Talk:Conservapedia/Archive4

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: , (new)(back)

Statistics[edit]

What other resources are there for analysing their traffic? Ideas, anyone? DogP 19:10, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Interesting stats, wonder how many hits are RWians looking for lols? SG 06:17, 8 September 2007 (CDT)
I'm certainly doing my share. Gauss 20:14, 8 September 2007 (CDT)
"how many hits are RWians looking for lols" - All of them. RWians and bloggisters, anyway. Does anyone seriously think people are looking things up on CP? OMGZ, the very idea makes me pee my pants. Gotta go wash and change, now... humanbe in 20:31, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

This maybe a strange coincidence but traffic on Alexa massively spiked around the end of November/ beginning of December. This coincided with my short career as an editor before receiving a 5 ear ban. So perhaaps this was either due to the extra traffic representing my logging on (which implies a very low base figure indeed- probably mostly Andy Schafly) or that people were accessing my contributions (which received about a 100 hits each) which were all complete nonsense anyway. Streona 06:05, 28 January 2008 (EST)

Care to elaborate on the '5 ear ban'? Should I be afraid of physical torture if I "contribute" there? ;-) Editor at CPBring TK back 06:11, 28 January 2008 (EST)

Oh, G*d, now I'm giving them ideas! Maybe... Streona 06:29, 28 January 2008 (EST)

Hey, does anyone know where do find the raw statistics of Conservapedia's traffic (i.e. X users, not rank)? I've seen claims of many thousands by some sites, but that's almost certainly not true, and the same sites claim ridiculous things like Conservapedia being one of the top sites on the internet. Cheddarius 00:49, 31 December 2008 (EST)

Another Mistake (I'm an Indian, so I had to point this out)[edit]

"The Taj Mahal, India's national monument, was built by a Muslim emperor named Akbar." Ummm... No, it isn't. You were right with the Muslim emperor bit, though 'Mughal' would be far more helpful, but Akbar... No, he didn't build it. Now, literally, none of the Emperor's actually did the building, but Akbar didn't even order its building, it only begun construction around 25 years after he died. The only connection he shared with it was that the emperor who built it/ordered it to be built (Shah Jahan) was of his bloodline. Interestingly, they got this right in the... 3 line... Description of the Taj Mahal... Seriously, how can you make a page on the Taj Mahal that doesn't even mention its architecture, etc, and call yourself a better encyclopedia that Wikipedia? o.O WP vs CP - All Hail Tuna 10:35, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

The key word is "concise", which has its own meaning on CP. It's basically "Two short paragraphs are more than enough, unless you want to turn the article into an attack piece on something that is not YEC/ultra-conservative. Accuracy is strictly optional." --Sid 10:19, 10 September 2007 (CDT)
They seem to agree with that definition. Unfortunately, they don't seem to accept that 'Honesty' is a word who's definition doesn't describe a thing that they do... Thus, their article on Honesty is not only fixed to be the opposite of what they call 'deceit', but also Proposed for Deletion. They're desperate... ;) - All Hail Tuna 10:35, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

So who else is hiding on conservapedia?[edit]

Having been blocked almost as soon as I started editing conservapedia (actually, I was blocked before I made a single edit - even a talk edit! but that's another story) I realized I was going to have to be more subtle. So I've been editing for the past few months from non-blocked IP addresses (so, not this one) and ideally, I will eventually be made a sysop and in good trojan horse style, will wreck havoc from within.

So...is anyone else doing this? Does anyone have any ideas for me, or things I should be careful about? Is this worth my time? You guys seem awesome. JesusFast!Cz 23:22, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

I smell deceit. Maybe I've spend too much time on CP. Tohuvavohu 23:58, 12 September 2007 (MDT)
I was thinking the same thing, but who knows anymore. JazzMan 00:11, 13 September 2007 (MDT) Wow I finally get the "JesusFast" thing... I think that's a sign I should be going to bed.
On that site, posting the truth is probably the most subversive thing you CAN do. :D However, it'll also get you banned in a heartbeat, so fighting bullshit with bullshit is probably more amusing and longer lasting.
Dredging up Very Wrong Statements by famous Conservatives to decorate their bio pages is often good for a laugh.
Writing up conspiracy theories? Hey, the John Birchers spent DECADES exposing the connections between the Illuminati, the Comintern, the CFR and the Beatles, tossing out all that hard work just seems kinda wrong.
I would suggest tying them in knots with bizarre theological disputes, but as a Discordian, the follies of the heathens don't really interest me that much. Besides, I doubt any of them have even READ the Bible aside from Genesis, Revelations, and the bits in Leviticus about killing gays.
Have fun, good luck, and Nil Illegitimati Carborundum. --Gulik 01:26, 13 September 2007 (MDT) fnord
If you don't get banned! I got banned in 2 days, not because of any of my (heathen) edits, but because of my very name. To the Conservapedians, having the name MelkorDCLXVI is good enough to be banned, because of course they can "read Latin". I stumbled for five minutes over why they were banning me, but then I realized that it was the Roman numerals in my name, not the nonexistent Latin. I was apparently banned for having 666 in my name in Roman numerals, which probably isn't the devil's number anyway (616).

I smell a rat. And he isn't cooking either. - All Hail Tuna 03:43, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Make sure you have read The Information Warrior's Handbook on this site. Lot's of useful tips earned through experience. 62.68.50.115 04:06, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

I don't take much interest in CP, but I rather think the sysops they have are doing a fine job of "wrecking havoc from within". Why not edit here instead?--Bob's your uncle 04:08, 13 September 2007 (MDT)
I wouldn't hold your breath about becoming a Sysop they are continually raising the limit for when they announce the "winner" of the next sysop contest, although since Bohdan left they've been down by one active sysop. As the paranoia sets in they are getting more wary about letting anyone else get their hands on "the keys to the door" particularly after the Richard episode. This actually works to their own detriment as now TK sees himself as Andy's de facto Number 2 and is plotting a palace coup judging by his harassment of Conservative. Andy obviously doesn't see it that way otherwise TK would be a bureaucrat. If Ken gets pissed off and leaves then they'll be one more down. With Andy's increasing anti-liberal hysteria the whole thing looks like it will collapse under the weight of it's own bullshit before not too long. Genghis Khant 06:16, 13 September 2007 (MDT)


One thing I thought of was eventually supporting someone overthrowing Andy. I notice that all the userpages say they support him as the divinely chosen leader of CP or something...perhaps someone should make a little box for someone else. Well I could post here, but I already know you guys are right, and I'd much rather mess with the crazies on CP. Maybe if they were just nice conservatives it would be ok, but they're the evangelical ann coulter style, which really is terrible. I feel a duty to annoy them. I'm thinking that it might be best to write more and more clearly false but conservative statements with no sourcing (I assume they won't check it if they agree with it.) Anyway, we'll see if I can amass any power.Cz 22:39, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Is your name Karaj00? - 218.186.12.10 09:05, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

