Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:Iduan

2008-01-26T21:17:47Z

Jenkins: /* Deletion */

{{User talk:Iduan/header}}
{| style="background:navy;text-align:center" width="100%"
|-
|style="background:white; border: 2px solid maroon; font-weight:bold; font-variant:small-caps"|<div class="horizontal">
*[[/Archive1|(August 10th - August 31th)]]
*[[/Archive2|(September 5th - September 30th)]]
*[[/Archive3|(October 5th)]]
*[[/Archive4|(November 7th - November 29thth)]]
*[[/Archive5|(December 10th - December 15thth)]]
</div>
|}

== T&R ==
Those were the cast bios that I took from their website. I paraphrased them a bit. --[[User:Baptist500|Baptist500]] 17:05, 23 January 2008 (EST)

==Opinion==
Please don't take my opinion that redirects are highly over valued as an insult. Thanks for taking the time to formalize. [[User:StephenW|StephenW]] 23:47, 6 January 2008 (EST)

==Rules==
So will you be creating rules for me as a judge as well or should I just sort-a figure problems, assign points, add up the team's points at the end of the day? Thanks! --[[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 09:31, 10 January 2008 (EST)
:Based on what was said on contest three - I would think that all you would need to do is solve conflicts (making rulings if necessary) and make sure everyone is scoring in a tidy way (because if there is a conflict, and all people have is a bunch of random diffs, it'll be hard to deal with). I mean really you're a great enough editor that everyone trusts you to act when you see fit - and that's what I would encourage you to do--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:30, 10 January 2008 (EST)

==Distorting Facts?==
As per [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:PoggeJustin this], the user only changes He to He/she and Christianity to religion. With respect to the first case, this is a question based around the Constitution, and given that the Constitution does not disallow female presidents then the possibility of such must be recognised, even if it hasn't yet happened. As for the second, the "separation of Church and state" is not limited to Christianity (it is used in many countries with respect to Islam and Hinduism) and although the question appears in an American Government Exam it is not worded to apply only to America, and hence the phrase "censor religion" is indeed more appropriate to "censor Christianity". So while the user should be encouraged to discuss his edits on the talk page before editing course content, they are by no means "distorting the truth" or a blockable offense as a result [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 00:19, 12 January 2008 (EST)

:Just to clarify, the specific wording of the question is "Which of the following '''must''' be true about every President of the United States? ", not "Which of the following '''has''' been true about every President of the United States?" There is no implication of the past tense, so whether or not every President has been male is irrelevant, because the question is about the limitations imposed by the Constitution for all past, present and future Presidents, and there is nothing in it which says a female cannot be President. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 00:21, 12 January 2008 (EST)

==Thumb==

Thanks for adding the "thumb" attribute. I have had trouble remembering that it's needed if you want a [[help:caption|caption]] to appear. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:30, 12 January 2008 (EST)
:Oh no problem - yeah the thumb part can be difficult to remember--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 11:35, 12 January 2008 (EST)

== Recruiting ==

May I suggest asking any past contributors of note in prior contests to join the current one? The more people we have actively involved, the better -- especially for those who have shown a past interest. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:25, 12 January 2008 (EST)
:Good idea LT! I just asked a few people--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:48, 12 January 2008 (EST)

== Whom to pick next ==

Give me advice on whom to pick next!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:38, 12 January 2008 (EST)
:Hmm, I would say that Learn Together and Sharon are the best people out there - if you can I would say snatch them up ASAP. If both of them are taken, GregLarson could be an interesting choice - he just came back recently so he might be looking to re-establish himself.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 18:44, 12 January 2008 (EST)

==Start==
Hate to sound pedantic, but 12am? Do you mean midnight Saturday, or 24 hours later midnight Sunday? [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:49, 12 January 2008 (EST)
:Uhmm... well, how bout this: in about three hours--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 18:51, 12 January 2008 (EST)

==User:RingWraith==

Actually, I agree with your block as well - it was going from a little misunderstanding to a little ridiculous. Are you sure about increasing the block time though? I dunno, I thought one day would probably be enough for cooling off, and Aschlafly didn't seem ''too'' bothered by it... plus, RingWraith has made some decent contributions as well (for example, helping Karajou out with [[Lord of the Rings]] stuff). Ultimately I'll leave it to your judgement as well, but I guess I thought that just one day would be... nice, I suppose. :)

:Oh, and I almost forgot! Thanks for reminding/inviting me to the new Contest, I almost missed that. I wasn't a huge contributor last time but it was nice to be remembered, so I went and joined again. ^_^ [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:50, 12 January 2008 (EST)
::I increased the block time primarily because I saw that he had already been blocked once for a parody, but also because at what he was saying month blocks are not uncommon, given that he was attacking another user. And besides, one more day will only calm him down more. Glad to have you aboard in the contest--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 20:52, 12 January 2008 (EST)

:::Fair enough; it's true that many blocks are much worse (just be careful about interpreting previous incidents though - I remember I was once blocked because I made a mistake editing and someone wrote "troll" in the reversion comment!) [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 21:02, 12 January 2008 (EST)

== Awesome start!!! ==

Awesome start!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:04, 13 January 2008 (EST)

: Let's leave it open to new contestants, right? Maybe a new star will enter on Monday or Tuesday even!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:10, 13 January 2008 (EST)
::Yeah that sounds great! Hey just out of curiosity - have there really been 90-some-odd Echews? They're causing me some frustration now as they keep popping up!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 11:11, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Iduan,can you please give me a link to the page with the acceptable WantedPages? Thanks! [[User:Lukecorlando|Luke]] 13:11, 13 January 2008 (EST)
:Sure Luke! [[Conservapedia:Contest4/Wanted]]--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 13:12, 13 January 2008 (EST)

==Template==

Yes, thanks. You should pick up a couple of points for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Points&diff=prev&oldid=370176 that]! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:35, 13 January 2008 (EST)

== Dear Iduan ==

(I meant to submit this last night but editing was turned off....) Sorry, dude. I know ''exactly'' how you feel. After I was denied edit rights (despite having block rights and the backing of at least one other sysop) I was really mad as well. Then, while I was asked to make substantial contributions others ''were'' promoted without having made any edits, and I even noticed some with edit privileges who were blocked for being vandals (and still continue to have night edit rights, incidentally). I, too, love editing at Conservapedia but this was a harsh and undeserved slap in the face. Frankly, the only reason I didn't quit right then in there is because I still had three weeks left of winter break and editing CP was a great way to fill it...

I hope you eventually decide to come back -- better yet, I hope you get your edit rights (and by virtue of your own merits, not based on which team you're on in the contest) and that you come back willingly. I'll miss you, and with you gone, I'll actually have to make sure I format all my refs correctly! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:47, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:Hey, just wanted to offer my condolences as well. You were always a great editor (I can't imagine how much work you put into those templates) and you were also fair and cool all the time. I'm sorry that Conservapedia didn't work out for you. I suppose you could always look for another wiki to fill your time, but of course Conservapedia is unique and once you've poured so much effort and time into a project it's not the same... Here's still hoping you'll be invited back with all the rights you deserve.

:P.S. Good work organizing the latest contest, hope you at least get to leave on a good note. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 12:09, 14 January 2008 (EST)
Thanks both of you - it's not so much as I'm mad as I'm just unbearably frustrated. But hey, I'm not leaving quite yet - I'm going to let the contest finish out (hey, if the team I'm on wins, I can leave on a high note I guess!)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 19:33, 14 January 2008 (EST)

== Cheers! ==

Thanks for the help dude!

[[User: MetcalfeM]]

== Leaving? ==

I think you should reconsider. You have some good points [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Iduan&diff=prev&oldid=370721 here] but do you really have to leave? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim (CPAdmin1)]][[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 22:28, 16 January 2008 (EST)
:You know right now, frankly I'm half way. The points I made there aren't why I'm thinking about leaving - it's just the frustration that is the byproduct of those points. But you know, until just today it hadn't really hit me how much I'd miss CP, that's why I actually took that message down (and it will at least temporarily stay down), because I felt like pretending that everything was normal, and ultimately I'm not sure what direction I'll take. I'm not going to lie, the fact that I was [[Conservapedia:Sysop contest/Nominations/Iduan|nominated for sysop]] does play a role in it - because even if I fail, it shows that I've made some progress, which should lessen the frustration (it's not as though I'm staying if I make sysop and leaving if I don't lol). But thank you Tim for the note, it's people like you that I've enjoyed so much about Conservapedia and it's why I'm having such difficulty leaving!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:34, 16 January 2008 (EST)
::I have had some frustrating experiences here also. Including some long debates against Andy. I even stopped contributing for a while. (8 edis from 8/28 til 1/9) (thus my "no vote" on your sysop nomination.) I think if you stick around and contribute, you will end up with the rights sooner or later. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim (CPAdmin1)]][[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 00:14, 17 January 2008 (EST)
:::Thanks for the kind words. I will probably stick around for a bit longer than I originally planned, definitely until the end of the nomination (assuming that ends in a reasonable amount of time ...), and then I'll re-evaluate (with the results from that and from experiences over that time) and see where I'm at, although really if too much time goes by I'm going to have to immediately leave, as especially given the type of work I do (browsing articles, checking recent changes, and editing templates), even doing the smallest thing is sometimes time consuming without rights (I can't edit templates without going to someone - even if I just need to fix grammar in a template), I can't delete articles without tracking someone down ... and so on. But hey, so far no one has come out and opposed me on the nomination, so I suppose there's hope.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:18, 17 January 2008 (EST)
::::There is a lot of "history" to why getting extra editing rights and sysop permissions isn't as straightforward as it should be, Iduan. There is still a slight shadow over the site, which I thought had been lifted, hence my return last December, but please hang in there. There are ''at least'' 4 very good, dedicated and hard working editors who are all deserving of receiving the sysop's mops and buckets, and I hope to see you all getting the permissions sooner rather than later. With a good team of genuinely motivated sysops, who aren't just in it for the power trip, we could even see the return of 24-hour editing, as Andy could be confident that we would deal with vandalism across all time zones. I know it is frustrating, I've been in your shoes also, but everything comes to he who waits. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 07:18, 17 January 2008 (EST)
:::::Fox, thanks for those encouraging words because I have been considering my own future here as well. I made my first edit in I think May 2007. However, I have been informed (anonymously) that certain people have been circulating rumours about me (I know that I am not alone in this) and fear that it has jeopardized any hope I have of being able to accomplish more. I think that Fox, PJR, Iduan and myself are probably some of the most "wiki"-ish editors here. (I am on the editorial board of the internal wiki for a large company so do have some experience in running these things.) However, it is dis-spiriting when all of my active fellow editors are overlooked. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 14:24, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::::::I hope neither of you leave. You're some of the best editors here.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 14:29, 20 January 2008 (EST)
I think you are both vital to CP, along with some of the other grinders (and I mean that in a complimentary sense) here. I cannot over-emphasize that enough. Your "sleeves rolled up" attitudes are amazing! Please think carefully before deciding to move on. We have shown with the competition that we have the makings of a great team here, and things can now only get better :) Of course, don't stay just because I've asked, stay because you want to. There is so much raw material here to work with, and still so many fantastic and needed articles yet to be created. Brian, I hope that particular boogey man is laid to rest for good. Don't let it get you down. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:35, 20 January 2008 (EST)
:Rumors? Ugh. This is why I avoid wikipolitics.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 14:36, 20 January 2008 (EST)

== I've passed you in the contest! ==

Oh, it's on Iduan. It. Is. On.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 00:54, 18 January 2008 (EST)
:Lol, you know we're on the same team - right?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 11:54, 18 January 2008 (EST)
::What's wrong with some friendly internecine rivalry :-) ?-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 12:05, 18 January 2008 (EST)
:::Haha I suppose nothing, unless one user is unaware of the rivalry lol, well hey - you probably deserve second more than I do anyway - keep up the good work.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:13, 18 January 2008 (EST)
::::Gentlemn, I think you should both defer further entries and let the nice people on [[Conservapedia:Eagle_Team|Team Eagle]] win. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:53, 18 January 2008 (EST)
:::::lol, you may be right Lt, I'll consider it.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 17:58, 18 January 2008 (EST)

== Goodness! Great job! ==

We're within 100; I'm intending to help now! And, sorry for betraying you for BrianCo... :-)-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:49, 19 January 2008 (EST)
:Lol, i guess I'll forgive you. Oh man, I've been typing so much today - and a lot of it is really boring like [[NCAA Men's Basketball]] - which took FOREVER - so in conclusion, my hands hurt lol--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:53, 19 January 2008 (EST)
::(P.S. for some reason i called you brianco in my edit summary - oh, maybe because i saw that you typed the name as i was typing the edit summary ... meh - my head hurts too :'( )--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:54, 19 January 2008 (EST)
I have no doubt your hands hurt; are you up to almost 700? Man, I'm at barely 1/21st of that. I'll get there...-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 00:23, 20 January 2008 (EST)
:You'll do great - I'm not going to be here tomorrow due to a trip - but if you need any help with anything tonight i should be up for about 3 more hours, my AIM sn is lssacDuan--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:24, 20 January 2008 (EST)

== Good work! ==

Be happy. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 12:06, 20 January 2008 (EST)
:Haha, you too - now to have the judges pick the winner! (Side note: are you aware that your spelling "good" wrong?)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 12:12, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::Iduan, is there somewhere where one can see a breakdown of the points that each person claims? I thought that was one of the requirements for the competition. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 14:04, 20 January 2008 (EST)

== template ==

It wasn't actually mine. I just tried to categorize it. :-) --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim (CPAdmin1)]][[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 17:13, 21 January 2008 (EST)

I'm afraid i didn't like his categorization. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 17:14, 21 January 2008 (EST)

== Nice template but... ==

I didn't see what you were doing until you got my school! Darn them for being high in the alphabetical order!

By the way, since I see you have upload rights, you could use [http://www.bucknell.edu/images/System/header_logo.gif this] lovely image to supplement your lovely template :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:12, 22 January 2008 (EST)

== Move Plate ==
Oh. Thanks, hadn't known about that. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:41, 23 January 2008 (EST)

== JimmyB and the Fact Tags ==

(My new band name?) I think the tag was needed, as the statement is in clear violation of the [[conservapedia:guidelines|CP:G]] (attribution) and [[conservapedia:commandments|CP:C]] (always cite sources). Whether or not he was trolling is disputable, but the result of his edit was correct. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:30, 23 January 2008 (EST) PS: Like the new acronyms? I'm hoping they'll catch on so I can save some typing. I cite CP:G quite often ;-)
:Some facts are indisputable - that's been CP's policy for as long as I can remember. Note that the rule your referring to is not always cite sources, but always cite your sources - which is slightly different (always cite your sources is more of, if you have sources, cite them). The acronyms aren't bad at all :D (and don't worry, my block of JimmyB was for multiple reasons)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:33, 23 January 2008 (EST)
::I'm sure the block was reasonable, but I dispute... actually I just reread it, and as the article stands it ''technically'' doesn't need any sources. (It also ''technically'' doesn't say much of anything.) Someone edited it after me and added another wishy-word (and I added some of my own) such that the article now satisfies CP:G, and since there are no sources, there's nothing to cite. Continue on... [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:37, 23 January 2008 (EST)

== Vote ==

Click on the link to vote in my poll. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim (CPAdmin1)]][[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Election08|Vote for President]] 23:05, 23 January 2008 (EST)

== Thanks ==
I thank you for treating me with leniency, instead of slapping me with a three day ban. It is most appreciated, good sir. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 01:26, 24 January 2008 (EST)

== PM and Prime Minister templates ==

Please read [[User talk:Fox/Archive3#Template list|this]] and [[User talk:BrianCo/Archive 1#PM and Succession templates|this]] before going any further. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:25, 24 January 2008 (EST)

== Conservapedia as a "family-freindly" entity ==

I fail to see how being clear about what Don Imus said constitutes being "unfriendly" to any fmailies that I know of. Certainly, as the father of two small children, I'd want them to KNOW that it is UNACCEPTABLE to call a group of African-American athletes "nappy-headed hoes," and I'd want them to know WHY, which requires explaining what a "ho" is. Keeping out the quote softens what Imus did, which smacks of the attitude, which I've hard from several conservatives, that what Imus did "wasn't so bad," and "got blown up by the media." The fact is, he made a RACIST and SEXIST comment, and educating our children how NOT to be those two things involves some pretty tough choices. We must, as a nation, be willing to ADMIT the institutionalized RACISM and SEXISM inherent in much of our society and popular culture. If you wish to ban me, feel free. [[User:Artiefisk]]
:I don't know why you'd think I banned you, nor do I know why you think that putting red herrings in caps strengthens your argument, but nonetheless - your most recent addition is fine, however we want the language of this encyclopedia to remain clean.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:29, 25 January 2008 (EST)

== Last ban ==
Alright, fair enough. I just want to know which entry I was banned for. Logic would suggest it was [[Talk:Affirmative Action President]], however your acts of censorship and accusations of trolling over at [[Talk:Genius_bias]] would suggest otherwise. I figured I'd check with you before restoring my own words. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:40, 25 January 2008 (EST)
:(sorry for the late response here - I was creating an article) - Yeah, the comment at Genius bias is the one--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 20:57, 25 January 2008 (EST)
::'salright. But I'm not quite clear on how that was trolling... [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:59, 25 January 2008 (EST)

== Not again! ==

I welcome them only to find you've blocked them! Ha! --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 23:54, 25 January 2008 (EST)

::(In response to your post on my page): I saw DavidR welcome [[User:Veggiechips|Veggiechips]] and wanted to get in quick. Too quick obviously! --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:00, 26 January 2008 (EST)

Iduan, we have to close up a bit early tonight. Get some rest and start early tomorrow morning! Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 26 January 2008 (EST)
:Aww seriously? Haha, I just got on a bit ago! Well hey, I'll finish what I was doing tomorrow afternoon then.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:06, 26 January 2008 (EST)

== Deletion ==

Use '''<nowiki>{{speedy}}</nowiki>''' or '''<nowiki>{{db|reason}}</nowiki>''' instead of the regular Delete template. It also sorts things into the "Speedy Deletion Candidate" category. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 16:03, 26 January 2008 (EST)
:It's a somewhat formal issue. The delete tag should be used for articles where discussion is encouraged (which is why it offers an AFD link). Vandalism should be speedied.
:Practically, this is triply moot, though:
:#Speedy Deletion Candidates are rarely checked by sysops: The oldest entry in that category was tagged (by me, even) in SEPTEMBER.
:#Regular Deletion Candidates are even less monitored: The (potentially) oldest entry in that category was tagged in JUNE.
:#Deletion discussion - on this site? Har. In the end, it all grinds down to non-binding discussion until some sysop arbitrarily decides to delete it or to declare that the nomination was an attempt at liberal censorship.
:In the end, unless a sysop notices the "DELETE THIS" in the Recent Changes, these things are going to rot either way. But we might as well keep pretending that there is a difference between them. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 16:17, 26 January 2008 (EST)

