Talk:Main Page/Archive4

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>

, (new)(back)

WOW

That Savage thing.... now that's looking for Liberal boogeyman SirChuckB 11:30, 2 August 2007 (CDT)

CP editing locked down

no one but the low brow cabal is allowed to edit on CP today. apparenlty there aren't enough sherrifs in town to open it up

The reason that CP is shut down is because 420chan (similar to 4chan, but focused on raids) is currently raiding CP. One of their members made a program to automatically create accounts, so they were vandalizing CP most of the morning.

If that was a chan raid, then I am not impressed. C'mon, you lot - you've destroyed Habbo and SL several times over, and pretty much taken down Hal Turner, and Conservapedia gives you trouble? -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

I'll be honest, I've never seen them successfully do more in SL than take down two or three sims, which then restarted and went up again a few minutes later. Even the Big Bad Attack the Patriotic Nigras planned a couple of months back, which was supposedly going to bring all SL to a halt didn't accomplish much in the end. Although it did give FurNation headaches. --Kels 16:42, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

I believe that the chan raid is still ongoing. Because of the removal of account creation, many of them are just trying to do image leeching to use up all of CP's bandwidth and make their servers shut down.

Who's Chan?-αmεσ (!) 15:46, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

4chan.org is a fork of the Something Awful forums. It's... well,let's just say it's something quite to itself. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 15:51, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

Don't go there. Just don't. This is one of the few occasions in which I deliberately try to be prejudiced - I have condemned it, in my mind, without ever visiting. Basically (or so my sources tell me), the chans are a hive of memes and pornography, and every so often they sally forth and utterly trash some site. Kels might know more about their Second Life activities, but one of the most striking examples would be Hal Turner, some neo-Nazi American radio presenter, where they effectively took him off the air and the internet by hacking, spamming, and DOSing. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

The *chans still go on about Hal Turner, it's a bizarre obsession. I'm not so big on them myself, and I find a lot of the anti-fur types and general destructive idiots come from there, but then there are a lot of cool folks who hang out there too. Not my cuppa, and I'd be more inclined to just plain ignore them if it weren't for the destructive idiots, as above. A lot of ED is just copying down the memes that grow out of 4chan, though. Stuff like AAAA and the mudkipz thing, etc. --Kels 16:40, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

Featured content push down (CP news section)

I am not too thrilled about having our featured content now pushed down so much... tmtoulouse ^torment 12:53, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

Me neither. Suggest: on the right side, at the top: 'featured content'. next, 'according to'. Then a link to the 'CP news' thingie below that, followed last by the 'wisdom' thing. human^{be in} 12:59, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

Yes, a spot of rearranging the main page is in order. There's plenty of tidying can be done on the left side too. Doggedpersistance 13:12, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

I rearranged by priority. That huge CP section is... a tad redundant. There are links to "best of", etc, in 'featured content'. I really want to see a justification for its inclusion on the main page soon, or I will at least comment it out. I know it took hard work to make it, but there was virtually no discussion - and none here - before this rather large section was added to the main page. I still say, isn't a link to "best of CP" pretty much enough? Please keep in mind, that RW is not the "anti CP", CP is not our raison d'etre, and our goals are to have less CP, not more. That's why most CP articles are not in the main space, for example. human^{be in} 19:15, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

I agree on the CP thing - what does RW want to be? It's kinda pointless just being the anti-CP. The new layout's right-column-heavy though. And I don't know what I'm doing, so I can't try something else. Why not try the Quote on bottom left, and shorten the right column sections? It'l all fit if it's just a bit more efficient. Doggedpersistance 20:08, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

OK, dumping that giant CP news section will balance things - and make it more like 1-1.5 screens. The only reason "the new layout" is right-side heavy is that CP junk that someone decided to add. Which, by the way, will most likely simply not be there by tomorrow unless I hear a good reason to keep it. Why do I call it "junk"? Because it does not belong on our main page. Anyone who comes here looking for CP stuff will find a few links in the 'contents' section, which is plenty. Someone reading that whole main page will think we are cp-obsessed and not much more.

As far as "all fitting", um, a page can go on forever, basically. It always "fits". What does not fit are eight or ten dumb things people scrounged from CP in the last day or so. Which, by the way, use in-jargon, first names of people visitors have never heard of, etc. Don't let me get myself worked up or I'll go remove it now! Just waiting to see if there is a good reason to leave it.