Conservapedia dying?[edit]

Don't want to jump the gun here, but has anyone noticed how much Conservapedia's recent change tally is flagging? I think without vandals... they wouldn't have anyone but the core players, who, of course, all hate each other.-αmεσ (!) 10:00, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

It wouldn't surprise me at all--I've been predicting (With a certain amount of glee) that this would happen. But I wouldn't break out the champagne just yet--how many times have conseratives triumphiantly declared that Air America was going out of business? --Gulik 11:36, 13 September 2007 (MDT)
Hard to answer question, Ames. I'd rather argue that CP died around April/May, when the media attention died down with practically no real growth in CP. Andy firmly held down the lid on any growth that could have developed, insisting that he alone has the final say in EVERYTHING. This sort of top-down control mentality harms an open editing project more than anything else since such project profit from rapid growth into the width (in the editor structure). Add to that his core of control freak sysops, and even the few remaining people who wanted to help were driven out by force.
So CP is dead on the global scale of things. It still likes to pretend it's not, but unless it stops pretending to be a great alternative to Wikipedia, it has failed.
The only things that could revive it would be another blog rush (assuming that the sysops would not repeat their "You will do exactly what I say and nothing else! I'm your boss! You know nothing!" lines), or a change of direction, away from the "conservative encyclopedia" deal. CP may have some success as a minor think tank, an opinion blog, or something like that, but it wasted its biggest chance at becoming an encyclopedia project. --Sid 12:15, 13 September 2007 (MDT)
It could also work (have worked) as just a slowly growing homskoll homework project. Limited editors, but all trusted, slowly writing little high school level papers as articles. That would net an easy 2-300 new articles per term. As far as the psycho sysops, when management is too tight, the top just recreates itself in the lower layers... you want to know who Andy really is? Add up and average out all the active sysops' personalities... humanbe in 12:40, 13 September 2007 (MDT)
That's what I've been saying for months now, honestly. And I think it would be a good idea for an actual educator interested in homeschooling to try. But a propagandising freak like Andy? Never. --Kels 12:44, 13 September 2007 (MDT)
It's 'cause I'm not there anymore. :) JazzMan 13:40, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

The September Boycott[edit]

I propose another boycott. No editing, no vandalizing, no sockpuppetry. Let's see just who actually is really there.-αmεσ (!) 18:21, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Yeah, an EXCELLENT idea! Screech of brakes......silence....crickets. But - can we visit? DogP 18:26, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Not a bad idea. I just got another ip blocked for doing some snarky vandalism, so I probably won't be adding anything for a while, though I hardly ever do anyway. I would be very curious to see what their level of participation in the project would be if it weren't for RW. For a long time the only editors of any substantial degree have been the main 6 or 7 sysops (with a few other exceptions). But Jazz is right, when they lost him they lost one of their most valuable contributors. If they want to cut off their nose to spite their face that's their problem. So yeah, a general strike would be interesting. It would have to be well advertised to the RW public. DickTurpis 18:34, 13 September 2007 (MDT)
No visits either! The point is to remove our hits entirely from their site, to see how much of it is us. It's also a good way to "get a life" or at least, edit more on RW! humanbe in 18:36, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

I would say visits are fine, but I admire Human's goal. It'd be good to use our new server to start fresh and start working on less CP-centered content, and more anti-wingnuts in general. I'd like to write a butt-ton of editorials to a butt-ton of sources on some subject, to see if they get published with "RationalWiki" in the byline, or do something else cool. Concurrences?-αmεσ (!) 18:41, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Well, I haven't sock'd on CP anyway. I'll see if I can manage not visiting the place, especially now that Conservative has prodded an old issue in which I once smashed him into the ground (Speed of Light). But I guess those things will still be there on Monday... Oh well. I wonder how long I'll last this time. --Sid 18:59, 13 September 2007 (MDT)
Woah! Hang on a minute. This boycott involves not even visiting CP? That wasn't part of the deal. Think of what we'll miss. They get more batshit crazy by the day; I'm not sure I can wean myself away. I'm happy not to edit, that's fine, but no more "What is going on"? That's tough. Damn tough. Is it really necessary? DickTurpis 19:52, 13 September 2007 (MDT)
Well, Ames said that visits are fine, so this is more an optional challenge, I guess :P Heck, I need to write stuff, and I have grown addicted to checking CP for idiocy, so I'm using this to see if I can "take a day or two off". --Sid 19:56, 13 September 2007 (MDT)
Oh sure, a day or two off is fine. Hell, I need to get a life anyway. But not to be able to post on WiGO for a week is too much, really. And since we know they watch here, we know they'll take the opportunity to go ultra-batshit to goad us into breaking the embargo. Can we really resist such delicious bait? Human is pushing for no visits, and as much as I respect his authoritah, I just don't see the harm visiting does. Sure, visiting boosts their ranking, but in a rather unsubstantial way that we never really get to observe. When Rob or TK says something totally fucking insane (and they will) I have to vent somewhere. DickTurpis 20:05, 13 September 2007 (MDT)
But if you don't visit, you won't have to vent!! Go to rnc.com or something, or AIG, or creationwiki... find something good to do a side by side on from there. Man, I've never seen more junkies outside of that coffee shop I used to hang out at... humanbe in 20:32, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Okay. Let's do it. To quote Master from Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome: "Embargo! On!" DickTurpis 21:51, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Actually, CP's activity has been minimal since forever, but it's an interesting experiment. I guess I'll be quiet for a while. Jayjay4ever 08:52, 14 September 2007 (MDT)
If we really want to do this, including no visits, we should TAKE DOWN THE WIGO PAGE for a while, with an explanation. I was just about to click on "Oh, for the love of *bleep*, Conservative! We've been over some of this "uncited material" like blueshifts!" because it looked like fun, but I stopped myself at the last millisecond. Get the liquor and drugs out of the house!
Also, how would we find out the results of not even looking? Alexa rankings? How often do they get calculated? Gauss 10:01, 14 September 2007 (MDT)
We can always look at recent changes after the boycott is over. You can go back as far as you want to see what happen'd. Or, stop caring and never return... humanbe in 12:34, 14 September 2007 (MDT)
Alexa actually shouldn't show much change since it depends on people who actually use their toolbar. So if you didn't install it, your visits (or the lack of visits) won't be reflected in the Alexa ranking. See here. --Sid 13:02, 14 September 2007 (MDT)
OK, if just looking does no harm (I don't use the Alexa toolbar), I guess I'll go look at the "blueshift" crap .... Wait! A fire engine just went by! I gotta go see! Fire engines are better than roadkill, and roadkill is better than CP. Gauss 15:26, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

