaining about the cover. Andy doesn't understand how to write effectively to express his point. - Lardashe
Have liberals complained about it? It looks like a satire of guys like Assfly. The terrorist fist bump is a dead giveaway.--Damo2353 16:03, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
That's the intended point. I only read one liberal blog, and it touched on it briefly this morning. The complaint is not the attempt, it's that it won't be perceived as a satire by the people who would have something to learn from it. It would just re-affirm what they already think. - Lardashe
OK, fair enough. Assfly should be happy then, not complaining about it.Damo2353 16:19, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
Andy is criticizing the fact that, in this era of umbrage-taking, liberal media outlets can use satire when commenting the umbgrade-inducing issues, but if a conservative media outlet even thought about trying to use humor in the same manner, it would automatically be seen as having crossed the line.
He might have had a point if Obama wouldn't have criticized the cover himself. The New Yorker's readership is smaller than, say, Time, so they probably assumed that non-readers wouldn't see it to be offended. And it's one of the few magazines that takes a deep deep look at every issue, so current readers would almost certainly not take such a shallow read of the cover. --Toiretni 16:25, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

Personally, I have to say, I think when Obama's camp complained they looked oversensitive and humourless. The cover was obviously a piss-take of Conservative smears, and Obama could have just chuckled and said it was nice that someone else saw how ridiculous they were. Instead he gets his knickers in a twist about a piece of satire that was aimed at his opponents. The Lay Scientist 05:47, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

From what I gathered that's almost exactly what happened. Some of his advisers, however, didn't see the joke. The argument seems to go that whilst the 'New Yorker' readership is sophisticated enough to get the joke but the Obama camp are, understandably, concerned about having their candidate portrayed as a Muslim on newsstands across the country. Silver Sloth 05:59, 16 July 2008 (EDT)


User:Gwales inserted this lil rant and was instantly banhammered. Anyway, everyone go to the site he said it's hilarious. [7] --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* Get to the bunker 17:04, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

Another poll[edit]

I'm think we should have another poll - Ed Poor is certainly the biggest idiot but who is the most deluded? PJR and his YEC? Karajou and thinking his naval service gains conservative respect? Andy with his everything liberal? My vote goes to Conservative thinking he can "destroy Atheism". Ace McWicked 17:37, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

That's a no-brainer. It's Conservative, with his vision of being St. George slaying the dragons of Homosexuality, Evolution and Atheism. I'm certain that he truly believes he's at the leading edge of the online movements against these things, and probably has visions of being his generations' Phyllis Schlafly, or the Anti-Dawkins people will look to first for rebuttals. The reality is that most people probably see him as the conservative equivalent of Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons, a legend in his own mind. Those requests for all-expenses-paid speaking engagements are going to be rolling in, Ken - time to buy some new suits and luggage. --SpinyNorman 18:51, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
Why not a series. Deluded, anti-liberal, most likely to coup against andy....etc. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* Get to the bunker 18:54, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
Sudden Deja Vu--I think we've done this before. It's a tough call, as all the Inner Circle seem to be 'non-Reality Based' in their own special ways, but I'd say it's Andy Hisself, with his apparent belief that he can defeat the facts if he just keeps repeating himself long enough. --Gulik 18:56, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
(EC)*Ahem* Andy "Proffessorvaluesliberalbiasinthebiblerelativityandmathematicsthissiteisgrowingrapidlyatheistscantfeellove- obamaisamuslimfascistandnotamericanoraproffessorjustlikedawkinsandlenskiisafraudmaterialistscantbelieveinelectricity- vaccinesarecommunistabortioncausesbreastcancer" Schlafly. NightFlareStill doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article. 18:58, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
I also vote to not allow Andy into any of the competitions as that's just too damn easy. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* Get to the bunker 18:59, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

I agree - Andy is the grand high poobah of all. But I think, as we recognized Eddie-baby for his efforts, the Conservative should get a prize for flatout delusions. Ace McWicked 19:05, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

Well, you have to think. How many of them ACTUALLY think conservapedia is free of bias and an actualy encyclpedia. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* Get to the bunker 19:13, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

Definitely not the Koward. That's obvious. He doesn't give a shit about bias and such, all he cares about is "MY SIDE WINS". To a small man like him, banning a vandal is "winning". --Kels 19:44, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

My apologies to NightFlare, but I hate horizontal scrollbars, so I inserted two break points into that awfully long title. --Sid 19:48, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

Hey Hey HEY!!!! Don't leave out good ole Learn Together... Witness his complete whitewashing of anything he doesn't like to hear about...