By the way, You also said "what does RW want to be? It's kinda pointless just being the anti-CP" Well, we simply are not "just the anti-CP". What RW wants to be is stated at the top of the main page. human^{be in} 20:47, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

My point exactly. There's the entire anti-knowledge movement to take on, and CP's just one wing of that. There's more important fish to fry - like, perhaps, the fact the the leadership contest for the most powerful nation on Earth includes three candidates who don't believe a few generations' worth of their most eminent scientists. Doggedpersistance 21:29, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

Mind you, that Featured Content section's huge too. Doggedpersistance 21:42, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

Yes, but it's about this web site - you know, a rough table of contents. I'm not saying it couldn't be better, it could use a little updating, and suggestions for featured files on its talk page, that sort of thing. Every link in the 'CP news' section leads off-site. Why not swap in the FBI thing you've been working on for the team contest, which is getting a little stale now? human^{be in} 22:39, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

Sure! Doggedpersistance 23:17, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

I am the guilty party in starting this rearrangement. I apologize for doing this without discussing it first here. While I did discuss it in the "Repackaging the Conservapedia material" section of the talk for for "According to ....", I did not await other people's consent. I believed that what I was doing was at least helping to solve the "The 'according to' section is way bloated with CP material" problem.

If the result of this is simply that another CP-bloated news section was created on the front page, maybe this didn't help. If this situation bothers people, and clearly it does, it should be put onto another page, accessible with one click from the front page. However, I still believe that breaking news about CP lunacy is an important thing, and that RW is widely used as a source for same. While we may wish that we weren't "all Conservapedia, all the time", we have developed that reputation, and we shouldn't try to downplay our function as a source of anti-CP news.

By all means, change the front page so that the CP breaking news doesn't fill up half of the initial screen. But I still think we are an important source for this. SJIHAS 10:39, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for chiming in, SJIHAS! Here what I observe: 1., you're right, people should have an easy link to two to "all things CP" from high on our front page. 2., the 'featured content' section already does this - the CP portal, and room for a couple of featured articles. 3., keeping CP out of 'accordiing to' is a very good goal. 4., we wound up with two different places for CP news/howlers - the "best of CP" article, which goes back to late May, and the new "news at CP" template, which I assume you built from the CP links in 'according to'.

Here is what I think would be a good solution. 1. merge whatever is not in Best of CP there from the "news" template. 2. mark 'according to' to have no CP and direct people to 'best of' for CP stuff. 3. We move "according to" back to the top, and have a hard (unchanging) link to "Best of CP" at the bottom of it. Below that will be featured content with it's CP links as well. If I here affirmation on this, I'll do all but the merging of CP news into best of, and leave that to other more dedicated editors. When we're done we can delete the redundant template. PS, any of these things can be done and looked at to see how we feel. Anything can be undone. Comments? human^{be in} 15:00, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Looking at things with the benefit of my education and experience over the last couple of days, here are my observations and suggestions:

• We should have a "news crawl" with latest stuff. It's interesting, and, like it or not, we are now famous as an anti-CP resource. (Witness the fact that the most recent CP vandalisms related to the FBI thing now seem to be driven by the fact that we are on top of the Google rankings for this.)
• We should have archives of the "news crawl".
• We should have longer, more polished articles and essays, such as the discussion of Andy's views on whether Ben Franklin was a deist. Not timely, but a classic.

When I first started messing around with this stuff, I was disappointed by the "Best of Conservapedia" page. But it's clear now that its only problem was that it had been usurped by people putting news into the "according to" page, and hence it had fallen into disuse. Having two places for something usually leads to this problem. So my suggestion, very much in agreement with user:human's, is to move all the "CP news" stuff into the "best of CP" page, polishing that page so it is as good as the "according to" and "CP news" news-crawl pages. When one goes to that page, one should see what looks like the present news-crawl of 5 or so items, with a link to the rest of the entire list.

Note that I'm proposing a somewhat different organization from the "according to" page; in that page older stuff is treated sort of as "obsolete and not really here, but can be moved back up to the main section if people get bored." Instead, the "older items" will just be an expanded continuation of the list, that people can get to with one click. They won't be considered obsolete.