I'm fully in favour of this. Every time I look on that site a little part of me dies inside. I think I'll actually stop visiting it. The Anti-Conservapedia 10:33, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

I remember the last boycott, I was in such a good mood for those few days. I could have faith in the intentions of people again. VirileSterileblah, blah, blah 13:06, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

Update on CP editing[edit]

I just checked out CP for a bit, and editing seems pretty low (though I don't have any real stats for comparison). As of 12:30 Monday, it has taken them about 12 hours to make 50 mainspace edits not marked as minor (the "marked as minor" is a bit problematical as it's voluntary, and thus some actual minor edits are not marked as minor, and vice versa). This includes at least 4 acts of vandalism, as well as some edits that should be marked as minor (undeadening, adding categories). Those editing are almost exclusively the usual suspects (Andy, Ken, Karajou, Joaquin, Tash etc.) I'm not sure if the boycott is having an effect, but it does illustrate how CP is almost exclusively the work of about 10 people. The absence of Bohdan is hurting them more than anything. I wonder what the "half-life" of Conservapedia is? DickTurpis 12:41, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

Additionally (and I think this is great), included in the count are articles like cp:contest, which is clearly in the wrong namespace (you'd think with Andy's attempts to turn CP into a law glossary he'd have an entry on the verb "to contest"), and cp:Essay: What's wrong with the death penalty system in the United States?‎. 6 edits are Ken tweaking the same article. DickTurpis 12:49, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

Objective: Ministries![edit]

I don't know if any of you know this website, Objective Ministries but it's a truly excellent parody of evangelical websites. It's done very well, and I was wondering if anyone wanted to make a CP page for it...I don't want to blow my cover just yet. I figure, we put it up and see how long it takes them to notice it's fake, or, better yet, get them in a debate over whether it's real or not.

Maybe this has been done before, if so, can someone tell me what happened?Cz 22:25, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

Now I know you aren't serious! How would you expect someone would be able to slip in a parody article when you publicly tell them to do it?? You do know that CP sysops can read this, right? Is this Rob? I bet it is. Shame on you, abbetting vandalism! JazzMan 23:17, 17 September 2007 (EDT)
Everyone knows, "RationalWiki does not wandalize Conservapedia!" In spite of media lies to the contrary, as repeated on Wikipedia... humanbe in 00:16, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

moronopedia[edit]

There are now two links "through" MP to CP. One as a footnote and one in See also. I suspect one is almost too many. Any thoughts on this? humanbe in 01:16, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

It's too fitting. Remove from See Also, IMO. - All Hail Tuna 04:48, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, I'll do that. humanbe in 14:24, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

talk about us?[edit]

Anyone else notice they're not so shy about referring to RW lately - it used to be a bannable offence but everyone's at it now. Someone with a faster connection should tot 'em up. Susantalk to me 13:10, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

I'd noticed the same thing. Last few days, apparently. Gauss 13:52, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
It has started to reap benefits! See User_talk:Smyth. He came here after finding out about us on CP. Gauss 14:37, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
Next thing you know, they'll be allowed to mention the FBI. --SockOfGulik 14:41, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
Our lips are sealed... humanUser talk:Human 13:18, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Conservative[edit]

  • Does Conservative actually know what a minor edit is? Or the preview button? -Cheese(I'm a sock!)
No, he doesn't. The other day I watched him use eight edits to add two or three sentences to a talk page. You can almost hear the gears grind over teh innertubes... humanUser talk:Human 18:55, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Andy's precious edit count[edit]

  • You know the one. The one he's always updating in mainpageleft. Well, I looked at the admins. As of now, about 117,450 of the approximately 323,000 edits were made by the current group. That's over 1/3, by the 27 current admins. Growing. Hah. - Master Bra'tacKree!

mysql.sock[edit]

Ah, so the recent downtime was caused by a sock getting stuck in the mysql server. Those socks must be all over the place at Conservapedia --Hobey 08:19, 8 November 2007 (EST)

To be or not to be (an Editor at CP)[edit]

What do you think? Comments welcome: [[1]]

One good thing to say about Conservapedia:[edit]

This. I think it is one of the greatest pages on the site. George W. Bush 19:34, 16 November 2007 (EST)

Insightful comment[edit]

I finally figured out what conservatives are actually conserving. They’re trying to use their brains conservatively because they are on average short about a dozen marbles.
[2]

--212.24.168.178 07:52, 20 November 2007 (EST)

Mention?[edit]

I think some mention should be made of the way they merge groups they don't like. They stop short of saying their chief enemies are liberal-communist-homosexual-nazi-islamic extremists but not by far. For instance they seem to have a thing for calling Iran liberal when of course its anything but. They don't seem to realise that 'their enemies' are even more enemies of each other...--145.116.1.1 09:23, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Where do they call Iran liberal (not that I seriously doubt that they do)? Admittedly the Iran article says that homosexuals get the death penalty, which we all know from the Fred Phelps article is a liberal position. And of course those liberals can't stop goose-stepping to the homosexual agenda, according to RobS, who is the champion of the oppressed homosexual, as long as they're are Republican and soliciting sex in public. All others are evil. There are so many contradictions in everything they say that they stopped making a semblance of sense long ago. DickTurpis 09:31, 21 November 2007 (EST)
Don't forget that Iran limits free speech, which as we know is also a very Liberal thing to do. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 10:10, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Apparently Iran has the second highest per capita rate of gender reassignment after Thailand. This is publically funded and a grant is given to the transexual after the operation. This is because the Ayatolah Khomeini considered homosexuality a sin but gender dyshoria an illness. Thus gay Iranians are given the choice between sex change and a cash payment or being hanged. Iranian law basically guarantees numerous freedoms, including that of government supporters to beat the bejasus out of antine they see exercising said freedoms that they do not like. Streona 06:22, 28 January 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia's Gay Obsession[edit]

Is there some way we could work this into the article? It seems like important demographic information about CP's readership. Justinfr 11:35, 22 November 2007 (EST)

I've read it before so someone's linked to it from somewhere but that is the latest update I've seen. Susan... miaow ... 11:57, 22 November 2007 (EST)

There is a list of English monarchs with an upside down question mark next to each one considered by Conservapedia to have been gay- mostly accuratwe although I do not think there is any evidence that Edward the Confessor was other than celibate. This is a bizarre obsession. Perhaps there could be lists drawn up for famous people in every profession, including perhaps Conservapedia editors. But then again - why?Streona 06:12, 28 January 2008 (EST)

What do you think conservapedia will look like in the year 2012?[edit]

A lot of the 5 year blocks expire then. --Signed by Elassint the Great Hi! 17:53, 8 December 2007 (EST)

