Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Color code

2009-12-12T23:59:27Z

Eaglerock:

'''Color codes''' are used in [[HTML]] to display colors. Each color is represented with a 6 digit [[hexadecimal]] number (base 16). The table below provides a list of the color codes that are supported by all major browsers.

{|border="1" cellpadding="10" style="text-align:center"
|-
|width="25%" style="background:#ff0000"|
|width="25%"|#ff0000
|width="25%" style="background:#00ff00"|
|width="25%"|#00ff00
|-
|style="background:#0000ff"|
|#0000ff
|style="background:#000000"|
|#000000
|-
|style="background:#ffffff"|
|#ffffff (white)
|style="background:#ff0070"|
|#ff0070
|-
|style="background:#ff00ff"|
|#ff00ff
|style="background:#ffff00"|
|#ffff00 (Liberal)
|-
|style="background:#00ffff"|
|#00ffff
|style="background:#0090ff"|
|#0090ff
|-
|style="background:#f75431"|
|#f75431
|style="background:#606060"|
|#606060
|-
|style="background:#C0C000"|
|#C0C000
|style="background:#C000C0"|
|#C000C0
|-
|style="background:#305030"|
|#305030
|style="background:#006060"|
|#006060
|-
|style="background:#801060"|
|#801060
|style="background:#932229"|
|#932229
|-
|style="background:#C00000"|
|#C00000
|style="background:#C0C0C0"|
|#C0C0C0
|-
|style="background:#705030"|
|#705030
|style="background:#789820"|
|#789820
|}

<font size="4">
<font color=#806000> '''FONT COLOR''' </font> #806000
</font>

[[Image:Sun - web.jpg]]

== External links ==

===Charts===
*[http://redvip.homelinux.net/varios/colores.html Color code]
*[http://html-color-codes.com/ Color code] 216 web color codes.
*[http://www.computerhope.com/htmcolor.htm HTML color codes and names]
*[http://html-color-codes.info/ HTML Color Picker]
*[http://www.immigration-usa.com/html_colors.html Complete HTML True Color Chart]

[[category:Colors]]

Newsmax Media

2009-12-12T23:57:01Z

Eaglerock:

'''''Newsmax''''' is a monthly [[magazine]] created to point out [[liberal bias]] and improprieties in the media that are forced upon the American people. It also seeks to extol men and women who show [[conservative]] virtues. For those who sign up, there are also daily emails of breaking news stories of interest that may not be fully covered in the general media. In addition to the magazine, there is also a NewsMax [[web page]], which covers many of the articles in the magazine in shortened form.

== History ==

Christopher W. Ruddy started Newsmax.com on September 16, 1998, supported by a group of conservative investors, including the family of the late Central Intelligence Agency Director William J. Casey. Later Richard Mellon Scaife, his former employer at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review and a supporter of conservative causes, invested in the fledging company. One of the initial board members was author James Dale Davidson who edited a financial newsletter that had shared Ruddy's interest in the Vincent Foster case. Davidson's co-editor, Lord Rees-Mogg, former editor of the The Times and Vice Chair of the BBC, later became chairman of Newsmax Media.

Other news figures who later joined the Newsmax board included Arnaud de Borchgrave, the longtime Newsweek chief correspondent who also serves as editor at large of UPI and Jeff Cunningham, former publisher of Forbes. The late Admiral Thomas Moorer, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who helped bring the Vietnam War to a close, also served as one of the company's founding board members. Former Nixon Chief of Staff and Secretary of State Alexander M. Haig Jr. has served as special advisor to NewsMax

Ruddy aimed at creating an Internet news company by building a team of reporters instead of working alone. In August 2001, talk radio host Michael Reagan merged his monthly newsletter The Reagan Monitor with Newsmax Magazine and began writing a regular column for the publication.

In 2008, a profile in The Palm Beach Post on Newsmax and founder Ruddy indicated the company generated revenues of approximately $25 million per year, and, according to the company, has been profitable for the past five years. In a 2009 Forbes.com interview with Internet guru Nathan Richardson, he was asked to identify the "smartest thing on the web" today. Richardson identified Newsmax, among several web sites, citing its success "monetizing the web."

In March, 2009 Forbes featured Newsmax and described Ruddy's company as a "media empire" and the "great right hope" of a troubled Republican Party. Forbes noted that after just a decade of operations it had become a "media powerhouse" - and had surpassed such well known web sites as the Drudgereport in web visitors. According to the magazine, Newsmax draws 3.8 million unique visitors monthly. Political analyst Dick Morris was quoted as saying that Newsmax had become the "most influential Republican-leaning media outlet" in the nation.
<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsmax_Media</ref>

== References ==
{{reflist}}

== External Link ==

[http://www.newsmax.com Newsmax Website]

[[Category:Conservative Media]]
[[category:magazines]]

Debate:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?