IN conclusion, Learn Together is deluded on multiple fronts. First, he's deluded himself by buying into the party line crap that people like Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson throw around, and two, he really thinks that if Conservapedia doesn't broadcast it, it never happened. That simple. I therefore submit one LearnTogether for most deluded on Conservapedia SirChuckBBATHE THE WHALES!!!! 20:41, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

Andy wins or ties or comes in a close second on every possible vote. Ken wins this one, IMHO, per Ace's comment in regards to destroying the athiesm regarding the Ceiling Kitteh. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:55, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
I think Andy wins this one. He actually seems to be convinced that everyone who disagrees with him is a liberal and that therefore almost by definition they are wrong and using deceit. This makes him paranoid and deluded.--Damo2353 00:18, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
You make a good point... ħumanUser talk:Human 01:16, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm still pretty speechless about Roger's "War on History"-- although he did finally concede that "a couple of Cherokees" may have been less than ecstatic when armed men arrived to take possession of their ancestral lands. Fish "No I will Not get a username" Al 00:31, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

Yah, but Roger is small fry, really doesn't edit much. Although lately... what is it Phyllis' boys? Bored and delusional? ħumanUser talk:Human 01:16, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

I agree, Roger would rather spend his time jerking his weasel over myspace banshees with nothing to lose as opposed to pissing around with his bastard brothers right-winging ass-munch of a blog. Hell, nevermind that fuck, theres plenty more fodder to be had with the this-site-is-growing-rapidly crowd of nutballs rather than Rschlafly. Ace McWicked 05:00, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

I object to the phrase "ass munch" as being homophobic. Otherwise, I agree. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:06, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

Come on Human, we're all human here! Thats CP talk man! Ace McWicked 05:08, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

I rather suspect that Roger has resumed editing on CP as he isn't getting enough follow-ups from his hot-or-not page. Jollyfish.gifGenghisOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 06:13, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

Yet Another Poll[edit]

A twist on the above to make things more interesting... Most idiotic newcomer. So an idiot who has joined since, say, August 2007 (roughly the last year) The Lay Scientist 06:04, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

Come on my friend, one poll at a time. Let me table the results above first. However, in saying that you do have a good idea but the new comers are lame ducks at best. They are either sychophanic (sp?) low-renters or parodists. Who did you have in mind anyhows? Ace McWicked 06:22, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

Gotta be Jpatt, no doubt about it. Check out his debate question, "Debate:For CP accuracy, how to desribe the victims in Darfur? Black Sudanese or Muslims?‎" I mean, it's got grammatical errors, spelling errors, and was a direct shot at another user for describing the victims as Muslims. It's the trifecta! --Jdellaro 09:02, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

Oh my god yes. That has to be the stupidist debate question ever. I have noticed he's pretty bad, perhaps a good poll for next week, and I suspect he might be the frontrunner.--Damo2353 09:12, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

Victims in Darfur[edit]

It gets even worse, I went back to see how the debate was going only to find there are now two identical debates. It seems JP didn't like the direction the first one was going and just started again.--Damo2353 09:38, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

Erm, I don't see two debates. I see one debate by Jpatt and an AFD discussion to the debate by Jareddr. Or does that qualify as a debate? O_o NorsemanWassail! 10:19, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
My mistake perhaps, what is an AFD discussion?--Damo2353 10:57, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
"Article For Deletion"...when a delete tag is added to an article, it creates a separate page to discuss the merits of the article (or debate, in this instance). Of course, Jpatt took that opportunity to continue to debate the topic, rather than debate whether there should be such a debate. In the end, I believe a sysop said it all belongs on the article talk page (which is true). --Jdellaro 11:05, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
Fair enough it seemed a little silly even for CP to have two debates on such a ridiculous topic. My bad, will delete the WIGO for reasons of personal emabarassment.--Damo2353 11:16, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

Assfly on WIGO[edit]

Use of the sobriquet "Assfly" seems uneccessary and off putting and, when paired with a comment on our little bully boy's level of maturity, a bit ironic. I'd suggested avoiding it on most of our "public-facing" stuff. On TWIGO it is funny. Watch. assfly. assFly. Assfly AssFly. See, that shit is funny . . .