"Oh noes! Another mid-winter festival online store ray gun shooting linked to public hypnopædia! AIDS vaccine linked leads to teenagers having teh sexy time, ban it! Giant robotic evil Nixon for president!" You can't prove it won't happen. --JeēvsYour signature makes me horny 18:00, 8 December 2007 (EST)
By then it'll probably be bigger than Google. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 18:14, 8 December 2007 (EST)
Bigger than Google and the defunct Wikipedia which it will have replaced! humanUser talk:Human 18:27, 8 December 2007 (EST)
Looking forward to the IPO! --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 18:31, 8 December 2007 (EST)
The Irritating Pubic Offspring? humanUser talk:Human 18:40, 8 December 2007 (EST)
Initial public offering. That's when Schlafly capitalizes on his success and sells out to the big business in a move that surprises everyone except those of us who predicted it and will become fabulously wealthy as a result. :nods: --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 19:17, 8 December 2007 (EST)
I knew what an IPO is... but I thought if it was teh assfly, it deserved a fouler expansion! humanUser talk:Human 14:16, 13 December 2007 (EST)

<- I swear I didn't see this when I posted this. CЯacke® 19:22, 8 December 2007 (EST)

Based on its present site traffic it won't look like anything, except Andy Schafly's e mail Streona 06:14, 28 January 2008 (EST)

I'm glad...[edit]

...that this wiki hates Conservapedia. Conservapedia sucks cock--Closer government 13:54, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Oh, we certainly don't hate anyone here. Our hearts are filled with nothing but charity for all people, and malice toward none. Nods.gif --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 14:05, 13 December 2007 (EST)
Hey, some of my dearest friends suck cock! humanUser talk:Human 14:17, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Conservatipedia needs your help[edit]

I made a parody site of conservapedia. Holds the same views as the religious right except pushing them to a limit, which has the readers thinking "Is this a joke or for real?". Such as Jesus riding dinosaurs and Britney Spears being a hardline conservative.--Seeff 14:02, 20 December 2007 (EST)

And is she ? Streona 06:23, 28 January 2008 (EST)

So....[edit]

Kels....on RW things must be proved false in order to remove them? Can I host my own screen shots as well? Just asking, seeing if RW really is fair in its treatment of everyone. And I think each of us has the right to correct falsities of context, omission. I accepted the words attributed to me, and left them intact, merely removing what cannot be substantiated as being "real". If you guys want that bullshit to stay, than I should have the right to put up my own saved version, right? Seems like the sysops here are just as controlling as those at CP!--TK/MyTalk"Lowly" editor 20:39, 14 January 2008 (EST)

It's quite simple. You made an accusation of fraud against Hoji. So prove your accusation. --Kels 20:42, 14 January 2008 (EST)
Yes, very simple: YOU decided what he put up was truth. Not a mob action, merely the heavy-hand of authority. Ok, so I will be making a sub-page and uploading documents there. And knowing how RW is all about truth, science and rationality, I can expect nothing to vanish from the database, and the entire mob can discuss it. --TK/MyTalk"Lowly" editor 20:46, 14 January 2008 (EST)
Hoji put the initial statement in and he has the burden of truth. Word--Danielfolsom 20:53, 14 January 2008 (EST)
Sure, TK. Nobody's stopping you from doing so. And if it supports your argument that Hoji forged the documents, then that's all I was asking for in the first place. --Kels 21:03, 14 January 2008 (EST)

I just wanted to be sure, Kels, because I have been previously enjoined from so doing. Several similar edits to the Editors Report Card were blasted from the database. But since I have your approval, and since you are a bonifide cabal member, I will proceed. I just thought it was "friendlier" and more cooperative and nice to actually endorse the statement attributed to me, and remove the disputed so-called documentation. After all, the forged document merely backed up that I said that. With me verifying it, that so-called "proof" is not needed , right? --TK/MyTalk"Lowly" editor 21:14, 14 January 2008 (EST)


I think it is fair that Hoji bear the burden of proving this to be accurate, but honestly, there may be no way to authenticate this from his end. TK could more easily disprove it if he has a contradicting log. Thus, it's probably fair to put the burden on TK, especially since I think we can presume Hoji's truthfulness.-αmεσ (hegemon) 21:10, 14 January 2008 (EST)
This is a community, and as such, a "small village". Hoji has never given me, or, I suspect, any other citizen here reason to doubt his honesty, over ~9 months. TK, on the other hand... That's my piece on this. humanUser talk:Human 21:16, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Accurate or not, whoever is right or wrong, is it fair to out socks? Perhaps I'm way off here, but where's the difference between Hoji implying TK and TK implying another RW editor? Bad moves both of them, IMHO. Ed @but not the Poor one! 02:58, 15 January 2008 (EST)

I just thought it was "friendlier", more cooperative and nicer to actually endorse the statement attributed to me, and remove the disputed so-called documentation. After all, the forged document merely backed up that I said that. With me verifying it, that so-called "proof" is not needed , right? --TK/MyTalk"Lowly" editor 03:08, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Well, how about we relax the term, then? If not "proof", let's call it "support" for your contention that a well-respected editor with a good reputation would suddenly start forging documents. Or heck, let's start small. What is your reason for believing it's forged, given that you freely admit that the quote is accurate, if not quite catching the "spirit" of what you meant. --Kels 07:15, 15 January 2008 (EST)
My "support" would be posts made on the RationalWiki Forums, where both Hoji and AmesG have posted, more than once, that I was absolutely NOT doing anything to help RW. Since those posts, made in a private forum differ from their allegations here, on the public wiki, and in emails to outsiders, I was reluctant to use those screen shots. Instead, I opted to make things easier on everyone, Kels, and just agree with what was attributed to me, as it was generally in line with what I said. The key difference being I added the caveat "as it is presently being run". Now, can you at least admit, in light of what I just said, and your offer to let me post supporting material, that I really was trying to do the honorable thing? After all, I never really raised a stink about the database purge from Editor's Report Card, and upload supporting posts by another RW editor, looking for someone to post in his place while he was on vacation, or all his posts about the page pumping deal, or the thread "XXXXXX time may have come" did I? I think you can see, had I wanted to, I could have made a liar and exploded the credibility of several sysops. But I didn't. And of course permission is granted to remove this. Like I said, my intent here was to make it a win-win situation, not start yet another confrontation. Perhaps we should all consider an end to the pot/kettle tit for tat that has been going on, and really let bygones be bygones?--TK/MyTalk"Lowly" editor 08:16, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Your response makes me wonder if you understand what the word "forged" means. What does any of that have to do with the simple question I asked? --Kels 17:53, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Still just ignore what you want to, Kels, and repeat your way to get only the very narrow answer you want? That isn't dialog, that's monologue. The "document" merely backs what another editor claims I said. With me verifying it, as corrected only to add the caveat that I meant as it was then being run, the claimed "proof" is not needed. I don't think I could get much clearer. With me accepting the basic correctness, there is no need to be using something that everyone agrees cannot be proved. Therefore my edits were a polite and honest attempt to avoid dispute. The decision evidently has already been discussed in your private forum, so I will now abandon further attempts to achieve a fair resolution of a very minor thing. Thank you for your time, Kels. --TK/MyTalk"Lowly" editor 18:22, 15 January 2008 (EST)