User talk:Iduan

2008-01-26T21:03:39Z

Jenkins: Deletion

User talk:Jenkins

2008-01-25T20:06:55Z

Jenkins: /* Warning */

*[[/Archive1]]

== Creating new articles ==

You have been creating multiple new articles that already exist, including the last five articles you entered into Conservapedia. While occasional mistakes are understood, you have many more oversights than should normally occur. Please do your homework first. Thank you [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:44, 17 December 2007 (EST)

==Long blocks==

You can appeal lengthy blocks. Try emailing the blocking admin, or if they refuse to reply you can address Mr. Schlafly or me. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:52, 12 January 2008 (EST)
:I actually did send a message (to the blocking sysop), but it was more along the lines "Yeah, whatever, if you just opened your eyes... etc.", so I'm not ''too'' surprised it wasn't reacted to.
:And until recently, I really wasn't in any major mood to edit (guess why), so I didn't really feel like appealing.
:Thing is... block times seem to really depend on the sysop's mood. I've seen hours, days, weeks, months, and years, all for relatively similar incidents, so I guess that I got away lightly. Still, maybe a good time to consider some sort of... guideline for sysops to align block times to one pattern. Then you could differ between slaps on the wrist (like for me - I had a really productive day and ended it with one silly edit) and actual punishment.
:Oh well. Hakuna matata, I guess. :) Or, as a wise fictional character once said: "You've got to leave your behind in the past" ;) --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 14:02, 12 January 2008 (EST)

::You betcherass! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:41, 12 January 2008 (EST)
==Contest==
Hey, so the draft will not actually finish until Sunday, but the contest will still start tonight at 12a.m., so all that means is some of you will be getting points without knowing what team you're on. Remember to keep track of your points well, at a page like [[User:Jenkins/Contest4]].--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 21:08, 12 January 2008 (EST)
:Ohhh, mysterious... --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 21:23, 12 January 2008 (EST)

== Warning ==

You've undone a reversion, and required a repeat reversion. Your account will be blocked if you persist. Ideologically motivated "citation needed" tags for something that has support are not allowed here. Go to Wikipedia for that. Plenty more examples for that citation in [[Pulitzer Prize]] are available and add those cites if you feel they are needed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:29, 25 January 2008 (EST)
:Yeah, yeah, whatever. I'll leave the article alone. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 09:37, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:: Your account is also on the verge of being blocked for far too much talk compared to substantive edits. We're building an encyclopedia here. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:33, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:::Look, Andy. If it makes you feel better, go ahead and ban me. I'm getting really tired of the growing hostility I'm subjected to simply because I point out the incredibly large holes in your "arguments". So stop the silly threats and just get it over with already.
:::Fact is that I contribute to this site, and my contribs are usually well-received. I don't edit here 24/7 (or 12/7, given how I haven't earned the "right" to edit 24/7) but when I do, it's usually good quality. That Periodic Table of Elements (which you ''completely'' overlooked during the contest, even though you had been my Captain and I had asked you to grade it) for example had received praise from a sysop (who had been on the opposing team, even), and God knows it had been lots of work. And yet, things like that apparently aren't enough to avoid getting banned here. Fascinating.
:::You claim that this is a meritocracy, but with all the hostility and implied 90/10 threats, it feels more like a forced labor camp, where people have to make many, many super-high-quality edits to earn the right to voice criticism (and of course, you get to decide what it a quality edit and what is not).
:::I came back even after many pointless and overly long blocks (1 month for my ''one'' silly edit after a long history of good ones for example) because I wanted to believe that I could help improving this site. However, it's becoming clear now that facts and fairness take a back seat to ideology and cheap shots. You exploit the victims of crimes to push your gun control agenda, you belittle famous authors to rant about liberals and homosexuality, you use tragic deaths to claim moral high ground over all of Hollywood. And when people point out that your arguments are all based on your warped perception of reality, you shout "liberal denial" and try to drag the discussion away into tangents. Not even to mention that you (and you alone) constantly get to decide who counts as a conservative and who is just a liberal in denial. How are we supposed to build an encyclopedia when you alone get to decide what is true and factual? This isn't Conservapedia, it's the SchlaflyBlog, nothing more.
:::It's a real pity that this site claims to "educate" when in reality, it simply tries to vilify whoever you oppose and to present your own opinions as indisputable fact.
:::Go ahead. Ban me if you feel like it. Then people will at least know that I don't silently endorse your agenda. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 15:06, 25 January 2008 (EST)

User talk:Jenkins

2008-01-25T20:06:32Z

Jenkins: /* Warning */ YO, ANDY! WHAT-FREAKING-EVER! GO AHEAD AND BAAAAAAAAAAAN MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! LET EVERYBODY KNOW THAT YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO THREATS AND BANS TO DEFEND YOUR POSITION!

*[[/Archive1]]

== Creating new articles ==

You have been creating multiple new articles that already exist, including the last five articles you entered into Conservapedia. While occasional mistakes are understood, you have many more oversights than should normally occur. Please do your homework first. Thank you [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:44, 17 December 2007 (EST)

==Long blocks==

You can appeal lengthy blocks. Try emailing the blocking admin, or if they refuse to reply you can address Mr. Schlafly or me. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:52, 12 January 2008 (EST)
:I actually did send a message (to the blocking sysop), but it was more along the lines "Yeah, whatever, if you just opened your eyes... etc.", so I'm not ''too'' surprised it wasn't reacted to.
:And until recently, I really wasn't in any major mood to edit (guess why), so I didn't really feel like appealing.
:Thing is... block times seem to really depend on the sysop's mood. I've seen hours, days, weeks, months, and years, all for relatively similar incidents, so I guess that I got away lightly. Still, maybe a good time to consider some sort of... guideline for sysops to align block times to one pattern. Then you could differ between slaps on the wrist (like for me - I had a really productive day and ended it with one silly edit) and actual punishment.
:Oh well. Hakuna matata, I guess. :) Or, as a wise fictional character once said: "You've got to leave your behind in the past" ;) --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 14:02, 12 January 2008 (EST)

::You betcherass! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:41, 12 January 2008 (EST)
==Contest==
Hey, so the draft will not actually finish until Sunday, but the contest will still start tonight at 12a.m., so all that means is some of you will be getting points without knowing what team you're on. Remember to keep track of your points well, at a page like [[User:Jenkins/Contest4]].--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 21:08, 12 January 2008 (EST)
:Ohhh, mysterious... --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 21:23, 12 January 2008 (EST)

== Warning ==

You've undone a reversion, and required a repeat reversion. Your account will be blocked if you persist. Ideologically motivated "citation needed" tags for something that has support are not allowed here. Go to Wikipedia for that. Plenty more examples for that citation in [[Pulitzer Prize]] are available and add those cites if you feel they are needed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:29, 25 January 2008 (EST)
:Yeah, yeah, whatever. I'll leave the article alone. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 09:37, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:: Your account is also on the verge of being blocked for far too much talk compared to substantive edits. We're building an encyclopedia here. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:33, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:::Look, Andy. If it makes you feel better, go ahead and ban me. I'm getting really tired of the growing hostility I'm subjected to simply because I point out the incredibly large holes in your "arguments". So stop the silly threats and just get it over with already.
:::Fact is that I contribute to this site, and my contribs are usually well-received. I don't edit here 24/7 (or 12/7, given how I haven't earned the "right" to edit 24/7) but when I do, it's usually good quality. That Periodic Table of Elements (which you ''completely'' overlooked during the contest, even though you had been my Captain and I had asked you to grade it) for example had received praise from a sysop (who had been on the opposing team, even), and God knows it had been lots of work. And yet, things like that apparently aren't enough to avoid getting banned here. Fascinating.
:::You claim that this is a meritocracy, but with all the hostility and implied 90/10 threats, it feels more like a forced labor camp, where people have to make many, many super-high-quality edits to earn the right to voice criticism (and of course, you get to decide what it a quality edit and what is not).
:::I came back even after many pointless and overly long blocks (1 month for my ''one'' silly edit after a long history of good ones for example) because I wanted to believe that I could help improving this site. However, it's becoming clear now that facts and fairness take a back seat to ideology and cheap shots. You exploit the victims of crimes to push your gun control agenda, you belittle famous authors to rant about liberals and homosexuality, you use tragic deaths to claim moral high ground over all of Hollywood. And when people point out that your arguments are all based on your warped perception of reality, you shout "liberal denial" and try to drag the discussion away into tangents. Not even to mention that you (and you alone) constantly get to decide who counts as a conservative and who is just a liberal in denial. How are we supposed to build an encyclopedia when you alone get to decide what is true and factual? This isn't Conservapedia, it's the SchlaflyBlog, nothing more.
::::It's a real pity that this site claims to "educate" when in reality, it simply tries to vilify whoever you oppose and to present your own opinions as indisputable fact.
::::Go ahead. Ban me if you feel like it. Then people will at least know that I don't silently endorse your agenda. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 15:06, 25 January 2008 (EST)

User talk:Jenkins

2008-01-25T14:37:14Z

Jenkins: /* Warning */

Talk:Pulitzer Prize

2008-01-25T14:35:12Z

Jenkins: Revert Resignation

I don't like to spend a lot of time on talk pages unless it's directly related to article content, so I'll only ask once and then I'll let it go. The phrase "it is not surprising that" is an opinion, which, according to [[Conservapedia:Guidelines|CP:G]] needs to be attributed and sourced. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:07, 22 January 2008 (EST)
:The entire thing is constructed on sand. First, the university is simply labeled liberal (no source), then there the accusation (no source) that they are "often are rewarded to liberals" (no source, also fuzzy term - no mention of what "often" is: Did liberals win the 50% of all prizes? 75%? 25%?).
:Looking into it, the article also makes it sound as if The Liberal University decides who gets the prize. But there is actually a fairly widespread board that apparently decides these things. The university just ''administers'' it. So that section really, ''really'' needs some sources and is partially incorrect. I'll stick my neck out to correct and fact-tag it. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 16:45, 22 January 2008 (EST)

== Revert Resignation ==

<nowiki>*</nowiki>sigh* Andy, when there are multiple awards every year for roughly 90 years, it's really not enough to simply hold up two examples to prove that something happens "often". I'm not going to revert you again (we all know that edit warring with a sysop only leads to blocking), but I must protest. The logic behind this "proof" is faulty to the max.

Oh, and I see I already got a block warning for reverting ONCE. Wow, this is so sad. Seriously, I can't help but shake my head.

In the end, it grinds down (yet again) to what Andrew Schlafly regards as conservative and what not. In theory, I could simply change the quote to say "often awarded to conservative works" and name two examples, but then Andy would simply say that those weren't conservative works at all. So whatever, I'll leave this article alone. Have fun, Andy. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 09:35, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Periodic table of the elements

2008-01-24T23:35:35Z

Jenkins: /* The Periodic Table */ Using new template default to save space

[[Image:Aqw.jpg|thumb|Circular periodic table]]

The '''periodic table of the elements''' is a diagrammatic tool to illustrate the scientific [[theory]] of [[periodicity]] in [[chemistry]], in which the [[element]]s have similar properties based on their position on the table. For example, the elements on the left of the table are all [[metal]]s. The table has a lot of predictive power, although there are many exceptions to the periodic properties.

The periodic table was first developed by [[Russia|Russian]] [[chemistry|chemist]] [[Dimitri Mendeleev]]. Its layout accurately arranges elements by their [[electron]] configuration, atomic number, and chemical properties. Using the structure he created, Mendeleev predicted the existence and properties of several yet-undiscovered elements; when those elements were discovered, his estimates proved to be quite accurate.
{{clear}}

==The Periodic Table==

{|style="border-collapse:collapse; border:none;margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto"
!1A
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
!8A
|-
|{{ptc|1|H|Hydrogen|1.008|#00ff00}}
!valign="bottom"|2A
|||||||||||||||||||
!valign="bottom"|3A
!valign="bottom"|4A
!valign="bottom"|5A
!valign="bottom"|6A
!valign="bottom"|7A
|{{ptc|2|He|Helium|4.003|gold}}
|-
|{{ptc|3|Li|Lithium|6.939}}
|{{ptc|4|Be|Beryllium|9.0122}}
|||||||||||||||||||
|{{ptc|5|B|Boron|10.811|#bbbbff}}
|{{ptc|6|C|Carbon|12.011|#00ff00}}
|{{ptc|7|N|Nitrogen|14.007|#00ff00}}
|{{ptc|8|O|Oxygen|15.999|#00ff00}}
|{{ptc|9|F|Fluorine|18.998|#00ff00}}
|{{ptc|10|Ne|Neon|10.183|gold}}
|-
|{{ptc|11|Na|Sodium|22.99}}
|{{ptc|12|Mg|Magnesium|24.312}}
!valign="bottom"|3B
!valign="bottom"|4B
!valign="bottom"|5B
!valign="bottom"|6B
!valign="bottom"|7B
!valign="bottom"|<---
!valign="bottom"|8B
!valign="bottom"|-->
!valign="bottom"|1B
!valign="bottom"|2B
|{{ptc|13|Al|Aluminium|26.982}}
|{{ptc|14|Si|Silicon|28.086|#bbbbff}}
|{{ptc|15|P|Phosphorus|30.974|#00ff00}}
|{{ptc|16|S|Sulfur|32.064|#00ff00}}
|{{ptc|17|Cl|Chlorine|35.453|#00ff00}}
|{{ptc|18|Ar|Argon|39.948|gold}}
|-
|{{ptc|19|K|Potassium|39.102}}
|{{ptc|20|Ca|Calcium|40.08}}
|{{ptc|21|Sc|Scandium|44.956}}
|{{ptc|22|Ti|Titanium|47.9}}
|{{ptc|23|V|Vanadium|50.942}}
|{{ptc|24|Cr|Chromium|51.996}}
|{{ptc|25|Mn|Manganese|54.938}}
|{{ptc|26|Fe|Iron|55.847}}
|{{ptc|27|Co|Cobalt|58.933}}
|{{ptc|28|Ni|Nickel|58.71}}
|{{ptc|29|Cu|Copper|63.546}}
|{{ptc|30|Zn|Zinc|65.37}}
|{{ptc|31|Ga|Gallium|69.72}}
|{{ptc|32|Ge|Germanium|72.59|#bbbbff}}
|{{ptc|33|As|Arsenic|74.922|#bbbbff}}
|{{ptc|34|Se|Selenium|78.96|#00ff00}}
|{{ptc|35|Br|Bromine|79.904|#00ff00}}
|{{ptc|36|Kr|Krypton|83.8|gold}}
|-
|{{ptc|37|Rb|Rubidium|85.47}}
|{{ptc|38|Sr|Strontium|87.62}}
|{{ptc|39|Y|Yttrium|88.905}}
|{{ptc|40|Zr|Zirconium|91.22}}
|{{ptc|41|Nb|Niobium|92.906}}
|{{ptc|42|Mo|Molybdenum|95.94}}
|{{ptc|43|Tc|Technetium|[97]}}
|{{ptc|44|Ru|Ruthenium|101.07}}
|{{ptc|45|Rh|Rhodium|102.91}}
|{{ptc|46|Pd|Palladium|106.4}}
|{{ptc|47|Ag|Silver|107.87}}
|{{ptc|48|Cd|Cadmium|112.4}}
|{{ptc|49|In|Indium|114.82}}
|{{ptc|50|Sn|Tin|118.69}}
|{{ptc|51|Sb|Antimony|121.75|#bbbbff}}
|{{ptc|52|Te|Tellurium|127.6|#bbbbff}}
|{{ptc|53|I|Iodine|126.9|#00ff00}}
|{{ptc|54|Xe|Xenon|131.3|gold}}
|-
|{{ptc|55|Cs|Caesium|132.91}}
|{{ptc|56|Ba|Barium|137.34}}
|{{ptc|57*|La|Lanthanum|138.91}}
|{{ptc|72|Hf|Hafnium|178.49}}
|{{ptc|73|Ta|Tantalum|180.95}}
|{{ptc|74|W|Tungsten|183.85}}
|{{ptc|75|Re|Rhenium|186.2}}
|{{ptc|76|Os|Osmium|190.2}}
|{{ptc|77|Ir|Iridium|192.2}}
|{{ptc|78|Pt|Platinum|195.09}}
|{{ptc|79|Au|Gold|196.97}}
|{{ptc|80|Hg|Mercury (element)|200.59}}
|{{ptc|81|Tl|Thallium|204.37}}
|{{ptc|82|Pb|Lead|207.19}}
|{{ptc|83|Bi|Bismuth|208.98}}
|{{ptc|84|Po|Polonium|210}}
|{{ptc|85|At|Astatine|210|#bbbbff}}
|{{ptc|86|Rn|Radon|222|gold}}
|-
|{{ptc|87|Fr|Francium|215}}
|{{ptc|88|Ra|Radium|226.03}}
|{{ptc|89**|Ac|Actinium|227.03}}
|{{ptc|104|Rf|Rutherfordium|[261]}}
|{{ptc|105|Db|Dubnium|[262]}}
|{{ptc|106|Sg|Seaborgium|[266]}}
|{{ptc|107|Bh|Bohrium|[264]}}
|{{ptc|108|Hs|Hassium|[269]}}
|{{ptc|109|Mt|Meitnerium|[268]}}
|{{ptc|110|||[271]}}
|{{ptc|111|||[272]}}
|{{ptc|112|||[277]}}
|
|{{ptc|114|||[289]}}
|
|{{ptc|116|||[289]}}
|||
|-
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|-
|colspan="2"|*Lanthanides
|{{ptc|58|Ce|Cerium|140.12}}
|{{ptc|59|Pr|Praseodymium|140.91}}
|{{ptc|60|Nd|Neodymium|144.24}}
|{{ptc|61|Pm|Promethium|145}}
|{{ptc|62|Sm|Samarium|150.35}}
|{{ptc|63|Eu|Europium|151.96}}
|{{ptc|64|Gd|Gadolinium|157.25}}
|{{ptc|65|Tb|Terbium|158.92}}
|{{ptc|66|Dy|Dysprosium|162.5}}
|{{ptc|67|Ho|Holmium|164.93}}
|{{ptc|68|Er|Erbium|167.26}}
|{{ptc|69|Tm|Thulium|168.93}}
|{{ptc|70|Yb|Ytterbium|173.04}}
|{{ptc|71|Lu|Lutetium|174.97}}
|||
|-
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|-
|colspan="2"|**Actinides
|{{ptc|90|Th|Thorium|232.04}}
|{{ptc|91|Pa|Protactinium|231}}
|{{ptc|92|U|Uranium|238.03}}
|{{ptc|93|Np|Neptunium|237.05}}
|{{ptc|94|Pu|Plutonium|239.05}}
|{{ptc|95|Am|Americium|241.06}}
|{{ptc|96|Cm|Curium|244.06}}
|{{ptc|97|Bk|Berkelium|249.08}}
|{{ptc|98|Cf|Californium|252.08}}
|{{ptc|99|Es|Einsteinium|252.08}}
|{{ptc|100|Fm|Fermium|257.1}}
|{{ptc|101|Md|Mendelevium|258.1}}
|{{ptc|102|No|Nobelium|259.1}}
|{{ptc|103|Lr|Larencium|262.11}}
|||
|-
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|-
|style="background-color:#00ff00"|
|colspan=17|[[Nonmetal]]s
|-
|style="background-color:#bbbbff"|
|colspan=17|[[Semimetal]]s
|-
|style="background-color:pink"|
|colspan=17|[[Metal]]s
|-
|style="background-color:gold"|
|colspan=17|[[Noble gas|Noble Gases]]
|}