In addition to the "Best of Conservapedia" page, there should be a single-click access to the collection of longer, more polished essays and articles. The way to do this is with a category. I consider Category:Conservapedia somewhat disappointing, because the page has other distracting stuff on it, like the Galileo quote. I'd prefer a category that goes straight to the alphabetical listing of articles. I created Category:Conservapedia Craziness for this purpose; it may not be the right thing. It's also possible that a category "Conservapedia Classics" would be a good repository for things like Ben Franklin's deism.

I'm willing to do the heavy lifting on revamping "Best of CP".

By the way, the 11th FBI item, [1], has still not been reverted. Do you think Andy is wising up?

SJIHAS 15:54, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

OK. We basically agree on (1) - a separate according to CP page, ideally done by prettying up the standards fro "best of CP" (which, by the way, is very active). I disagree on the "news crawl" thing in general, but maybe the link to "best of" should say something like The latest bloopers at Conservapedia, and be at the bottom of "according to". One big page is good - I find when I go there that some items don't interest me, and others do, so I click on them. "Best of" could have a better intro text, too.

(2), best of CP is already "newest at the top", and all entries stay there, older towards the bottom. New ones always go at the top. It should be one click from the main page. Simple and easy.

(3) Shall we discuss any issues you have with cat:CP on it's talk page? It is the CP portal on this site. The Galileo quote, I agree, pushes things down. It has 9 subcats and 56 articles - not bad IMHO. I don't think more categories are the answer - the answer is to make the obvious cat., "CP", better.

So, moving forward - how about this:

(A) I will rearrange the main page, losing "cp news" but putting the "best of CP" link with "according to". I will do this with the understanding that I may be reverted and critiqued mercilessly :). I'll also swap that FBI article in place of team contest on the contents file.

(B) You (SJIHAS) will merge the cp news file into best of cp, and pretty up the best of file as you see fit (cooperating with its other contributors, of course, namely, I think sid does most of the work there). When the cp news template is "defunct", let a sysop know so they can delete it.

(C) We will "all" do what we can to make the CP cat portal page as good as possible - not too much clutter up top, maybe half the soze of the boxes there would be great. And if it is to have subcats, they should make good strong sense - memorable so people use them, meaningful so visitors click on them, and useful enough to have several articles that belong in them.

To make this all work well, various people also need to be committed to keeping things fresh (like putting the latest good cp articles in places like "articles of note" - or maybe all the good ones). One thing that happens here is that sometimes things stay the same for a while, and it makes sense to do work that will still read well in 2 or 3 weeks if not updated. I will start to work on (A) tonight, and await any feedback, perhaps in a new heading below. I'll also meet you over at cat:cp to work on (C). Have fun grinding through (B)! Does that sound good? human^{be in} 19:43, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

The Mind Reels....

I have been visiting Rationalwiki for several weeks now, following the links to the latest stupid/funny/pathetic addition to Conservapedia. I don't know which is more disturbing, the totally delusional crap that's posted as fact on CP or those poor unfourtunates who actually BELIEVE IT!

Oh, and the people that control that site - the smugness, arrogance and self rightousness is indicative, I think, of current or former bed wetters, or at least people who got beat up in school. Hmmm, that might explain the focus on home schooling.

Anyway, you guys have a fun site and I'll contribute as much as I can. Jim Reaves

To paraphrase Spider Robinson, "Nowadays, my mind MP3's" --Kels 16:46, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

Speaking of abortions....

...has anyone else seen this mess? [[2]] PFoster 18:44, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

It's a pretty poorly-done parody... --Hjimachong 19:18, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

We have a plan though - ASSIMILATE! ASSIMILATE! ASSIMILATE! -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

It is a mess, alright. Best for rationalwiki to distance itself. This site possesses the intellectual nature that Conservaledia falsely claims to have. Librapedia is puerille. DickTurpis 09:22, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Right Pane

Now that the "According to some people" is under the "featured content" it's a lot less visible. The insanity of neoconservatism is one of the attractions to the site, and the "ATSP" pane is a quick way to see most of the aforementioned insanity in a concise manner. Any chance of restoring it to the old format? Stile4aly 21:12, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

I believe your concerns were addressed last night when I reorged it a bit. human^{be in} 13:58, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

CP vs other

I gotta say I like CP becoming secondary on the right side. My 2 cents.--PalMD^{-Si Quaeris Peninsulam Amoenam Circumspice!} 07:13, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

Yup. While their barmy activities are most entertaining, we can't be putting TOO much emphasis on them. Doggedpersistance 13:43, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

I'm glad people (so far) like the results of "our" efforts to clean it up, and have one clear link to all the CP zaniness. human^{be in} 14:05, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

"Bible" quote

Can I get any effort from a few people to add non-bible quotes to Template:RationalWiki_MainPage/BibleVerse? I don't mind updating it every few days, but I wish there were more quotes/sources to choose from. And they don't have to be religious books. Any great quotes would be appreciated. And one of these days I'll rename the file to make it more obvious... human^{be in} 14:05, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

Can someone delete these pages?