So, like, what you're saying is, it wasn't a forgery? Impartial 18:25, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Apparently not, given he's acknowledging the conversation took place and isn't arguing that the screenshot was doctored or forged. So in the end, it looks like a false accusation against Hoji. --Kels 18:45, 15 January 2008 (EST)
That conclusion could only be reached by someone mentally impaired or intent on provoking some intemperate response, Kels. I am certain you are not mentally impaired, so it means you are merely baiting. Anyway, you all continue, the transparency of this whole section is recognizable to lurkers as well as some members without silly agendas and that makes me happy. I will be happy to provide the actual conversation I had with Hoji to anyone who emails me, with added bonus material as well. Have a nice day. --TK/MyTalk"Lowly" editor 19:05, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Why not post it here, just to get everything out on the open? --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 19:12, 15 January 2008 (EST)
What AJKjeldsen said. --SockOfGulik 19:30, 15 January 2008 (EST)

I note there's still nothing posted backing up, even in the vaguest sense, the accusation that Hoji forged that image. Which, you know, is what this was all about in the first place. --Kels 19:13, 15 January 2008 (EST)

"Mercutio. ... Thou! why, thou wilt quarrel with a man that hath a hair more or a hair less in his beard than thou hast. Thou wilt quarrel with a man for cracking nuts, having no other reason but because thou hast hazel eyes;--what eye but such an eye would spy out such a quarrel? Thy head is as full of quarrels as an egg is full of meat; and yet thy head hath been beaten as addle as an egg for quarrelling. Thou hast quarrelled with a man for coughing in the street, because he hath wakened thy dog that hath lain asleep in the sun. Didst thou not fall out with a tailor for wearing his new doublet before Easter? with another for tying his new shoes with an old riband? and yet thou wilt tutor me from quarrelling!" --Romeo and Juliet, Act 3, Scene 1 Sterileminichatroomthingy 19:21, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Welcome to the Internet. :D --SockOfGulik 19:30, 15 January 2008 (EST)
SRS BSNS. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 19:32, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Site Statistics[edit]

I removed the bit about the Top Ten pages being chiefly about homosexuality - it's a pretty open secret that a lot of that is tude to bots artificially increasing the numbers.PFoster 21:44, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Crimes against humanity[edit]

I was thinking about adding a section with this or similar title. It should be about the abolition of free thinking, free speech and so on. Anyone agrees? --81.182.19.144 19:58, 1 February 2008 (EST)

You have my support. It'll be quite the fun section. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 20:00, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Go for it! Feel free to write extemporaneously, but the occasional good diff link goes a long way. humanUser talk:Human 20:37, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Sorry to be a bore and killjoy, but isn't this a bit of a Godwin's Law-esque moment? Sure, CP's bad, but nowhere near as bad as the many, many, people who suffer actual crimes against humanity. My 2 euro-cents. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום
"Euro-cents"? A clear sign of globalism, which is a clear sign of liberalism, which is a clear sign of deceit. Plus, Godwin's law is used so much it's almost creating a need for a meta-Godwin's Law about itself. In conclusion, nothing I said had anything to do with the topic, and I think you should go ahead with the idea, but not title it as "crimes against humanity." ThunderkatzHo! 20:45, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Just call it "Humans against crimenity". That's newspeak enough, isn't it? humanUser talk:Human 20:48, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Or how about "Crimes against Godwin"? "MetaGodwinisms"? humanUser talk:Human 20:49, 1 February 2008 (EST)
How about we rename it "Human rights violations?" (only because it sounds stronger than "Civil rights violations"). --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 21:43, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Fred Phelps[edit]

Apparently, the editors of Conservapedia consider Fred Phelps to be a liberal activist[3] due in part to his falling out of favor with somewhat less overtly psychotic conservative demagogues. Although a somewhat trivial point, perhaps this is worthy of mention? 74.74.86.54 22:52, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Ah...this is oldnews. Consider this fact: Anything (or anyone) that Andy Schlafly doesn't like is liberal.
Once you get past that then it "looks" like it could make sense.
"This Phelps guy has good information but he's way over the top, something conservatives would never do; ipso facto he must be a liberal activist!
Unspake is the charge that Phelps is a bad taste parody to make real conservatives "look bad", though RobS aka Rob Smith, came close to accusing him (Phelps) of such on Phelps' talk page.
CЯacke® 23:32, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Abortion Rights for Miners![edit]

OK, I added a link to the Consrvapedia piece on Senator Carl Levin, where it said that he supported abortion rights for miners. If someone could just fix that external link so it can be distinguished from the other external links labeled "1" that would be most good.

Where can this go?[edit]

Conservapedia's Wal-Mart article (http://www.conservapedia.com/Wal-Mart) contains a section towards the bottom about "Biblical Action figures." It reads like an ad for the manufacturer and for Wal-Mart itself. This has to be against their "commandments", can someone point it out somewhere on RW? Also I'm sorry I am unable to help myself and do these things myself.

"Thou shalt make no graven images", maybe? (Oh, wait... the Conservapedia Commandments. Never mind. --Gulik 19:58, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

PRO neoliberal?[edit]

As currently phrased, this article claims that one of Conservapedia's main tenets is that it is "Pro-Neoliberal".

Are you sure about that? I can't imagine the Conservapedia folks being very pro-ANYTHING that's associated with Bill Clinton.

--Tracer 21:29, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
Neoliberalism, broadly defined, is a political philosophy that favours the expansion of free markets and the globalisation of Western democratic systems and free-market values - points on which the Clinton Administration, the Bush Administration, Conservapedia (and the entire mainstream of US politics, for that matter) are in complete agreement.PFoster 21:34, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Hey, I have an idea![edit]

Why don't we start a conservapediaPEDIA! A 'pedia about Conservapedia!

We already fill that niche here. See WIGO. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!That isn't science, that's Pac-Man! 15:30, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
But Wikinews is different from Wikipedia, right?
I don't think we're big enough to branch out like that. We'd fall apart like a wet cake balanced on two biros (feel free to quote that). If you want to talk to someone important you should probably petition user:Tmtoulouse and user:Human rather than posting here, by the way. Welcome to RatWiki!! <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!That isn't science, that's Pac-Man! 15:37, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

wow[edit]

The owner of conservapedia himself blocked me for deleting a "well-reference" quote that richard dawkins in fact never ever ever ever ever said!