[[Category:Chemistry]]

Template:Ptc

2008-01-24T23:33:50Z

Jenkins: Since most boxes in the table are pink now, let's just set that as the default to save space and a little runtime

<div style="text-align:center; border:1px solid black; margin:0; padding:3px 5px; background-color:{{{5|pink}}};}}">{{{1}}} {{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|| |[[{{{3}}}|{{{2}}}]]}} {{{4}}}</div><noinclude>
{{TemplateDoc|pages=[[Periodic table of the elements]]|purpose=Table cell}}
{{parms|
{{parm|1|Number inside the table|yes}}
{{parm|2|Symbol|no|If left blank, there will be no link, and #3 will have no effect.}}
{{parm|3|Full name for wikilink|yes*|Required if #2 is ''not'' blank.}}
{{parm|4|Atomic weight|yes}}
{{parm|5|Background color|no|Defaults to "pink"}}
}}
</noinclude>

2008-01-18T20:37:22Z

Jenkins:

Talk:Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy

2008-01-18T20:12:34Z

Jenkins:

== Move ==

The title should just be [[Bovine spongiform encephalopathy]] (or [[Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy]] if you see it as a proper noun - although it doesn't seem to be one), and [[BSE]] should be a redirect. Having both in the title is the most unintuitive solution and also goes against common practice here. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 15:09, 18 January 2008 (EST)
:Looking at it, there apparently was a stub at the correct location before this article was created. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 15:12, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Talk:Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy

2008-01-18T20:09:43Z

Jenkins: Move

Talk:Sudden Jihad Syndrome

2008-01-18T20:01:04Z

Jenkins: Merge Discussion

Talk:Bernard Lewis

2008-01-18T19:45:21Z

Jenkins:

Hate to criticize, Learn Together, but this entire article was a pretty much straight word-for-word copy from the article on Front Page Magazine. According to the first rule of CP, wouldn't that mean that this isn't your own work?
:Actually, Learn just added wikilinks and categories and stuff, from what I see. According to the history, the edits before that were Ed's work. And while it's kinda lame that the major part of the article is simply a quote, it's okay to, well, quote him, I guess. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 14:45, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2008-01-18T15:23:08Z

Jenkins: Sudden Jihad Syndrome

{{unprotect|Ed Poor}}
{| align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[/Archives|Archives]]
|}



== possible bias ==

Numerous articles refer to the World War II Japanese American internment centers as "concentration camps"
--[[User:TedM|TedM]] 21:49, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

: Yeah, that's typical [[liberal]] bias. Thanks for the tip. I'll check it out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 6 October 2007 (EDT)
:: Exactly what is a concentration camp?the preceding comment was made by [[user:KalleF|KalleF]]

they actually don't refer to them as concentration camps, but merely say that they have been called concentration camps
and they meet the definition of a concentration camp
if you were wondering

Britannica- a concentration camp is an internment centre established by a government to confine political prisoners or members of national or minority groups for reasons of state security, exploitation, or punishment.

Yep, thats Japanese-American internment

:He's right you know ^^
"concentration camp" has negative connotations, but thats ok because it was negative. [[user:hmuckabee|Hmuckabee]]

== Obvious bias in articles on media bias watchdog groups ==

In wiki, (MRC) Media Research Center is labeled as conservative in the opening sentence, while FAIR (Fairness in Accuracy in Reporting) has no label at all in the opening sentence. Any attempt to delete conservative from MRC or add liberal to FAIR results in being blocked or banned from wiki. Complete lack of consistency. Even within the article for FAIR, you are not allowed to mention the word liberal, but must use the milder word progressive, although conservative is all over the MRC article. [[User:Rhino7628|Rhino7628]] 08:24, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

:I'm slightly amused to see how some people join Conservapedia only/primarily to complain about how they got slapped on the wrist (in this case for edit warring) on Wikipedia.
:I must also note that you have zero blocks on Wikipedia, despite your edit war and your apparent unwillingness of discussing (as seen on Talk:Media Research Center). So much for "results in being blocked or banned".
:Furthermore, the term "liberal" is even used in FAIR's intro section, and the article is a member of the category "Liberal organisations". So I don't see how the word "liberal" is banned in there. Oh, and the word "conservative" is also all over the official MRC site.
:However, we currently appear to lack entries for both MRC and FAIR, so please feel free to contribute! --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 08:50, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, the purpose of joining this website is because of an overwhelming number of liberal slanted editors on wiki, hence, this provides an outlet for those with neutral or conservative viewpoints. This is pretty much the mission statement of this website, and this particular situation further proves the value of Conservapedia. It's strange that you find that amusing since you are a member here as well. The reason that so many edit wars happen on wiki is because if somebody dares edit anything to be neutral or conservative, thier edits are reverted by the majority liberal editors, thus the purpose of conservapedia. And a simple view of the history of the 2 mentioned articles notes provides more than enough evidence that many are blocked and banned for the very reason of opposing these biased editors. And a simple scan of these two articles notes that conservative is blatantly put in the first sentence of the MRC article, but liberal or progressive is not in the first sentence of the FAIR article. Yes, I do plan to provide entries here for MRC and FAIR when I have the time to do so. [[User:Rhino7628|Rhino7628]] 18:43, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

:::My reasons for joining are not political. I actually disagree with CP's right-wing view and the creationism stuff, but I try not to let that get in the way of my editing (which is why I often go to talk pages first to voice my concerns). I know that this is what CP does, and so I often move on, even while my consciousness is screaming at me. I mostly try to defuse overly broad or wrong claims and inserted opinions to improve the overall image this site projects.
:::Oh, and this site's mission statement is not neutrality. We don't do NPOV here. I'd love this site to be neutral, but it's not. Take a look at some of our hot-topic articles ([[Atheism]], [[Homosexuality]], [[Theory of Evolution]], etc.), and you will find that they are geared in very specific ways and that edits going against that way are removed because of their "liberal bias" (among other things).
:::Yes, I think you found a site that you can agree with (and I'm genuinely curious where you and CP will go with FAIR and MRC), just be aware that the things you complain about (like [[placement bias]]) also happen here, only in more extreme dimensions. And edit warring is a no-no on both WP and CP. :P --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 20:02, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

== Outdated info ==
Conservapedia attacks Wikipedia for displaying outdated information; shouldn't outdated claims on these pages be removed?[[User:KalleF|KalleF]] 08:45, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
:I believe this has been brought up occasionally (check the first sections of Archives 7 and 8 of this talk page for more recent examples), and the answer generally seems to be "No." Personally, I would enjoy seeing the list being updated/trimmed/archived because it does CP's reputation little good to openly attack Wikipedia for things that have been fixed (or been rendered obsolete in another way) more than half a year or so ago. A shorter list with only the big and current/urgent items would hold the reader's attention longer. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 09:09, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
::I agree. A shorter list of more significant "biases" would do more to convince me than the paranoid diatribe currently available.[[User:Shocktherapy|Shocktherapy]] 09:59, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia in its article Politics of Eritrea clearly describes the country as a "one-party state", so quit the garbage about Wikipedia refusing to recognize the fact.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 00:18, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

== Richard Dawkins' edit ==

Number 80 really needs to be reworded. The wording suggests that Wikipedia let him link to an item on his store for over a year, when his conflict-of-interest edit was moved away from the body of the article in about '''1 1/2 hours''' with the chance of deletion. Meanwhile, his '''one''' previous edit to his page was a small factual error correction about being editor of four scientific journals and founder of a fifth (he was the editor of just two scientific journals and was not the founder of the fifth). Clarify wording? [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 13:53, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

*Moved away? When? How long until resolution? What would happen there to me, an unknown, if I linked to and was selling some tapes of mine? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:16, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

::Considering that "User:RichardDawkins" edits apparently also broke numerous links, it's possible that the account had been hijacked (sounds more likely than Mr. Dawkins feeling the sudden urge after a year of inactivity to vandalize his own article). The people on WP are considering it, and one of them contacted Dawkins to check since these edits simply look odd.
::And there is a factual error in the entry: It did ''not'' take "well over a year after he first edited his own article" for somebody to notice it: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RichardDawkins#Richard_Dawkins Talk page]
::That all aside, I don't see why Conservapedia is making a big deal out of it. After all, we have [[Special:Contributions/Stephenblack|User:Stephenblack]] editing [[Stephen Black]] and [[First Stone Ministries]] ("Reverend Stephen Black is the Executive Director of First Stone Ministries"). And here, people seemed quite [[User talk:Stephenblack|delighted]] about it - maybe he was even invited to join CP to edit his own article? Do I have to conclude that Conservapedia encourages people to edit their articles where they have a COI? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:54, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

== grammatical note ==

"Arbitration Committe Chariman Fred Bauder told the Wikien-1 mailing list in regards to [[Michael Moore]], who's official website..." should read "whose official website." [[User:GregLarson | Greg]] 23:49, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
:And Committe should be Committee. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] ([[User_talk:PostoStudanto|Tλlk]]) 21:04, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

== "Wikipedia uses guilt-by-association far worse than Joseph McCarthy ever did." ==

Ouch. Is this a POV statement? Merely associating one with the John Birch Society is ''worse'' than McCarthy-esque destruction of someone's career and life because of perceived communist undertones? Knowing Conservapedia's user base wouldn't association with the JBS be flattery?[[User:Shocktherapy|Shocktherapy]] 10:04, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps it should also be noted that three of those examples, as they remain in the present tense, are patently FALSE and have been so for some time. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:18, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:: Wikipedia removed the smear against the [[Democrat]], the deceased person and the baseball player. It left the smear against the most influential conservative group.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:23, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:::While I disagree that the association between the John Birch Society and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons really constitutes a "smear" (regardless of the publication date, the assertion is properly attributed, and at the time Paul W. Leithart, a President of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, was in fact a member of the JBS), I will leave the definitions of what text and deeds at Wikipedia constitute "bias" up to you. I appreciate the adjusting of the tense in the example to be more factually and objectively correct. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 21:21, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:::: Feebasfactor, as in our discussion about [[Richard Dawkins]], where you missed the point about how the purchase of a professorship is inappropriate, you seem to miss the point here. Guilt-by-association is wrong regardless of whether it is true. In fact, it is '''more''' wrong if it is true!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:37, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

I think I understand... The association is not an example of "bias" because it is factually incorrect, but rather because it is unnecessary and misleading, presenting "facts" in such a way as to imply a false relationship and paint an unflattering picture of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. That seems to make sense; did I... get the point this time? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:40, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

:: Right. It is "guilt by association" to smear one group based on the possibility that some of its members belong to another group found objectionable. Did you know that thousands of Democratic voters are communists???? Yet you won't see [[Wikipedia]] using guilt-by-association to smear [[liberals]]. Instead, the biased [[Wikipedia]] uses guilt-by-association to smear [[conservatives]] only.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:08, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

==#82 is out-dated/incorrect==
It claims that the homosexuality category was not deleted and that the heterosexuality one was. However, the homosexuality one ''was'' deleted shortly thereafter. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Gay_Wikipedians&action=edit this link]. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 12:34, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
:Someone please make this change this. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 11:09, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
::Here are the sources confirming this (please try to include clearer sources in future, we cannot follow up every claim or correction looking to verify it). The category was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Category:Gay_Wikipedians deleted] on October 10, 3 months after the previous decision, as per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Category:Gay_Wikipedians this] discussion. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:40, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::Also, the example to which this applies is currently example #86 (the last on the list). [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:41, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::I would suggest simply mentionning in the example that the homosexuality categories were eventually deleted as well. However, the fact that a distinction was ever made in the first place (between the validity of the heterosexual and gay categories) is still indicative of bias at Wikipedia. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:53, 1 December 2007 (EST)

== Factual corrections on Henry Liddell ==

I did some research on the accusations about the Henry Liddell article. Though Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 is used in many articles, it was not used in the Henry Liddell article. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Liddell&diff=3213370&oldid=3213308 edit] that first inserted the names and social distinctions of his grandparents wasn't from Encyclopedia Britannica. This first edit was made in 2005 by an anonymous IP shortly after the article was created. The IP address has not made any edits since. The accusation about Alice Liddell were moved up into the introduction in February. The grammar error was also fixed in February. Last week the years that he was dean at Christ Church were written into the article. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] ([[User_talk:PostoStudanto|Tλlk]]) 19:44, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

: We didn't say that Liddell was based on the Encyclopedia Britannica, just that many entries are. And how do you know those edits didn't come from the Encyclopedia Britannica???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:02, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
:: I know because I looked at the edit history in detail, compared versions, and saw the exact points where each relative was added in (they weren't all added in at once). Fascinating things, edit histories. That and the paragraph isn't in Encyclopedia Britannica 1911. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] ([[User_talk:PostoStudanto|Tλlk]]) 00:14, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

==Interesting study of Wikipedians' political beliefs==
I studied the political beliefs of Wikipedians after reading that you said that they have a strong [[liberal]] bias. I found that, although it's mostly liberal, it's pretty evenly distributed ([http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e6/Pol-access.PNG see graph]). This should be incorporated into the article. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 11:12, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
:That's interesting and surprising. And as an engineer I'll take graphs over words anyday :) Could I ask the methodology involved? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:29, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:: The graph makes it look like all three categories are comparable in size. They are actually vastly different in size. Factor size of the groups into this, and you'll see that the 3:1 ratio of liberals to conservatives as stated in the entry here is about right. The general [[U.S.]] public is 2:1 conservative-to-liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:35, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:::Andy's right that registered users vastly outnumber administrators and bureaucrats; in terms of quantity alone, the ratio of liberals to conservatives probably does approach 3:1. However, this study raises another interesting question: if Wikipedia's administrators and bureaucrats are surprisingly balanced in their political views, then why does Wikipedia seem to have such a [[liberal bias]]? Does this mean that the population of casual Wikipedia users is predominately [[liberal]]? In which case: how much is to blame on the sytem, and how much on the public? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:53, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:Are there really so few moderates among signed-in users? I'd be interested in the methodology as well.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 21:03, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

I simply went by what users put on their userpages, so it's not completely accurate. Perhaps certain people with a particular belief tend to be less likely to pronounce it. That's definitely a downfall, but it's as accurate of a study as one can get limited resources.

Also, I don't find the bias too harsh. You should see what people put on Obama's and Clinton's pages. If Wikipedia was horribly biased, I wouldn't edit there, as I certainly find myself conservative. I think it's just that it's uncensored and open, which may make it more liberal.

However, if you researched for your facts, then I suppose you're correct. I just try to correct biases both ways everyday. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 09:29, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Another thing: as for the moderates in regular editors, I suppose they're more likely to put their beliefs on their userpages if they feel really strongly either way. And the opposite goes for admins/crats: they probably want to seem neutral, so make sure to state that they are if they are, and maybe not give their true beliefs to avoid conflict. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 09:31, 8 November 2007 (EST)

==Why does this matter?==
I don't understand why enumerating the examples of bias in Wikipedia matters that much, obviously every person has a bias of some sort, so every article written in wikipedia or otherwise has some degree of personal opinion. The general idea I get from reading this article is that Wikipedia as an entity is responsible for this bias, which is obviously incorrect since its the users provide the information it contains. maybe I don't understand what Conservapedia is about but it seems that this list is mostly filled with either misleading facts, isolated incidents, or gossip that has no place in a proper Encyclopedia.[[User:Morgoth|Morgoth]] 00:26, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

: Wikipedia doesn't admit its bias, and hence it is important to expose it. And, yes, groups or mobs can have biases too. Spend some time with the attendees at the Democratic National Convention and you'll notice they have a bias, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:42, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

:: Yes, everyone has a bias, but the stressing of Wikipedia's supposed 'non-negotiable' NPOV is in complete contrast to its strong liberal, anti-Christian leanings. [[User:Gofyylb|Gofyylb]] 21:39, 19 November 2007 (EST)

::: It does seem as if, considering that you have been working on this list of examples of liberal bias on wikipedia for over a year and you've only found 99, it seems as if you're either doing a very poor job or that there isn't very much liberal bias, especially since there are 2 million pages. In addition, if you were actually trying to objectively prove an overall liberal bias on wikipedia, you would have both a liberal bias page and a conservative bias page, but I guess that would be too unbiased for conservapedia {{unsigned|Echew99}}

==Heavy Promotion of Liberals in Inappropriate Places==
I hope I'm not missing anything here, but while the "Boy Scouts v. Dale" articles still promotes liberal Evan Wolfson, I could no longer find the claim that he is "one of the '100 most influential people in the world.'" - it appears to have been changed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale]. Should I look for the appropriate version in the article history? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:30, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

:Aha, here it is: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale&oldid=152256885] Compared to Conservapedia, I'm always suprised at how long it takes to fix these sorts of mistakes at Wikipedia. Then again, considering the political slant of the "mistakes" there, maybe I shouldn't be so surprised... [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:35, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

:: I updated this within minutes of this being pointed out here, and within weeks of the change on [[Wikipedia]]. That's quicker than the time it took [[Wikipedia]] to reduce (and not eliminate) its bias in that entry there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:40, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

:: Upon rereading the unsigned comment above, it seems to agree that the [[liberal]] "mistakes" on [[Wikipedia]] are very, very slow in being corrected.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I do! :-) And sorry about the signature. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:45, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

: My apologies. I realized after posting that I completely misread your additional (unsigned) comment. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:49, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

== #2 (Prodigal Son) ==

Pretty much all of the entires on this list are misleading or trivial, so it seems kinda silly to pick on just one, but #2 is just blatantly false. The article on the "Prodigal Son" says nothing about rock bands or liberal media (?) shows like "Miami Vice". The ''disambiguation'' page does, but that can only be accessed through the main Prodigal Son page unless someone happens to include "(Disambiguation)" in their search, so don't pretend for a second that Wikipedia is trying to downplay the Biblical part.
--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 19:46, 8 November 2007 (EST)

: No, most of the entries on the list are not trivial. It does not even talk much about the vast percentage of [[Wikipedia]] entries that are silly rock bands or obscure places, for example.