These pages appear to be vandalism.

• Conservapedincest
• Aryan Nations

ŖěɔŪŗşÏvě 17:24, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Done, and leaving a nice note at aryannationsrocks talk page. And their block log ;) human^{be in} 17:36, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

I also just removed the red links to the articles, since we certainly don't "want" them. human^{be in} 19:12, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

check out the article of the week at Conservapedia

Moved to Talk:Evolution (helpful pointer for the people who don't check article histories)

Anyone signing up for Andy's courses?

I'm quite keen to myself. Or perhaps I already have? Who knows?! Doggedpersistance 18:30, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

I will just read them with out signing up, feels cleaner that way. tmtoulouse ^torment 18:39, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

But won't they be in a Sooper SeaKrit namespace unavailable to....oh yeah. CЯacke® 23:15, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

For anyone that's curious/lazy, here's a copy of the first lecture here. It's alright, if basic, up til the end, where he subtlely attacks the SCOT US, and unwittingly supports anarchy.--Offeep 01:25, 12 August 2007 (CDT)

Of course, the zinger is this line from the end... "Query: who “checks and balances” the Supreme Court? Ponder that question."

Now, as anyone who has been through sencondary school can tell you, the Supreme Court is balanced by the President, who holds the power to decide the court's make-up, and the Congress, who can amend the constitution to nullify the court's decision. But, teaching children this is less important than taking a swipe at the court for making liberal decisions. Also, who the fuck uses the word 'query?'--Offeep 01:31, 12 August 2007 (CDT)

I really, really want to sign up for his Supreme Court class!! -αmεσ (!) 22:56, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Go right ahead. I won't tell anyone.--71.225.122.134 23:14, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

It seems though, that whomever does sign up gets banned. Maybe this is the new "complaint dept" where all who "sign up" are really just committing suicide? CЯacke® 23:42, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

I almost feel bad. He had two students, and they both got banned, apparently because TK thought they were my sockpuppets. I guess that's what you get for having Reinhard Heydrich in charge of security. DickTurpis 00:15, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Well, that is odd, as they are both in fact my socks, but whatever floats TK's boat.--Offeep 12:07, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

I've signed up for all of Andy's courses and me and my Bong Hits for Jesus buddies are very much enjoying them. We're also, ahem, enjoying doing our homework. Doggedpersistance 16:52, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

He's got a couple coming up on Math and I can't force myself to do it. I teach math and I know I'd have to fly off the handle about something. I looked at the "curriculum" and it's frightening to say the least!!--Sproutky 09:17, 25 August 2007 (CDT)

Turkel Crap

Has been moved to here. CЯacke® 20:32, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

A thought about Conservapedia

Seeing as everyone here knows that CP is full of crap, I had I thought: seeing as CP has several images and such that are copyright material, and such, perhaps we should email the people that have had material stolen to the activities of that site. I highly doubt that a company is going to accept a site like this as a 'educational site' as he claims[[3]].

It would, at least, get the site into hot water, and while we can, as a group, work to refute his whole ideology, it isn't going to save some poor kid from being brain washed.

It's just a suggestion, of course, perhaps a rather silly one :) Have a nice day. --TheThinkingMan 19:51, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

If you know of such violations why not create the article [[Conservapedia:copyright violations ]]? Doggedpersistance 19:54, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

Aren't some rather large corps trying to 'do' you tube for copyright as we speak - not totally successfully? Keep ^{Sardine sandwiches} 20:10, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

I believe some of them was somewhat successful, Google has removed a number of Copyright violating videos.--TheThinkingMan 20:24, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

I thought we already had a CP copyright vio page, unless that was on RW 1.0 User:PalMD