An Ig Nobel Prize for CP[edit]

I'm sure you're familiar with the Ig Nobel Prizes, which are given to people who "achieve" the most inept work in ten fields of science and technology, including Biology, Chemistry, Peace and Public Health.

Well, I was thinking we could nominated Andrew Schlafly and/or Conservapedia, as they are truly deserving of this honor. Maybe in the field of Literature, for creating and managing an utterly incompetent, often erroneous pseudo-encyclopedia, etc. etc. etc.

Seriously. Here's the website. Please support this!!! --JayJay4ever??? 15:23, 24 June 2008 (EDT::)

Mmmm. In one sense it would be great - but these are a few quotes from the IG site:
  • Every Ig Nobel Prize winner has done something that first makes people LAUGH, then makes them THINK....... Well, it would make them laugh I suppose.
  • The Igs are intended to celebrate the unusual, honor the imaginative, and spur people's interest in science. Each year, many of the ten Ig Nobel Prize winners have achieved something (or other) that most, or at least some people, would deem wonderful. ...... Does this describe CP?
  • The Ig Nobel Board of Governors tries hard to follow the old medical rule-of-thumb "First do no harm." .....Again - does this describe CP?
  • Individuals who are chosen to win an Ig Nobel Prize are, in most cases, quietly given the opportunity to decline the honor........ So if the Great AS thinks it's only scientists laughing at him then he can say, "No thanks". So I'm personally inclined to feel that it's not a runner I'm afraid.--Bobbing up 16:48, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
Only the last rule convinced me. Pity. --JayJay4ever??? 17:02, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

The "90/10 rule" and Schlafly[edit]

I just saw Schlafly ban someone because he didn't like what they said... er... I mean because of the "90/10 rule", and so I wondered if he himself complied with the rule. I wrote a quick tool that would give me the stats for users of any wiki showing their non-talk/talk edit statistics, and then ran it on Schlafly. As of the beginning of June 25, 2008, Schlafly has a total of 18,823 edits to non-talk pages and 3,893 edits to talk pages, which puts him at about 82.86%/17.14%, in violation of his own "90/10 rule". In fact, if you only include his 500 most recent edits, his edit ratio drops down to 57%/43%.
Anyways, thinking of you guys, I added that info to the article, but then I wondered two things. Does the RationalWiki have a problem with original research like this? I couldn't find a policy against it, so please fix that edit if you think it's necessary. The other thing was that I later noticed Schlafly's hypocrisy on this matter had already been mentioned earlier in the article, however the reference supporting that claim was now broken, so the specific numbers are not available anywhere other than in my edit.
So, does my edit need fixing? If so, how? Feel free to improve it yourself. - HiEv 05:30, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with your edit. We are not Wikipedia so actually welcome original research if it is part of our mission, and pwning CP is definitely included. No-one here is under any illusion that the 90/10 "rule" at CP is just a crude way of getting rid of editors who challenge the establishment view of things. On a wiki discussion is often a better way of bashing out changes rather than wreaking havoc on an article. Of course on CP if your edits to an article upset their carefully crafted bias you can get blocked and/or reverted; while if you try to reason changes you get done for 90/10 so basically you can't win if you want to incorporate any truth or balance. And as for the rules on CP well they don't apply to any of the sysops. Like any repressive society those in power get away with doing what they like while the proles are harangued, humiliated and beaten. Jollyfish.gifGenghisYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 06:28, 25 June 2008 (EDT)
Just curious: "And as for the rules on CP well they don't apply to any of the sysops": we all know this, but was this made "official policy" somewhere (apart from some Ed Poor ramblings, that is)? (Editor at) CP:no intelligence allowed 06:51, 25 June 2008 (EDT)
It's "common law" as opposed to the "commandment's" "statute law". SusanG  ContribsTalk 06:55, 25 June 2008 (EDT)
(EC):Ed the evidence is empirical. However, nobody polices the police except Andy and all he does is revert their edits if they conflict with his own "42". The only time he has publicly taken action is after TK swore at him in a private email, Fox went beserk with his jihad against the liberal articles, and Hoji's de facto defection to RW. That the rules do not apply to sysops could never be enshrined in a publicly readable form as that would confirm that CP is worse than WP concerning the actions of administrators. Don't forget that Ed Poor was demoted at WP for abusing his position. Becoming a sysop is like being canonised by the pope, saints can ñever be wrong because the pope is infallible. Jollyfish.gifGenghisYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 07:07, 25 June 2008 (EDT)
I was just wondering because some of these uses, abuses and tweaks have made it. For example, Ed Poor's writing plan was eventually put in some "official" page, but I don't recall which one. And no, the Pope doesn't have the Powers Andy has. (Editor at) CP:no intelligence allowed 07:36, 25 June 2008 (EDT)
We welcome "original research", in fact, we live for it. The only problem I have with adding the above example is that the "90/10" rule has been presented two different ways on CP: you violate at over 10% talk edits, or at under 10% article edits. The latter is the stronger interpretation (90% talk/10% article is the threshold). However, we all know that in reality it means that an editor disagreed in talk pages with Assfly a few times recently. By the way, that "90/10... talk talk talk" block reason is actually saved in their Ipblockreason list. ħumanUser talk:Human 17:15, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

Meh, Human is probably right. The "90/10 rule" is vaguely worded, and thus could be interpreted either way, but the example given there indicates that it means you can't have over 90% talk page edits, so my comment was probably wrong. In fact, this article and the Conservapedia:90/10 Rule article probably both either need rewriting to reflect this, or they need specific examples of users supposedly booted due to the "90/10 rule" that had under 90% talk page edits, thus either clarifying the meaning or showing that it is being used inappropriately. HiEv 21:07, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

Wow, it was easy to find someone accused of breaking 90/10 who had under 90% talk page edits. DinsdaleP, the first person I checked, was told by Schlafly that he had "broken the record for the most egregious violation of the our [sic.] 90/10 rule against constant talk". Surprisingly, he wasn't blocked. Anyways, at the time his edit count was 34.62%/65.38% or roughly one non-talk edit for every two talk page edits. (This is a "record"?!?) Honestly, I see no rhyme or reason in the way this "rule" is applied. HiEv 21:29, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

Cult of Personality?[edit]

I haven't bothered to spelunk (is that a proper word?) the archives here, so this might have been explicitly covered before- I think there should be a section discussing CP as Aschafly's cult of personality. There's more to his acolytes' asskissing than simple agreement. To quote the blog where he launched his new presidential campaign,

"Andy, I'm right behind you! You are a great man, and I will support you all the way. Do you want me to start writing some articles for you on conservapedia.com? Is there anything I can do for you? Just let me know. Congratulations on your signing up - you'll run the country better than any damn Liberal would."