: [[Wikipedia]] has changed many of its entries in response to this list, and perhaps the [[Prodigal Son]] was one of them. I'll look into this further. I'm sure our point about the [[Prodigal Son]] was correct when written.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:41, 18 December 2007 (EST)

==Seigenthaler controversy==
WP's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy#Wikimedia_Foundation_reaction Seigenthaler controversy#Wikimedia Foundation reaction] says, "A variety of changes were also made to Wikipedia's software and working practices, to address some of the issues arising. ...The Foundation added a new level of "oversight" features to the MediaWiki software,[12] accessible as of 2006 to around 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales."

One of the 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales was Essjay, whom according to the ''New Yorker'' retraction, "was recommended to Ms. Schiff as a source by a member of Wikipedia’s management team" and "Wales recently established an 'oversight' function, by which some admins (Essjay among them) can purge text from the system, so that even the history page bears no record of its ever having been there." [http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact#editorsnote]

So in this alleged "reform," Jimbo appoints someone's whose honesty is certifiably questionable, and vests him with power to coverup abuses. Pulitzer Prize winning author Stacy Schiff names Essjay as Wales appointee; why can't Wikipedia's own entry on the Seigenthaler scandal clarify the facts? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:45, 12 November 2007 (EST)

:Technical correction: According to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight Wikipedia Oversight documentation] the oversight extension doesn't technically purge the text from the system. The removed edit stays in the database, but is hidden from regular users. Anyone with oversight permission or better (stewards, developers, etc.) can view the edit. There isn't an interface yet for reverting those edits, so one of the developers has to do a direct query to the database. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 20:15, 12 November 2007 (EST)

::I have evidence of non-Admins using oversight before oversight was ever established. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:40, 21 November 2007 (EST)
:::I'm confused. What exactly do you mean by using oversight before it was established? And what does it have to do with the technical impossibility of a complete cover up? [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 23:34, 21 November 2007 (EST)

== #81 ==

''Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose."'' - If he had fixed it himself, then Wiki-libs would have blocked him in some manner, whether by cabals of libs 'outvoting' him under the guise of false consensus, or blocking him for editing his own article. It's idiocy to claim that someone can right the wrongs on Wikipedia if the biased libs there want the content protected to forward their agenda. [[User:Gofyylb|Gofyylb]] 21:34, 19 November 2007 (EST)

== Belfast / Good Friday Agreement ==

There are many examples of bias in Wikipedia, as I'm sure many of you are familiar with - especially in relation to Northern Ireland. However, this issue is not one of those examples.

To wit: The BBC did not create the Agreement and, in any case, [http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/schools/agreement/constitutional/support/ci_c031.shtml refer to it as both the Belfast.. and Good Friday.. Agreement as well as "the Stormont Agreement"]. It was drawn up by two governments after a consultation and signed in Belfast. Before that, the proposal was called, simply, [http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/peace/docs/agreement.htm "The Agreement"].

Both terms were coined to describe it based on when (Good Friday) and where (Belfast) it was signed.

Its official long form name would probably be "AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND" (excuse the caps - this was copied and pasted from the Agreement itself).

Politicians tend to vary between calling it the "Good Friday Agreement" and the "Belfast Agreement". Many Christian politicians actually prefer the latter. The case is the same for the public in Northern Ireland.

The House of Commons refers to the document primarily as the "Belfast Agreement", occasionally as "The Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement" and mostly as "the Good Friday Agreement" when quoting from other sources in the [http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp98/rp98-076.pdf Northern Ireland Bill] which implemented the Agreement.

The [http://archive.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/publications/ba.htm official website] of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland refers only to "the Belfast Agreement".

The Agreement itself is titled ''"The Agreement"'' and includes an annex entitled, ''"Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland."''

One can only conclude that "Belfast Agreement" and "Good Friday Agreement" are both basically nick-names, and the official name for the document is "The Agreement".

"The Belfast Agreement" is in no way "less familiar", unless you are specifically talking about the USA perhaps, or what it is called on the Internet or other media sources. If you were to mention either "The Belfast Agreement" or "The Good Friday Agreement" in Northern Ireland, the rest of the UK, or the Republic of Ireland, I'm pretty sure the chances are similar that both names would be equally recognised. --[[User:Setanta|Setanta]] 12:12, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:Wikipedia betrays itself [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Belfast_Agreement] on this one: more pages link to the Redirect (211) than the mainspace (45), 4 and one half to one difference. Even a discussion at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28United_Kingdom-related_articles%29#Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography.2FHow_to_write_about_settlements Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements] uses Good Friday. Sorry, but IMHO, this one reeks of anti-Christian [[bigotry]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:16, 24 November 2007 (EST)

== #4 Justice Byron White Error ==

Is this [[bias]]? It is a mistake, but wikipedia prefers edits by registered users over anon IPs, as shown by the implementation of semi-protected pages and by the edit statistics.

: Wikipedia allows editing by anonymous IP addresses, and those edits are often [[liberal]] smears of people. I think Wikipedia's bias is one reason why it continues to allow this practice. Conservapedia does not allow editing by anonymous IPs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:55, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:: I've done vandalism patrol before, and I promise you this: the vast majority of vandalism is by idiots who think inserting nonsense or deleting content is clever. Not smears, just idiocy. If there happens to be a source that ''conclusively'' contradicts what I'm saying, go ahead and cite it.
:: The only routine vandalism that could possibly be seen as a smear is vandalism to political articles. Many prominent politicians have 3 or more pieces of vaguely insulting vandalism per week. One example is an edit by a 3 edit user to George W. Bush's page that inserted "He is considered by many as the worst president in modern American history." That edit was reverted by a certain Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 20:30, 25 November 2007 (EST)

::: Anonymous IP addresses are the source of numerous [[liberal]] smears, such many identified in the content page here: [[Bias in Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:11, 25 November 2007 (EST)

:::: This is the talk page for that article. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 21:39, 25 November 2007 (EST)

== Dawkins again ==

Can somebody tell how the Oxford statement "The Charles Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science has not as yet been filled, although it was established in 1995 by decree" continued? [[User:Order|Order]] 18:19, 25 November 2007 (EST)

==#84==
I haven't looked at the Wikipedia article recently - however, #84 should be removed from here and simply placed in [[Wikipedia|the article]] - because the fact that false information obtained from Wikipedia went into a news source is not bias by Wikipedia- merely stupidity by the news source.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 18:31, 1 December 2007 (EST)

: You still don't "get it" about the bias of [[gossip]] in [[Wikipedia]]. #84 is example of [[Wikipedia]] fomenting false [[gossip]]. [[Wikipedia]] pretends to be an encyclopedia, when in fact it's more like the National Enquirer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:58, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::I understand that they pretend to do that - and I agree that doing that is certainly disgusting, however, if a frog pretends to be a prince, it's not bias - and this article is "examples of bias in Wikipedia"--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:49, 1 December 2007 (EST)

==#8==
This entry is quite obsolete. The statement no longer features such terms as "extrapolation" and "credibility" or any such inaccuracies, and the citations reflect the phrasing in its current form. This one should be removed. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 21:41, 11 December 2007 (EST)

==#20==
This entry seems to show immense hostility towards Wikipedia for not having an article for the word "Deceit" - However, Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary - this is explicity stated in the guidelines "WP:NOT" or "What Wikipedia is Not". I fail to see the problem here. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 21:47, 11 December 2007 (EST)

: But [[Wikipedia]] does have an entry on [[deceit]], using a redirect. Your criticism would only be valid if [[Wikipedia]] omitted the entry entirely.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 11 December 2007 (EST)
::Yes, Wikipedia will redirect you to an article on "Deception", apparently with a disambiguation link at the top. Deception is a term that 1.)Requires disambiguation because of the existence of multiple entities with that exact title (albums and the like) and 2.)It's more generic, hence why the main article can be thorough and expanded with subsections. Anyway, it just seems like Conservapedia wants Wikipedia to define a term (deceit) which would most likely get slapped with a speedy deletion tag or an AfD - but not because it's concealing anything, but because users will cite WP:NOT. I hope that clarifies my position. Cheers [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 23:03, 11 December 2007 (EST)

::: Now you make a different argument. In fact, [[Wikipedia]] only changed its redirect of "deceit" to "deception" after we pointed out its bias. [[Wikipedia]] used to redirect "deceit" to "lie", and thereby denied what deceit really is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 11 December 2007 (EST)

== Mary Stachowicz article vs. Matthew Shepard article ==

On Wiki, the article about Matthew Shepard[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard] unequivocally treats his murder as a "hate crime." The article goes on at length about it being a "hate crime" and how it affected "hate crime" legislation. It is also categorized as "Victims of anti-LGBT hate crimes."

Meanwhile, the article about Mary Stachowicz states she was murdered only "in an ''apparent'' hate crime" (emphasis mine) and the rest of the article downplays the "hate crime" angle. The "hate crime" category was added to the article on October 26th, but removed on November 16th with the cryptic edit summary of "inapt [not suitable] category."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mary_Stachowicz&diff=171878973&oldid=171817516] [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)

: Superb. I'll work on a new point #1 to reflect your insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:35, 17 December 2007 (EST)

== Viewership ==

I hate to point this out, but I will. If CP and WP reversed positions, and people relied on this outlet for information, the blatant errors would be very much the same as they are today. Consider for instance my favourite of all, the article on Canada. One of the CP users went on to state that the Canadian education system is inferior to the American system on the basis of assigned letter grades and their percentage value. Of course, any real interpretation of information was completely absent from the entry. If we used the exact same system of measurement for the exact same courses, '''and''' then assigned higher letter grades for lower percentages '''while''' attempting to pass them off as being equivalent letter grades. But, we all know that the situation I described isn't the case. I would also like to point out that your homosexuality article is heavily biased, as you omit much information on the subject altogether. While your facts are likely very accurate, there is relevant or related facts missing that prevent the whole picture from being seen.

In short, the trustworthy encyclopedia can be trusted to be Conservatively biased, and to present very basic facts that present only a very slim portion of the picture. I also trust that despite my efforts to produce unbiased work, somebody will always come along and put a conservative spin on it. I suspect your concern with WP is that it really does represent freedom and non-secularism. Unfortunately, many conservatives are in favour of the suspension of many civil liberties, and secularism. First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out... --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 10:35, 21 December 2007 (EST)

== Unfair? ==

Isn't this article being a little unfair to Wikipedia? Yes, Wikipedia has problems, but some of the things here are really off the mark...

For instance: #73, and all other points that speak of "National Enquirer" type "gossip." How is it "gossip" that Nina Totenberg was severely injured? How is information on William Donald Schaefer (#85) "gossip" but not similar information about [[Al Gore]] on this site? And isn't "gossip" more like rumor and unsubstantiated information then verifiable facts with links to news stories?

Other entires act like Wikipedia is a concrete, unchangeable text made by one author, and that if something is left out it must be a sign of bias. See #20, Eritrea, #54, Jimmy Carter, #78, John Peter Zenger, #79, Bacon's Rebellion, and #82 the Piltdown Man. "Oh, if only there were some ''magical button'' that I could press in which I could ''add content to'' or ''delete erroneous content from'' Wikipedia. Curse you, Wikipedia, for not adding such a feature!"

And as for #77--that's totally ridiculous. Who determines what has "zero educational value?" Who determines what is "beneath a regular encyclopedia?" Aschlafly?

This is the core page of Conservapedia. A lot of editing on it will need to be done if this site wants to look credible. [[User:Cheesehead|Cheesehead]] 12:20, 24 December 2007 (EST)

::Excuse me Cheesehead, We are not the only ones who have determined how worthless Wikipedia can be...it's college professors who have done the same thing. They have cited the fact that Wikipedia is edited by amatuers who insist on being amatuer; it's edited by 15 year-old kids who write like they're in the first grade, and who demand complete control over people who can do better; and the editing is continuous for many articles, as good material gets replaced by goofy material over and over again. College professors have warned their students not to trust Wikipedia as a source at all. Do not come here and complain that WE are being unfair to Wikipedia when we have pointed this and more out. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:30, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::The above has to be the most subjective dismissal of Wikipedia I've ever read. First of all, not all college professors dissuade or prevent their students from citing Wikipedia. Secondly, ALL encyclopedias (virtual or paper) are usually deemed unsuitable for referencing. No credible or illustrious scientist, scholar, theologian, historian etc..etc.. would ever encourage their students to use them exclusively, or even at all. Now, they are invaluable as starting points that may direct you to illuminating second and third party analysises of a subject. This goes for Conservapedia as well. Wikipedia doesn't make the claim that they are authoritative. In fact, Wales has been crystal clear about that.

:::Thirdly, it's a FACT that Wikipedia is written by amateurs? Yes, a sub-population out of thousands and thousands. But, Please - This is just another baseless, misleading claim. Talk about your ad-hominems. Every single person I have ever encountered on Wikipedia has been eloquent and quite knowledgeable about the articles they cultivate - at least the registered users. Sure, that's anecdotal evidence, but I've been a regular editor there for three years now. These 15 year olds you speak of more than likely are the ones who edit articles on superficial pop culture or modern music. Who cares? Many articles here and there require fleshing out. It's open source and free to be edited by anyone. If you need any convincing about brilliant writing and comprehensiveness simply read any of Wikipedia's Featured Articles. Then gander at the thousands that are ranked as GA. Take your pick. Your post smacks of cynicism and prejudice that permeates this site. Don't get me wrong, I like it here, I think this place has merit and potential. If I thought differently, I wouldn't have registered an account and started editing/creating articles. And I'm not about to say that Wikipedia isn't without its flaws and foibles. Of course there are, things go on there that shouldn't, but some of your claims are downright outrageous, parochial and unilateral. Next time, try and be a little less narrow in your analysis of something which is credible and useful to many. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 14:35, 24 December 2007 (EST)

::::You've just proven it for all of us in your rant. ''"ALL encyclopedias (virtual or paper) are usually deemed unsuitable for referencing. No credible or illustrious scientist, scholar, theologian, historian etc..etc.. would ever encourage their students to use them exclusively, or even at all"'' Credible and useful to many as well? I don't think so. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:38, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::::::: Ok, now you're using a sort of Straw Man tactic in order to make it seem as though I'm contradicting myself. I thought it was patently obvious what I meant. In Academia no encyclopedia should be used as a primary source. HOWEVER, college students, high school students, and the general public use Wikipedia for gathering general information on a subject. More often than not, it is completely accurate. It's as simple as that. As a scientist, I wouldn't submit a manuscript for journal review with Wikipedia, Encarta or Britannica listed in my reference section. That doesn't mean they are useless or completely inaccurate. In the articles I've edited/read, the information matches up perfectly with my own personal knowledge of the subject - medicine, biology, chemistry, etc.. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 15:23, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:: Cheesehead, try to understand what [[gossip]] and [[liberal bias]] are before denying that they permeate [[Wikipedia]] entries. The nearly 100 examples in the list here reflect the approach taken and continued by [[Wikipedia]], and illustrate why so many serious contributors have abandoned [[Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:51, 24 December 2007 (EST)

== German-American ==

The term German-American, especially in its hyphenate version typically refers to American of German descent, and not to people that hold both passport, maybe because both countries subscribe to the view that you should only have one. Just like other hyphen American in the 19th century it is commonly understood that they were Americans. So, I see no point in complaining about that fact. See the websites of German-American heritage groups for more information [http://www.germanheritage.com/][http://www.german-american.com/]. [[User:Order|Order]] 06:11, 28 December 2007 (EST)

: The hyphenated "German-American" implies dual nationality, or no nationality, and that is incorrect. Far less than 1% of websites use this in reference to [[Thomas Nast]]. But [[Wikipedia]], in its bias for phony [[globalism]], pushes it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:27, 28 December 2007 (EST)
::Actually, "German-American" doesn't mean DUAL nationality, it indicates the individual's country of birth, descent, heritage, and nationality. It's not a citizenship term. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 09:15, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:: Where would an 'African-American' have a passport from? [[User:User1601|User1601]] 10:43, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::: The term creates confusion about citizenship. There's no denying that. It is used in far less than 1% of the websites referring to [[Thomas Nast]]. But [[Wikipedia]] with its anti-[[American]] and [[globalist]] bias, pushes the confusing term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:37, 28 December 2007 (EST)
:First, if you are confused about dual citizenship, then only because you don't know that Germany doesn't allow for dual citizenship. And afaik, neither does the US. Can you give us a reference for your 1% figure. I guess the confusion just arises from being unfamiliar with the phenomenon of Hyphen-American in 19th and the first half of the 20th century. In 1987 President Reagan proclaimed a German-American Day on October 6 [http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1987/100287d.htm], and from the proclamation it is obvious that it refers to Americans of Germen descent. The German heritage site list Thomas Nast as a famous German-American [http://www.germanheritage.com/biographies/mtoz/nast.html], and same holds a 1983 Presidential Commission for the German-American Tricentennial [http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/ga-tricentennialreport.htm]. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:: No, User:Order, I'm not confused but the Wikipedia entry is designed to create confusion in the [[liberal]] direction. American citizens are American citizens, not "another country"-American. As to the 1% figure, please do your own research on [[Google]] before criticizing work done by others. Surely I don't have to explain how to compare the sites mentioning "Thomas Nast" and those claiming he was a "German-American".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:54, 28 December 2007 (EST)
::Actually, Order, the US does allow dual citizenships with some countries. I actually have a triple citizenship because both my parents are foreign nationals. Even so, the suggestion that "German-American" is a confusing term is plainly ridiculous. There are plenty groups that self identify as X-Americans (Italian-Americans, Asian-Americans, Arab-Americans, African-Americans, and Irish-Americans leap to mind. In fact, here's a link to the [http://www.ugac.org/ German American Heritage Foundation]. Noone seems to think this term is confusing except you, Andy. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 17:59, 29 December 2007 (EST)
: Obviously, you want to have 100 entries before the end of the year, and I can understand that you are reluctant to remove this item, but let me still answer to your comments.
:First, if you make a 1% claim, you will have to provide evidence. This is not criticizing the work of others, it is inquiring where to find the work of others. So, from what you say you used Google for you research. What were your search terms? Up to which page did you go?
:Second, I did some google for the term "German-American", and it seems all hits on the first page and 74 of the hundred hits use "German-American" in the meaning of "Americans of German descent". This use seem to be the most common.
:Finally, a presidential committee including Thomas Nast as German-American seems to be very relevant. Is there anything wrong about that report?
:[[User:Order|Order]] 21:57, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:: User:Order, I can see you lurching towards [[last wordism]] here, as [[liberals]] tend to do. Your "obviously" statement is out of line as I could easily increase this list of examples of bias in Wikipedia to 130 by New Year's if I wanted to. Thomas Nast on Google retrieves 175,000 sites, but Thomas Nast and "German-American" only retrieves 3,800, and only a tiny fraction of that refers to Nast himself as "German-American" rather than using the term as an adjective to "culture" or with another meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 28 December 2007 (EST)
: 3.800 out of 175.000 makes 2%. But good that you told us how you got the statistics. First, you are looking for a very specific combination of phrases, namely "Thomas Nast" and "German-American". You should also mention that about only 32.400 sites use the adjective "German", so at most 20% of all site mentioning his name mention his ancestry at all. But the complaint was that the term "German-American" was used in a confusing way, and if we look at the hits for "Thomas Nast" and "German-American", we see that that at least the first 20, use "German-American" to mean American of German descent. As do most hits for "German-American". And we still got a presidential committee listing him among famous "German-Americans", which should carry some weight, too. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:30, 28 December 2007 (EST)

==What's Wrong With Bias?==
If an article I saw had some information missing from it, or presented in a bad way and I knew enough about the subject; I would edit it. That's what Wikipedia is for, isn't it?