I agree with you totally but why not investigat and list 'em then anyone can see 'em - including the copyright owners. But let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Tother day I posted on Image_talk:Noob.jpg a request for copyright info (not that I can see why anyone should want to admit to such an awful pic) no luck so far. Do we have a policy of (say) deleting such files after a certain time? Keep ^{Sardine sandwiches} 20:30, 18 August 2007 (CDT) ps It was mainly because it's such a godawful pic. (Image:Noob.jpg) Keep ^{Sardine sandwiches}

We may have some images we shouldn't, but if asked we would instantly delete them. CP is much higher profile than us. And utube, of course, even higher ;) I bet if a copyright owner asked CP to delete an image, they would do it immediately - and they have that DMCA link right on their front page. They "try" to be careful, but are still a bit clumsy (ie, they aren't using MLB logos for userboxen). I think the "hot water" would be over before it was even noticed. Also, the copyright holder has to care enough to ask them to remove the image. I'd say it would, however, be fun to list their copyvio images somewhere here. A few very rambling thoughts on the issue... human^{be in} 21:48, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

i agree such a list would be a good idea, but I don't have a great deal of time needed to search Conservapedia and cross reference to find copyright problems. I can help, but I don't think I'm up to creating a whole article on it.--TheThinkingMan 22:14, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

I'd be up to helping somebody compile a list of images on Conservapedia that are (ostensibly) in violation of copyright. --Hjimachong 17:28, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

MTur's been trying to do this for a bit, but I'd help happily. Hoji, are you using Vista?-αmεσ (!) 17:31, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

No, I stole the globe image from WJBscribe on Wikipedia; it's messing up my sig. --Hjimachong 17:33, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

So is there already an article title in existence? Or are we going to use the redlinked one above (which I fixed)? human^{be in} 23:49, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

I just know of the "Blatant Plag." article/category (in the CP Portal). (But then again, I'm hardly up to speed with things these days...) --Sid 05:41, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

logo?

Unless my panning/scrolling has missed it, we don't appear to have the "brace brace brain brace brace" logo on the main page. I like it. Comment? Keep ^{Your hands to yourself} 08:12, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Must have been a fluke, I'm seeing it everywhere still. human^{be in} 12:18, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Do you know where to buy an adminship at wikipedia?

Do you know where to buy an adminship at wikipedia? 21:51, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

You don't--TheThinkingMan 21:53, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Just keep putting money into my PayPal until I tell you to stop. I'll hook you up. --Kels 22:21, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Proposal

How about we replace the main page with this? - Icewedge 22:33, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

(1) Why? and (2), Sorry, see below, it does not work properly. And, PLEASE, see (1): Why??? human^{be in} 02:32, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

1. The mainpage design as it is now has many problems, the purple color looks a bit wierd on larger screens, an indordinate amount of space was being taken up by the notice board, and the featured content was beng pushed down by the acording to section which many vistors too our site would not get.

2. I am not seing this problem that you are getting, I have tried several browsers. If you can point me to the code that is causing the problem you are experinceing I might be able to fix it. If you cant could you upload a screen shot, if i saw what was happening I might be able to debug the code - Icewedge 18:48, 23 August 2007 (CDT).

1. Good point, it looks "ok" to me, but that's just my monitor. How about a paler version of the color? Also, "featured content" could simply be put above "according to", right? (I agree it should always be easy to see on one unscrolled screen).

2. Half a sec, I'm going to look at in IE. OK, it also works in mozilla now. But up until a short time ago it was broken. One complaint: the CP news link is as prominent as "about RW". It should be below the TOC template. I would suggest taking these issues one at a time. Let's discuss the purple to green change first? Maybe in a new section? human^{be in} 20:00, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

Me, I like. But I'm pretty new here, so I imagine that don't count for much. Still it's way easier on the eyes, easier to follow. PFoster 22:46, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

I second (or agree with, whichever term you preffer) the proposal. Locke ^{Always Watching......} 22:49, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Go ger it. CЯacke® 22:53, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Much bettah! Doggedpersistance 01:49, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

Yes, it's very pleasing to the eye. :-) But what about putting the reference to CP below "Featured Content" and above "Wisdom of the Sages"? Anyone agree?--Bob_M (talk) 06:10, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

I agree, it gives CP too high a profile. I like the greenz. Needs more purple. Wait, it just changed again. I preferred "according to" on the right - RW stuff on left, others on right, TOC below others, as it was. What I saw briefly abandoned the columns and was interesting. human^{be in} 12:05, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