In sum please re revert the revert or face my wrath . . . else . . . or you won't be doing what I say. Exasperate me!Sheesh!Not the most impressive contributor here 12:10, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

<blink></blink> ."ydnA" ot ti degnahc evah I .eerga I
I think you mean "ot"...Antifly 12:16, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
<blink></blink> .ylfitnA ,uoy knahT !staR
Exasperate me!Sheesh!Not the most impressive contributor here 12:28, 15 July 2008 (EDT) ?hsilgnE thgir-ot-tfel gnisu tuoba ediug elyts het ni gnihtemos ereht t'nsI, (heh. . . ."but")tub gard a eb ot toN
Not unless you write it yourself, Leonardo. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 12:28, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
<blink></blink> .ti ot desu teg llew sa yam uoy os ,keew eht rof siht ekil kcuts m'I ,wohynA .esualC noitpmexE hsifylleJ eht nettogrof ylraelc ev'uoY
I am unaware of such a "Jellyfish Exemption". I know we have a customary legal "Bohdan Exemption", but that's all. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 14:05, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
Definitely agreed. Some of the purposes of this site are:
  1. To try to change Conservapedia's policies for the better. (because there are obvious problems)
  2. To try to change Conservapedia's policies for the worse. (to drive its contributors away)
  3. To try to convince potential readers that Conservapedia isn't credible.
  4. To enjoy each other's banter here.
Using unnecessarily immature language hinders goals #3 and #1, and helps goals #4 and #2. I'd argue that #3 is the most important goal, and I personally support #1, but clearly many others support #2 more, so maybe it's a toss-up. --Toiretni 12:27, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

For those of us who are sick of reading backwards, here's some handy Perl code.

chomp($string = <STDIN>);
print scalar reverse "\n".$string;

--λινυσ() 12:37, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

<blink></blink>  ?flesruoy ti etarepo ot evah uoY ?citamotua t'nsi ti emussa I tuB
(inserting this before the backwards stuff for clarity) I strongly disagree with your assessment of the situation. No one here can seriously think that we're going to change Conservapedia for the better... if anything, we are simply driving them deeper into their mindset that liberals hate them and are out to get them. I would also point out that our little pet names (Assfly, Karajerk, etc) have been around for a long time and serve as great discrediting tools for our own private usage. If you don't like something, there are many ways to discuss it rather than editing other users work with no discussion.... SirChuckBBATHE THE WHALES!!!!
It's nothing to do with the use of the insult, per se; it's just that it seems wrong to use it in an entry where we're highlighting his immaturity. As per your new policy of reverting before anyone replies, I am re-reverting. Have fun :) Barack Obama 15:07, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
I recognize your attempt to ridicule a seemingly hypocritical position, but I think the edit stand for itself, I'm very happy to re-re-revert. Cheers SirChuckBBATHE THE WHALES!!!! 15:25, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
Actually, you just save it as or something and run it. Enter the reversed text, hit enter, and it will be printed out as the original. --λινυσ() 13:05, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
--Toiretni 12:57, 15 July 2008 (EDT) ?ti gnidaer morf "etis rehto taht" morf elpoep edausid ot ,)evoba fo lla ,lasrever drow ,lasrever retcarahc ,31TOR( "sgnir redoced terces" fo sepyt tnereffid stcerroc dna stceted yllacitamotua taht edoc tpircsavaj emos evah ew nac ,seY

The Backwards Text Thing...[edit]

I know you think you're being all cute and clever....but dyslexia sucks enough as it is. Knock it off....