At least Wikipedia is biased in all directions, and not just trying to do it along one single political agenda. Everyone can edit articles there to say whatever they want. If there's a majority of users who think a certain way then sure their own beliefs are going to be pandered to more. What stops you helping make their site better?[[User:User1601|User1601]] 10:49, 28 December 2007 (EST)
: A lie supported by a majority does not make it true. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)

: User1601, [[Wikipedia]] is '''not''' "biased in all directions." Rather, it has an overwhelming bias in one direction. The examples here confirm that. Several of the examples illustrate how attempts to edit [[Wikipedia]] to correct its bias are futile - in response, the [[liberal]] mob and bullies who run [[Wikipedia]] will restore the bias or even make it worse!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:59, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::I find it hard to support your point when you are arguing in favor of a site which much more polarized than wikipedia. -[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 22:31, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::: Concealed bias is particularly objectionable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

I'd like to note that the second entry about typing "conservative" into wikipedia is not true, regardless of whether it once was or not. A page search for "anti-baby" and "anti-family" returned nothing. Second, the statement "you will be redirected to over 4500 words of confusion" seems rather subjective. It seemed to be a rather scholarly article regarding the general ideals of conservatives. Seeing as this is the "second" example of liberal bias in Wikipedia, this is rather damaging to the cause isn't it? Perhaps it's back down to 97.

: Wikipedia corrected its bias on the above point only after we exposed it here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

well
you know
that kind of seems like a load of crap
because it doesn't exist now
and you have no way of knowing whether it was changed because you "exposed them"

{{unsigned|Echew99}}

== Renaissance: I contest point 64 ==

It is widely agreed amongst art historians that the driving force behind the Renaissance was first the rediscovery of roman art and the evolution of humanist philosophy. Christian themes prevailed because the church was one of the major funders of the artists. Also if Christianity was a major influence in the Renaissance why were mythological works produced by all four masters and most other artists? -[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 22:19, 28 December 2007 (EST)

== Formatting error in list leads to possibly unwanted inflation of count ==

I just noticed this:
{{quotebox|29. Wikipedia uses guilt-by-association far worse than Joseph McCarthy ever did. Wikipedia smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the John Birch Society (JBS). Examples have included: 
30. *pro-life Congressman Jerry Costello, merely because JBS gave him a favorable rating[38] 
31. *anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him[39] 
32. *the conservative Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, by repeating a 40 year old newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS[40] 
33. *conservative baseball pitcher Dave Dravecky, a cancer survivor, merely because a newspaper claimed he once belonged to JBS[41] 
34. In response to this criticism, Wikipedia removed ... only the smears against the more liberal targets, such as the Democrat Jerry Costello, or the less influential entries, such as the deceased Fred Schwarz. Wikipedia left intact the smear against the most influential group. After removal of the smear against Costello, it was then was reinserted before being removed again.}}
Is it intentional that the JBS bias is stretched over six points? It strikes me as a formatting error.

I am currently not aware of a way to fix the list in the current form. The main problem is the paragraph after the last example. Without it, things would be easy to fix. In the current form, here is my suggestion (it's important not to have additional spaces in the "#:*" or "#:" parts). It looks okay and gets the point across :

#[[Wikipedia]] uses guilt-by-association far worse than [[Joseph McCarthy]] ever did. [[Wikipedia]] smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the [[John Birch Society]] (JBS). Examples have included:
#:*pro-life Congressman [[Jerry Costello]], merely because JBS gave him a favorable rating<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Costello&oldid=142488803</ref>
#:*anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Schwarz&oldid=143791808</ref>
#:*the conservative [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], by repeating a '''40 year old''' newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons</ref>
#:*conservative baseball pitcher Dave Dravecky, a cancer survivor, merely because a newspaper claimed he once belonged to JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Dravecky&oldid=155924640</ref>
#:In response to this criticism, Wikipedia removed ... only the smears against the more [[liberal]] targets, such as the ''[[Democrat]]'' [[Jerry Costello]], or the less influential entries, such as the deceased Fred Schwarz. Wikipedia left intact the smear against the most influential group. After removal of the smear against Costello, it was then was reinserted before being removed again.

(You can simply copy and paste the above section from the edit box here, I left the references intact.) --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 08:51, 29 December 2007 (EST)
:I think that formatting is intentional, as each one catalogues a different example of bias (but all are loosely related under the same category, JBS smears). [[User:GlobeGores|GlobeGores]] 13:43, 29 December 2007 (EST)
::I disagree because all other Examples of Bias stick to the "one theme, one number" setting and are self-contained We could move each entry freely without loss of information. Additionally. if we took each ''instance'' of a particular bias as its own number, we could easily fill up the list to a hundred using only the various articles about evolution, gun control, and so on. I don't believe that was the goal of this list. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 13:58, 29 December 2007 (EST)

JakeC is correct. Those "entries" were originally (back in July) added as a single numbered point[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=221970], and remained that way until fairly recently (three weeks ago), when they were inadvertently (it would appear) altered as part of a reformatting effort to put spaces between the hashes and the first character[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=346123], but in this case put them between the hashes and the asterisks. I've fixed it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:14, 30 December 2007 (EST)
P.S. The last one ("In response to this criticism...") was always a separate point, so that's the way I've left it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:15, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Another example of Wikipedia silliness ==

Might it be worthwhile to add to this list the large record Wikipedia keeps of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BJAODN featured vandalism]? Also, both administrators and users [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:April_Fools go berserk] on April Fools' Day instead of acting like [[Conservapedia|a real encyclopedia]] would - that is, to treat it like any other day. [[User:GlobeGores|GlobeGores]] 13:39, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:Regarding April Fool's Day: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ed_Poor#Are_you_working_on_the_Conservapedia_Page.3F Maybe not the best idea?] (Note: The link points to the section ''above'' the one I want to link to. I mean the "Please do not v*ndalise our project templates." section. The CP spam filter doesn't allow the word "v*ndalise" to appear anywhere for some reason) --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 14:18, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:For accuracy's sake, they don't update that record of vandalism. They used to keep track of the most humorous stuff, but now they only keep the page for posterity. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:21, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:The bastards, having fun... [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:22, 17 January 2008 (EST)

== Zeta - if we want to go there? ==

I don't know if anyone wants to go quite so deep into the cesspit that is Wikipedia, but I'll ask anyway. [Ed. Note: remainder deleted based on application of our [[rules]]]

: You're right that it is a cesspit, and our adherence to higher standards than [[Wikipedia]] requires us to refrain from wading into every cesspit. For now, we'll pass on trying to clean up the cesspit you've identified, though I do not fault you for identifying it as such. I look forward to reviewing your substantive contributions here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:56, 29 December 2007 (EST)

== Organization ==

This is a long and impressive list! I think it might benefit from organizing the points under headings like: "Anti-American Bias", "Anti-Christian Bias", "Anti-Conservative Bias", and so on. This could make it easier to navigate and more powerful.

If people are interesting in this the categries and which point goes where could be worked on the talk page and then a Sysop could unprotect the page briefly so points could be placed.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 22:02, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:Done. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:07, 29 December 2007 (EST)

::Thanks for your help, Ed! I should clarify however, that I was not proposing the page be edited yet. I wanted some discussion to see what should go where first. For example, under what heading should the first point, about Butto being strong Pro-life be placed?--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 23:01, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:Don't be too methodical. Please pick the low-hanging fruit first. If you find a half-dozen items that go together, just put those together. Others will follow your lead. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:35, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Reorganization is fine, provided it does not dilute the entry through [[placement bias]]. For example, the entry about Bhutto is timely and compelling, and works well on the first page seen by readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:20, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Holy cow! Elkman blocked everyone who uses my IP range ==

Because I rightfully described a recent question of his as "disruptive trolling" when I reverted it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A67.135.49.177&diff=181119795&oldid=180656254 here]. Elkman's statement about blocking the IP range is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:67.135.49.211 here]. Probably won't make the list, but it's another little insight into how Wikipedia works. If you're an admin or higher, you can break all the Wiki policies you want and get away with it. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:01, 31 December 2007 (EST)
: I see, though, that Elkman got overruled, if I'm reading it correctly. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:37, 31 December 2007 (EST)
::Yes. It wasn't an official overruling, but the majority opinion was against him. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:22, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::: And no apology, right? It's amazing to me how [[Wikipedia]] causes so much harm and almost never apologies or admits it was wrong. I guess that is the [[atheistic]] culture.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:38, 31 December 2007 (EST)
::::Uh, hello? I was accused of being a [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=327742 sockpuppet] and was blocked for nearly two months. After being unblocked, the first thing I see is [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALardoBolger&diff=359482&oldid=299187 hostility] on my talk page. Also, the article [[liberal style]] #38 reads: "silly demands for apologies". If you're expecting those on Wikipedia to apologize for their actions, it would seem common sense to start it on your own site first. I'm not asking for an apology though, I'm merely stating a point. As for the blocking on Wikipedia, accusing a question on one's talk page as [[troll|trolling]] and then saying you want the administrator blocked for it, well, on any wiki, you're just trolling yourself, yes? (please note, I'm not liberal, atheist, or a supporter of Wikipedia, but just imagine what action would've been taken had that happened here on CP) [[User:LardoBolger|LardoBolger]] 12:28, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::::This is the closest I got to getting an apology: "Jinxmchue wins; I lose." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A67.135.49.211&diff=181148462&oldid=181148406] [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:51, 31 December 2007 (EST)

You forgot to mention that I ''did'' get blocked for my actions. I can't edit pages while blocked. I'm not even sure I should edit pages after the block expires, to tell the truth. I'll admit that I was wrong to place the block -- in fact, I was wrong to get involved at all. [[Sin]] is unforgivable, and [[Sin (Fundamentalism)]] states that any sort of imperfection is intolerable and unacceptable, so anything else I say at this point won't help. --[[User:Elkman|Elkman]] 21:12, 31 December 2007 (EST)

: Don't know why you're attacking religion here. Sin is forgivable ... to those who ask for forgiveness, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:26, 31 December 2007 (EST)

:Um, dude. ''You blocked yourself for your actions.'' That's like a deputy locking himself up with the jail key for shooting a roomful of innocent people to catch a suspected jaywalker. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:22, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Wow. And now they're just outright lying about me [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_December_31&diff=prev&oldid=181326376 here]:

<blockquote>
he avoided the block through anonymous IP's, '''stated he was avoiding the block in a blatant attempt to show off'''.
</blockquote>

I, of course, never made any such statement. These guys are really pathetic. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:37, 1 January 2008 (EST)

== Examples should be restricted ==

Examples should be restricted to issues that were corrected on Wikipedia and then reverted. Only then can you really say that Wikipedia is truly biased. Most of the examples have been corrected after their posting here on Conservapedia. This is not any kind of example of bias; in fact it's exactly the opposite: Wikipedians want to make sure their encyclopedia is as free of bias as possible, so much so that ''they go out of their way to visit Conservapedia to correct that bias.'' You have to realize that Conservapedia is not all that popular, nor are many of its topics (e.g. the page for Rick Scarborough has less than 100 edits).

It's patently unfair to call bias when it's very easy to swing the bias of Wikipedia more towards center ''by editing it your bloody self.'' [[User:Illuminatedwax|Illuminatedwax]] 16:35, 2 January 2008 (EST)
: As far as your last sentence is concerned, I've already tried that, and it doesn't work, at least not on issues for which there is a group of editors (and sysops) determined to keep the status quo. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:08, 2 January 2008 (EST)

== The last point ==
Can somebody delete the last entry as a "bias" - not only is it formatted/linked incorrectly, but such an article wouldn't ever exist on Wikipedia because it is completely non-notable and has no reliable sources. You can't create a Wikipedia article when the only coverage is another wiki like Conservapedia. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 17:34, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:If you meant the one I think you meant, I've deleted it, although not necessarily for the reasons that you say. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:28, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::Not sure why it wouldn't be for the reasons I provided. The individual was obviously upset that an article he/she created was speedily deleted - or maybe he/she was witness to it, I'm not sure. However, Wikipedia is subject to policy, and one of them is Verification from Reliable Sources. It's unchallengeable. Someone who creates an article about biases in Wikipedia and uses another Wiki as a reference shouldn't be surprised when said article is tagged for deletion. Wikipedia knows its own problems (to an extent), so the users will still try their best to adhere to NPOV, V, and NOR. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 20:33, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::: I didn't say that it ''wasn't'' for the reasons you said. To some extent I didn't understand both what you were getting at, and what the item was getting at (and that was one reason for deleting it). As for NPOV, see the comments that I'll make shortly in the following section. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:01, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Oxford FOI statement ==

It would be only fair to include the entire Oxford reply in the item on Dawkins professorship. Also the part that says ''Since then Dr Dawkins, as he was then, was appointed to the Charles Simonyi Readership and subsequently had the title of Professor conferred in July 1996.'' Quoting selectively and omitting this sentence looks like we have something to hide. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:45, 3 January 2008 (EST)

:Is that... disclaimer being brought up and applied here again? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:55, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::It was mentioned in the revert, but we still haven't had any evidence if the disclaimer is relevant at all. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:47, 3 January 2008 (EST)

== Wikipedia as a knowledge base ==

I have used (and do use) wikipedia frequently however in saying that, I would never use wikipedia as a scholastic resource. I would use it to get an idea of what I wanted to look for, define search terms and maybe as a starting point for further research but I would never take it as pure truth and take what I read there with a grain of salt unless backed up with other data from various sites. Instead of mocking wikipedia non-stop as a liberal haven of half truths and lies why dont Conservapedians just see wikipedia for what it is. It is simply a knowledge base, open for all to edit. Almost like a search engine with more info, whether fact or fiction, and leave it at that. I mean why care if its liberal or not? Does it hurt anyone? If you dont like it, dont read it. [[MetcalfeM]]

: What you say could also be said about the National Enquirer and, yes, both hurt a lot of people with their gossip and distortions. The difference is that the National Enquirer does not also claim to be something better than it is. Wikipedia does claim to be neutral (a lie) and an encyclopedia (misleading).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 3 January 2008 (EST)

: Up to a point I agree with MetcalfeM. But only up to a point. I said to someone the other day that I thought Wikipedia was a good source, except in two cases. One is controversial topics, where one view often overpowers the other. And controversial topics are not exactly that rare on Wikipedia. (More in a subsequent post.) The other is obscure topics where there might be a single, or very few, contributors, who may or may not know what they are talking about and who may or may not be sufficiently objective. One point on which I strongly disagree is that it doesn't "hurt". Both gossip and misinformation can be quite harmful.

Admittly Wikipedia is subject to false accusations etc etc. Being such an enourmus site it must be hard to vet everything on it. However it is misleading also to state conservapedia is an encyclopedia by the same regard and although it doesnt claim to be neutral, conservapedia is just as slanted to particular view (or ideology or whatever you want to call it) as Wikipedia. I mean this without offence of course. Just trying to get a clearer picture. [[MetcalfeM]]

: The "clearer picture" is that Wikipedia lies in claiming to be neutral, and we do not lie about what we are. Second, Wikipedia allows gossip that destroys and misleads people, while we prohibit it. If you like the National Enquirer, you'll love Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:32, 3 January 2008 (EST)

I do not love wikipedia however, as stated, it is a wonderful knowledge base. A collection of thoughts, ideas and, yes, facts and hearsay. To tar every editor and entry on wikipedia with the same brush is absurd. I am not American hence have not had a lot of exposure to the National Enquirer but I know all publications are subject to gossip and conjecture. You would only be mislead by wikipedia if you took wikipedia as read without looking further. By the same logic this website could be misleading if a subject posted here was not fully investigated. A point in case is the old entry which stated Einsteins theories had nothing to do with the atomic bomb. Granted it was fixed but while it was there it was misleading. As some entries on atheism here are slightly misleading.[[MetcalfeM]]

::It also depends on the subject in question. As a compendium of knowledge, some topics are aces (the sciences, popular culture etc.), others are weaker, while some are flat out atrocious. Aschlafly denounces Wikipedia because of its supposed uncontestable policy of Neutral Point of View. I don't mean to speak for him, but my perception is that he (like many others here) is convinced that this core policy is breached far too often. While I agree to an extent, I've seen hundreds of editors try their best to uphold and adhere to it. I know I do. Also, there is rampant vandalism from random anonymous users by the minute, sometimes insidious, which then goes unnoticed for far too long. However, that's what happens when you have 2 million articles. I must say though, there are measures that have been taken. Dozens of automated bots patrol Wikipedia and undue silly or vulgar vandalism, frequent page blanking etc..etc. There are also fail-safe programs/scripts such as TW and Vandalproof that hundreds of users use to fight vandalism on a consistent basis. TW is particularly useful. Anyway, my point is this: Wikipedia is useful as a starting point, to point you in the right direction. It can be entirely accurate on a majority of topics, while others, well...aren't. Biographies of living people (especially those in politics) are hit frequently with vandalism, and sometimes it's not fixed fast enough. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 20:48, 3 January 2008 (EST)

You have hit the nail on the head Wisdom89. As I stated, Wikipedia is fine and dandy as a starting point and will give some direction in what you are searching for. Like a search engine with information. There are many people that try to adhere to wikipedias outline of a NPOV but it is must be hard to keep all millions of articles that way.
I am just sort of astounded by conservapedias vitrol in expounding Wikipedias failings. Who cares if wikipedia is liberal when they say they are neutral, BAH! What difference does it make? Res ipsa loquitur, it is what it is. [[MetcalfeM]]

: The problem with Wikipedia's NPOV policy is, as mentioned, that it is violated too often. But we're not talking just about deliberate violation that can be reverted, but distorted thinking. I've many times seen people equate a neutral point of view with a ''scientific'' point of view (by which they mean evolution and its ilk). Yes, in their minds, they are trying for an neutral point of view. But they have a weird idea of "neutral". And this problem is not just with a few nutty editors, but with a swag of such editors ''and sysops'' who enforce this POV by sheer numbers and authority.
: And this extends to not just articles about, for example, creation, intelligent design, and evolution (where evolution is presented as true, and creation and intelligent design as false, despite the NPOV policy). In such articles there ''may'' be a token attempt to be neutral. But in articles not directly about these issues, such as an article about birds, evolution is presented as unchallenged fact. No neutrality there, yet such articles must number into the thousands.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:21, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== More admin screwups ==

I don't know if Jinxmchue has been around here lately, but he forgot to mention my latest screwup: I screwed up renaming some categories from "National Historic Landmarks of (state)" to "National Historic Landmarks in (state)".