I had to revert it, sorry, it was badly broken. Sections weren't turning up, it was a screen and a half wide, etc. COMMENT: I think that scroll box for the noticeboard is awful looking. Can we discuss major changes for longer than one night before implementing them? Especially if they don't work right... human^{be in} 19:07, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

I don't see why you say there is a problem, I look at the new main page design in both internet explorer and fire fox and it seemed fine. The others didn't seem notice problems either. - Icewedge 23:29, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

It is simple - the page tables force about a 1600px wide front page. The entire right hand column is off the screen until you notice the scroll bar at the bottom. human^{be in} 02:30, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

The Main Page is structured and written very much both by and for ourselves right now. Others coming here, knowing nothing about what we 'do', would be confused. e.g. "What's Conservapedia?"; "who are 'some people'?", etc. The same goes for the pages we link to directly - WIGO frequently features the use of first names (Andy, etc - and I'm as guilty as the next here), without any explanation of who those people might be. I was struck today by how offputting that may be to others - it feels very cliquey and a bit immature. Mind you, immaturity is a very important aspect of what we are about I suppose, but there you go. Doggedpersistance 21:32, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

Well? What about it? Anyone want to see any clarification of the Main Page? Doggedpersistance 18:12, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

I don't think so, really, no. Not without carefully hashing it out here, at least. Most of the questions raised in your above comment are either answered directly on the main page or one link away from it, I think. But feel free to school me if I'm wrong... human^{be in} 18:23, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

No intention of doing anything there without figuring it out first, don't worry. But consider my points:

• A user who arrives, knowing nothing about RW, and finds the most obvious linkage is "According to (ahem) some people". Does anyone else think that's written for an 'in' crowd? Maybe I'm wrong.

• Would the same user have any clue at all what "the latest news from Conservapedia" would imply? And if they follow that page, and are launched right into our daily lulz of "Andy's at it again", or "RobS and TK are fighting again", might the same befuddlement be caused?

Thoughts worth pondering, I think. I'm fine with the rest of it, and I quite liked aspects of that recent green and mauve redesign. Mainly I liked getting more content on the page, rather than an entire column devoted to info, fund raising, sponsoring, etc about RW. Could those should be single links, not paragraphs? Doggedpersistance 18:33, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

(1) Nobody ever arrives a web page without some context already. Keep in mind the www does not have a "random" button.

(2) Many people come here with the context of knowing about CP. And if they don't our CP article is linked from the TOC on the main page.

As far as color schemes, let's stick with what we have (our "branding") for a while - to be "friendly" to occasional visitors? What "content" would you like to see more of? Links to good articles? (working on it) As opposed to the noticeboard stuff? To keep this slightly simpler, shall we discuss one thing at a time? Like, pick a fault or flaw, and we'll discuss if it is or not, and if we decide it is, we'll discuss solutions. Then move on to another, if we want to. human^{be in} 18:43, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

Admit its cool Human, you just don't want to lose your purple color. ɧєɭıסş^{-get sunburn!} 23:27, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

Is this site affiliated with http://www.rationalresponders.com/?

This site, which looks like it was set up by wikipeidans. 23:16, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

No, RationalWiki is not associated with rational responders in any way. - Icewedge 23:39, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Well, since you're a liar (we all are), I assume you mean yes. 00:27, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

They owe us money, so we made them use "rational" in their title. We own them (figuratively)! Glory! St. CЯacke® 06:02, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

First reference I've seen to the site. Though it looks as though it might be interesting.--Bob_M (talk) 06:06, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

S&M er..FSM

Google cache of the president for life piece seems to be gone.--MountainTiger 12:43, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

Does the wayback machine have it, perhaps? human^{be in} 12:53, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

The text (though not as nice as the thing that was in the Google cache) can be found at [4]. SJIHAS 14:37, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

Bot

Is there any chance someone can create a bot that actually gets conservapedia news? Perhaps like the first five things they list? I think it would be nice to show just how insane they are. They update their news with this template: http://www.conservapedia.com/Template:Mainpageright --Danielfolsom 17:18, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

I don't see your point. If it is readily available at CP, why copy it somehow to here? Oh, and most of the time, who cares? Mostly they are just stupid wingnuts, but once in a while they are hilarious. That stuff we link to from WIGO @ CP and BoCP. Both of which are linked from our front page. human^{be in} 19:13, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

Because right now our system is inefficient. We say that people should copy and paste the news items - when we could just get a bot.--Danielfolsom 19:43, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

Maybe you don't understand. We don't publish CP's "news" ticker, and we don't publish their "recent changes". We report - we pick and choose what to list. The only way to do that is with human intervention. human^{be in} 20:02, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

Ahh ok - now I gotcha.--Danielfolsom 20:06, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

We can enable Scary Transclusion if need be… --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 01:10, 22 August 2007

Larry King Poll

How related to the 71% atheist numbers are we? Please tell me that someone is involved in some massive spamming of the poll.--MountainTiger 18:48, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

"This is not a scientific poll." No fuckin' kidding. PFoster 18:52, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

I might have voted ten times, expecting to be transferred to "results". "results" did not work for me, perhaps it's IE-only? human^{be in} 18:54, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

I got results on firefox.--MountainTiger 18:58, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

The poll allows you to vote multiple times :/--TheThinkingMan 22:36, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Yes, but the results are so lopsided in a fairly large sample that I suspect a dedicated and possibly automated spamming as opposed to your run of the mill online poll stuffing.--MountainTiger 22:00, 24 August 2007 (CDT)

Fascists!

[5] Bohdan 19:21, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Spammer. human^{be in} 20:20, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

I am now a spammer. B****n

Question RE: OSU

I have a question regarding the link on the front page about evangelist groups and the military; is the Pentagon spending money on this bullshit material, or just permitting the groups to send them, with no cost to the Pentagon? --Hjimachong 20:50, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

It's not clear based on the article, but it sounds like the actual stuff isn't coming out of the Pentagon's budget, though delivery might.--MountainTiger 20:52, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Haggard

Why does something tell me that the sunday school at New Life taught about those Papists and their evil indulgences?--MountainTiger 22:01, 24 August 2007 (CDT)

He's such a mess. "Cured" LMAO, yeah, right. You don't cure something that #1 you're born with and #2 isnt'a disease. I guess that's the only way they would keep him and the gay community sure wouldn't want him. He had to go somewhere. ...I wonder if "cured" means "able to hide affairs more effectively" ? --Sproutky 09:25, 25 August 2007 (CDT)

There's a reason truck stops are referred to as "Pickle Palaces" by those in the know. St. CЯacke® 09:52, 25 August 2007 (CDT)

No, it means "able to hide the pickle more effectively". Doggedpersistance 14:27, 25 August 2007 (CDT)

Mother Theresa Questioned the Existence of God...

For those of you who read French, (which, given how erudite and clever Rationalwikians are, is probably most of us, right?) here's an article you'll never see on Conservapedia: Mother Theresa sometimes seriously questioned the existence of the big invisible man in the sky. Writing to a friend in 1979, Theresa mused(Translated): "Jesus has a specific love of you. For me, the silence and the void are so overwhelming that I look and do not see, that I listen and do not hear." PFoster 21:47, 25 August 2007 (CDT)

So did I, and you won't read that at CP either - anymore. human^{be in} 23:57, 25 August 2007 (CDT)

I'm not sure why this is news now. I thought it was pretty widely known that M.T. felt abandoned by God in the last twenty years of her life. She wrote something like God had stopped talking back to her. ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{I said what?} 14:48, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

Wait, doesn't that just mean she was cured? human^{be in} 14:57, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

Dostoevsky: "It is not as a child that I believe and confess Jesus Christ. My hosanna is born of a furnace of doubt." --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 16:42, 27 August 2007 (CDT) <-- providing random historical quotes since 2000.

Apparently, it's news now because some of her letters expressing her doubts have recently come to light. PFoster 16:58, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

I saw this on CNN a few nights ago. It was news to me. GrandSoviet 09:36, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Her disbelief (?) in God didn't stop her promulgating the Catholic Church's evil "no contraception" dogma thus condemning women to repeated childbirth and possibly AIDS. Susan Jayne Garlick^talk 11:13, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Foxy

Anyone know what's happened to Fox? Matt 07:35, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

I don't know, but he's been gone for a while before, so I wouldn't be too worried.--Offeep 12:14, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

Maybe he's busy in the real world, like me, and I'll be coming back to this site soon... MiddleMan 15:01, 27 August 2007 (CDT)