 ?read to easier actually is this that chance a there is but, (well that dyslexia know don't I) question serious a is This --Toiretni 13:03, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
(and the secret decoder ring for that is:
chomp($string = <STDIN>);
print join("", reverse split(/([\s(),?.!"])/, $string)), "\n";
--Toiretni 13:08, 15 July 2008 (EDT))
All those who have problems with reverse text thing may wish to go here.--Bobbing up 13:04, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
I didn't mean to offend anyone, Bunchanumbers (<wildguess>Susan?</wildguess>). Would you mind awfully if I continued speaking backwards but did it elsewhere? (ie, not on TWIGO or similar...) You really don't have to read my comments if the format annoys you -- you should know by now that nothing I say is worth reading.
I might add, this might be appropriate behaviour for a Jellyfish, but I have no idea why the rest of you are joining in. Barack Obama 13:13, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
rycbrC zbes "gnug erugb rgvf" gutvz ro tavupgnj! --Toiretni 13:16, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
I can no longer endorse you as my running mate. Take your humus and leave. Barack Obama 13:17, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
OK, I'll bite. Tell me how to translate your gobbledegook, Toiretni. Else I shall sting you. Barack Obama 13:22, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
"People from that "other" site might be watching!". --λινυσ() 13:26, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
rot13, Torenti's word-reversal, and the standard mirror-text thing. --λινυσ() 13:27, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
That's actually quite frightening, Linus. I wasn't doing backwardspeak for secrecy, though. Just to promote chaos. Barack Obama 13:31, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
It's actually not too hard since each step is commutative — you can do them in any order, and any step you take makes it clearer which ones remain. One step is Another is And the last is word-reversal rather than character-reversal... I don't know if there's a website for that, but that seems like it's the easiest one to decode in-brain. --Toiretni 13:30, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
¿ǝuo sıɥʇ ʇǝƃɹoɟ ı plnoɔ ʍoɥ
¡ɾuƃdnʌɐʇ oɹ zʌʇnƃ "ɟʌƃɹ qƃnɹǝ ƃnuƃ" sǝqz ɔɹqɔʎɹ
--Toiretni 13:38, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
You're not being very nice to our Bunchanumbers friend. Barack Obama 13:42, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

<--So, Hebrew comes out left-to-right? CЯacke® 13:37, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

Voila: all transforms on on one webpage, making it much easier to chain them. I've got at least two more operators to add (exchange odd/even characters; exchange odd/even words), and some bugs and other tweaks to do. After I'm finished, maybe it could be hosted as a static page somewhere on RationalWiki? --Toiretni 15:35, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, it could be. Tell me when it's complete, and I'll upload it. Thanks for putting it together. :) --λινυσ() 09:06, 16 July 2008 (EDT)


Now that we've all had our fun, I'll state my argument again in plain terms: The arbitrary reverting and changing of work because "I don't think it looks good" or "I don't like it" is something we criticize CP for on a pretty much daily basis... So how does it look when one or two editors step in and take it upon themselves to decide what is considered acceptable and what isn't? SirChuckBBATHE THE WHALES!!!! 15:44, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

It isn't arbitrary. It looks plainly hypocritical to use such an insult in an entry about immaturity, and, what's more, several people have agreed with the decision, so this isn't some random reversion. There is consensus. Sulk 15:51, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
I wrote the damn thing and I'm not complaining. No need to make a fuss. DickTurpis 17:50, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
I choose to think we wikified it. DT posted it. I changed it with an informative summary. you changed it back. I posted here to say let's change it and here's why. Other agreed. They changed it. Now, if you don't agree, change it back or say why. I wasn't trying to be the thought police. Just a fellow editor . . . . BTW ASSFLY Fly of the ASS! woot!1!! Exasperate me!Sheesh!Not the most impressive contributor here 23:59, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

Idiot Ed[edit]

Not WiGo worthy, but anyone notice how Ed has decided to delete stuff because nothing links to it? I know Ed is new to wikis and all, so he probably doesn't realize that some people use the search box to type in terms, like, perhaps, "Jainists", and it might be useful if they were actually led to a page when that happens. DickTurpis 17:52, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, Ed is just a stupid noobie. I think he should spend some time on Wikipedia and learn how a proper wiki works. Jollyfish.gifGenghisOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 18:25, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
ISTR one of the sysops deleting stub articles, since they weren't sufficiently 'quality'. Sigh.... --Gulik 19:04, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
I don't know what was at Jainists, or if they have a Jainism article, but they are certainly mentioned at Vegetarianism. Sloppy work, Ed, that one should have at least been a redirect... ħumanUser talk:Human 19:49, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
I should have made clear: it was a link to Jainism. Ed is under the impression that redirects are useless if there are no incoming links to them (a policy that would effectively eliminate redirects at WP, as they try to pipe as many as possible, not sure why they're so adamant about that), even though there are many common search terms that really need to be redirected. Ed is such a shit. DickTurpis 23:51, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
Actually piping links to avoid redirects isn't encouraged. You might be thinking of correcting disambiguation links (ie, making sure "George Bush" links to "George W. Bush" and not "George Bush (disambiguation)).Shangrala 08:35, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
What I love about the 27 billion redirects at WP is, as long as your search term is "close", you get what you wanted. I imagine thousands of WP editors who live for nothing more than coming up with "almost" article titles to create as redirects. More Power to Them, they make my life easier... ħumanUser talk:Human 02:27, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
I agree, I'm one of those editors. I once wrote an article and then made most of the incoming links redirects, as it was for an Irish fellow with slight variations in his name, not to mention the capital letter after "Mc" which needed a redirect for those who type in all lowercase. What I hate is typo redirects, however. But, whether it's officially encouraged or not (not entirely sure) there is alot of people making edits to avoid redirects on pages. Not sure why, but some people take it very seriously. Perhaps it's because they're easy edits to make to get one's edit count up so they can try to be a sysop. Pipes to avoid redirects are, of course, much more important. I do quite a bit of that myself. DickTurpis 08:52, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, whenever I find myself run through a redirect I go back and pipe the link. Ditto for disambigs. ħumanUser talk:Human 16:36, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

A Message to Ed Poor[edit]

Hey Ed, assuming you read this site, I was trying to tell you that you hand out too many blocks, I was trying to tell it to you as respectfully as possible, I suppose "person-to-person" remarks are now a blockable offense. I don't mind though, I have a full-time job so I don't have time to join you in deleting math and physics articles.

I tried having a rational discussion with you, I really tried. I wasn't offensive, rude or ad hominem. Unfortunatlly, you refuse to see things outside of your own little world. You wrote on my talk page: "You seem more interested in 'speaking truth to power' than in telling the truth itself", hey, I tried, it isn't my fault truth has an agenda, [And by the way, when someone writes something on my talk page, LEAVE IT THE FUCK ALONE] So this I say to you: To hell with you, and to hell with your precious little site. I hope you dumb it down so much that even Andy's home-schoolers will think "this guy's a moron"

Now, to all my friends here at RW, thank you for the support I suspect I'll be seeing more of you soon. Keep fighting the good fight. (Without vandalizing of course, that's just plain childish...)


DLerner 19:47, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

I think you need to clarify what you mean by vandalism because it often depends on your point of view. While most people would probably agree that deliberately breaking something for the hell of it might be construed as vandalism other activities may not be so clear cut. Graffiti may be regarded as vandalism by some people but to others it is street art. Posting pornographic images would probably also count as vandalism but at CP they have no educational images remotely relating to human reproduction and they removed a picture of Michaelangelo's David as it was deemed indecent. I have written some articles at CP but regard what has been done to them since as vandalism. Is deliberately inserting false information vandalism? Because CP is full of it, and most of it was done to satisfy their POV. If I was to take their Theory of Evolution article and make it both readable and factual they would regard me as a vandal. However, if I added false information that reinforced their world view I'd probably get promoted. Maybe you regard parody articles as vandalism. If I posted Andy's Liberal-X or Hollywood/Professor Values articles at Wikipedia I would be regarded as a parodist but on CP they are model entries. Jollyfish.gifGenghisOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 03:25, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
Well this is what I meant by Poe Paradox. The only way you can not vandalize the site and avoid getting blocked is by vandalizing it, but by vandalizing it you're actually vandalizing it, and if you vandalize it you're open to getting blocked. On a side note, you could actually write a pretty interesting paper on Conservapedia, on the anthropology or the complex dynamics. The Lay Scientist 05:34, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
I don't think one can count parody as vandalism. I mean, I've inserted various parody stuff which, when removed or changed, was reinstated by Assfly himself. Not sure how it can be vandalism if the pooh-bah likes it. Then again, it wasn't false information, just heavily biased stuff for the purpose of making them look even more ridiculous. Seems to have succeeded. DickTurpis 08:56, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
You could write a PhD dissertation in psychology on just Ed.Bjones 10:22, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
I have a question. Has Ed always been this dictatorial or is it on the increase recently. I mean he seems to have banned an extremely high number of people and censored a lot of talk lately. Did we get to him with the "biggest idiot on CP thing".--Damo2353 10:15, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
I have a small suspicion that he was instructed to fill Andy's shoes while he was on vacation. - Lardashe
I think Andy should have been more specific about what to fill them with. --Gulik 14:08, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
No, Ed had been like that before the "biggest idiot" vote. If you got a lot of time, you can look at the "Best of", "WIGO" and "T:WIGO" archives - lots of Ed-related material there. In a way, Ed had always been weird, two-faced and powertripping. I think even back on Wikipedia. It should be noted that in the beginning of CP, he usually played the "good cop" most of the time. But over time, he dropped the act and switched into fulltime "I am the law" mode. Keep in mind that he's the one who came up with the entire concept of the "writing plan" on CP, for example. --Sid 14:19, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

Will someone please burn a sock and revert this edit? Maybe with the edit comment "A man's user page is his castle" for extra points? I can usually laugh at poor Ed, but I'm actually pissed off at this one. Bjones 15:40, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

Thanks, I feel much better. Of course, Ed will probably just burn the whole page now. Anyone care to wager? Bjones 16:58, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

I think vandalizing is wrong, period. There are many things you can choose to write about without actually vandalizing. I remember the "David" incident, he asked me if I could a "G-rated" Michaelangelo pic (or, at the very least one without a penis). If you disagree with the content, bitch about it on the talk page (which as loyal readers know, I do with great determination). I don't think Ed will burn the page, and if he does he'll be breaking one of the commandments, it's well know among CPeons that I contribute there. (I really enjoyed starting the musical, a pity I don't have any time to work on it, having a job is a bitch, ain't it?). If he does, so be it. I don't enjoy self-censorship, especially when it's just to placate a bunch of self-righteous bigots.

DLerner 22:45, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

Two-faced Ed[edit]

Interesting play here by Smeg Ed, trying to be all things to all people. First we suck up to JessicaT, asking "Can we work together on kana and kanji articles? And how about Japanese grammar?" then when he tries to appease Jareddr about the whole AFD thing (which seems to be his attack on Ed for deleting his author article), he comes up with "And frankly I'm not sure we need to put all the kanji characters here" So Ed, which is it to be? --PsygremlinWhut? 09:27, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

Another stupid Ed Poop section[edit]

The latest WIGO about Ed's movie category just proves what a rightful winner of the Biggest Idiot On Conservapedia he was. He either deletes or consolidates other people's articles because "they are not noteworthy" or "too short to stand on their own" but writes some of the shortest stubs, un-noteworthy topics or pop culture articles around. The guy is just a complete buffoon. (Deliberate personal remark). Jollyfish.gifGenghisOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 14:21, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

He's gotta be a parodist, right? Right?? -Smyth 16:07, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
Sorry, but his editing history on CP & WP has shown that he's just an idiot. Possibly bi-polar as well. Jollyfish.gifGenghisOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 16:09, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
I know, I know. It's just so hard to believe sometimes. -Smyth 16:21, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

Luke1978, about to be pwned...[edit]

Lol, just been watching Karajou revert all his recent edits. I'm guessing his suspicions were aroused by"Wasps are attracted to the smell of children" and "Speculation remains as to why God decided to make bananas yellow". Genius, lol. The Lay Scientist 14:55, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I kinda hoped he'd last a bit longer. Pretty impressive how many of them flew right under the radar and lasted as long as they did. As many do though, he got greedy and tried for too much too fast IMO. I really liked the wasp one. -Smyth 16:00, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, I'm going for the slow-burn approach this time. The Lay Scientist 18:01, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
HAHAH --150px-Galactic Republic svg.png Darth Harrington No, I am your salesperson 21:58, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
I love reading that article. I'd swear I wrote half of it... "Humans are not able to reproduce alone by budding, parthenogenesis, or self-cloning as some species are capable of.. In addition, human gender is fixed, unlike some species'; females are not able to become male or vice versa to deal with homogeneous populations of one gender." And some of the other stuff. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:04, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
I suspect the line about not being able to change is a cheap shot at transgendered. Et tu, Huma? --150px-Galactic Republic svg.png Darth Harrington No, I am your salesperson 22:06, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
Well, first, I really wanted to mention "budding", second, I wanted to mention critters that can change sex/gender. Also, I often have a distinctive writing (as most people do) and I enjoy seeing my sentencey things survive on edgy articles like this one ;) Hmmm, maybe I should go improve it some more... ħumanUser talk:Human 22:15, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
Stop showing off your ability to edit CP. Marginally Less Chaos!Audacity! 22:23, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
Hehe. It's largely theoretical, since they are giving me so much pageload trouble it's not worth the effort right now. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:56, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
I want to be unblocked! Arrrrgghhhhh! Marginally Less Chaos!Audacity! 22:59, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

Jim Storytellershrink[edit] this question for real? Does he really think Andy's last name is Aschlafly? --US-O11 insignia.svg Gen. S.T. Shrink That's what she said. 19:22, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

Ed Poornography[edit]

HE'S BLOCKED YOU IDIOT! --US-O11 insignia.svg Gen. S.T. Shrink That's what she said. 21:23, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

he has also changed his talkpage picture caption from 'Cant stop grinning' to 'On campus'. What fucking tool. Ace McWicked 21:53, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

Anybody else read the first sentence and scream uncontrolibly for several minutes or is that just me? SirChuckBBATHE THE WHALES!!!! 01:26, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
Ed Poor, Junior High math teacher that lacks appropriate knowledge to teach it. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:36, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
"... so if I have to erase one it will live an audit trail". Just as well he's not teaching Minglish. Jollyfish.gifGenghisOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 01:58, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
I mean really.... What is this? and this? he's going to be in charge of TEACHING KIDS!?!?!?!?!?! Andy is awful, but at least he's a semi intelligent man (just blinded by Liberal Boogeymen) ED IS A FUCKING RETARD. I WOULDN'T LET HIM TUTOR MY DOG IN MATH SirChuckBBATHE THE WHALES!!!! 02:12, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
Hot off the press, another Ed classic Flip flop.--PsygremlinWhut? 02:19, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
To be honest I think we insulted Ed when we named him the Biggest Idiot on Conservapedia.
He should have been named the Biggest Idiot Who Ever Managed to Get a Computer Turned On and Connected to the Internet. \approx\pi 02:48, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
I wonder when he's going to show it to Andy like some cat with a dead mouse.
"Great work Ed! I can always rely on you to further the aims of this project." Jollyfish.gifGenghisOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 02:55, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
See my money is on Andy taking over and chaning the first line. Republicans don't flip flop, they just change their minds frequently.... only horrible liberal democrats flip flop. SirChuckBBATHE THE WHALES!!!! 03:07, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
Does Ed like "Poker After Dark"? Does Ed want to play poker with me? Come on, Ed, $10k in the pot each, head-to-head. Let's see how your "math skillz" hold up... ħumanUser talk:Human 04:24, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

Ed's shooting for Sysop at Wikipedia. [8] SockPuppiet 17:47, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

This is brilliant. Why didn't Ed get a role in the new Batman movie? He could have played Two-Face easily! We almost need a side-by-side article to compare Ed's claims on WP and the things we can observe on CP. --Sid 18:17, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
(EC)What makes him think... wait, how does that clown get 18 positive v... why are anwers 1.A, 3.A and 3.B outright l... what the hell is going on at Wikipedia?
If nobody goes there and tell the Wikipedians that Ed is officially the biggest idiot at Conservapeda, and how much that says, I'm doing it myself.NightFlareStill doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article. 18:20, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
Went a bit ad hom but I had to do it - the man's a liability to anything he's involved in. SusanG  ContribsTalk 18:35, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
This whole thing just screams Bush Supreme Court confirmation hearings.... Ed's answering all the questions the right way and dodging anything that will possibly hurt.... But I swear on the penguins, If he get sysopship, wikipedia is in for some rough times (anyone else notice the irony that, despite his very public and well known edits on Conservapedia, he's still willing to become an admin at Wikipedia.) SirChuckBBATHE THE WHALES!!!! 18:48, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
Just went and commented anyway. I'm still baffled at how that... guy can receive respect. NightFlareStill doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article. 18:55, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
You do know Ed was an admin (and a crat) on Wikipedia before he was at Conservapedia. Ed was one of the first 200 people to edit Wikipedia, in fact. 19:01, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
And your point is? --Shagie 19:03, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, I was one of the first people to ride the Tower of Doom when it opened at Elitch Gardens, that doesn't mean I'm a top candidate to do repair work on it... but I'd like to say, we've hit the big time SirChuckBBATHE THE WHALES!!!! 19:05, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, and he had his power stripped from him for massive abuse. He is an authoritarian crank to his core. Wikipedia will save itself another embarrassing ArbCom if they the extra buttons away from him. tmtoulouse harass 19:10, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
Any more proof anyone wants about the identity of Ed, look here. Well. At least he's honest. --US-O11 insignia.svg Gen. S.T. Shrink That's what she said. 19:24, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

I would like to suggest that we remove the Conservapedia:What is going on at CP? entry devoted to Ed Poor nomination, as well as the three direct links to his nomination page on Wikipedia. I believe the perception of "canvassing" undermines our argument. Dark Matter Glaucopis 19:28, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

I agree, with less emphasis on "undermines our argument" and more on "just plain rude". NightFlareStill doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article. 19:33, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
Too late - what's done is done. SusanG  ContribsTalk 19:43, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
Say, do the Wikipedians mind if the canvas'ed opinion (not vote) of an user with almost no contributions is there to warn some unwary editors? 'cause if they do, I'll go and delete them. I'd ask myself but the place scares me. NightFlareStill doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article. 19:49, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

Possible "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" entry - "Wikipedia denies editors promotion based entirely on ideological grounds, in particular ignoring any history of quality edits on other wiki projects." ... You can only hope.Antifly 20:23, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

this edit (kindly provided by a WP Editor) typifies Ed's attitude. SusanG  ContribsTalk 20:35, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
Think you mean this one, actually. 20:40, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
The crazy part is that he wrote that just a few days ago... ħumanUser talk:Human 20:50, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
Because Ed surely doesn't want "activists [...] ganging up on others" - Bwahahahahahaha... what a lovely little liar he is... but he did manage to sum up CP in just a few words there! Concise! --Sid 20:55, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

Ed's first Wikipedia victim[edit]

BLAM! Wisdom89 pays the price for opposing Ed Poors wikipedia sysopship! Karajowls blocks him for his "offsite" behaviour. KA-BLAMO go them Naval guns! Blam! Ace McWicked 04:30, 18 July 2008 (EDT)

So much for not banning users for their comments else were :( --BoredCPer 04:55, 18 July 2008 (EDT)
This is where everyone opposing Ed might get into trouble if he does get his Sysopship. His power games at CP will be replicated there. Is this sudden run at Wikipedia part of the after effects of the award? Since he received the award he seems obsessed of ridding CP of anything he doesn't understand, trying to tell everyone how smart he is and now trying to claim back the one mark he is not a complete idiot, his admin rights at WP. \approx\pi 05:57, 18 July 2008 (EDT)
I hedged my bets on this one. CЯacke® 09:52, 18 July 2008 (EDT)

Well, nonetheless, what a fucking tool karajowl is. And also, perhaps we should burn some socks in letting Ed know that, yes, he is still a fucking idiot. I would but I am having to much fun right now Ace McWicked 06:00, 18 July 2008 (EDT)

With 75 oppose votes (and counting), Uncle Ed's chances of ever seeing admin privileges is going the way of wp:WP:SNOWBALL. Good thing too. DickTurpis 12:44, 18 July 2008 (EDT)

Ed has even moved his grand father's page after agreeing Ed Poor senior is not a notable person. This happened after someone complained about it on his talk page.All this good behaviour may be wasted if he does not get that sysopship back. -- 19:13, 18 July 2008 (EDT)

Changing quoted material[edit]

On the mainpage there is a link that is supposed to show Conservative changing quoted material. I looked at the diff but couldn't see where he changeg quoted material. What am I missing? Bjones 11:16, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, me too... I don't see any changes in the quoted text. The Lay Scientist 11:37, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
There's a chunk taken out of the middle of Popper's quote concerning industrial melanism which says that we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes. Obviously Ken wishes to hide this bit. Jollyfish.gifGenghisOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 11:57, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
Funny, I see it now. I don't know how I missed that before. Oh well, there's so much stupidity on CP your eyes just start glossing over it after a while. Bjones 12:17, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
I must admit I don't like WIGOs that take more than 2 seconds to notice the glaring stupidity. Unless it's really clever, then it's ok. Jrssr5 12:39, 17 July 2008 (EDT)