Oh, by the way, I mentioned earlier that sins aren't forgivable. It's not an attack against religion -- if I wasn't religious, I wouldn't care about my sins or my mistakes or anything like that. Let's take a look at [[Paul]]'s letter to the Romans chapter 6:
: Romans 6:1: What then shall we say? Shall we persist in sin that grace may abound? Of course not! How can we who died to sin yet live in it?
: Romans 6:15: What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? Of course not! Do you not know that if you present yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?
: Romans 13:4-7: But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer. Therefore, it is necessary to be subject not only because of the wrath but also because of conscience. This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

I think Paul puts forth several clear arguments here about why sin isn't acceptable and why it isn't excusable for someone to sin, make mistakes, screw up, or otherwise transgress against someone. --[[User:Elkman|Elkman]] 21:37, 5 January 2008 (EST)

: I read your first quote and see if refers to ''persistent'' [[sin]]. Do yourself a favor: open your heart and mind to what the [[Bible]] says, before you go down a path that leads to depression, anxiety and sorrow.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:55, 5 January 2008 (EST)

:Sins aren't forgiveable? That's not the same faith that I was brought up in then! And why wouldn't you care about your sins if you weren't religious? Surely you would still care about doing wrong to others. Or are you saying that you only care about your sins for fear of divine retribution? Genuinely confused. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 16:19, 8 January 2008 (EST)

:: I couldn't figure out what he was talking about either, but don't know where he "mentioned earlier" that sins weren't forgivable, so didn't know the background. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:27, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== 88. Jimbo on international editors ==

Number 88 (currently) is dubious:

: Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, admitted the following understated bias in an interview in 2006:[128]

:"I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population. There are no data or surveys to back that." [Conservapedia editor: why not? Wales admitted that only about 615 editors are responsible for over 50% of the edits on Wikipedia.[129] Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors? Is this deliberate indifference to bias?]

You make it sound like any global project that isn't limited to Americans is automatically biased, just because political views differ throughout the world. A more reasonable position would be that an American-only wiki (such as this one effectively is) is automatically biased. [[User:Ortega|Ortega]] 18:29, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== Example number 14 ==

I first posted a message regarding this example on TerryH's [[User talk:TerryH|talk page]], and he suggested that I take the discussion here.

Looking back on my [[User talk:TerryH#Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|original message]], I realize I was a bit unclear in my intentions. I don't deny that Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public; that's not what I'm against. What I'm against is us making false claims about Wikipedia's citations.

In example #14, it is claimed that the sources cited say nothing about "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility" of the 6 times figure. While this is correct for one of the sources cited, the other source, from TheStar.com ([http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/190501]) does indeed criticize the extrapolation and credibility, making #14 false.

As I said on Terry's talk, I just don't want Conservapedia filled with same kinds of inaccuracies as Wikipedia. Only the truth should reside here, nothing else.

Best, [[User:Gillespie|Gillespie]] 17:40, 10 January 2008 (EST)

:This is an issue I brought up some time ago when the example was listed as #8 - see above. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 18:40, 10 January 2008 (EST)

:: The references don't support Wikipedia's claim. To the contrary, the references tend to support Conservapedia's claim yet Wikipedia claims otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:42, 10 January 2008 (EST)
:::The Star said "The problem is that of the 75,000 Wikipedia users, only a few hundred have self-identified – hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation.". I can see why people call that criticism because of poor extrapolation. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:50, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Hmmm... Perhaps something along the lines of:

<blockquote> But of the two citations for this claim of "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility", only one briefly mentions extrapolation or credibility, and both instead tend to confirm the liberal bias on Wikipedia.</blockquote>

...Maybe? Well, in any case, I'll point out the small spelling error (to --> two) that needs to be fixed as well. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:05, 10 January 2008 (EST)
:It is not that briefly. The article spends three paragraphs on it. So I would can the "briefly". The other reference is to a blog, and we all know that it is bad style to quote some minor blogs to make a point. The second reference should be removed for that reason alone. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:26, 10 January 2008 (EST)

:Feebasfactor, there is no spelling error. You're mistaken. User:Order is right about the reference to a blog, which is silly by Wikipedia to cite that as a reference. Moreover, Wikipedia implicitly admits we're right in example 14 because it weakened its criticism of Conservapedia on that point. By the way, no one seriously denies that Wikipedia is significantly more liberal than the American public, expect perhaps devout Wikipedia "NPOV" types.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:59, 10 January 2008 (EST)
Right, I ''was'' mistaken... I initially read the sentence differently, thinking "to articles" was intended as "two articles". Upon rereading it makes perfect sense as the former, sorry about the confusion (mine...). [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:35, 10 January 2008 (EST)

::Indeed, there just few people contesting it. But that doesn't give you the freedom to use shaky statistics to come up with a number. If you want to say it is more liberal do so, and find sound evidence for that. If you want to say it is six-times more liberal, then you need to have sound evidence for the '''six-times''' as well. And the article is criticizing how you arrived at this number. You are probably taller than Danny de Vito. But if you claim that you are six times as tall, the fact that Danny de Vito isn't the tallest, is not proof for you six-times claim.
::The other reference has some criticism of the six-times figure, but only in the comments. But as said, using such a blog as source is dubious in the first place. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:18, 10 January 2008 (EST)

::: I did spend hours here debating apologists for Wikipedia over the "six times as liberal" figure. I even built entries here explaining the methodology, and refuting criticisms of it, and you can find those entries with searches. Measuring temperature, or almost anything, is never perfect and there can be constructive criticisms of any measurement. But as I recall the real articles about Conservapedia did not really doubt or criticize the figure, and certainly didn't criticize the figure in a manner claimed by Wikipedia in its entry about us. Many people, including liberals, were intrigued by the attempt to quantify how liberal something is. The intense criticism of the measurement seems to be by people who think there is something wrong with quantifying how liberal a group is. Nothing wrong with it at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:08, 10 January 2008 (EST)

::::You're missing the point entirely. Your #14 is incorrect. Your entry is explicitly stating that the references do not criticize the derivation of the 6x's estimate. The references absolutely do. That's the problem here. One may be a blog, I'm surprised it's being used as it's not reliable, but the other is. You're misleading the readers of this article simply to inflate the number of biases. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 22:19, 10 January 2008 (EST)
::::Also, the Wikipedia article on Conservapedia does not use the phrasing "credibility and extrapolation" anymore - and it hasn't for some time now. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 22:22, 10 January 2008 (EST)
:::Given the time and effort that you put into defending the comparison of a poll with 3 possible answers and a representative sample to a self-identification project with 32 possible answers by a self-selected group, I did indeed wonder fairly frequently, if hadn't been easier for you to spend an afternoon on getting reliable numbers. It would have been easier and less work to do, and there would be less reason for criticism. You might get an A for persistence in a debate, but not for proper use of statistics. Yes, measurements are never perfect, but that is no excuse to measure with a rubber band. But as long as you insist on using shaky statistics you can expect that kind of criticism.
:::Anyway, the paper does criticize how you arrived at those numbers. You should be able to admit that, even if you disagree with the criticism itself. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:30, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:::: Which newspaper article specifically criticized our methodology for saying "6 times more liberal"? Let's look at what the article actually said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:50, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::Among the two references there was only one newspaper, so it should be obvious that the The Star was meant. And you put the point #14 yourself up [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=316514&oldid=316513] in October, so I guess that you took a look at the references. Maybe you didn't read all of it, since the article spends three paragraphs on the six-times figure, and they are not positive. Or maybe you also just forgot since October. But are you really asking that we repeat the excerpts that are critical and sometimes even condescending towards CP and yourself here? It might give the impression that you want to get victimized, but I don't see how that would further the discussion. The Star article has been cited on this page for those that are interested. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:35, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::::: I'm simply asking what specifically in the reference (the Star article is it, I suppose) that you think justifies the Wikipedia statement that "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more liberal than the American public', '''a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility'''." (emphasis added)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 11 January 2008 (EST)
::::::It says nothing about it, Andy. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:31, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::Wikipedia's article says that the statistic is criticized for its unscientific derivation, reflecting the wording in the article, and Andy, your own words. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 12:55, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::From the Star: "Schlafly makes a number of claims about Wikipedia. The most sensational is that Wikipedia is "six times more liberal than the American public." How does Schlafly know? He takes a list of a few hundred Wikipedia users who have self-identified as liberal compared to those who say they're conservative – about three times more. He multiples this by the fact that, he says, twice as many Americans identify themselves as more conservative than liberal, to come up with the number. The problem is that of the 75,000 Wikipedia users, only a few hundred have self-identified – hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation. He agrees that it's not a scientific, 'but it's the best means we have, and no one has disputed that Wikipedia editors are more liberal.'" [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 12:59, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:::::::: First, you're quoting the statement substituted by Wikipedia ''after'' we pointed out the bias and defect in Wikipedia's harsher statement. Second, the Star article only references "unscientific" in connection with MY statement that it is unscientific. So am I the real source of Wikipedia's claim that "the statistic is criticized for its '''unscientific derivation'''"???? That's Wikipedia bias in action: twisting and turning to do anything it can to smear a [[conservative]] source, argument, person, or movement, and hence the need for this list of examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:34, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::::::::: That is uttter nonsense - it doesn't matter when it was altered, either statement on Wikipedia (back months ago and what it says right now) made it patently clear that the author of the Star was being critical of YOUR derivation/extrapolation. He calls it "hardly a solid base" and "sensational". Quit trying to dismiss or dodge Conservapedia's errors by regurgitating the same old rhetoric over and over again. "Smear", "liberal bias" etc..etc.. For once admit that maybe, just maybe some of these examples are misleading, obsolete, hair splitting or flat out wrong. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 17:07, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: Sorry, "Wisdom", I'm afraid that you're the one in denial. Wikipedia did smear us, then changed the smear (without apology by Wikipedia or admission by you) to something less objectionable but still misleading. I admitted to the reporter that the "6 times" was not scientific, and the reporter wrote that. It is still not accurate, though not as bad as before, for Wikipedia to claim that my own admission is support for its statement that "the statistic is criticized for its '''unscientific derivation'''". Nobody ever claimed it was a scientific derivation!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:15, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::::::::::: Andy, I would appreciate it if you would not condescend to me by placing my alias in quotations. Thank you. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 17:43, 11 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::I guess the case that Andy wants to make is that it wasn't the Star criticizing CP, but that it was Andy himself. So apparently it was Andy who called it the methodology "hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation", and that he himself then went on and called it "unscientific". The Star was apparently just reporting. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:04, 11 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: Yes, Andy did indeed call it "unscientific" (which it most certainly is), but it was the Star itself that reported the claim was "sensational" (the MOST sensational of them all, actually) and "hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation", unless you were just being sarcastic and I missed it : ). But still, the only thing that gives me grief is the (seemingly) sheer inability of any Conservapedia operator to just admit when something might be inapplicable or incorrect about this list. Sure there are biases on Wikipedia, but I get the feeling this is more about racking up negative points against Wiki instead of "getting the truth out". [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 21:20, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::::::::: "Wisdom", the point here concerns the prior smear by Wikipedia, which you seem unwilling to acknowledge. And as to your choosing the name "Wisdom", is there an innocent explanation for that, or is it another [[liberal]] attempt to appear smarter than [[conservatives]]??--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:00, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::It isn't that I'm not willing to acknowledge a smear (in yours eyes), it's more like I feel you're hyperbolizing by referring to it as such. As I mentioned earlier, I feel that in its past and present form, the statements are quite fair. If you want, since I heavily contribute to that article and revert vandalism/POV on a regular basis, I can change the wording to something along the lines of "the statistic has been referred to as sensational etc..etc.." It's probably more appropriate anyway. Now, the second point. My user name. Technically, this should be of no concern of yours, and the fact that you question it as you did further solidifies my belief that liberal paranoia and antipathy permeates this site, however, I will answer it. It's completely innocent. I've gone by Wisdom89 on the internet since 1997. The only reason it was chosen was because of a gift an old friend gave me. I don't really need to go into any further detail do I? I do not feel liberals, conservatives, or moderates (whatever) are more intelligent than one another since I tend to eschew using the terms in the first place. That is the extent of it. I am liberal, if I HAD to pick a side of the spectrum, but this doesn't mean everything I say is a reflection of that term. I am my own person. Silly political vernacular doesn't define character, especially since I'm "conservative" on a number of issues. Anyway, that's enough talk about that stuff. Cheers Andy. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 09:53, 12 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::I am bit confused about what the smear exactly is, but it seems like you take case with the assertion that you were ''criticized'' for the unscientific derivation, and not with the label ''unscientific'' itself. We all agree that the figure ''is hardly based on solid numbers'', we all agree that it is ''unscientific''. The smear seem to be the suggestion that this is ''criticism'', while it it is simply a ''fact'', and Andy was apparently the first who stated this fact. I agree, Wikipedia should take out the ''critics'', and simply state that the numbers are unscientific and hardly based on solid numbers, without any reference to the alleged ''critics''. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:03, 11 January 2008 (EST)

==Offensive Content==
Has anyone considered that Conservapedia articles might actually be fairly graphic in nature? The words "inserted anally" come up fairly frequently. [[user:hmuckabee|Hmuckabee]]
:That's nothing. You should see the pictures the exhibitionist editors add to the sex-related articles. Well, no, you actually ''shouldn't'' see them, and neither should kids. Sadly, Wikipedia makes no attempt to shield children from these images. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:12, 16 January 2008 (EST)
::Actually, I'm wrong. WP does make an attempt to shield children. At the very bottom of every page (which would be after all the content in each page has been viewed by children) in small print is a link to their various disclaimers. These include "USE WIKIPEDIA AT YOUR OWN RISK" and "WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS SPOILERS AND CONTENT YOU MAY FIND OBJECTIONABLE." Many of the images and information WP articles contain is as bad as any pornographic website, yet does WP care? Of course not. If your kids stumble upon offensive material on WP, well, that's YOUR fault, of course. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:17, 17 January 2008 (EST)
:::I thought it was common knowledge among Conservapedians that Wikipedia is not censored. I could google any objectionable pornographic word I'd like and receive 10,000 pornographic hits, or sites which contain extremely offensive ads and banners. I mean really, the internet itself is an unholy cesspool for that stuff, not just Wikipedia. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 15:51, 17 January 2008 (EST)

== Disruptive userboxes in wikipedia ==

Wikipedia has several disruptive userboxes. They include userboxes supporting cuba, Iraqi insurgency etc. I want to bring this fact. --[[User:Dendronicus|Dendronicus]] 10:49, 14 January 2008 (EST)

I am here giving some examples of these disruptive userboxes[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics]:
#Userbox with a text "This user believes that communism is an ideal system of government, in theory"
#Userbox with a text "This user's safety and liberty are threatened by all firearms"
#Userbox with a text "This user is pro-Cuba"
#Userbox with a text "This user recognizes the right of Iraqis to resist occupation"
#Userbox with a text "This user knows that there are 2,000,000 reasons why the 2003 invasion of Iraq was wrong"
#Userbox with a text "This user knows that there are 654,965 reasons why the 2003 invasion of Iraq was wrong"
I have given here only few examples of the disruptive userboxes which are present in wikipedia. --[[User:Dendronicus|Dendronicus]] 10:59, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:Yet you leave out the hundreds of alternative user boxers. Nice going [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 11:05, 14 January 2008 (EST)

==nummer fortie one==
I do not get it. can sumone help me? What is wrong with 99.84% ? I guess I do not get per cents so good.--[[User:Dagg|Dagg]] 19:47, 14 January 2008 (EST)

==Ron Paul Newsletters==
The assertion that the newsletters gave tactical advice to militias is not unsubstantiated. Below are some gems found in the January 1995 issue. Maybe we need to list all of these so nobody thinks the statement is unfounded?
: Local militias called "one of the most encouraging developments in America"
: "I want to share with you these rules from the Sons of Liberty, a militia in Northern Alabama..."
: Small things are harder to find. Keep the group size down.
: If you have more than one rifle, store it in a hideaway spot. Remember to store ammunition with it, enough ammo for at least one combat load.
: Avoid the phone whenever possible, and never speak in plain English about club business.
: Destroy any documents or discs that become unnecessary.
: Most groups meet under cover of another activity: a gun club, Bible study, self-help group, even a bowling league.

:: And where is the substantiation that these are "right-wing"? It doesn't exist. This is yet another [[Wikipedia]] smear. Moreover, the adjective "tactical advice" is misleading and inflammatory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:49, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:Why is it misleading? Read what I posted -- they are pieces of advice regarding tactics. Hence, tactical advice. [[User:Paisan30|Paisan30]] 21:57, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:: I did. You should read what I posted. You didn't even quote Wikipedia's smear correctly, and the defects in your denial grow from there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:14, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:::I wrote some of Wikipedia's "smear", and I didn't quote anything other than "tactical advice". [[User:Paisan30|Paisan30]] 23:22, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:::: You're not making sense. Wikipedia's unsubstantiated smear includes (as an example) the statement that "issues gave tactical advice to right-wing militia groups and advanced various conspiracy theories." You've cited nothing to justify the smear of "right-wing", and you've shown nothing to justify the inflammatory statement that this "gave tactical advice," which has military-like connotations. In fact, what you describe does not appear to be "advice" at all, but merely a factual description of club rules of interest for various proper reasons.

:::: If you wrote that sentence "issues gave tactical advice to right-wing militia groups and advanced various conspiracy theories," then you should consider becoming a fulltime smear artist on Wikipedia. It's clever in the way that it smears the reputation of a good man.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:33, 14 January 2008 (EST)

== #6: Axiom of Choice ==

The [[Axiom of Choice]] may be somewhat controversial in an abstract mathematical way. But what does it have to do with liberal bias? And how did it get to #6? [[User:MilesAgain|MilesAgain]] 06:44, 15 January 2008 (EST)

== A simple solution to grievances ==

I gotta say, if you think that wikipedia is missing an important point on a topic, edit the page to include it. Is that not kind of the point? --[[User:Falcifer|Falcifer]] 17:02, 16 January 2008 (EST)

: No, my friend, you're missing the point. Wikipedia ''enforces'' its bias. Edits that remove [[liberal]] bias there are reverted. It is a waste of time to try to remove [[liberal]] bias. It's like trying to keep the Titanic afloat by using buckets to expel the water.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:11, 16 January 2008 (EST)

:I will use the number two entry as an example:

"Wikipedia's entry on Benazir Bhutto has nearly 8,000 words on all aspects of her life, and yet not one word acknowledging that she was pro-life and led the movement against the United Nations' creating a new international right to abortion."