2009-12-11T22:44:56Z

Eaglerock:

Does this debate topic imply that there is no difference between conservative positions and liberal satire? There are no liberal satires in conservapedia because the editors correct them. Conservapedia is the most reliable and accurate resource for unbiased perspective on all topics covered.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 13:28, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I disagree. I see several articles about people who never existed, but sound like they might have. Case in point, all the Spanish profanity on the Cambodia page that sat there for over a month until I decided to let everyone in on the joke. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 13:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I think there's a lemma to Clarke's Law which says that "Any sufficiently fervently held belief is indistinguishable from satire".

:how does Wikipedia do it?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 13:39, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia has thousands of times more users...and hence is much more likely to notice factual errors. Conservapdia has a small (as of now) user base, and hence, articles may go weeks, or even months without anyone noticing incorrect dates, spellings, facts, and blatant fabrications. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 13:40, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::Wikipedia also has wayyy more articles, so on average, it's also easy to insert fabrications.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 13:43, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't think it is possible to distinguish real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals, at least not whilst the founder of the site is writing things like [[Essay: Liberal Falsehoods|this]], or [[exotheology|this]], or his contributions [[Conservapedia:Would the repeal of gun control laws make incidents like the shooting at Virginia Tech less likely to occur?|here]]. When I first read the [[Essay: Liberal Falsehoods|first]] of those examples, before I had read the History file and seen who had written it, I honestly thought it ''was'' a liberal satire. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:31, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't think liberal satirists are talented enough to produce something like that, which takes someone a bit special. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 15:51, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Really? Because there are several satire articles on here. I'd name them, but I'm just a dumb ol liberal. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 15:58, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

"Conservapedia is the most reliable and accurate resource for unbiased perspective on all topics covered." How can you say that? All that's here is politics and religion. And how can a website set up to be a conservative encyclopedia claim to be unbiased? -LiberalScientificPatriot

If you think that's all we have, then you haven't explored the whole site. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:56, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
:This may sound a bit controversial but there '''is''' a low editor base here compared with say WP. Even if someone has written a liberal satire would other liberals neccessarily notice it? I don't think that would always be the case. I have seen several instances of supposed satire that have been changed by supposedly liberal editors. I think that blocking too many contributors actually increases the amount of vandalism rather than the other way round, a bit like gun control, I guess. [[User:InGodWeTrust|InGodWeTrust]] 16:20, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

There are satire articles and edits on here which the people running the site will never spot, because they simply don't know enough about the world. Some of them are very funny, and most of those that I've noticed are not mocking of conservatism or religion, they just make use of some of the prejudices and blind spots which conservatives (American conservatives in particular) have. One satire I noticed very probably breaches copyright law, but hell will freeze over before anyone gets sued over it, as it started out as satire; I imagine its original author would be delighted to find it here. I can't see how this site will operate without such vandalism taking place, but that's the price you pay for trying to put a conservative spin on truth. --[[User:Beanbag|Beanbag]] 21:19, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, please. Don't be so vague. Do tell. What is this magic satirical article that we will never spot because we are such slack-jawed goobers? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:27, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
::I don't think Beanbag will, it's his last contribution to this site and it's from over an year ago... [[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 13:44, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
:::Oh. lol! Didn't notice the year. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:06, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
::::The same happened to me. I first noticed that the other posts were old. Only then I checked again... [[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 14:28, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
:::::Well, in any case, these claims are never proven. I saw the same thing claimed over on R a t i o n a l Wiki recently and no one was forthcoming with any proof. If it were so widespread, they could easily cite a single example. And with as old as the claim here by Beanbag is, it's probably been discovered and changed since then if it existed in the first place. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:56, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

i thin i good way to keep people from being liberal satierists would be to gave them take a test before the joind the website, having them answwer questions to see if they are a liberal or not, and if they are they cant join! then we can keep the commie freaks out of this website.(ps. that was a me being a liberal satiersit. god you people are ignorant:) )--[[User:Americaman|Americaman]] 22:41, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Okay, so I know the above comment sounded completely like a joke, but to be serious for a second, why not simply forbid IP address users, or new users from editing? Only allow them to edit talk pages, and enforce a rule that only 1-month old or older accounts can be used for the main pages. Sensitive pages like [[Barack Obama]] or [[Atheism]] should of course only be edited by senior administrators with more say. This process should eliminate most satire, as most serious folks will not bother waiting for a month.--[[User:Quasimodo|Quasimodo]] 19:28, 30 May 2009 (EDT)
[[Category:Debates about Conservapedia]]

A quote from a contributor from the Al Gore (Pulic enemy #1) page:
"I will probably be blocked soon, so i am merely posing this question: how is this an editable encyclopedia? If someone is blocked, they can supposedly discuss it with the admin who blocked them. But any edit on their talk page will be auto-blocked. In addition, close mindedness is stopping the most important articles from being fair."
Face facts, conservative ideology is the most contestable doctrine in the history of mankind. The main flaw in your crazy ways, people, is that you try to permeate politics into everyday life, that's the real joke. Think if you were on a website called Liberalpedia right now. It'd be pretty pathetic. YOU'D probobly feel pretty pathetic. Oh no now I feel pathetic. This site is a joke to people like me, sorry. Deal with the satire.