-From Ed Poor of CP

It's like an encyclopedia written by cartoon characters- you couldn't write a better sycophant. -Corry 68.174.190.12 23:31, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

Firstly, I'm reasonably sure that blog is parody, disappointing though that may be :)
Secondly, I wouldn't really class CP as a personality cult, because Andy really has very little personality. They adore his power and his ability to shelter their views, but they're not exactly being swayed by his charisma. I'd be interested in hearing what everyone else thinks, though. <blink></blink> 23:40, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

If I may....personality cults. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* Get to the bunker 23:48, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

One, that blog was parody, and so were all the comments. I know I left one ;). Two, please make article titles singular if it makes grammatical sense. Thanks! ħumanUser talk:Human 00:50, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Vandalism Alert![edit]

Not sure if it's not the right place to say this, but I will be getting a sock, and I will vandalize the CP page on Jesus with a naughty, very-well known photo. Any advice before I go in? — Unsigned, by: PennyLane / talk / contribs

Don't broadcast it on a public forum? --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* Get to the bunker 16:54, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

Don't. Stop. Think. Of. The. Children. CЯacke® 16:56, 11 July 2008 (EDT)


Questions about Conservapedia...[edit]

Hi! I just discovered Conservapedia and RW at about the same time, today. I just want to make sure I understand, and I'm not sure where to ask this. Is Conservapedia supposed to be a big joke/parody, with RW making fun of it, or is Conservapedia written by people who actually believe the garbage they are writing? Also, who is TK? The name seems to come up a lot, both as a member of RW and Conservapedia.

Thanks, E.

Those in charge of Conservapedia definitely believe all that they write, or are too cowardly to ever stray from Andy's POV. RW is more of a place to keep track of all that goes on there and point out logical fallacies and mistakes.
Oh and TK is a former CP sysop who blocked many of us about a year ago (myself included). Jrssr5 15:18, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
There's a little on TK here, here, here, here and here. But also checkout Conservapedia:Timeline and Conservapedia:Special_Discussion_Group. Jollyfish.gifGenghisYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 15:54, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
PS. And I forgot Conservapedia:Newcomer's_Guide#Ex-Sysops. Jollyfish.gifGenghisYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 16:55, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

Server Problems?[edit]

Has anyone noticed some problems with loading Conservapedia pages lately? For the past week, it's been hit-or-miss; half the time you click on a link to a page only to be given an error message, and it takes two or three more tries to get to the page. And today (Monday), the entire site seems to be offline. (To the people clapping, I hear you. I'd be rejoicing too, except I finally finished my article on the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal and was really hoping to post.) Anyone know the source(s) of the problem?---Frey

It's been on and off for me as well. Today it's mostly been okay until about an hour ago, if slow, but now it's completely down again. No idea what's going on. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 15:59, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
It's been fairly iffy ever since the time of the second Lenski reply. I discovered a week or two ago that I could edit there again, but it's not worth the effort when every time I hit "save" I get a pageloading error and don't even know if my edit went through until I can get the article to load in another tab. I seem to run into much more trouble editing than just loading things from WIGO, say, but even those have been giving trouble every day for weeks now. ħumanUser talk:Human 17:57, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

Quantcast[edit]

The Quantcast site description is a direct quote that it generates based on the statistics, it is probably better not being altered. 03:17, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Hmm, I think I did that. Trouble is, that section when it was added was rife with unclear things. I wondered if that was a quote, but seeing no quotemarks, and not being able to find it easily on the page, I thought it was a paraphrase or just a report. Didn't mean to muck up anyone's work... ħumanUser talk:Human 16:01, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Interesting gaps in Conservapedia[edit]

This section is pretty lacking. It's based on the idea that "Conservapedia doesn't show what we want it to show, therefore it's lacking". Just because you think that student encyclopedias should give details about sex, it doesn't mean that conservatives are lacking for wanting it to be a private decision.

The second paragraph is weak because it assumes that everything that will ever be written about a candidate has been written, and that anything missing is deliberate. If you want to pull the "conservatives hiding the truth" card, then point to actual places where such things are deliberately taken out, not places where it was not put in in the first place. (Of course, if you did this, then it wouldn't belong in the "gaps" section anymore either). JazzMan 01:46, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

Well, considering they have no information on reproduction at all, and it is partly aimed at adolescents, that seems pretty remiss. Do they even have a generic article to point all "sex" topics to, where it says "ask your parents", at least? And the political stuff... Nixon isn't listed at deceit these days, is he? There have been many deletions, which of course become "gaps". You are, however, correct in that missing information simply may not have been added yet, as CP is a "work in process". ħumanUser talk:Human 14:07, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
Currently there is a fairly frank article about CP:Human reproduction. weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 14:32, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia needs to change its name.[edit]

Conservative is a political viewpoint that follows the philosophy of less government, more freedom, more individual responsibility. Conservapedia is a "Young Earth Creationist, Fundamentalist Christian" wiki and as such it is misnamed. This would be as if a group of extreme feminists who believed that all sex was rape created a wiki called "Liberalapedia" and then didn't allow liberals to post who weren't extreme feminists. As a conservative atheist I couldn't be more outraged by this site. — Unsigned, by: 24.17.131.16 / talk / contribs

The problem with extremists is they don't consider themselves to be extreme. weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 14:33, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
They should change their name to "Untolerableia" or "Hateapedia" something to mirror the way they act. I like the guy who had Gandhi's quote on his page 'I like your Christ, I don't like your christians, they are nothing like your Christ'... something like that. THAT is Conservapedia.

Better way to attack CP[edit]

Hey, I think people are really going the wrong way when trying to correct Conservapedia to reflect facts. They are going to ignore and delete the facts anyway. I'm taking a more subtle and malicious approach: add information that is simply untrue or harmful. Cite sources that don't exist. Make shit up. Use poor grammar and logic. But most of all, make them think you think you are helping. After all, if they think you're drinking the Kool-Aid, they're less likely to think you're actually taking a shit in it. I've added a section on how to censor the internet, and plan on adding more arguments for censorship and restriction of free speech. I want this site to turn into a mockery of itself.

Welcome to April 2007! --InterpretedThe stupid evil bastard hath said in his heart, 'there is no 4 corner simultaneous 4-day time cube'.
add information that is simply untrue or harmful. Cite sources that don't exist. Make shit up. Use poor grammar and logic. But most of all, make them think you think you are helping ummmm, isn't that what Andy, Ed, Dean and Karajou do? PFoster 18:17, 3 November 2008 (EST)
Yup. They've been on board for over a year now ;) Hsmom is the only one not in on the joke. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:07, 12 November 2008 (EST)
And the girl doing all the Japan stuff. And their tame conspiracy theorist (?) Schlossberg ToastToastand marmite 21:31, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia must perish for this[edit]

Hi all, I am being irritated by "Remember, it's more dangerous to have a Bible in a public school these days than it is to have a student get her throat cut in front of her classmates: [9]" on the main page. I had taken a soft approach but this is just too skunky for me. 67.72.98.45 17:45, 12 November 2008 (EST)

It's awful. One of the worst instances of gloating over murder I've ever seen there. That said - there's no need to call for Conservapedia to perish. They reap the fruits of their labours daily. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!

luckily the kid did it wrong and the girl survived 67.72.98.45 19:15, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Yeah, I had to fix the wigo cp item where it referred to the "killer"... awful thing to happen... ħumanUser talk:Human 21:31, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Advice for running multiple socks[edit]

So one of my socks got blocked for a couple of days for an edit. I want to use my other one for some innocuous editing, but I'm worried if I use the same IP, it will be noticed. Anyone have experience with this? What should I do? Is it safe to use both? Is it safe to sign out of one and immediately sign into another? Hactar 19:35, 17 November 2008 (EST)

According to the Conservapedia cartel's standards, SBC's Dr. Paige Patterson is a liberal atheist![edit]

I recently came across Conservapedia and I wanted to add a source to an article, but when I tried to create an account I found I could not do so because I wasnt an Administrator. Then I found your info on them and saw that talk page where several editors were trying to complain about blocking long-time contributors. I was just appalled at how their concerns were ignored and accusations were tossed around. From what was written there,they seem to think that a couple sure signs of being a God-hating radical liberal atheist include doubting an absolute universal standard of beauty, or failing to capitalize "hell". Guess the latter would make Paige Patterson (one of the leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention's "Conservative Resurgence",former SBC Pres and now president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary) a liberal atheist, since Dr. Patterson did not capitalize that word in his essay "Anatomy of a Reformation"...for example, he wrote "Jesus and His atoning death provides the only way to avoid hell and inherit heaven" Shocking evidence of atheistic tendencies ! by not capitalizing it he shows that all along he has really been a liberal in disguise. Extremists are alike the world over, whether they be radical left or radical right - - they always seem to devolve into paranoia, drawing ever narrower boundaries and purging those on their own side found by the Inner Circle to be ideologically impure. It must be really frustrating for any intelligent people who actually tried to make this a worthwhile resource. My brief glimpse showed me it is hopeless. -- Marie (— Unsigned, by: 24.12.107.250 / talk / contribs )

That thing where you can't create an account just means account-creation was turned off at the time. They switch it off overnight (US time) & at some other times as well (e.g. when they're getting a heavy amount of vandalism). You should be able to create an account at another time, should you still wish to do so. However, as you've probably already realised, trying to make them see sense is a futile task. Andrew Schlafly's definitions of conservatism and liberalism are unique to say the least, & the other admins take their lead from him. If you want to stick around on RationalWiki, we keep a close eye on things at Conservapedia, at Conservapedia:What is going on at CP?. wassaiLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 08:39, 30 December 2008 (EST)
Also, sometimes they forget to turn the editing back on, but they never seem to notice that. Don't be put off by the Weasel though. Have a go at editing, and I mean adding facts or correcting mistakes (not vandalising), and see how long you last. I think we've all done it but until you've experienced it for yourself you can't appreciate the hate. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 09:09, 30 December 2008 (EST)

Just Anonymous-Man being Anal-Retentive[edit]

I think that the size of the text in the "Quotes" section should be increased--they're just a little hard to read. I'm not that great at wikiing; otherwise, I'd do it myself.

I added a <big> tag to the template, not sure I like it better this way though, it seems too big now -- Nx 16:26, 1 January 2009 (EST)

Has Andy ever made a "mistake"?[edit]

I mean was there at least one argument that ended up with Andy's edit reverted/modified or just the incidents that "never happened"? --Kangaxx 18:07, 2 January 2009 (EST)

If this isn't a good place to post the following, please tell me[edit]

I just got banned from CP for five years for using logic in the Obama: talk page and my comments were deleted

I complained and TK blocked me saying Here is your help, bye

Socking and getting blocked is quite mundane and boring. Phantom Hoover 14:05, 24 January 2009 (EST)

CP Down[edit]

And moved to http://www.conservativeencyclopedia.com

Is now a good time? — Unsigned, by: 207.67.17.45 / talk / contribs

I saw that the other day, and I just checked the site that they said they temporarily moved too, and it is just one of those ad sites. Could this possibly be the end of Conservapedia? I doubt it. Its probably just the Liberal Internet trying to censor Andy. --Passerby25 13:59, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Huh, that's odd. They did move to ConservativeEncyclopedia yesterday (with a temporary redirect to it from the normal URL), but now the normal URL seems to be broken (again) and ConservativeEncyclopedia... *checks* Ah, no. It's not just an ad site. It's apparently still registered to Andy, but it's an empty "This domain has been parked for free" page by his domain name service. Could mean that they're moving back to the regular URL... --Sid 14:14, 27 January 2009 (EST)
It shows a directory listing, with _private, cgi-bin, images, w directories and a postinfo.html file for me. Looks like they reinstalled the whole thing -- Nx talk 14:17, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Proxy on Conservapedia[edit]

I just got banned by TK on conservapedia for using an anonymous proxy server.

  1. How was it detected?
  2. Using proxy was recommended on this site, so was there a change in policy at Conservapedia?
  3. Is there a more robust method of hiding one's IP address?

--Oenothera 09:05, 28 January 2009 (EST)

See this. I see the Newcomer's guide says proxies are allowed on CP, I wonder why, since unless you've got a really good excuse (and manage to slip in a few good contributions before he notices you), you'll get blocked by TK. In fact, even that may not be enough any more, as TK basically blocks everyone using a proxy on sight these days. -- Nx talk 09:13, 28 January 2009 (EST)
Well, I did the whole tor thing (very nice tool), but still blocked me for other reasons. I didn't even edit anything. Now they are apparently insisting on you telling them your real name, which is kind of scary.--Oenothera 13:10, 28 January 2009 (EST)
We do have the random name generator, although this is restricted to last initial only. The most successful deep-cover socks always seem to be able to get away with usernames that do not technically meet the requirement, however. KlapauciusEsteemed Constructor 19:35, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Red Links[edit]

Half the links in the accuracy article are red? Are we going to do anything? Is this going to be my first major project? --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistoris GilliamM (no, I'm not!) 20:27, 28 January 2009 (EST)

If you can mix them into the mission, yes. - User 20:34, 28 January 2009 (EST)
Redirects might be a good idea. Here goes! --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistoris GilliamM (no, I'm not!) 20:41, 28 January 2009 (EST)

The Watchtower of the Internet[edit]

Saying that Conservapedia is The Watchtower of the Internet is insulting to The Watchtower. While I don't think that line in the article should be removed or changed, The Watchtower as a publication is not nearly as batshit insane as Conservapedia is. Diego001 14:26, 17 March 2009 (EDT)