You mean that a person adding a section describing Bhutto's work on abortion and citing, for example, a page from a reputable autobiography of her, will find that this addition will be removed? I'm sorry if I sound incredulus.--[[User:Falcifer|Falcifer]] 17:25, 16 January 2008 (EST)

== The main premise of Wikipedia.==

If you think it's wrong, you can attempt to fix it. If the page is locked, discuss on the talk page. I honstly fail to understand how this is all lost on every last one of you... [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:24, 17 January 2008 (EST)

: Lynch mobs operate with essentially the same procedure.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:28, 17 January 2008 (EST)

:: So does democracy. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:54, 17 January 2008 (EST)

::: No, democracies can't survive with mob rule like what goes on at Wikipedia. Fundamental restraints on bias and bullying are essential for democracy to survive and thrive. Like, for example, a constitution that is objectively enforced against the mob to curb its bias and excesses.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:10, 17 January 2008 (EST)

:::: And therefore you must not attempt to fix things? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:15, 17 January 2008 (EST)

::::: Many of us, including myself, have attempted to fix things at [[Wikipedia]] -- with all the success of someone who tries to object to what a mob is doing in a lawless society. [[Ron Paul]]'s page on Wikipedia, for example, was locked. Most of the other examples of smears and gossip cannot be fixed. The mob won't allow it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:24, 17 January 2008 (EST)

:::::: See the first post I made here. Everything you just said is tackled there.

:::::: On another note, out of naked self-interest, this is my last post on this topic for now, for I wish to remain here. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:27, 17 January 2008 (EST)
::::::: I've tried discussing things on talk pages, only to face a brick wall of opposition to anything I say (well, anything they don't agree with). I've seen others do the same, but with less self-control have hit back uncivilly at the brick wall, which then gives the brick wall cause to block or ban them. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:36, 18 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::<nowiki>*</nowiki>stares at PJR's reply* ...wait, are we discussing Wikipedia or Conservapedia here? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 10:05, 18 January 2008 (EST)

== Sudden Jihad Syndrome ==

{{cquote|Wikipedia has refused to have an article on Sudden Jihad Syndrome despite a term discussed by multiple commentator including neoconservative academic Daniel Pipes. and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article.}}
Okay, even ignoring spelling and grammar here, I don't see (1) how this is bias and (2) how the bit about multiple commentators is ''true'' in any practical way.

Wikipedia deleted the article because it's a term that's basically only used by Pipes. He came up with it, he ''once'' got referenced using it ("But it sure looks like another case of what Daniel Pipes, founder and director of the Middle East Forum, calls 'Sudden Jihad Syndrome.'" - The Courier Editorial, which would most likely just count as being mentioned in passing), but that's it. I don't see the "multiple commentators", unless you really go into semantics ''and'' stretch the understanding of what counts as a reliable source.

The WP discussion shows that the article, just like ours, had tons of original research, using sources that don't mention SJS ''at all'' to show how it fits into a pattern that's wide enough to make '''every Islamist on planet Earth fit into it''':
{{cquote|Individual Islamists may appear law-abiding and reasonable, but they are part of a totalitarian movement, and as such, all must be considered potential killers. -- Daniel Pipes, "Fighting Militant Islam, Without Bias"}}
Sorry, but Wikipedia had a good point deleting it. It's not liberal bias or some other sort of bias, it's "You didn't show reliable sources that actually use the term in a notable way, and your article was full of original research."

And the same goes for ''our'' article, by the way. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 10:23, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2008-01-18T15:05:36Z

Jenkins: /* The main premise of Wikipedia. */

Template:Ptc

2008-01-18T01:12:34Z

Jenkins: Rough documentation

<div style="text-align:center; border:1px solid black; margin:0; padding:3px 5px;{{#ifeq:{{{5}}}||| background-color:{{{5}}};}}">{{{1}}} {{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|| |[[{{{3}}}|{{{2}}}]]}} {{{4}}}</div><noinclude>
{{TemplateDoc|pages=[[Periodic table of the elements]]|purpose=Table cell}}
{{parms|
{{parm|1|Number inside the table|yes}}
{{parm|2|Symbol|no|If left blank, there will be no link, and #3 will have no effect.}}
{{parm|3|Full name for wikilink|yes*|Required if #2 is ''not'' blank.}}
{{parm|4|Atomic weight|yes}}
{{parm|5|Background color|no}}
}}
</noinclude>

User:Jenkins/Contest4

2008-01-18T01:00:22Z

Jenkins:

==Special cases==
#[[Periodic table of the elements#The_Periodic_Table|Periodic table of the elements]] - a three hour project to convert [[:Image:Periodic table.jpg]] into a wikitable with links. Uses [[Template:ptc]] which I created for this table.

==Minor edits (2 points)==
#[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dwight_Freeney&diff=prev&oldid=369529 Dwight Freeney]
#[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=John_Lott&diff=prev&oldid=369535 John Lott] (plus immediate fixes [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=John_Lott&diff=prev&oldid=369537 here] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=John_Lott&diff=prev&oldid=369538 here])
#[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=369539 Barack Obama]
#[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Louis_Budenz&diff=prev&oldid=369540 Louis Budenz]
#[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dumb&diff=prev&oldid=369545 Dumb] (plus immediate fix [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dumb&diff=prev&oldid=369546 here])
#[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Charles_Alexander_Moffat&diff=prev&oldid=369549 Alexander Moffat]
#[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Stochastic_process&diff=prev&oldid=369560 Stochastic process] ''(+undead)''
#[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Red_Foley&diff=prev&oldid=369567 Red Foley] ''(+undead)''
#[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=National_Practitioner_Data_Bank&diff=prev&oldid=369619 National Practitioner Data Bank]
#[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Popular_songs_based_on_the_Bible&curid=21183&diff=373214&oldid=373207 Popular songs based on the Bible]

==Short new (4 points)==
#[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Percent&diff=prev&oldid=369613 Percent] (rewrite of existing)

==Regular new (6 points)==
#[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=KISS&oldid=372846 KISS] (plus immediate [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=KISS&diff=372849&oldid=372846 wikilinking] for form)

==Quality new (15 points)==
#[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gyroscope&oldid=372900 Gyroscope]

==Redirect (1 point)==
#[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gyro&curid=57097&action=history Gyro]

Periodic table of the elements

2008-01-18T00:44:31Z

Jenkins: Not in use anymore, I think

[[Image:Aqw.jpg|thumb|Circular periodic table]]

The '''periodic table of the elements''' is a diagrammatic tool to illustrate the scientific [[theory]] of [[periodicity]] in [[chemistry]], in which the [[element]]s have similar properties based on their position on the table. For example, the elements on the left of the table are all [[metal]]s. The table has a lot of predictive power, although there are many exceptions to the periodic properities.

The periodic table was first developed by [[Russia|Russian]] [[chemistry|chemist]] [[Dimitri Mendeleev]]. Its layout accurately arranges elements by their [[electron]] configuration, atomic number, and chemical properties. Using the structure he created, Mendeleev predicted the existance and properties of several yet-undiscovered elements; when those elements were discovered, his estimates proved to be quite accurate.
{{clear}}

==The Periodic Table==

{|style="border-collapse:collapse; border:none;margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto"
!1A
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
!8A
|-
|{{ptc|1|H|Hydrogen|1.008|#00ff00}}
!valign="bottom"|2A
|||||||||||||||||||
!valign="bottom"|3A
!valign="bottom"|4A
!valign="bottom"|5A
!valign="bottom"|6A
!valign="bottom"|7A
|{{ptc|2|He|Helium|4.003|#00ff00}}
|-
|{{ptc|3|Li|Lithium|6.939}}
|{{ptc|4|Be|Beryllium|9.0122}}
|||||||||||||||||||
|{{ptc|5|B|Boron|10.811}}
|{{ptc|6|C|Carbon|12.011}}
|{{ptc|7|N|Nitrogen|14.007|#00ff00}}
|{{ptc|8|O|Oxygen|15.999|#00ff00}}
|{{ptc|9|F|Fluorine|18.998|#00ff00}}
|{{ptc|10|Ne|Neon|10.183|#00ff00}}
|-
|{{ptc|11|Na|Sodium|22.99}}
|{{ptc|12|Mg|Magnesium|24.312}}
!valign="bottom"|3B
!valign="bottom"|4B
!valign="bottom"|5B
!valign="bottom"|6B
!valign="bottom"|7B
!valign="bottom"|<---
!valign="bottom"|8B
!valign="bottom"|-->
!valign="bottom"|1B
!valign="bottom"|2B
|{{ptc|13|Al|Aluminium|26.982}}
|{{ptc|14|Si|Silicon|28.086}}
|{{ptc|15|P|Phosphorus|30.974}}
|{{ptc|16|S|Sulfur|32.064}}
|{{ptc|17|Cl|Chlorine|35.453|#00ff00}}
|{{ptc|18|Ar|Argon|39.948|#00ff00}}
|-
|{{ptc|19|K|Potassium|39.102}}
|{{ptc|20|Ca|Calcium|40.08}}
|{{ptc|21|Sc|Scandium|44.956}}
|{{ptc|22|Ti|Titanium|47.9}}
|{{ptc|23|V|Vanadium|50.942}}
|{{ptc|24|Cr|Chromium|51.996}}
|{{ptc|25|Mn|Manganese|54.938}}
|{{ptc|26|Fe|Iron|55.847}}
|{{ptc|27|Co|Cobalt|58.933}}
|{{ptc|28|Ni|Nickel|58.71}}
|{{ptc|29|Cu|Copper|63.546}}
|{{ptc|30|Zn|Zinc|65.37}}
|{{ptc|31|Ga|Gallium|69.72|#bbbbff}}
|{{ptc|32|Ge|Germanium|72.59}}
|{{ptc|33|As|Arsenic|74.922}}
|{{ptc|34|Se|Selenium|78.96}}
|{{ptc|35|Br|Bromine|79.904|pink}}
|{{ptc|36|Kr|Krypton|83.8|#00ff00}}
|-
|{{ptc|37|Rb|Rubidium|85.47}}
|{{ptc|38|Sr|Strontium|87.62}}
|{{ptc|39|Y|Yttrium|88.905}}
|{{ptc|40|Zr|Zirconium|91.22}}
|{{ptc|41|Nb|Niobium|92.906}}
|{{ptc|42|Mo|Molybdenum|95.94}}
|{{ptc|43|Tc|Technetium|[97]|gold}}
|{{ptc|44|Ru|Ruthenium|101.07}}
|{{ptc|45|Rh|Rhodium|102.91}}
|{{ptc|46|Pd|Palladium|106.4}}
|{{ptc|47|Ag|Silver|107.87}}
|{{ptc|48|Cd|Cadmium|112.4}}
|{{ptc|49|In|Indium|114.82}}
|{{ptc|50|Sn|Tin|118.69}}
|{{ptc|51|Sb|Antimony|121.75}}
|{{ptc|52|Te|Tellurium|127.6}}
|{{ptc|53|I|Iodine|126.9}}
|{{ptc|54|Xe|Xenon|131.3|#00ff00}}
|-
|{{ptc|55|Cs|Caesium|132.91}}
|{{ptc|56|Ba|Barium|137.34}}
|{{ptc|57*|La|Lanthanum|138.91}}
|{{ptc|72|Hf|Hafnium|178.49}}
|{{ptc|73|Ta|Tantalum|180.95}}
|{{ptc|74|W|Tungsten|183.85}}
|{{ptc|75|Re|Rhenium|186.2}}
|{{ptc|76|Os|Osmium|190.2}}
|{{ptc|77|Ir|Iridium|192.2}}
|{{ptc|78|Pt|Platinum|195.09}}
|{{ptc|79|Au|Gold|196.97}}
|{{ptc|80|Hg|Mercury (element)|200.59|pink}}
|{{ptc|81|Tl|Thallium|204.37}}
|{{ptc|82|Pb|Lead|207.19}}
|{{ptc|83|Bi|Bismuth|208.98}}
|{{ptc|84|Po|Polonium|210}}
|{{ptc|85|At|Astatine|210}}
|{{ptc|86|Rn|Radon|222|#00ff00}}
|-
|{{ptc|87|Fr|Francium|215}}
|{{ptc|88|Ra|Radium|226.03}}
|{{ptc|89**|Ac|Actinium|227.03}}
|{{ptc|104|Rf|Rutherfordium|[261]|gold}}
|{{ptc|105|Db|Dubnium|[262]|gold}}
|{{ptc|106|Sg|Seaborgium|[266]|gold}}
|{{ptc|107|Bh|Bohrium|[264]|gold}}
|{{ptc|108|Hs|Hassium|[269]|gold}}
|{{ptc|109|Mt|Meitnerium|[268]|gold}}
|{{ptc|110|||[271]|gold}}
|{{ptc|111|||[272]|gold}}
|{{ptc|112|||[277]|gold}}
|
|{{ptc|114|||[289]|gold}}
|
|{{ptc|116|||[289]|gold}}
|||
|-
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|-
|colspan="2"|*Lanthanides
|{{ptc|58|Ce|Cerium|140.12}}
|{{ptc|59|Pr|Praseodymium|140.91}}
|{{ptc|60|Nd|Neodymium|144.24}}
|{{ptc|61|Pm|Promethium|145}}
|{{ptc|62|Sm|Samarium|150.35}}
|{{ptc|63|Eu|Europium|151.96}}
|{{ptc|64|Gd|Gadolinium|157.25}}
|{{ptc|65|Tb|Terbium|158.92}}
|{{ptc|66|Dy|Dysprosium|162.5}}
|{{ptc|67|Ho|Holmium|164.93}}
|{{ptc|68|Er|Erbium|167.26}}
|{{ptc|69|Tm|Thulium|168.93}}
|{{ptc|70|Yb|Ytterbium|173.04}}
|{{ptc|71|Lu|Lutetium|174.97}}
|||
|-
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|-
|colspan="2"|**Actinides
|{{ptc|90|Th|Thorium|232.04}}
|{{ptc|91|Pa|Protactinium|231}}
|{{ptc|92|U|Uranium|238.03}}
|{{ptc|93|Np|Neptunium|237.05}}
|{{ptc|94|Pu|Plutonium|239.05}}
|{{ptc|95|Am|Americium|241.06}}
|{{ptc|96|Cm|Curium|244.06}}
|{{ptc|97|Bk|Berkelium|249.08}}
|{{ptc|98|Cf|Californium|252.08}}
|{{ptc|99|Es|Einsteinium|252.08}}
|{{ptc|100|Fm|Fermium|257.1}}
|{{ptc|101|Md|Mendelevium|258.1}}
|{{ptc|102|No|Nobelium|259.1}}
|{{ptc|103|Lr|Larencium|262.11}}
|||
|-
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|-
|style="background-color:#00ff00"|
|colspan=17|Gaseous at room temperature
|-
|style="background-color:pink"|
|colspan=17|Liquid at room temperature
|-
|style="background-color:#bbbbff"|
|colspan=17|Gallium melts at 29.78°C
|-
|style="background-color:gold"|
|colspan=17|Synthetic elements
|-
|
|colspan=17|All other elements are solid at room temperature
|}

[[Category:Chemistry]]

Talk:Periodic table of the elements

2008-01-18T00:43:51Z

Jenkins: /* Early submit */

{|
!1A
!2A
!*
!3B
!4B
!5B
!6B
!7B
!colspan=3|8B
!1B
!2B
!3A
!4A
!5A
!6A
!7A
!8A
|-
|{{PTElement|number=1|name=hydrogen|symbol=H|mass=1.006}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{PTElement|number=2|name=helium|symbol=He|mass=4.003}}
|-
|{{PTElement|number=3|name=lithium|symbol=Li|mass=6.939}}
|{{PTElement|number=4|name=beryllium|symbol=Be|mass=9.012}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{PTElement|number=5|name=Boron|symbol=B|mass=10.811}}
|{{PTElement|number=6|name=Carbon|symbol=C|mass=12.011}}
|{{PTElement|number=7|name=Nitrogen|symbol=N|mass=14.007}}
|{{PTElement|number=8|name=Oxygen|symbol=O|mass=15.999}}
|{{PTElement|number=9|name=Fluorine|symbol=F|mass=18.998}}
|{{PTElement|number=10|name=Neon|symbol=Ne|mass=20.179}}
|-
|{{PTElement|number=11|name=sodium|symbol=Na|mass=22.989}}
|{{PTElement|number=12|name=Magnesium|symbol=Mg|mass=24.305}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{PTElement|number=13|name=Aluminum|symbol=Al|mass=26.981}}
|{{PTElement|number=14|name=Silicon|symbol=Si|mass=28.085}}
|{{PTElement|number=15|name=Phosphorus|symbol=P|mass=30.973}}
|{{PTElement|number=16|name=Sulfur|symbol=S|mass=32.065}}
|{{PTElement|number=17|name=Chlorine|symbol=Cl|mass=35.453}}
|{{PTElement|number=18|name=Argon|symbol=Ar|mass=39.948}}
|-
|{{PTElement|number=19|name=Potassium|symbol=K|mass=39.098}}
|{{PTElement|number=20|name=Calcium|symbol=Ca|mass=40.078}}
|
|{{PTElement|number=21|name=Scandium|symbol=Sc|mass=44.955}}
|{{PTElement|number=22|name=Titanium|symbol=Ti|mass=47.867}}
|{{PTElement|number=23|name=Vanadium|symbol=V|mass=50.941}}
|{{PTElement|number=24|name=Chromium|symbol=Cr|mass=51.996}}
|{{PTElement|number=25|name=Manganese|symbol=Mn|mass=54.938}}
|{{PTElement|number=26|name=Iron|symbol=Fe|mass=55.845}}
|{{PTElement|number=27|name=Cobalt|symbol=Co|mass=58.933}}
|{{PTElement|number=28|name=Nickle|symbol=Ni|mass=58.693}}
|{{PTElement|number=29|name=Copper|symbol=Cu|mass=63.546}}
|{{PTElement|number=30|name=Zinc|symbol=Zn|mass=65.409}}
|{{PTElement|number=31|name=Gallium|symbol=Ga|mass=69.723}}
|{{PTElement|number=32|name=Germanium|symbol=Ge|mass=72.64}}
|{{PTElement|number=33|name=Arsenic|symbol=As|mass=74.921}}
|{{PTElement|number=34|name=Selenium|symbol=Se|mass=78.96}}
|{{PTElement|number=35|name=Bromine|symbol=Br|mass=79.904}}
|{{PTElement|number=36|name=Krypton|symbol=Kr|mass=83.798}}
|-
|}

== Merge ==

Clearly, the two articles should be merged. I would have gone for merging this one with the one without the "the", but a quick Google search seems to indicate that "Periodic table of '''the''' elements" is more common. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:26, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Early submit ==

Whoops, hit the wrong button there. INUSE template still applies, I think. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:59, 17 January 2008 (EST)
:That looks great! I would never have been able to do that, at least not in a short enough time span that I wouldn't first lose interest. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:08, 17 January 2008 (EST)
::Thanks! I'm one of those "Lock him into a room, keep up a steady supply of pizza and caffeine, and you can get miracles!" guys :P
::That being said: Wow, typing all those numbers and looking up the element names was a serious "once and never again" event. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 19:43, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Periodic table of the elements

2008-01-18T00:36:48Z

Jenkins: /* The Periodic Table */ ...I think I'm done.

{{inuse}}
[[Image:Aqw.jpg|thumb|Circular periodic table]]

The '''periodic table of the elements''' is a diagrammatic tool to illustrate the scientific [[theory]] of [[periodicity]] in [[chemistry]], in which the [[element]]s have similar properties based on their position on the table. For example, the elements on the left of the table are all [[metal]]s. The table has a lot of predictive power, although there are many exceptions to the periodic properities.

The periodic table was first developed by [[Russia|Russian]] [[chemistry|chemist]] [[Dimitri Mendeleev]]. Its layout accurately arranges elements by their [[electron]] configuration, atomic number, and chemical properties. Using the structure he created, Mendeleev predicted the existance and properties of several yet-undiscovered elements; when those elements were discovered, his estimates proved to be quite accurate.
{{clear}}

==The Periodic Table==

{|style="border-collapse:collapse; border:none;margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto"
!1A
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
!8A
|-
|{{ptc|1|H|Hydrogen|1.008|#00ff00}}
!valign="bottom"|2A
|||||||||||||||||||
!valign="bottom"|3A
!valign="bottom"|4A
!valign="bottom"|5A
!valign="bottom"|6A
!valign="bottom"|7A
|{{ptc|2|He|Helium|4.003|#00ff00}}
|-
|{{ptc|3|Li|Lithium|6.939}}
|{{ptc|4|Be|Beryllium|9.0122}}
|||||||||||||||||||
|{{ptc|5|B|Boron|10.811}}
|{{ptc|6|C|Carbon|12.011}}
|{{ptc|7|N|Nitrogen|14.007|#00ff00}}
|{{ptc|8|O|Oxygen|15.999|#00ff00}}
|{{ptc|9|F|Fluorine|18.998|#00ff00}}
|{{ptc|10|Ne|Neon|10.183|#00ff00}}
|-
|{{ptc|11|Na|Sodium|22.99}}
|{{ptc|12|Mg|Magnesium|24.312}}
!valign="bottom"|3B
!valign="bottom"|4B
!valign="bottom"|5B
!valign="bottom"|6B
!valign="bottom"|7B
!valign="bottom"|<---
!valign="bottom"|8B
!valign="bottom"|-->
!valign="bottom"|1B
!valign="bottom"|2B
|{{ptc|13|Al|Aluminium|26.982}}
|{{ptc|14|Si|Silicon|28.086}}
|{{ptc|15|P|Phosphorus|30.974}}
|{{ptc|16|S|Sulfur|32.064}}
|{{ptc|17|Cl|Chlorine|35.453|#00ff00}}
|{{ptc|18|Ar|Argon|39.948|#00ff00}}
|-
|{{ptc|19|K|Potassium|39.102}}
|{{ptc|20|Ca|Calcium|40.08}}
|{{ptc|21|Sc|Scandium|44.956}}
|{{ptc|22|Ti|Titanium|47.9}}
|{{ptc|23|V|Vanadium|50.942}}
|{{ptc|24|Cr|Chromium|51.996}}
|{{ptc|25|Mn|Manganese|54.938}}
|{{ptc|26|Fe|Iron|55.847}}
|{{ptc|27|Co|Cobalt|58.933}}
|{{ptc|28|Ni|Nickel|58.71}}
|{{ptc|29|Cu|Copper|63.546}}
|{{ptc|30|Zn|Zinc|65.37}}
|{{ptc|31|Ga|Gallium|69.72|#bbbbff}}
|{{ptc|32|Ge|Germanium|72.59}}
|{{ptc|33|As|Arsenic|74.922}}
|{{ptc|34|Se|Selenium|78.96}}
|{{ptc|35|Br|Bromine|79.904|pink}}
|{{ptc|36|Kr|Krypton|83.8|#00ff00}}
|-
|{{ptc|37|Rb|Rubidium|85.47}}
|{{ptc|38|Sr|Strontium|87.62}}
|{{ptc|39|Y|Yttrium|88.905}}
|{{ptc|40|Zr|Zirconium|91.22}}
|{{ptc|41|Nb|Niobium|92.906}}
|{{ptc|42|Mo|Molybdenum|95.94}}
|{{ptc|43|Tc|Technetium|[97]|gold}}
|{{ptc|44|Ru|Ruthenium|101.07}}
|{{ptc|45|Rh|Rhodium|102.91}}
|{{ptc|46|Pd|Palladium|106.4}}
|{{ptc|47|Ag|Silver|107.87}}
|{{ptc|48|Cd|Cadmium|112.4}}
|{{ptc|49|In|Indium|114.82}}
|{{ptc|50|Sn|Tin|118.69}}
|{{ptc|51|Sb|Antimony|121.75}}
|{{ptc|52|Te|Tellurium|127.6}}
|{{ptc|53|I|Iodine|126.9}}
|{{ptc|54|Xe|Xenon|131.3|#00ff00}}
|-
|{{ptc|55|Cs|Caesium|132.91}}
|{{ptc|56|Ba|Barium|137.34}}
|{{ptc|57*|La|Lanthanum|138.91}}
|{{ptc|72|Hf|Hafnium|178.49}}
|{{ptc|73|Ta|Tantalum|180.95}}
|{{ptc|74|W|Tungsten|183.85}}
|{{ptc|75|Re|Rhenium|186.2}}
|{{ptc|76|Os|Osmium|190.2}}
|{{ptc|77|Ir|Iridium|192.2}}
|{{ptc|78|Pt|Platinum|195.09}}
|{{ptc|79|Au|Gold|196.97}}
|{{ptc|80|Hg|Mercury (element)|200.59|pink}}
|{{ptc|81|Tl|Thallium|204.37}}
|{{ptc|82|Pb|Lead|207.19}}
|{{ptc|83|Bi|Bismuth|208.98}}
|{{ptc|84|Po|Polonium|210}}
|{{ptc|85|At|Astatine|210}}
|{{ptc|86|Rn|Radon|222|#00ff00}}
|-
|{{ptc|87|Fr|Francium|215}}
|{{ptc|88|Ra|Radium|226.03}}
|{{ptc|89**|Ac|Actinium|227.03}}
|{{ptc|104|Rf|Rutherfordium|[261]|gold}}
|{{ptc|105|Db|Dubnium|[262]|gold}}
|{{ptc|106|Sg|Seaborgium|[266]|gold}}
|{{ptc|107|Bh|Bohrium|[264]|gold}}
|{{ptc|108|Hs|Hassium|[269]|gold}}
|{{ptc|109|Mt|Meitnerium|[268]|gold}}
|{{ptc|110|||[271]|gold}}
|{{ptc|111|||[272]|gold}}
|{{ptc|112|||[277]|gold}}
|
|{{ptc|114|||[289]|gold}}
|
|{{ptc|116|||[289]|gold}}
|||
|-
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|-
|colspan="2"|*Lanthanides
|{{ptc|58|Ce|Cerium|140.12}}
|{{ptc|59|Pr|Praseodymium|140.91}}
|{{ptc|60|Nd|Neodymium|144.24}}
|{{ptc|61|Pm|Promethium|145}}
|{{ptc|62|Sm|Samarium|150.35}}
|{{ptc|63|Eu|Europium|151.96}}
|{{ptc|64|Gd|Gadolinium|157.25}}
|{{ptc|65|Tb|Terbium|158.92}}
|{{ptc|66|Dy|Dysprosium|162.5}}
|{{ptc|67|Ho|Holmium|164.93}}
|{{ptc|68|Er|Erbium|167.26}}
|{{ptc|69|Tm|Thulium|168.93}}
|{{ptc|70|Yb|Ytterbium|173.04}}
|{{ptc|71|Lu|Lutetium|174.97}}
|||
|-
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|-
|colspan="2"|**Actinides
|{{ptc|90|Th|Thorium|232.04}}
|{{ptc|91|Pa|Protactinium|231}}
|{{ptc|92|U|Uranium|238.03}}
|{{ptc|93|Np|Neptunium|237.05}}
|{{ptc|94|Pu|Plutonium|239.05}}
|{{ptc|95|Am|Americium|241.06}}
|{{ptc|96|Cm|Curium|244.06}}
|{{ptc|97|Bk|Berkelium|249.08}}
|{{ptc|98|Cf|Californium|252.08}}
|{{ptc|99|Es|Einsteinium|252.08}}
|{{ptc|100|Fm|Fermium|257.1}}
|{{ptc|101|Md|Mendelevium|258.1}}
|{{ptc|102|No|Nobelium|259.1}}
|{{ptc|103|Lr|Larencium|262.11}}
|||
|-
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|-
|style="background-color:#00ff00"|
|colspan=17|Gaseous at room temperature
|-
|style="background-color:pink"|
|colspan=17|Liquid at room temperature
|-
|style="background-color:#bbbbff"|
|colspan=17|Gallium melts at 29.78°C
|-
|style="background-color:gold"|
|colspan=17|Synthetic elements
|-
|
|colspan=17|All other elements are solid at room temperature
|}

[[Category:Chemistry]]

Template:Ptc

2008-01-18T00:13:31Z

Jenkins:

Template:Ptc

2008-01-18T00:11:06Z

Jenkins:

Periodic table of the elements

2008-01-18T00:08:01Z

Jenkins: /* The Periodic Table */ BIG HONKIN' TABLE - mostly done, now to add color!

{{inuse}}
[[Image:Aqw.jpg|thumb|Circular periodic table]]

The '''periodic table of the elements''' is a diagrammatic tool to illustrate the scientific [[theory]] of [[periodicity]] in [[chemistry]], in which the [[element]]s have similar properties based on their position on the table. For example, the elements on the left of the table are all [[metal]]s. The table has a lot of predictive power, although there are many exceptions to the periodic properities.

The periodic table was first developed by [[Russia|Russian]] [[chemistry|chemist]] [[Dimitri Mendeleev]]. Its layout accurately arranges elements by their [[electron]] configuration, atomic number, and chemical properties. Using the structure he created, Mendeleev predicted the existance and properties of several yet-undiscovered elements; when those elements were discovered, his estimates proved to be quite accurate.
{{clear}}

==The Periodic Table==

{|style="border-collapse:collapse; border:none;margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto"
!1A
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
!8A
|-
|{{ptc|1|H|Hydrogen|1.008}}
!valign="bottom"|2A
|||||||||||||||||||
!valign="bottom"|3A
!valign="bottom"|4A
!valign="bottom"|5A
!valign="bottom"|6A
!valign="bottom"|7A
|{{ptc|2|He|Helium|4.003}}
|-
|{{ptc|3|Li|Lithium|6.939}}
|{{ptc|4|Be|Beryllium|9.0122}}
|||||||||||||||||||
|{{ptc|5|B|Boron|10.811}}
|{{ptc|6|C|Carbon|12.011}}
|{{ptc|7|N|Nitrogen|14.007}}
|{{ptc|8|O|Oxygen|15.999}}
|{{ptc|9|F|Fluorine|18.998}}
|{{ptc|10|Ne|Neon|10.183}}
|-
|{{ptc|11|Na|Sodium|22.99}}
|{{ptc|12|Mg|Magnesium|24.312}}
!valign="bottom"|3B
!valign="bottom"|4B
!valign="bottom"|5B
!valign="bottom"|6B
!valign="bottom"|7B
!valign="bottom"|<---
!valign="bottom"|8B
!valign="bottom"|-->
!valign="bottom"|1B
!valign="bottom"|2B
|{{ptc|13|Al|Aluminium|26.982}}
|{{ptc|14|Si|Silicon|28.086}}
|{{ptc|15|P|Phosphorus|30.974}}
|{{ptc|16|S|Sulfur|32.064}}
|{{ptc|17|Cl|Chlorine|35.453}}
|{{ptc|18|Ar|Argon|39.948}}
|-
|{{ptc|19|K|Potassium|39.102}}
|{{ptc|20|Ca|Calcium|40.08}}
|{{ptc|21|Sc|Scandium|44.956}}
|{{ptc|22|Ti|Titanium|47.9}}
|{{ptc|23|V|Vanadium|50.942}}
|{{ptc|24|Cr|Chromium|51.996}}
|{{ptc|25|Mn|Manganese|54.938}}
|{{ptc|26|Fe|Iron|55.847}}
|{{ptc|27|Co|Cobalt|58.933}}
|{{ptc|28|Ni|Nickel|58.71}}
|{{ptc|29|Cu|Copper|63.546}}
|{{ptc|30|Zn|Zinc|65.37}}
|{{ptc|31|Ga|Gallium|69.72}}
|{{ptc|32|Ge|Germanium|72.59}}
|{{ptc|33|As|Arsenic|74.922}}
|{{ptc|34|Se|Selenium|78.96}}
|{{ptc|35|Br|Bromine|79.904}}
|{{ptc|36|Kr|Krypton|83.8}}
|-
|{{ptc|37|Rb|Rubidium|85.47}}
|{{ptc|38|Sr|Strontium|87.62}}
|{{ptc|39|Y|Yttrium|88.905}}
|{{ptc|40|Zr|Zirconium|91.22}}
|{{ptc|41|Nb|Niobium|92.906}}
|{{ptc|42|Mo|Molybdenum|95.94}}
|{{ptc|43|Tc|Technetium|[97]}}
|{{ptc|44|Ru|Ruthenium|101.07}}
|{{ptc|45|Rh|Rhodium|102.91}}
|{{ptc|46|Pd|Palladium|106.4}}
|{{ptc|47|Ag|Silver|107.87}}
|{{ptc|48|Cd|Cadmium|112.4}}
|{{ptc|49|In|Indium|114.82}}
|{{ptc|50|Sn|Tin|118.69}}
|{{ptc|51|Sb|Antimony|121.75}}
|{{ptc|52|Te|Tellurium|127.6}}
|{{ptc|53|I|Iodine|126.9}}
|{{ptc|54|Xe|Xenon|131.3}}
|-
|{{ptc|55|Cs|Caesium|132.91}}
|{{ptc|56|Ba|Barium|137.34}}
|{{ptc|57*|La|Lanthanum|138.91}}
|{{ptc|72|Hf|Hafnium|178.49}}
|{{ptc|73|Ta|Tantalum|180.95}}
|{{ptc|74|W|Tungsten|183.85}}
|{{ptc|75|Re|Rhenium|186.2}}
|{{ptc|76|Os|Osmium|190.2}}
|{{ptc|77|Ir|Iridium|192.2}}
|{{ptc|78|Pt|Platinum|195.09}}
|{{ptc|79|Au|Gold|196.97}}
|{{ptc|80|Hg|Mercury (element)|200.59}}
|{{ptc|81|Tl|Thallium|204.37}}
|{{ptc|82|Pb|Lead|207.19}}
|{{ptc|83|Bi|Bismuth|208.98}}
|{{ptc|84|Po|Polonium|210}}
|{{ptc|85|At|Astatine|210}}
|{{ptc|86|Rn|Radon|222}}
|-
|{{ptc|87|Fr|Francium|215}}
|{{ptc|88|Ra|Radium|226.03}}
|{{ptc|89**|Ac|Actinium|227.03}}
|{{ptc|104|Rf|Rutherfordium|[261]}}
|{{ptc|105|Db|Dubnium|[262]}}
|{{ptc|106|Sg|Seaborgium|[266]}}
|{{ptc|107|Bh|Bohrium|[264]}}
|{{ptc|108|Hs|Hassium|[269]}}
|{{ptc|109|Mt|Meitnerium|[268]}}
|{{ptc|110|||[271]}}
|{{ptc|111|||[272]}}
|{{ptc|112|||[277]}}
|
|{{ptc|114|||[289]}}
|||||
|{{ptc|116|||[289]}}
|-
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|-
|colspan="2"|*Lanthanides
|{{ptc|58|Ce|Cerium|140.12}}
|{{ptc|59|Pr|Praseodymium|140.91}}
|{{ptc|60|Nd|Neodymium|144.24}}
|{{ptc|61|Pm|Promethium|145}}
|{{ptc|62|Sm|Samarium|150.35}}
|{{ptc|63|Eu|Europium|151.96}}
|{{ptc|64|Gd|Gadolinium|157.25}}
|{{ptc|65|Tb|Terbium|158.92}}
|{{ptc|66|Dy|Dysprosium|162.5}}
|{{ptc|67|Ho|Holmium|164.93}}
|{{ptc|68|Er|Erbium|167.26}}
|{{ptc|69|Tm|Thulium|168.93}}
|{{ptc|70|Yb|Ytterbium|173.04}}
|{{ptc|71|Lu|Lutetium|174.97}}
|||
|-
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|-
|colspan="2"|**Actinides
|{{ptc|90|Th|Thorium|232.04}}
|{{ptc|91|Pa|Protactinium|231}}
|{{ptc|92|U|Uranium|238.03}}
|{{ptc|93|Np|Neptunium|237.05}}
|{{ptc|94|Pu|Plutonium|239.05}}
|{{ptc|95|Am|Americium|241.06}}
|{{ptc|96|Cm|Curium|244.06}}
|{{ptc|97|Bk|Berkelium|249.08}}
|{{ptc|98|Cf|Californium|252.08}}
|{{ptc|99|Es|Einsteinium|252.08}}
|{{ptc|100|Fm|Fermium|257.1}}
|{{ptc|101|Md|Mendelevium|258.1}}
|{{ptc|102|No|Nobelium|259.1}}
|{{ptc|103|Lr|Larencium|262.11}}
|||
|}

[[Category:Chemistry]]

Template:Ptc

2008-01-18T00:01:15Z

Jenkins:

Template:Ptc

2008-01-18T00:00:52Z

Jenkins:

Talk:Periodic table of the elements

2008-01-17T23:59:22Z

Jenkins: /* Early submit */

Talk:Periodic table of the elements

2008-01-17T23:59:08Z

Jenkins: Early submit

Periodic table of the elements

2008-01-17T22:00:39Z

Jenkins: