Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia:Community Portal"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Atheists from a vandal website want to debate User: Conservative: @User:Conservative)
(History of Conservapedia: new section)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
<center><small>''(this page redirects from [[CP:COMPORT]])''</small></center>
 
<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>
 
<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>
 +
 +
[[Community Portal/Archives]]
 +
 +
''This page contains some material that has been moved from [[Talk:Main_Page]].  We are attempting to get general discussion of issues relating to Conservapedia's content and policies on this page, leaving the main talk page for its original purpose of discussing the content of the Main Page.''
 +
 
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
 
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
[[Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive1|Archive 1]]
 
==How do I request/apply for upload rights?==
 
  
I would like to, in economics articles, to upload low resolution Bloomberg screenshots that demonstrate how the economy has actually gotten worse under Barack Obama. In my short time here, I have mainly contributed to economics articles, which is my speciality, including the featured article on the [[Federal Debt Limit]].  [[User:HP|HP]] 01:08, 2 August 2011 (EDT)
 
:I would recommend asking at [[User:Aschlafly]] talk page. He will review your edits. Expanded user rights are granted on a [[merit system]]. See: [[Conservapedia:User rights]].  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:56, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
 
::I would like to request as well. It would make it a bit easier, as I have had requested images for articles I was working on and it took a while to get the first singer ones.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 20:14, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
 
:::I tried for the First Lady articles and was told I hadn't edited enough. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 20:18, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
 
HP, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Federal_Debt_Limit&diff=prev&oldid=876420 this edit] is problematic; it looks like malevolent [[parody]] ("pervades the inner city culture greatly") and have advised Mr. Schlalfy of my opinion.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:51, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
 
:Parody?  You're kidding me, right?  Nah, I call it as I see it.  Obama does not take personal responsibility, will not take personal responsibility, and this is typical of the inner city culture, which is pervaded by a handout culture.  It's funny how you insult my work when you piggybacked off of my contributions on the debt ceiling article and most of my work still remains.  I have two MS degrees (Finance and Statistics) and my criticisms, even if you think they're politically incorrect, are factual.  {{personal remark removed}} [[User:HP|HP]] 23:15, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
 
::Funny, Rob comments on the edit, and you return with a personal attack. You might want to watch that. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 23:19, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
 
:::Rob, that wasn't personal, that was factual.  It is factual that I laid most of the foundation for the featured article, which is not disputable.  You then built upon this foundation with your upload rights and made it a featured article (for which you should be commended).  But don't call me a parodist when you leave most of my contributions in the article.  That is intellectually dishonest. [[User:HP|HP]] 23:32, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
 
  
== Blocking policy, RobS, atheists/evolutionists, deleting/oversighting and misc, ==
+
== Cool article ==
  
Here are a few comments for the record and a few comments:
+
I found a cool [http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/barbara-kay-bless-this-food-except-for-the-atheist-at-table-12 article about atheism in the National Post].  You might not like it at first, but read past the first couple of paragraphs.--[[User:Abcqwe|Abcqwe]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 20:31, 11 May 2017 (EDT)
 +
==Error==
 +
[http://www.conservapedia.com/United_States_Presidential_Election,_2016 Error in the Move log. I dont have delete powers so I cant fix it.] [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Trump now is fighting back against the coup plotters'']]</sup> 17:17, 12 May 2017 (EDT)
 +
==Overly long articles==
 +
From what I understand, the typical Conservapedia article should be accessible to a secondary school student or at least a freshman in university. Some articles, such as [[Alger Hiss]], [[Elvis Presley]], and  [[Barack Hussein Obama]], are some of the longest articles on this site. They rival the overly verbose entries on Wikipedia, in my opinion. Should these and other overly long articles be trimmed and extraneous content possibly be moved to more subpages? Just a thought. --[[User:Anglican|Anglican]] ([[User talk:Anglican|talk]]) 18:34, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
 +
:I'm personally against it. I'm glad that these articles are detailed. For me, it's fine just as long as they are well-organized. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 19:01, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
 +
::These articles aren't exactly accessible to the target audience, and overly complex I think. Basic biographies should really be the emphasis  most of the articles on here are shorter and more digestible than WP and aren't weighed down with non-essential information. I personally like articles that resemble the old school paper encyclopedias of my youth than WP's excessively long articles. Encyclopedia entries are meant to be starting points for research. --[[User:Anglican|Anglican]] ([[User talk:Anglican|talk]]) 20:57, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
 +
:::If you really think these articles should be split up, I recommend asking the editors most occupied with them. The Alger Hiss article is predominantly edited by [[User:FOIA]]. Maybe ask RobS or Andy regarding Obama. The editors most familiar with the articles will probably give you the best answer. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 21:45, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
 +
::::Some articles can be split up, if done carefully with a summary of the forked article remaining in the main article.  It is best if the expert on the topic do the splitting up because they are best at summarizing what is most important. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 08:12, 30 May 2017 (EDT)
 +
:::::In the print encyclopedias I recall, there was a Micropedia and a Macropedia, short and long articles.  An article about George Ade, Hoosier playwright and fable writer, would only need to be a brief paragraph.  An article called "Rocks and Minerals," meanwhile, would detail every type, the various classifications, chemical compositions, and means of formation, though both would be really an outline to the sum of human knowledge on the subject.  In the area of biographies, length was variant - short biographies for Jeppe Aekjaer and Abbas I, a longer biography for Alvar Aalto, and a massive Macropedia biography for Isaac Newton or William Shakespeare.  As we specialize in politics, it would make sense to have such articles for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump.--[[User:Abcqwe|Nathan]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 14:22, 30 May 2017 (EDT)
 +
::::::That was the later Encyclopedia Britanica.  The earlier EBs when I was a child were like the World Book encyclopedia with all of the articles (long and short) in an alphabetical list.  My parents bought both.  As a child, I would pick up a volume and start reading articles in alphabetical order sometimes.  Unfortunately, Wikipedia killed off the market for printed encyclopedias (and for professionally written encyclopedias.)  There is no viable market for printed encyclopedias today.  People would hand down their printed encyclopedias and dictionaries from generation to generation, because they did not think that the world was changing quickly.  However, none of the country names and maps of Africa that I learned as of 1960 were around by 1970.  After 9/11 all of the stuff that was of little consequence became of vital importance to the American public.  People had to know about Osama bin Laden, but less so about Isaac Newton or William Shakespeare.  So, the pace of change killed off the printed encyclopedia. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 09:23, 6 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
==Religion in America==
 +
After reading a number of CP articles, I realize that we accidentally present an inaccurate or outdated view of religion in America.  Religion in America has changed since we were growing up. 1) The traditional churches have declined in attendance.  To attract new members some churches have offered new ministries: weight loss, financial counseling, youth, etc.  2) Some churches are offering foreign language services or sublet to a separate foreign language congregation (such as Korean, Filipino, etc.)  3) More people are getting their sermons via television, radio or the internet.  4) Military chaplains and chapels are important for worship by the military and their families. 5) Wealthy people have private chapels on their weekend estates for privacy and security.  6) College based ministries must compete for student time and attention.  7) Historic downtown congregations have had to respond to migration to the suburbs, and small congregations face competition from mega-church congregations.  Religion continues to be an important social force in America -- it is not as much of a melting pot as it was decades ago.  Does anyone want to work on an article or additions to related articles?  Perhaps AlanE or AugustO can tell us if similar changes are happening in other countries. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 08:12, 30 May 2017 (EDT)
  
1. I am not against improving CP's blocking policy and suggested a blocking review board [[User:Conservative/blocking-board-framework|HERE]].
+
=== My feedback ===
  
2. In terms of blocking policy, I am somewhere between Karajou and RobS.  Karajou is on the strict side and RobS is more on the permissive side. For example, I recently got someone on the liberal/evolutionist side of the aisle unbanned because their revision was correct on an article relating to a creation related topic.
+
Michael Brown wrote:
  
3. Karajou and Andy are probably going to be more active than me at Conservapedia at least in the near future. Furthermore, given there is a lot of content at Conservapedia with multiple editors, I don't agree with all of Conservapedia's content. In addition, I don't agree with all the decisions that have been made in the past concerning Conservapedia which is not surprising as all websites/organizations make mistakes. With the above being said, realistically, if RobS wants to continue to be a drama queen and call Conservapedia a @$#%hole and refer to me as being "demonic" offsite (Is hissy fit, internet armchair "exorcist" commentary respectable behavior? No, it is not)  plus engage in other unbecoming unnecessary tactics and drama, he is not going to get much cooperation from his fellow Sysops, from myself and from Andy. RobS is going to have to learn to be less hot-headed, show more self-restraint and engage in more constructive behavior. In addition, he is also going to have to repair some bridges in order to gain back trust. Already, he has lost his check user rights and his siteadmin rights.  
+
"Several decades ago, church statistician and demographer David Barrett began to report the surprising news that around the world, the most rapidly growing faith was Spirit-empowered Christianity, marked by clear gospel preaching, belief in the literal truth of the Scriptures, and the reality of God’s presence. (The data were compiled in the prestigious “World Christian Encyclopedia,” published by Oxford University Press.)...
  
Also, I had some strong words concerning RobS recently this was mainly due to his pestering me and his offsite behavior. If RobS truly believed I was "demonic" I am sure he would have approached Andy about this matter and his decision to engage in this behavior offsite shows his lack of conviction and it is merely a example of his hissy fit drama queen antics. The truth is that he didn't like being ignored by me so he shot off some hot-headed nonsense.
+
This is confirmed in the new Pew Forum report, which showed that [[Evangelicalism|evangelical Protestant]] churches in America grew by 2 million from 2007 to 2014 whereas the so-called mainline (liberal) Protestant churches declined by 5 million, meaning that evangelical Protestants now make up the largest religious group in the nation. (Although this is not part of the Pew Forum survey, my surmise is that the evangelical churches that are most Bible-based and make the most serious, grace-empowered demands on their congregants are, generally speaking, the ones that are growing rather than declining.[http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/why-conservative-churches-are-still-growing/]
  
4. I have a feeling that if I do more in the future to get involved in blocking policy at Conservapedia it will be with someone like Iduan who I have had pleasant communication with in the past.  
+
I hope the helps. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:51, 12 June 2017 (EDT)
  
5.  Evolutionist/atheist editors are going to have to be more realistic.  Andy, Karajou and others are never going to allow the website to go pro-evolution/atheism or attempt to go neutral on these issues because they know evolution/atheism is nonsense and often just window dressing for people not wanting to live under biblical standards of conduct. There are a lot of other topics that they can contribute to and I would suggest covering other topics.
+
== Is this article appropriate to cite? ==
  
6.  I feel no obligation to respond to or debate obscure atheists/evolutionists at Conservapedia. I am content that my material on these subjects gets a significant amount of internet trafficPlus, I have responded to comments in the past and there are several pages of talk page archives. If more well-known atheists were to offer an attractive offer, I would consider debating them, but I am not going to lose any sleep over it if this does not occur as I believe they are often cowards (see: [[Daniel Came]]'s recent commentary about [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]) and the fields of evolutionary biology/atheistic philosophy/secular religion and its promotion is filled with charlatansOn the other hand, Christianity has a great amount evidence supporting it and there is an abundance of websites offering excellent resources produced by scholars and others - see [[Christian apologetics website resources]].  
+
I and JDano have been in a major dispute on the [[Donald Trump achievements]] article over what is probably a silly and absurd issue: whether [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/18/media-ignores-imported-female-genital-mutilation/ this article] is appropriate to cite. JDano believes that we should not cite it because adding it to this article would somehow increase the chances of people who practice FGM of being ruled not guilty and having the practice legalized -- something which I frankly think is completely absurd and ridiculous. But JDano will not give up in his attempts to delete the source, and I am fully convinced that it is appropriate, so I an bringing it here. Is this article appropriate or inappropriate to cite? Thanks. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 18:29, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
:There are two Brettbart articles.  The first one was a straight news story about three people being arrested for performing [[female genital mutilation]] on two Minnesota girls in a clinic outside of DetroitThe second article, the one at issue, is an ax-griding piece that has the following points:
 +
:*Trump Has a New Policy - there is nothing to show that the policy changed in April from the "old" Trump policy or the policy under the Obama administration.
 +
:*There is "a national campaign" to eradicate FGM.  This was an action brought by the US Attorney in Michigan, not some newly-announced task force.
 +
:*That one media critic is complaining that there is not enough MSM coverage of this "new national campaign" - perhaps because it does not exist.
 +
:*That the critic says that is due to "political correctness" and "fear of offending Muslims" - but it could be due to the fact that the government is not bringing religion into this and does not want to set up the defense counsel with a "religious defense" to the criminal charges.  This is speculation.
 +
:*That a few MSM media stories have followed the government' lead in the bringing religion into this.
 +
:*The story then conclude with an attack on the MSM as "conspicuously silent on this case and their silence is deafening" and "aiding and abetting violence against women out of a politically correct fueled fear of offending Muslims."  On the whole, this is an advocacy piece trying to bootstrap a failure of the MSM to play up the religion angle so as to explain why they did not report on the dramatic launch of a "new national campaign" when there apparently is no such campaign.
 +
:I think the article is very misleading, and plays into the hands of those who would assert that this prosecution is anti-Muslim motivated.  We don't need to cite it.  We have now fixed the [[Donald Trump achievements]] article to just focus on the individual prosecution.  I have been trying to take any mention of religion out of the article bullet as well, because neither the statute nor the indictment mentions religion. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 19:05, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
:I think it is an appropriate article to cite. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:56, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
::For the record, I linked the article that is in dispute, and both Andy and Conservative have seen the article. They know which article we are referring to, and they think it's fine. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 19:07, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
:::Nobody's asserting that the prosecution is motivated by "Islamophobia," and the article certainly does not say that. It is noting that this practice is one that is promoted by the leaders of sects of Islam. It is also noting MSM bias in covering the story. The MSM cannot admit that certain sects of Islam promote this practice. We know the religon and even the sect ([http://religionnews.com/2017/04/27/the-splainer-what-is-female-genital-mutilation-and-what-does-it-have-to-do-with-islam/ the Dawoodi Bohra sect]) of those who committed the crimes. They are crimes nonetheless. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 19:12, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
::::The article does not advance the bullet in the article.  It is focusing on Islam, but we all agree that so far, this case has nothing to do with IslamLet's wait until the Defense raises it.  The "Trump Administration achievement" has nothing to do with Islam, just as the bullets in [[Obamagate timeline]] have nothing to do with "Russian conspiracy." [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 20:27, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
:::::I am involved with several projects right now so I unfortunately don't have time to investigate this issue further and mediate this issue. However,  I do have a message for 1990sguy and JDano: Please consider the possibility of a compromise position. Perhaps, there is some middle ground position that you two could settle on. Again, my regrets for not being able to investigate this issue further. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 03:05, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
::::::@Conservative: JDano got about 80% of what he wanted: we originally cited only the Breitbart source, but now other sources are cited as well. I removed mentions of "Islamic" from the Donald Trump achievements article (even though those prosecuted ''clearly'' are Muslim and that FGM is mainly Islamic). I changed other wording after JDano criticized it. I have been extremely patient, and I have been very considerate. It is time for JDano to accept a middle ground position, which I think is how it is now, which actually would be 80% JDano's version. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 11:18, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
The matter was easier to research than I expected.  
  
7.  I really don't fill any remorse about deleting vandalism or clearly inane comments in the past.  For example, if someone says "Atheism is true because I say so" or posts some other nonsense that is often misspelled (public schools in too many cases produce atheists who can't even spell atheist, atheists and atheism) I can't say I lose any sleep in deleting it and I don't believe I did a great deal of deleting comments like these in the past.  There is [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism|no proof and evidence for atheism]] and as mentioned above there is a [[Christian apologetics website resources|great deal of evidence for Christianity]]. On the other hand, I have responded to atheists/evolutionists in the past on the talk pages of atheism related content and also taken some suggestions in terms of the content. I can't predict the future in terms of vandalism/malicious behavior, but with that being said I do think I will do less oversighting/deleting in the future. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
+
Obama commissioned a study on FGM in 2014 and a fairly mainstream press outlet, ''The Hill'', wondered if he was serious about the the issue.[http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/civil-rights/214242-will-obama-keep-his-promise-to-end-fgm-in-the-us] A politician saying he is commissioning a study is often like a husband telling a wife "we'll so" or a sales prospect saying "I'll think about". In short, it is often a ploy to do nothing. Obama does not have a good record on FGM or equal pay for equal work in terms of White House employees.[http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/06/25/female-genital-mutilation-epidemic-obama-administration-hiding/]
:*''I don't agree with all of Conservapedia's content. ''
+
:Why don't you just come out and say it: you don't like Andy's [[Conservative Bible Project]].
+
:Now, my question, who on the open wiki, or in private discussion lists, gave you the permission or authority to speak for all of Conservapedia in "Conservapedia's challenge to ...(fill in the blank)...."? 
+
:*'' I am sure he would have approached Andy about this matter ''
+
:I beleive I did here. [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=888699]
+
:*''suggested a blocking review board ''
+
:You would need editors to man the review board, which you don't have.
+
:*'' I do think I will do less oversighting/deleting in the future''
+
:And I thank you for that. It's unfortunate this disagreement got as large as it did, but that's all it ever was about. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:55, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
+
[[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:55, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
+
::RobS, given that I posted concerning you, I read your above comments on the off chance you might respond with a sincere and constructive response. That didn't happen. Unless something dramatic happens, I don't see myself inclined to read your future postings at this wiki or to read emails sent to me from you. Second, if memory serves, I thought I had commented on the [[Conservative Bible Project]] (CBP)  earlier at this wiki or at the very least commented on what is required to do good Bible translation/exegesis, but I cannot find it on the talk page of the project.  As far as posting on the CBP, maybe I posted on the talk page for the main page or the talk page for Andy's user page. I doubt it was oversighted. With that being said, I do think I should post on the talk page of the CBP and point out what I see are the major flaws of the CBP in terms of its approach. Good Bible translation uses some of the same principles as good Bible exegesis and these principles are explained [http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm HERE].  If you click that link, obviously good Bible exegesis/translation requires a lot of work to determine original intent and it is also very methodical. I also don't like the name of the project and it will become apparent why once I post my objections to the project on the talk page of the CBP. Lastly, I have expressed criticism of other CP content and expressed my misgivings at various times.  Other times, I chose to remain silent as I didn't see it accomplishing anything in terms of the content being changed. I do plan on expressing my misgivings about some CP content at a later time when I think it is a more opportune time. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:02, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
+
  
:::*'' I cannot find it on the talk page of the project''
+
Trump quickly took action on this issue which shows at least some commitment. So it is a new policy rather than Obama's do nothing FGM policy for 8 years which obtained zero convictions.  
:::Well, duh, you probably deleted and oversighted it.  
+
:::*'' I do plan on expressing my misgivings about some CP content at a later time when I think it is a more opportune time.
+
:::We're all waiting with baited breath. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:18, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
+
  
== Rude and insulting behaviour ==
+
So I vote for 1990sguys' decision and oppose JDano. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:28, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
  
Could someone please step in here. I made a simple, polite and non-contentious comment and another user has sought to [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Atheism#Deceptive_statement_by_John_Calvert insult me and question my faith]. This is extremely insulting and it is not the first time the user has done this. I have given my soul, heart and life to Christ and for someone to suggest otherwise is saddening and offensive. No person should treat others this way. Someone please intervene and remind this user that they should not insult others in such a fashion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:34, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
+
== JDano ==
::Seems to me like standard operating procedure around these parts. You might as well complain about the sky being blue. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 22:40, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
+
:::The same user has now taken to insulting me and questioning MY faith, simply becaue I disagree with him about the best way to oppose evolutionism, and nobody else seems to be making any attempts to curtail his offensive behaviour. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:42, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
+
Max you wrote at this wiki: "Thanks for your kind words. I am not a catholic I am afraid and don't think I'll ever be one! '''I have however found Christ! Turns out he was in my heart all along.'''" (emphasis added). Setting aside the Catholicism issue, this is not in accordance with biblical doctrine. Ephesians 2:11-12: "Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision " by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands-- remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world." Unless you were writing unclearly, something sounds amiss. See: http://www.free-online-bible-study.com/become-a-christian.html and this http://www.godssimpleplan.org/gsps-english.html [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
+
::I am sorry my poetic language has confused you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:37, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
+
  
==Discussion on reversion (from User talk:Jcw)==
+
I did not want to do this, and I waited 24 hours and 1-2 dozen reversions, but I was forced to block JDano for three days for poor editing in [[Donald Trump achievements]].
Please stop reverting comments you don't like and calling it trolling. Valid criticism is just that, valid criticism. Are we (you) so thin skinned that any critical comment must be reverted? Keep that in mind. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:57, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
+
:His last revert was to remove something vulgar, and the offender was rightfully called a troll.  JCW will continue to do so as he sees fit.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:01, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
+
::Thanks for the support, Karajou. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:34, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
+
::Seems to be that those with blocking rights (i.e me, you, Jcw etc) are able to do what they want without repercussion. Are we trying to build a conservative community or just enjoy power over others I wonder...[[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:21, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
+
:::Well, exactly who are we blocking, and what do you know of him that is so vital we shouldn't be blocking him?  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:24, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::I know nothing of the user, I just see those with extended privilages oversighting, deleting, blocking, harrasing and isulting others while being totally unable to respond to any criticism with patience, understanding and rationality. Not particulalry Christain. My Christianity teaches me forebearence, kindness and understanding which is what I see a lack of here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:36, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
+
::::::That's right, Max, you know nothing of him, yet I and a few senior sysops as well as Andy had the displeasure of having this clown here.  All you're seeing is "sysops playing the bully", yet you're not seeing an individual who refuses to change his past behavior, refuses to respect the site, refuses to change himself at all.  Jesus did not tolerate sin; he told sinners to quit sinning.  We're not going to have someone shove his way into the site and demand that we compromise with him.  We're going to shove such an individual right back out that door with the demand that he change his own ways or go elsewhere. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:47, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::::Who are you talking about here, and can you provide a diff of the eggregious offense?  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:48, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
+
::::::::Just one of the many intolerant malcontents that you are so desperate to get back into this website.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:20, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::::::I'm sorry, Karajou, but you simply do not have clue what you are talking about.
+
:::::::::I have been explicit since day one: Conservapedia needs a coherent blocking policy. Conservapedia needs Sysop standards of conduct. Conservapedia needs a mechinism whereby real life persons who feel there may be incorrect information about them have an avenue to present their case. Unfortunately, you have helped to set a standard that eradicates any discussion of these serious issues which have plagued this project since its inception.
+
:::::::::And you can begin right here and now by ceasing innuendo, false judgments, and unwarranted conclusions about other [[good faith]] contributors.
+
:::::::::And you can begin constructively engaging in this discussion thread by simply providing a link (i.e., diff, or evidence) that was requested. Elsewise, your intervention here is [[Conservapedia:Trolling|trolling]], nothing more. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:56, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
+
(unindent) RobS, look up - this discussion was started by an editor complaining about another editor being blocked, but without providing any diffs. He later admitted that he knew nothing about the blocked user, instead making general insinuations about behaviour of sysops. It's not up to Karajou or me to provide diffs, it's up to the complainants. So far I've seen no evidence even purporting to show unfair blocks by me. If anyone shows any, I'll gladly address it. I'd also like you to address the fact that you seem to be working to help these trolls and parodists against CP. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:29, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
+
::Jcw, thank you for responding; this is indeed a discussion on ''reversion'', not blocking. The request was for a diff on, what Karajou refered to as, "a vulgar" comment.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:43, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
+
:::I can't say which case Karajou has in mind, as no usernames were mentioned by the editor who began this discussion, but it may have been one of the many Horace socks we've had recently. They all left similar comments on various talk pages futilely begging for an intransigent troll to be unblocked. I'm sure you'll agree that those comments were intended only to sow discord and start arguments - that's how trolls operate. By getting involved in this inconsequential affair, you're giving them exactly what they want - discord on CP. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:48, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
+
::::So, there is essentially no checks on a sysops conduct. They can act arbitrarily with impugnity. As to reverts, it would be nice if (a) only the most eggregious, outrageuos, over the top, off-topic, intended to disrupt talk page edits we're ''immediately'' reverted; (b) a reverting editor would look, first, to see if the editor was actively involved in an ongoing discussion, particularly where ''other'' editors are involved, and particularly if a sysop or other editor with enhanced user rights are involved with the editor whose comments are being reverted. The net effect has been, and User:Karajou & User:Conservative are guilty of this, of '''disrupting''' ongoing discussions. Not everyone is present in real time in any discussion. If an editor makes an incivil, disruptive, or off-topic comment, the editor should be politely warned, either in the context of the active discussion, or on his/her user page, about a possible infraction. If the comment demands an immediate time-out, care should be taken to place the personal remark template and '''''not''''' disrupt the ''other'' editors who are involved in a discussion. Way too often, editors who in no way are involved in a discussion, show no concern whatsoever to ''other'' editors ''who are not complaining about the behavior of a participant, and totally disrupt an active discussion. This is extremely upsetting to all participants in a discussion, and rude behavior from sysops and blocking editors as well. Show some concern, some sensibility, to others, please''.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:45, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
+
:Max, your comments are way out of line. I'll be happy to hear complaints, but so far you're just throwing around insinuations. Critical comment has always been welcome on CP, but lots of trolls come here for no reason other than to make arguments. That sort of thing can't be tolerated; nor can uncivil or argumentative comments. Your own post above is undeniably argumentative in tone - if you can't express yourself civilly, how can you expect to be heeded? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:34, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
+
::I have never been incivil on Conservapedia, not once and not to anyone. A look through my edits will show as much - I can hold my head high. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:36, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
+
:::Calling people 'thin skinned' isn't terribly civil, and ending your first post with 'Keep that in mind.' can only be called peremptory. That's not really the point though - you admit above that you don't have any idea why this user was blocked or have anything to say in his defense, yet you come here and accuse us of 'harassing' people. From where you're standing it might look that way, but why not treat us with some forbearance and understanding? There are large numbers of liberal vandals who actively plot to undermine this project, so naturally we block a lot of new users - anyone who makes a new account and immediately starts arguing about the vandals' favourite points is clearly a troll, so why try to reason with the unreasonable? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:45, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
+
::::You and Karajou make good points...about blocking! I think reverting anything other than obscenity rather than actually addressing and blowing the complaints out of the water with a reasoned argument is why I made the "thin skinned" comment. I have skin like rock which means I never need to revert anyone because nothing gets to me! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:51, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
+
  
:::::Sorry to butt in here, JCW, but it seems as if editors with blocking privileges are being indicted as a whole, so I'll add my two cents. 
+
He added irrelevant information with a liberal POV, he blindly reverted edits that I made that had nothing to do with our disputes that he had no apparent problem with, and in his latest edit, he duplicated information to create a new "education" section without deleting the duplicate information that was listed in the "government size" section.
:::::Max, here's the thing: some things just don't belong here, and those things go beyond simple obscenity (although that's certainly one example.)  Libelous comments, for example, do not belong here.  Nor do endless debates that aren't going to be productive.  When someone comes here to argue over why liberal ideas aren't portrayed more sympathetically, that's simply wasting time and space.  Conservapedia makes no secret of the fact that it's a conservative site.  We don't portray liberal ideas more sympathetically because they're bad ideas, plain and simple.
+
:::::It's a bit like dealing with telemarketers.  You try to be polite at first and say "Thank you, we're not interested," and they persist.  You say it again, more firmly, and STILL they persist.  How long should you allow them to continue before simply saying "Goodbye" and hanging up on them?  It's undoubtedly rude, but so's not taking "no" for an answer. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:58, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::::Yes, you're all to be commended. The POV that conservatives are closed minded snobs, and suspected liberal trolls are to be banhammered from the git-go because they might say something witty and catch us off guard and make us look stupid is the watchword. Go to it. STOMP STOMP STOMP. Make sure this community never grows. Karajou blocked a fellow just cause he claimed CP said something unfair in his biographical scetch. We can have none of that. Reason? Fairness? Forget it. They're all trolls, including anybody who complains about CP's lack of accountability.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:57, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
+
::::::::I agree with Rob on this - I have been sneered at, jeered by and had my faith, '''my faith''', questioned by a CP sysop. I have no doubts that any other user would have been banned immediately. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:03, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
+
  
:::::::::How can we NOT question, Max?  When you consider the number of people who come here proclaiming to be dyed-in-the-wool conservatives and Christians, only to turn around and vandalize the site, it's difficult not to be paranoid.  I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, personally, but there have been more times than I care to remember where I've given someone said benefit and then looked like a gullible fool when they went on a vandalism spree shortly afterwards.  Now, you seem like a sincere enough person to me, and I'm willing to take you at your word--but I don't spend nearly as much time here dealing with wave after wave of parodists and vandals as the sysops or some of the other editors. I suspect that if I did, I might be a lot more suspicious and (as you put it) thin-skinned.  In any event, I don't want to fill up JCW's talk page with third-party discussion...but do try to see it from our position, if you would.  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:38, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
+
We had a serious dispute over whether to cite a single Breitbart article, and he continued edit warring even though I asked him to keep the status quo until we resolved the dispute. He was the only editor to oppose citing the article, and I still made many changes to satisfy him.
::::::::::''but do try to see it from our position'' "our" is also "me" because I am just as much a user as everybody else. But more to the point I have been here awhile now (can't remember exactly when) and i am demonstrably a good faith user. Andy has promoted me twice and I have been polite, candid and have also ushered vandals out. So I do understand your position because I am in it! My faith was questioned simple because I asked some basic questions. It is extremely offensive and I have no doubt if I were to call into question Karajou's faith, for example, I would be quickly shown the door. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:44, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::::::::Might I suggest, if similiar behavior were to occur from a CP Sysop in the future, remind them [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Civility]] states,
+
:::::::::::*''Conservapedia Administrators as well need to interact with others according to the same standards of civility we ask of editors,''
+
::::::::::::and [[Conservapedia:Administrator%27s_Guide#Civility|Conservapedia:Administrator's Guide#Civility]] states,
+
:::::::::::*''Conservapedia Administrators are expected to afford registered users the same standard of editing etiquette, decorum, and interaction you yourself, and the Conservapedia project as a whole, require and appreciate from others. You must be civil. No bullying.'' [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:06, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
+
  
==a perspective from a pianist==
+
JDano's behavior has been very irritating, and he has been almost impossible to work with. Please judge the edits on Donald Trump achievements for yourselves (the "education" section he added are just copied-and-pasted info from other portions of the article). I gave him a three-day block for him to cool off. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 11:54, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
MaxFletcher and RobSmith both bring up some excellent points, which certain sysops would do well to listen to rather than dismiss out of hand. In my own experience, I've also had my integrity, goodwill, and even faith belligerently questioned numerous times on this site for daring to disagree on the smallest matters of detail in relatively benign articles -- I never even touched the more ideological corners of the site. The first few times this happened, I fought back; the personal nature of the attacks which some sysops past and present have engaged in and continuously engage in as ''modus operandi'' is hard to take lightly. Naturally, in the power dynamics of this wiki a sysop is allowed to personally attack a lowly editor with impunity, but any talkback from the attacked editor is worthy of a stiff block; my own logs reflect this fact. After this cycle had happened several times, I learned to be more, well, Christian about the whole matter, and to repay brutish speculation with an attitude of somewhat bemused grace.
+
:JDano's objections to [[Richard Dawkins' health]] have been adequately answered at [[Talk:Richard Dawkins' health]]. Yet, I do not expect him to acknowledge this matter.
  
But the bottom line is, I originally came here to help build an educational resource. My contributions, beginning in early 2009, are the best evidence of that. Now, it's hard to see the point. Conservapedia has simply not progressed as an educational resource in the last two years. The only "original" content consists either of high-profile projects so extreme as to be rejected by the mainsream conservative community, or nonsensical "parody" pages which form their own small feedback loop (since for whatever reason their author does not welcome suggestion or comment). The core elements of any encyclopedia are still sorely lacking, since this site has a way of driving off people who actually know what they're writing about. It has essentially been reduced to a collection of fiefdoms owned by the small pool of sysops left. The sysop "community," if you can even call it that, has been fighting amongst itself in the ugliest, pettiest possible way. Obvious abuses are going on as a result of this fight between Conservative, RobSmith, and Karajou, with several innocent users being blocked for no reason other than as some sort of bizarre collateral damage. Most disappointing has been the absence of leadership in this from Andy, as he's the only one who could have defused this conflict.
+
:On top of this, Dawkins is clearly acting hypocritical when it comes to his views on experts/consensus/science when it comes to the application of medical science/medical advice to his health. His doctors are clearly giving him sound advice and he is clearly acting foolishly and ignoring their advice. And the proof is in the pudding. Namely, Dawkins ignored and continues to ignore their sound medical advice and continues to go back to the "controversy trough" again and again even after his stroke.  
  
My whole time here, I've heard it argued, "well, we're a 'conservative' project, and anyone editing here has to accept our zero-tolerance policy towards liberalism." In that case, I do not see why this project remains run as a wiki, when the editorial wishes of its administrators would be better served by the much simpler blog software. After all, on a blog you can moderate, delete, or even disallow reader comments, you can fix all of your errors without leaving a trace, and you don't have to put up with anyone changing or haggling over what you write. The wiki software was designed with goals diametrically opposed to this, namely to encourage transparency and collaboration, what Andy would call "the best of the public," and this guiding philosophy behind the wiki idea can only be subverted by clumsy abuse of some of its tools. Unfortunately, this is exactly what happens at Conservapedia with alarming frequency. You can object, revert, and engage in silly block wars with RobSmith all you want, but you ignore his attempts to instill sysop accountability at your own peril.
+
:I thought JDano had some reasonable objections to the [[Obama's religion]] article, but I thought his picture choice of Obama standing in front of a glorious looking cross like he was some kind of devout Christian preacher was over the top. Do I like the present Obama's religion article? I am not a fan of it. That is why I provided the counterexamples to Obama being a Muslim.  
  
My two cents, for what it's worth. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:02, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
+
:Many conservatives are reactive and overly defensive. When liberals invariably and reflexively yell racist/misogynist, etc. regardless of the merit of their charges, conservatives often cower like kicked puppies. I like the fact that Sean Hannity took on a liberal via threat of a slander suit in order to stop her nonsense. I wish more conservatives were like Hannity.  
:Thank you JDW for your well thought out comments and I'd like to echo your position. This is, at its base, a conservative encyclopedia and, as such, should not accept liberal positions in its main-space. It also deals with religion and science. Now, not all religious perspectives are the same. I am a Christian but I don't inject it into my politics (as politics, in my view, is a human affair) nor into how I view the age of the earth (because it simply isn't relevant to me). But because of the non-relevence of creationism to me I have been jeered at and accused of being an atheist. All because I simply pointed out to User:Conservative that his 15 question had been answered and I was curious about why he keeps saying they haven't. He calls them "faux" answers but refuses to elaborate on what that means. I have been insulted for merely asking simple questions and had my comments deleted. This is why I originally posted on Jcw's page because I saw the wholesale deletion of comments which I thought was unfair - granted I didn't know the user was apparently a long-term troll but to say it was vulgar when I have had worse vulgarities directed to me by a sysop I found the whole thing curious and wanted to draw attention to what I viewed as a double standard. As to the Rob vs. Karajou: I have no opinion. Neither of these users seem right or wrong and both have treated me with fairness so I won't get into that debate. Mainly I want to see leadership, responsibility, and fairness from all users. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:19, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
+
  
::This has taken rather a tangent from the original discussion. In fact, JDW and Max seem to have taken the opportunity to return to an old saw by having yet another dig at Conservative while ignoring the point of this thread. If you don't like Conservative's Evolution article, make your own in your userspace and build a consensus on it; going on and on about your dislike of a sysop is not a productive way to spend your time. Meanwhile we'll carry on keeping the trolls at bay. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:27, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
+
:[[Sun Tzu]] said a strong defense makes one invincible, but an attack brings victory. At some point, Hitler/other unsavory characters and harmful ideologies have to be challenged. The one thing I like about Trump is that he is willing to go on the attack. For years, conservatives largely ignored liberal indoctrination in public schools. What did Trump do? He picked Betty Devos as his Secretary of Education to promote school choice. Trump pushed for a wall on the Mexican border. Trump has "NY attitude" like assertiveness and boldness. He is the George Patton of American politics. That is why people voted for him. Does Trump go too far sometimes? Yes, he does. Attacking Carly Fiorina's looks in terms of her face was crass and foolish for example.  
:::You have completely missed the point I am afraid. I have never even read the Evolution article! I never mentioned I disliked anyone either. I dislike having my faith questioned and my simple questions rebutted with childish accusations. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:29, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
+
:::(edit conflict) Sorry, Jcw, but I have to agree with JDW and Max. I'm not sure if you were around at the time, but more than one sysop has routinely ignored the guidelines and chosen to block users and IP ranges on a personal whim. In each case they were revealed to be liars and parodists. This '''is''' a Conservative and Christian wiki, so there should be no problem in everyone - including the sysops - obeying basic rules. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 17:31, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
+
::::I didn't miss that point, I ignored it. If you want to complain about the behavior of sysops, there's a proper way to do it. Inserting these serious accusations against a senior sysop into an unrelated discussion is extremely unhelpful. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:33, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
+
::::::No, there is not now an established, proper way to complain about sysop misconduct. This is another example of CP's stunted growth.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:59, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::So you ignored the main thrust of what I was saying and made a totally unrelated point and argued I was wrong? That is called a strawman. Secondly these are not "serious accusations" these are ''facts''. [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Atheism#Deceptive_statement_by_John_Calvert Here conservative questions my faith] and this is but one page and [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#S._Africa_and_Question_Evolution.21_campaign_-_Everything_you_post_must_be_true_and_verifiable here again he displays open hostility towards me] for asking simple questions. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:38, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
+
::::::My point, to re-clarify '''again''' is that vulgar statements from one person is treated differently from those of a sysop. I am not taking a "dig at conservative" i am using him as an example. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:39, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::::I would agree with this assessment, questioning a persons professed religious faith is vulgar. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:03, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
+
::::::::Coming from the man who didn't have the evidence (nor chutzpah) to call me "demonic" at this website and resorted to posting his allegation at a cesspool website, I find RobS's comment rather amusing. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:35, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
+
(unindent)Max, please pause and consider what you're saying and where you're saying it. This thread has nothing to do with Conservative or with how sysops talk to editors; it's about me blocking someone. That question has been settled now, and Conservative never entered into it. If you'd like to criticize him, please do it elsewhere. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:44, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
+
:You keep introducing strawmen. No, it was never about blocking - it was about reverting which I have clarified twice: my initial comment was "Please stop reverting comments you don't like and calling it trolling. Valid criticism is just that, valid criticism. Are we (you) so thin skinned that any critical comment must be reverted? Keep that in mind." Now I am trying to point out that vulgar comments have been directed at me by those in a sysop position so we needs blanket civility standards that apply to all - what would happen I started reverting conservatives rude comments towards me? Would I be banned? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:51, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
+
  
 +
:Maybe JDano is being overly reactive. At the same time, I do believe in accuracy in both content and sources. I wish I had time to investigate this matter and mediate it, but I don't. I will say that as long as the Breitbart article has no inaccuracy in it, I have no problems with it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 13:08, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
  
Moved from above. If you must continue in this vein, do it here. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:57, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
+
::Conservative, JDano's dispute with me over the Breitbart reference was not the only problem.
:I have removed your dishonest section title. Don't put words in my mouth. I am talking civility here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:00, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
+
  
(EC) I made this a section of its own, to allow for a broader discussion. IMO the most important point mentioned by the pianist is
+
::JDano also wanted to add other information that I did not think was appropriate. Some of the information was irrelevant (it should have been added in other articles) or had a liberal POV, some of the information was unsourced (everything should be sourced so we can verify it as true). I explained my edits, but he reverted them.
:'''Most disappointing has been the absence of leadership in this from Andy, as he's the only one who could have defused this conflict.'''
+
But that's only me: instead of Andy's guidance we have a couple of sysops who all claim that they act according to his wishes, or perhaps with his silent support. The only action taken by Andy over the last couple of days was to revoke some of RobSmith's rights. It's left to the augurs to interpret these signs... [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 18:01, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
+
:Agree with RonLar. I do not wish to snipe with you Jcw, lets us mend our rift.. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:04, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
+
  
==And end to this==
+
::Although I made several edits in the meantime that were completely unrelated to what we were disputing, JDano reverted those edits as well.
  
Max: I don't want to snipe with you either, or with anyone. All I'm trying to do is prevent the kind of heated argument that hurts this site and brings joy to the parodists. As you've no doubt inferred already, I'm not prepared to discuss Conservative's editing style - it's far above my station to do so. If you'd like to do that, please do, but do it somewhere appropriate - a fresh thread on this page, for example. However, I ask you for your own good and that of the site to consider your words very carefully and avoid anything that might inflame tempers or provide grist for the trolls' mills. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:17, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
+
::When trying to add changes, JDano also said he created a new section on Trump's achievements on education. This seems good, but he just copied and pasted information that already existed in the article, and he did not delete the duplicates. I seemed like a ploy for him to continue reverting.
  
== TracyS edits from the same IP address as RobS ==
+
::It's also not just the past 24 hours. I have had disputes with him in the past where he repeated the same behaviors, constantly reverting without discussing, adding irrevevant content with a liberal pov, and removing unrelated changes I had done in the meantime.
  
TracyS edits from the same IP address as RobS.  No wonder why TracyS was such a loser. Once again, RobS, "the greatest lawgiver and rule giver since Moses and Hammurabi", is breaking a Conservapedia rule. Way to stay on top of check user Karajou. It looks like RobS keeps slipping further down the moral high ground. First, he removes the protection from my "castle" and now this. Tsk. tsk. tsk. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:01, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
+
::Overall, his behavior was too disruptive and was doing CP more harm than good. I had to temporarily block him. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 14:59, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
1990sguy, I revised my commentary/decision on this issue. I took your side. See my post above.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:30, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
:::Still having a hard time wrapping my head around the dispute here. Is it (a) Brietbart is not credible if it's not backed up by MSM reporting, or (b) the Brietbart article is irrelevent to the text in mainspace? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 18:39, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
::::The funniest thing about this is that 1990sguy has actually removed his own factually incorrect editorialising about Islam and FGM from the Conservapedia text, but still insists on retaining a reference which engages in exactly the same kind of editorialising, only turned all the way up to 11 and with a dirty great fireworks and laser show to boot.
  
:May I draw you attention to [[Conservapedia:Proxy IP]]? For someone who thinks that he can keep his gender a mystery  you are jumping utterly fast to conclusions about others! [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 07:39, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
+
::::JDano has probably done himself an injury with all the facepalming he must've been doing last night. He deserves a medal, not a 3 day block. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 19:44, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
::::They have the same IP address. I can point out many things, but I will point out another thing. Both RobS and TracyS had an inordinate interest in my user page talk page layout despite Conservapedia saying a user's talk page is his/her castle. That was the clincher for me in terms of TracyS being a product of Rob's socketpuppetry. If only RobS had chosen not to pester me. I wonder if RobS pokes sleeping dogs and then complains if they bite him. Many of RobS's self-imposed problems could have been avoided merely by the absence of "pesterfesting".[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:10, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
+
Today was a separate problem from yesterday.  I wanted to add content about Title IX and the appointment of Adam Kissel to head up these Dept. of Education reforms.  I realized that although Education policy is a very important area of Trump policy changes, and is of high interest to Conservapedia readers, there was no section for it on the page. So, I started to move education bullets from other sections and to add the Kissel bullet, but every time I would hit "save", 1990sguy would create an "edit conflict"  Rather than loose the text, I saved it so that I could go back and fix the conflicts, but 1990sguy blocked me before I could complete the work as intended.  The plan was to move the bullets not duplicate them.  I think we need more group effort and less "individual ownership" of pages.  Also, less name-calling.  I am a life-long conservative, and Lindsay Graham is a life-long conservative, who is a good-guy. If he offers concise, good-natured advice to President Trump to stop tweeting, it is very newsworthy and worth including in a discussion of the [[Trump Twitter]] account.  I am here to build a well-researched reliable encyclopedia, not to see how much I can build a false narrative to advance my own political agenda. I expect everyone else to be here for the same reason. So:
 +
1) Let's give each other some space - make sure the first editor is done before you start to rewrite his contribution.
 +
2) Look at multiple sources - if only one source has the story and everyone else has the opposite, consider that the outlier may have the facts wrong or has miscommunicate to you.
 +
3) If you don't understand what you are trying to write, ask for help.  If your understanding is not clear, what you write will only confuse other Conservapedia readers. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 21:04, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
  
::*You're articles are quite noticeable, so many (including me) have an interest to talk to you
+
===Just the facts, ma'am===
::*You make a farce out of Conservapedia's saying that ''a user's talk page is his/her castle'': the main intention of a talk page is to allow for communication. This communication can be moderated - in Conservapedia's case ''heavily'' moderated by the user. Your treatment of your talk page doesn't further communication...
+
::Ok, so we have established the dispute is over inclusion of a Brietbart citation. Now, can you answer my inquiry over ''why'' Brietbart is inappropriate for the language in text, without going into extraneous discussion on unrelated matters. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 22:31, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
::*RobS was pestering you? *LOL*
+
:::Correct.  Setting aside the interwoven "edit conflict" confusion of today, we are back to the Brietbart article with a headline "Establishment Media Hides Trump’s New Policy to Stop ‘Genital Mutilation’ of American Girls". I described my concerns [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=1353941 here.]  The revised bullet has nothing to do with Islam or any "Trump's New Policy to Stop FGM", rather it discusses just the Michigan prosecution, which is notable because it is the first prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §118. So, the Breitbart article is not relevant to the bullet in question. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 23:16, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:36, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
+
::::Ok. So it's not really a 'new policy', it is the first time prosecutions have been brought under a 20 year old federal law. The Trump White House and sympathetic media charge the mainstream media is covering this fact up, which is both pro-woman, pro-child, and even designed to protect Muslims. What's wrong with that? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 23:39, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
:::RobSmith relies on proxies because his personal web connection has trouble with Conservapedia.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 12:27, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::Perhaps I am missing a source.  The White House (Sean Spicer) is not commenting.  The main stream media is not covering up "a new policy" because the policy and law have been the same for years.  How can Brietbart beat up on the mainstream media if there has been no announcement of a "new policy?" What is new was the FBI was able to prove that two girls were transported across state lines for FGM, so they arrested the doctors and got medical help for the girls. Prior actions have been focusing on international "FGM tourism" at border crossings. [https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/general/fact-sheet-on-female-genital-mutilation-or-cutting.html State Dept. Fact Sheet]  Intrastate FGM cases are in the hands of local and state police. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 23:56, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
::::So do a lot of vandals, but in this case there's more than a dozen individually-named socks. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:29, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
+
::::::So there are two issues, correct me if I'm wrong. One, enforcement of a law to protect young girls, which is an achievement; secondly, the debate over identifying victims and perpetrators of these crimes as Muslims. Is this a fair synopsis? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 00:12, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
:::::The fact that there are many accounts created from an open proxy fails to persuade that Rob = Tracy. Did Rob also use the same Canadian proxies Tracy used? Did Rob ever edit from the same Kansas City IP? In combination, that might be more compelling. Then again, do Conservapedia administrators need to persuade anyone but themselves to act? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 12:45, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::::No. The second issue is whether there was a "new" policy or a policy change. There is a long tradition in the media of not identifying young victims of sexual crimes.  Neither the government nor almost all of the media have said anything about the girls (names, hometown, nor religious sect.)  The Breitbart article is misinterpreting the MSM's absence of detail as "fear of offending Muslims."  The problem that I had with the original bullet was the claim that during the Obama Administration and the Trump Administration (Jan. 20 to mid-April) there was a policy of non-enforcement of 18 U.S.C. § 118.  I can't find any evidence of that.  It is easier to catch international "FGM tourism" at the border than to catch mothers driving daughters across state-lines for a domestic FGM trip. So, the achievement was the first domestic criminal prosecution. (Please watch this brief interview if you think it is a "Muslim issue": https://youtu.be/sb_YPFrWty0 .)[[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 05:22, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
::::::And how do you know a Canadian proxy was used? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:53, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
+
::::::::Ok, fair enough. So your argument is that while the Trump Justice Department's first enforcement of federal anti-FGM is a recognizable achievement, the Brietbart article is irrelevent to that accomplishment. Should any reference be made to the fact that both perpatrators and victims were Muslim in this achievement? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 10:14, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
:::::::That is an excellent question. I can't see how he can know unless he's a sock of one of the parties in this. Perhaps there's another explanation, BradB? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:37, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::::::As an experienced encyclopedia editor on several wikis, I value your input on this. To me, the fact that no mention was made in the charging documents and that I don't want to give defense counsel any ammo leads me to say "no". Wikipedia would call that "synthesis". [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 10:19, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
::::::::I found out by checking the block log, which you can find by going to TracyS' userpage and clicking "View full log". [[User:BradB|BradB]] 20:02, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::::::::Would it be a valid citation to outline the facts of the case, without mentioning 'Muslim' or 'Islam' in the text? Secondly, in an article entitled 'Donald Trump achievements', why wouldn't the Trump administration aggressively enforcing federal law to protect little Muslim girls be an achievement? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 10:47, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
(unindent)Ah yes, so I see. Thanks for that. I also notice a rather unsavory comment in there from RobS regarding another sysop. This is starting to look very unsatisfactory. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 20:18, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
+
::::::::::::Answer #1: The first Brietbart article would be better than the second one that 1990sguy wants in the footnote.  There are many other clearer sources including the DOJ press release, and 1990sguy and I have reached agreement on the text of the bullet and all references except the second Brietbart article, which I feel is nonsense.  Answer #2: The US attorney would argue that religion was not relevant to the arrest and prosecution.  FGM is not limited to one religious group, and the health-related statute focuses upon a specific action rather than upon the motives of the accused.  Hypotheically, if DOJ was trying to prosecute a religious group for their beliefs, that move would be subject to the same court challenges as now apply to the "travel ban." 1990sguy chose to have this debate on my [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJDano&diff=1354127&oldid=1353746 talk page] rather than on this page. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 11:28, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
:::::::::::::Well, my simple point is, the Trump administration protecting Muslims is a worthy accomplishment, which is the point the first Brietbart article - and no other source - makes. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 11:48, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
  
== User:Conservative ==
+
===policy vs law===
 +
JDano states, "the policy and law have been the same for years". I bring this up here because understanding the difference can be valuable to us on multiple levels. ''What is the difference between policy and law?''. I disagree with JDano's assertion: while the law outlaws FMG, the policy of three past administrations has been not to enforce the law. Similiarly, while sanctuary cities are illegal, and
 +
Dream Act is not law, the policy of past administrations has been to not enforce immigration law and treat the Dream Act as if it were law. Or the ABM missile Treaty with Russia, while the ABM treaty is binding law, the policy of the Bush & Obama administrations have been to ignore it and allow international tensions to escalate. Or Operation Fast and Furious. While the law required enforcement of illegal weapons sales, the policy allowed  the government itself to facilitate illegal weapons sales. These issues will be revisted  soon in the Supreme Court were the law entrusts national security to the president, the courts have denied the president's policy of enforcing the law in regard to the travel ban. So we can use all these illustrations to understand the difference. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 10:47, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
::You can judge each President's administration by the totality of their actions.  The bill was signed into law by President Clinton on Sept. 30, 1996.  President Obama signed an amendment to the law to outlaw "FGM tourism" abroad in 2013.  One of the things that custom and border patrol staff look out for is young girls traveling abroad for FGM.  There is also continuous US support of anti-FGM actions via the United Nations.  I realize that law and policy can differ.  For example, President Lincoln made a deal with the Mormons to not prosecute bigamy laws in exchange for their not siding with the Confederacy in the Civil War.  Everything I have found indicates that the DOJ policies inherited from the Obama Administration were to enforce 18 U.S.C. § 116.  If we can find something credible to the contrary, it would be quite a scoop for Conservapedia. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 11:02, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
:::FMG tourism would be virtually impossible to enforce without a confession of intent from the adult escort, or perhaps on return if the facts can be documented. Are there any known cases of prosecution? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 11:22, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
::::I can look for sources, but it would be administrative action and not a criminal case in an Article III court. Only the travel and the adult escort would be targeted, since the person performing the procedure would be in the other country. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 12:46, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
  
I take up an idea by Jcw to create a separate section to discuss User:Conservative. It is necessary to do so on this page, as his habit of blanking his own talk page (and keep it protected most of the time) makes a discussion meaningless over there.
 
  
Over the last days I tried to engage User:Conservative in a meaningful exchange of comments. I thought that this shouldn't be that difficult, as User:Conservative has often announced that he was willing to debate more or less skillful public orators, like R. Dawkins, PZ Myers, or some chap called Penn Jillette.
 
  
I wondered what made User:Conservative think that this is a good idea - his only motivation can be that even ''bad publicity is good publicity''. But there is not the slightest chance that any original good publicity comes from this: As the last days have shown that User:Conservative is lacking any skills for taking part in a debate.
+
:JDano, Lindsey Graham is one of the most liberal Republicans.[https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/how-lindsey-graham-stomped-the-tea-party/372521/] He belongs to the "surrender Republicans" rather than someone like Newt Gingrich who forced Bill Clinton to have a balanced budget.  
  
A couple of times I asked him to show me to a talk page where he successfully debated with someone about [[Atheism]], [[Evolution]], etc. ([[Talk:Atheism and obesity#Via several weird redirected talk pages... |see here for example]].) There should be hundreds of such debates on talk pages, as User:Conservative generally claims that anyone criticizing his pet articles is a atheist, evolutionist, Darwinist, etc.  
+
:The GOP base is sick of surrender GOP members and that is why Trump far surpassed Graham in the 2016 GOP presidential primary. We're tired of GOP members who are terrified to have their uniforms soiled by the press/liberals calling them names. We want Donald "blood and guts" Trump.  
  
User:Conservative couldn't give any link. In fact, the main tactic of User:Conservative when confronted with awkward questions is a strategic withdrawal (sometimes after creating a fog of youtube-videos, baseless accusations,...) Examples: [[Talk:Evolution#We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way.|(1)]], [[Talk:Evolution#The effects of the Question Evolution! Campaign will be devastating to evolutionary belief and atheism|(2)]] [[Talk:Evolution#Evolutionist science professors are cryin' to their mamas about the Question Evolution! Campaign|(3)]],[[Talk:Atheism#Dubious quote by John Calvert|(4)]], [[Talk:Atheism and obesity#Via several weird redirected talk pages...|(5)]]  Obviously he hopes that his interlocutors get blocked, and that then he can delete (or archive) the whole episode into oblivion: out of sight, out of mind.
+
:Please don't bother me on a talk page page again if you want to fly the white flag rather than take the opposition to task for hypocritical/inconsistent behavior. You are not willing to concede reasonable points and impose time wasting opposition to others.  
  
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:28, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
+
:You were so busy to appease liberals with that ridiculous picture of Obama that you couldn't see the obvious truth: Obama is not a Christian. The Apostle Paul's views never "evolved" on homosexuality. Obama may not be a Muslim, but he is certainly not a Christian. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 21:35, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
::You're only figuring this out now? He's been doing this since, like 2007 or so with the full approval of the administration. Why would you expect anything to change? [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 11:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
+
::As far as clarification, I am not saying Trump or any other politician should go out of his way to create unnecessary conflict, but they shouldn't be afraid of conflict either. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:08, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
:::RonLar, I can see you are very frustrated. I would be frustrated too if I was an obscure atheist/evolutionists with no real evidence to offer for atheism/evolution. Lastly, I wouldn't call atheists PZ Myers or Penn Jillette skillful orators. For example, Jillette's speech is littered with obscenity. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:46, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
+
:::You have totally lost me. What does Lindsey Graham have to do with female genital mutilation, a specific Brietbart citation, and the blocking of a constructive editor? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 23:42, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
::::Man if you lost ''nobs'' then that's like, some next-level obfuscation. Kudos, Conservative. [[User:Koidevelopment|Vive]] [[User talk:Koidevelopment|Liberté!]] 00:03, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
:::::I'm really struggling to see what Sun Tzu, Lindsey Graham, and the Apostle Paul have to do with settling a dispute between users on female genital mutilation. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 00:14, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
::::::Conservative was referring to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Donald_Trump_achievements&diff=1354109&oldid=1354107 this edit] and previous edits done by JDano. He made other problematic edits before I blocked him. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 13:26, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
  
And again, no link to any talk-page where you showed your brilliant wit, where you outshone your opponents, where you were able to score actual points against your interlocutors, where you left the onlookers aghast, standing there in silence while admiring your abilities to lay out an well reasoned argument.
+
=== History of FGM in the United States ===
  
Why not? Because there is no place, not even here at Conservapedia, where anything remotely resembling such a discussion  ever happened.
+
*[http://ufdcimages.uflib.ufl.edu/UF/E0/02/10/16/00001/schubert_k.pdf FEMALE CIRCUMCISION IN THE UNITED STATES: AN ANALYSIS OF LAWS AND POLICIES]
  
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:18, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
+
*[http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1162/152651603766436324 Cutting History, Cutting Culture: Female Circumcision in the United States]
  
== I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy ==
+
The history of FGM is more complex than I originally thought. My first inclination to not get involved in this matter unless I gave it the due diligence it may require turned out to be correct.
  
I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy.
+
I hope these resources help resolve matters.  I do think that JDano and 1990sguy should be able to work this matter out. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 07:27, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
:Dear Conservative, thank you for sharing your research.  The first paper is a bit out-of-date.  Since then, Congress amended the law to address FGM tourism, and more states have enacted laws.  I have hesitated to greatly expand the FGM article because I want to keep it family-friendly.  I believe that 1990sguy and I reached agreement on the FGM bullet, except for whether to include the Brietbart article. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 09:40, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
::If you are a member of an Islamic sect that practices FGM, you will be offended by the US, the UN, and the EU outlawing the practice. So, you will not be surprised by news coverage of an arrest whether or not the mainstream media discusses the religion of the family or the doctor.  If you are a non-Muslim whose family practiced FGM, you may feel uncomfortable every time FGM is in the news, but that does not dictate how we cover the subject.  If you are a criminal defense lawyer, your only real option is to argue the statute is unconstitutional under the First Amendment and that this is more a question of free exercise of religion than of protecting the health of the girls. (You could also argue under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment because cutting girls is illegal when cutting boys is not.) Quite a difficult area to navigate. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 10:16, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
:::Without getting too far off course, and changing this to a sociological phenomenon, the practice among Muslims (and others) is  mostly motivated by tribal custom, i.e. preparing a female for barter or trade in a marriage contract who will not dishonor the the family or tribe she originated from, thus violating the marriage contract that binds certain tribal alliances together. An unfaithful wife can cause wars, such as Helen of Troy, or serious internal breaches like Tristan and Isolde. At root of FGM is treating women as property. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 11:37, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
  
Here are my suggestions:  
+
===My response to JDano's other edits that I reverted===
 +
It seems we have solved the Breitbart source (finally! :) ). JDano made [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Donald_Trump_achievements&diff=1354109&oldid=1354107 several other edits that I reverted] because I thought they were not constructive. First, however, let me say thank you for not trying to re-add them after I reverted (and blocked) you. I don't think I did a good job of explaining my position, which I strongly hold.
  
1. I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights. Another Sysop agrees with me on this.  
+
One of these edits was adding the paragraph of Lindsey Graham. I am not opposed to having opposing viewpoints, but what makes Graham's single viewpoint so notable compared to other people? He is one of 100 Senators, 1 of 535 Congressmen, and 1 of over 7 billion people in the world. What makes his view so notable? ''If you want to add an opposing view of Trump's Twitter activity, please find a good source (preferably NOT from the MSM, or at least a fair MSM source) that speaks generally of opposition from conservatives and other people, rather than the opinion of a single RINO Senator.'' '''Anyone can say anything about everything. Let's not cherry pick quotes, please.'''
  
2. Given RobS's recent behavior (annoying/pestering sock of TracyS and about a dozen other socks I have been told, etc. etc.) and his recent loss of Admin rights, I suggest that he not be on the panel.  
+
You also added a sentence saying that "The Trump Administration continues to offer spousal benefits to federal workers in same-sex marriages." However, ''there's no source''. The intro paragraph of the article specifically tells you to add sources. Once again, anyone can say anything about everything. We need to be certain this fact you added is accurate. I am not opposed to adding that sentence, but '''there MUST be a source.'''
  
3. I suggest starting off with a clean slate and archiving this page's current content. The panel's deliberations could then commence here. Perhaps, a more civil tone would ensue. I also suggest that sockpuppet comments be reverted as far as commentary on the panel's deliberations plus brand new editors who are merely trolling.  
+
In your edit, you removed an unrelated edit I made in the meantime. You had no dispute with the edit, but you still reverted it. It was the single Breitbart reference I added (not the same Breitbart article -- a different article on a different topic). JDano, your edit was sloppy, and you need to avoid doing this in the future.
  
4. I suggest that Andy weigh in on the final product.  
+
I did not like your wording of the Qatar failure because funding nations is more complicated that you made it seem. If the U.S. did not fund Qatar, a nation that does fund terrorists, Qatar might be driven to align itself with Iran. That would not be good. I simplified the wording.
  
Please let me know if you think such a panel is necessary and if you think the above suggestions are good suggestions.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:13, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
+
Your typo in the Trump official portrait at the top did not help at all.
:Seems like a good idea.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
+
::Likewise. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:38, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
+
::::I am asking others to get involved in this section. For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good.  Please vote below. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
+
  
Well, I suggested it and got told it wouldn't work, but I still think it's a good idea, provided at least two things are included: 1) an appeal process that's open and transparent involving disinterested editors and sysops and 2) accountability on the part of the blocking editor. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:21, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
+
Thank you for improving the "education" section above. It was a lot better than you first made it in the edit I linked above. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 11:25, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
:I am in, I hav e already laid out some guidelines elsewhere on Conservapedia. I am commited to to making CP fair and a happy place to edit. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:43, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
+
:Also, JDano's edit summary in that edit was very misleading because it stated "new section" when in fact he did more than create a new section (namely revert all my edits). Edit summaries must not be misleading. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 12:06, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
:::The Conservapedian Iduan has expressed some interest in helping refine Conservapedia's blocking policyHe is currently on a summer vacation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:55, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
+
:And by the way, I know that I do not own the article. I was reverting what I believed (justifiably) to be simply bad edits (bad for various reasons which I explained above). I support having other people add ''constructive'' edits to the article. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 11:32, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
A blocking policy refinement panel is meeting  in Summer or early Fall. Here are the people who signed up so far:
+
::Since going with Windows 10, my computer crashes frequently, particularly upon times of inactivity. So, I have to save less than the complete set of changes. When you save edits while I am editing, when I save, I get a "edit conflict dialog box" which does not allow me to see your edit summaries, but requires me to locate my edit within the entire source code of the pageBecause the page is so long, I copy and paste the entire contents of my source window over the entire article source and hope to work out any lost content by looking at the page history.  I was getting three or four edit conflict dialog boxes per save yesterday.  So, you need to edit a different section of the page, or give the other editor a chance to finish up before you edit the same section. I assume that a editor will go back and check for spelling or other mistakes and do not edit there for at least 5 min after the initial save. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 11:40, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
  
*[[User:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|Sysops and Sysop candidates with blocking rights]]
+
:Edit conflict ;)
  
*[[User talk:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|Sysop candidates with blocking rights]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:14, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
+
:JDano, if you want, I can try to help you diagnose the crashing problem. That does sound problematic! If you are letting the PC idle, it could even just be autostandby. Windows Vista and 7 had that kind of issue where it would crash when starting to standby or recovering from it. I dont know if the 8/8.1/10 core has the same issue or not. If you are constantly editing, them a bit more troubleshooting will be needed.
 +
:If you edit one section at a time and then save rather than moving around, it may cause more conflicts, but would also make it easier to recover from one. If both of you edit one paragraph or small section, it would be less destructive to reload the page and paste in that edited section only. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 12:00, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
::JDano, you may make the edits in the way you do for a reason, but it is very problematic because only you know why you edit the way you do. For the rest of us, for all we are able to see, you are being sloppy. I understand now, but please change your editing behaviors in the future. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 12:06, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
:::Isn't this just a question of "assume good faith"?  If a known editor is starting to do something, wait 5 to 10 minutes before jumping in, rather than creating a lot of edit conflicts.  I had the educational source windows open and was going to put the section as it is now, but never got a chance.  I still do not understand how one of my cut-and-pastes accidentally butchered to top of the article, but I managed to fix it quickly.  On Wikipedia, the edit conflict window is based on just the section open to editing, why does the edit conflict window expand the "conflict zone" to the entire article? [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 12:32, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
::::I'm still not seeing where Lindsey Graham fits in this discussion on female genital mutilation. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 12:14, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
:::::I'm talking about another problematic edit JDano made in this section. I'm not talking about FGM here. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 12:25, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
::::::As a part-time JAG officer in the Air Force reserves, Lindsay Graham gets into more legal issues than you can imagine. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 12:37, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
:::::::Lindsey Graham was in on the [[Arab_Spring#McCain_onboard|Operation Zero Footprint]] coverup, which means he's likely in on the Russian hacking scam, as well. How does Lindsey Graham relate to any Donald Trump achievement? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 12:48, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
:::::::IOW, Lindsey Graham is complicit in [[Obama war crimes]]. The only way he can rehabilitate himself is by voting right in the Senate. Other than that, nobody should care or pay attention to what he thinks about Donald Trump or Donald Trump's accomplishments. We got plenty of dirt on Lindsey Graham, even going back to his inept mishandling of Bill Clinton's impeachment case. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 13:08, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
  
:::I sent an email to Iduan to find out when his vacation is over.  I expect to receive a reply within 2-7 days. In the meantime, people who are going to be on the blocking policy refinement panel may want to look at these two pages: [[User:Iduan/Blocking Review Panel Ideas]] and [[User talk:Iduan/Blocking Review Panel Ideas]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:17, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
+
== Can someone edit this template so the useful links are readable? ==
::::::The panel is convening on 8/17/11: [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings]][[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:59, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
+
  
== Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as blocking policy refinement panel forming - see above ==
+
{{welcome}}
  
Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as discussing blocking policy refinement panel forming (I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights). By the way, the panel deliberations could occur elsewhere. I thought the community portal though would be a good place and perhaps allow for this community portal to be used more constructively henceforth.
+
Can someone edit this template so the useful links are readable?
  
 +
The blue links on a dark red background is hard to read.
  
'''Yes votes:'''
+
Also, some people have started to edit Conservapedia and then quickly gave up because they didn't know how to edit a wiki.  I noted about 3 people who did this. There are probably many more who quit but didn't say anything. I added a link entitled "How to edit a wiki".  But I believe there are various versions of the welcome template so my link is not on all welcome template versions. For example, the welcome template that JPatt uses didn't incorporate my "How to edit a wiki" link.
  
Yes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:44, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
+
Does the newest version of the Wikimedia software allow for WYSIWYG editing? In other words "What you see is what you get".
  
Yes. In my opinion much of the discussion on this page consists of editors who've got hot under the collar and written intemperate things. A continuation of this sort of thing can only be bad for CP. A future discussion of related points must happen in a more organized and civil way. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:47, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
+
The newest version of the Wikimedia software does not have the counter at the bottom of the pages. I understand why Andy Schlafly likes the counters at the bottom. I like the counters too. I guess there might be an extension to add the counters to the newest version of Wikimedia. But after all is said and done, having WYSIWYG editing could greatly increase the participation rate at this wiki and lower the rate of people falling out because they don't know how to edit a wiki. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:40, 19 June 2017 (EDT)
  
Yes.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:58, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
+
=== Here is the welcome to Wikipedia and it is much better and legible ===
  
Yes. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 16:12, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
+
[[File:Plate of cookies.jpg|thumb|300px|Some cookies to welcome you! [[File:Face-smile.svg|25px]]]] [[Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia|Welcome to Wikipedia]], Conservative! I am [[User:This lousy T-shirt|This lousy T-shirt]] and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for [[Special:Contributions/Knox490|your contributions]]. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions check out [[Wikipedia:Questions]], or feel free to leave me a message on [[User talk:This lousy T-shirt|my talk page]] or type ''{{tl|helpme}}'' at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message!  I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
 +
* [[Wikipedia:Introduction|Introduction]]
 +
* [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|The five pillars of Wikipedia]]
 +
* [[Wikipedia:How to edit a page|How to edit a page]]
 +
* [[Help:Contents|Help pages]]
 +
* [[Wikipedia:Article development|How to write a great article]]
 +
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ten_Simple_Rules_for_Editing_Wikipedia Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia].
 +
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedian]]! Also, when you post on [[Wikipedia:Talk page|talk pages]] you should [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|sign your name]] using four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.  Again, welcome!
  
Yes. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:32, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
+
I think Conservapedia needs a better greeting. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:02, 19 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
==Donald Trump's tweets==
 +
We have had a lot of discussion about how to cover Donald Trump's twitter account on the main space pages.  So, I have started a page [[Debate:Should President Trump stop tweeting?]] and invite interested editors to comment there. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 20:55, 26 June 2017 (EDT)
  
'''No votes:'''
+
== Request for Conservative or another admin ==
  
(EC) ''For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. ''  I assume that this was a question. Answer: No, it doesn't sound good. Please archive only those sections to which no user has contributed for more than one week. Thank you. [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:45, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
+
You recently deleted the article entitled "Donald Trump's breaking of promises." I am OK with this action, but would you (or another admin) please copy-and-paste the article's content onto [[User:1990'sguy/Sandbox]]? There may be some content in the article worth saving. Thanks. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 12:17, 25 June 2017 (EDT)
  
No. Attempting to bury the past doesn't deal with the valid questions already present. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 14:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
+
:I restored it to your Sandbox, but noticed that it quotes [[anti-Trump]] gasbags like Jason Chaffetz as though they are some kind of authority. The guy cannot even fulfill his own obligation to compete his 2-year term for his constituents.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 14:47, 26 June 2017 (EDT)
  
No. There have been some valid concerns raised, and "archiving" the page would be the equivalent of pretending those concerns were settled without actually answering them. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 15:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
+
::Thank you, Andy. Restoring the content has nothing to do with whether the content is accurate or good. I just want it to see if any of it is salvageable. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 15:01, 26 June 2017 (EDT)
  
No.  But since when has anything here been decided by voting?  The vote was something like 30-5 against RobS losing his sysop rights (can't be certain, since that page has since been unceremoniously burned.)  Even if 75% of his supporters were parodists (unlikely) he still had majority support from the non-sysop editors.  The decision here is going be made by the usual suspects, regardless of the outcome of this "vote". --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:37, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
+
== BLOCK THIS GUY!!!!!!!! ==
  
 +
As anyone who is logged in knows, there is a major vandalism wave going on (based on the topics being vandalized, it seems to have originated from the recent dust-up about "fake news", not that it matters.)  The only assistant I can see currently aware of this seems to be Pokeria1.  He has block powers.  But I have attempted to alert him to this.  He can't '''possibly''' be unaware of what is going on, since he has reverted my warnings on his talk page.
  
Archive it or not, it really doesn't matter. The conversations took place and they can't be taken back. Given some of the behavior I witnessed after RobS lost his admin rights, I'm very cynical about any changes occurring here, but I'm willing to try. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
+
Can someone put a stop to this?  Here is what I put (several times, getting blasted each time) on his talk page:
  
=== A question for the ''ayes'' ===
+
<big><big><big>BLOCK THIS GUY!!!!!</big></big></big>
Would you have voted for '''deleting''' the archives, too? [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 16:04, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
+
:Yes. While there might have been some good points in those discussions, the vast majority was name-calling by troublemakers, trolls and sockpuppets. Keeping it around gives a false impression of the site, which is exactly what the troublemakers, trolls and sockpuppets want. If any of the discussion in those archives was worthwhile, I'm sure it'll be brought up again in a more orderly fashion. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:26, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
+
== Why were the archives deleted? ==
+
  
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:50, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
+
What the Hell are you doing?????  You have block rights!
  
:I second that question. "Starting off with a clean slate" should not mean burning all of the old discussions. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:00, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
+
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&group=Block]
::A community is not a dishonest fool, his sockpuppet(s) and his atheist website vandal pals and their sockpuppets. No reason to provide an audience for such a spectacle. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:07, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
+
:::Well, that is an answer, but not a very good one. Where was the vote on deleting the archives? Are you intending to single-handedly delete the current archive as well? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:15, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::I found out the non-syops blockers I needed to invite so I de-archived the material. I wanted the notice about the panel not to get buried too far down the page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:46, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
+
  
==On archiving==
+
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 16:34, 27 June 2017 (EDT)
By the way, I notice that Conservative has archived the recent discussions already. Since when does a 5-5 vote mean "yes, go ahead with it?" [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:01, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
+
::It was 5-4.  Sharon, was neither yes or no. It was "it does not matter". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
+
:::That was up to interpretation. Anyway, how long did you have the vote up before closing the matter? By my count it's less than 12 hours. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:16, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
+
  
*the vote was up for less than 20 hours: that's an absurdly short time-
+
For the record, I DID respond to your post in the limited amount of time I could before that 2000'sguy person undid the revision, and I even attempted to ask how long I should block him. However, I also made it very clear that I'm extremely reluctant to do it because I fear ultimately being corrupted by that power (I've already witnessed plenty of admins on the forums and other wikis blocking people for the sheer heck of it, or even threatening people to keep them in line, and I want to go out of my way to avoid being like them). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 18:51, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
*it's even more absurd to vote on the minor matter (archiving, but preserving information) and act unilaterally on the big issue (destroying of information)
+
*To quote Sharon: ''The conversations took place and they can't be taken back.'' You are certainly trying, Conservative!
+
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:17, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
+
:Most of this page served as an attack page on several individuals, and that's going to stop. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:22, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
+
::Karajou, there were also allegations that sysops have personally attacked editors. Those were "archived" without discussion of the issues. Do you have a comment on that? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:26, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
+
:::Then they had better specify the reasons why these editors were attacked, and if these attacks were clearly for nothing, then I am open for sysop demotion; but if these alleged attacks were caused by the editors themselves through fighting, bad conduct, or the deliberate posting of false information, then they have no room to talk.  For the record, the reasons why I will remove someone from the site are posted under the warning tag on my talk page.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:39, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
+
  
*Ah, love, peace and happiness at last. And quietness. The last may become a problem, as Andy Schlafly seems to enjoy record-breaking numbers of unique visitors, and these will be hard to come by when the contribution goes back to the level of the last quarter of 2010.
+
:OK, I see it now. In the heat of battle, I did not.  My answer to the "how long?" question is:
*And there are still attacks left on this page, like this comment about Rob Smith: ''(annoying/pestering sock of TracyS and about a dozen other socks I have been told, etc. etc.)''
+
:*Correct answer:  Infinite.  That kind of stuff is infinite.
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:56, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
+
:*Acceptable answer: 1 day.  That's enough for admins to notice what happened and take it from there.
:::RonLar: A few comments: 1) Western liberalism is running out of other people's money (Asian money, etc.) 2) Conservatism and austerity budgets are on the rise in the Western World so conservative websites should experience some growth 3) Conservapedia does plan on reviewing and improving its block policy 4) At an opportune time, perhaps in a few years, I may unveil a plan which I think Conservapedia may be more receptive to which I believe could increase its viewership. By the way, how many websites have you considerably added traffic to?  My guess is none so your "expert" opinion has little weight. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:46, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
+
:*Crazy answer: However long it takes for me to come over and beat you up.  Non-violently, of course.  :-)
 +
:Your position on not letting power corrupt you is very similar to mine.  See the discussion among Ed Poor, DavidB4, and myself on Ed's talk page. Blocking people for the heck of it, and threatening people, happens elsewhere, and it used to happen here.  I think we have improved.
  
::::Did you post this in the wrong place? It doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 11:53, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
+
:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 19:21, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
:# ''Western liberalism is running out of other people's money (Asian money, etc.)'' And that is relevant because....?
+
:# ''Conservatism and austerity budgets are on the rise in the Western World so conservative websites should experience some growth'' And that is relevant because....?
+
:# ''Conservapedia does plan on reviewing and improving its block policy''  That may be a very promising development...
+
:# ''At an opportune time, perhaps in a few years, I may unveil a plan which I think Conservapedia may be more receptive too which I believe could increase its viewership.'' In the fast moving world of the internet, such intricate plans are of relatively little value.
+
:By the way: could you show me to a talk page where you successfully debated with someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.? Thanks
+
:[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:58, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
+
:::RonLar, who said my plan was intricate? :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:26, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
+
::::::I found out the non-syops blockers I needed to invite to the panel so I de-archived the material. I wanted the notice about the panel not to get buried too far down the page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:48, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
+
  
== A blocking policy refinement panel is meeting  in Summer or early Fall ==
+
== If you see something, say something ==
  
A blocking policy refinement panel is meeting in Summer or early Fall. Here are the people who signed up so far:
+
More precisely: If you see blatant vandalism taking place, and you have block powers, block the perpetrator.
  
*[[User:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|Sysops and Sysop candidates with blocking rights]]
+
I believe most active users are "assistants", meaning they have the power, and authority, to block vandals.  Yesterday there was a huge vandal attack, in which 65 acts of vandalism were committed in about 40 minutes.  I saw that an assistant was logged in, and attempted to alert him on his talk page.  The vandal reverted that, and I kept trying.  The user saw the vandalism to his talk page and reverted it.  He even reverted my warning.  I sent private mail to Andy.  Finally Ed Poor did the deed.
  
*[[User talk:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|Sysop candidates with blocking rights]]  
+
Assistants have the power to block vandals.  Use it.  That's what it's for.  Don't just let vandalism sprees go on.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 18:24, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
:I think there are more vandal attacks because liberals are getting desperate.  They are losing power and do not like it. They are like cornered rats right now. The engaging in violent tactics, violent demonstrations, etc. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:02, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
::It even happened here this morning, but the two perps (who, based on very similar user names, is most likely the same kid using multiple accounts) got cut off at the pass quickly. If I'd been on line yesterday when said vandalism happened, I would've stopped it right there and then, but no editor with blocking power can be on site 24/7. Best thing to do is pay attention to the Recent changes section and watch what happens. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 20:01, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
:::I noticed that incredible spree after the fact--yikes!  Sam, I was offline, but that doesn't mean I can't help.  I've provided a link on my talk page to send my a text message for a reason too--that's what it's there for.  I may not be available, but I would be happy to deal with the issue if I am.  Just because I'm not editing doesn't mean I can help for a moment. :)  --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 20:03, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
::::This is similar to when I kept on reverting the several accounts of this "James Wilson" fellow a few weeks ago. It took forever to block him, and he was able to get a lot of pages, including repeatedly vandalizing the  [[Taylor Swift]] article and creating frivolous entries. There seems to be plenty enough "assistants" on here, so such long sprees shouldn't be happening so often. --[[User:Anglican|Anglican]] ([[User talk:Anglican|talk]]) 22:25, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
==Political Directory==
 +
We have a project that started last February, but still needs teamwork to complete.  This project accidentally drifted to Archive2, but still has work to be done.
  
I am sending an email to [[User:Iduan]] to determine when he is returning from his vacation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:16, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
+
A few years ago, some editors copied a lot of political directory information into CP.  For example, the state articles list all of the Senators and Congressmen and the infobox has the Senators' telephone numbers.  Much of this has changed in the 2014 and 2016 elections. In some cases, like [[Elizabeth Warren]], the junior senator has become the senior senator of the state. I have corrected [[Ohio]], but do not want to fix all of this by myself. Can we organize a work list and cross off each state as it is updated? Please let me know if you want to help. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 09:22, 15 February 2017 (EST)
:Just returned; first: sleep; then: back to business.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 17:01, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
+
::I have blocking rights. May I join?--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 17:10, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
+
:::I added you to list. I don't think there will be any objections to me doing so. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:58, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
+
  
==Response to Karajou==
+
:I can't say I'm thrilled at the idea, but I can try to chip in a little, as time permits. That's a very good idea, and I'm glad you noticed--I'm just not sure how much time I can contribute. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 11:03, 15 February 2017 (EST)
I told Andy yesterday I would respond to these baseless charges today, but spent the better part of the last nine hours blocked after User:Conservative flip-flopped, reverted himself, and unblocked me (I'll accept your apology later, User:Conservative, for inconveniencing me). But to Mr. Karajou: you seem to be of the opinion that,
+
::In my state even the official state website hasn't been updated in more than two years (it still lists an officer sitting in jail as Secretary of State). I'm sure the lazy government bureaucrats blame Republican budget cuts who took over the legislature in 2014. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|CIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win?]]</sup> 21:33, 15 February 2017 (EST)
:'''A little leven leveneth the whole lump.'''
+
:::This project is focusing on 1) list of US Congressmen and Senators and 2) Senators in infobox. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 00:27, 16 February 2017 (EST)
That would be true, if Conservapedia were a monolith, requiring ideological conformity. But it's not, and never has been. Let's not forget the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares,
+
:'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Tares#Narrative An enemy hath done this]. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest.'''  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:29, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
+
Here is the evidence that I am aware of:
+
  
1. Both RobS and TracyS edited from the same IP address. After Karajou pointed this out, I personally confirmed this matter.  
+
Sources: http://www.house.gov/representatives/ and https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?OrderBy=state&Sort=ASC  When you have finished with a state, cross the state name out using <nowiki><s>State</s></nowiki>.
 +
{| class="wikitable"
 +
|
 +
* <b>[[Alabama]]:&nbsp;Dec. 14, 1819</b>
 +
* <s>[[Alaska]]:&nbsp;Jan. 3, 1959</s>
 +
* <s>[[Arizona]]:&nbsp;Feb. 14, 1912</s>
 +
* <s>[[Arkansas]]:&nbsp;Jun. 15, 1836</s>
 +
* <s>[[California]]:&nbsp;Sep. 9, 1850</s>
 +
* <s>[[Colorado]]:&nbsp;Aug. 1, 1876</s>
 +
* <s>[[Connecticut]]:&nbsp;Jan. 9, 1788</s>
 +
* <b>[[Delaware]]:&nbsp;Dec. 7, 1787</b>
 +
* <s>[[Florida]]:&nbsp;Mar. 3, 1845</s>
 +
* <s>[[Georgia]]:&nbsp;Jan. 2, 1788</s>
 +
* <s>[[Hawaii]]:&nbsp;Aug. 21, 1959</s>
 +
* <s>[[Idaho]]:&nbsp;Jul. 3, 1890</s>
 +
* <b>[[Illinois]]:&nbsp;Dec. 3, 1818</b>
 +
* <s>[[Indiana]]:&nbsp;Dec. 11, 1816</s>
 +
* <s>[[Iowa]]:&nbsp;Dec. 28, 1846</s>
 +
* <s>[[Kansas]]:&nbsp;Jan. 29, 1861</s>
 +
* <b>[[Kentucky]]:&nbsp;Jun. 1, 1792</b>
 +
* <s>[[Louisiana]]:&nbsp;Apr. 30, 1812</s>
 +
* <s>[[Maine]]:&nbsp;Mar. 15, 1820</s>
 +
* <b>[[Maryland]]:&nbsp;Apr. 28, 1788</b>
 +
* <s>[[Massachusetts]]:&nbsp;Feb. 6, 1788</s>
 +
* <s>[[Michigan]]:&nbsp;Jan. 26, 1837</s>
 +
* <s>[[Minnesota]]:&nbsp;May 11, 1858</s>
 +
* <s>[[Mississippi]]:&nbsp;Dec. 10, 1817</s>
 +
* <b>[[Missouri]]:&nbsp;Aug. 10, 1821</b>
 +
|
 +
* <s>[[Montana]]:&nbsp;Nov. 8, 1889</s>
 +
* <s>[[Nebraska]]:&nbsp;Mar. 1, 1867</s>
 +
* <s>[[Nevada]]:&nbsp;Oct. 31, 1864</s>
 +
* <s>[[New Hampshire]]:&nbsp;Jun. 21, 1788</s>
 +
* <s>[[New Jersey]]:&nbsp;Dec. 18, 1787</s>
 +
* <s>[[New Mexico]]:&nbsp;Jan. 6, 1912 </s>
 +
* <s>[[New York]]:&nbsp;Jul. 26, 1788</s>
 +
* <b>[[North Carolina]]:&nbsp;Nov. 21, 1789</b>
 +
* <s>[[North Dakota]]:&nbsp;Nov. 2, 1889</s>
 +
* <b>[[Ohio]]:&nbsp;Mar. 1, 1803</b>
 +
* <s>[[Oklahoma]]:&nbsp;Nov. 16, 1907</s>
 +
* <s>[[Oregon]]:&nbsp;Feb. 14, 1859</s>
 +
* <s>[[Pennsylvania]]:&nbsp;Dec. 12, 1787</s>
 +
* <s>[[Rhode Island]]:&nbsp;May 29, 1790</s>
 +
* <s>[[South Carolina]]:&nbsp;May 23, 1788</s>
 +
* <s>[[South Dakota]]:&nbsp;Nov. 2, 1889</s>
 +
* <s>[[Tennessee]]:&nbsp;Jun. 1, 1796</s>
 +
* <b>[[Texas]]:&nbsp;Dec. 29, 1845</b>
 +
* <s>[[Utah]]:&nbsp;Jan. 4, 1896</s>
 +
* <b>[[Vermont]]:&nbsp;Mar. 4, 1791</b>
 +
* <b>[[Virginia]]:&nbsp;Jun. 25, 1788</b>
 +
* <s>[[Washington]]:&nbsp;Nov. 11, 1889</s>
 +
* <b>[[West Virginia]]:&nbsp;Jun. 20, 1863</b>
 +
* <b>[[Wisconsin]]:&nbsp;May 29, 1848</b>
 +
* <s>[[Wyoming]]:&nbsp;Jul. 10, 1890</s>
 +
|}
 +
Many thanks to Pokeria1, AMorrow, and DavidB4 for their help on this project. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 13:44, 16 February 2017 (EST)
  
2. Both were somewhat obsessed with my talk page design in an annoying way despite the fact that Conservapedia says a user's talk page is his/her castle. At the time, I had a system for leaving messages to me. I have since closes my talk page for leaving messages due to RobS and his atheist pals use of pestering tactics.   
+
'''Since we finished the federal officers faster than I expected, I am proposing a Phase II, where we go back and check the names of the state-wide officers''' listed in each of the above articles. After you have checked an article please change <nowiki><s>state</s> to <b>state</b></nowiki>Many thanks! [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 10:59, 17 February 2017 (EST)
  
3. Both were dishonest. For example, RobS claiming he referred to me as demonic at Conservapedia which he never did as he knows the charge was baseless plus he didn't have the guts to do this at Conservapedia, but instead chose to do this at an atheist gutter website that is filled with obscenity and gossip.  TracyS claimed he/she was not trying to annoy me about my talk despite using language purposely meant to annoy.
+
==Clean sweep response to Muslim protestors==
  
4. Both were annoying and needlessly argumentative.   
+
I saw this on a woman's Twitter page. She responded to four themes that make up quite a lot of common Muslim protest arguments in such a way as to maximize the exposure of their contradictionsThose who call for more Muslim immigration should be confronted with these short arguments and why they think they don't apply seriously to these all-too-typical Muslim sentiments:
  
5. Karajou claims there were multiple sockpuppets of RobS, but I have not personally investigated this matter.  
+
:You call me intolerant because I won't tolerate a religion of intolerance [Muslim activist's sign "Islam will dominate the world"].
 +
:You call me hate-filled because I'm against hate preachers [Muslim activist's sign: "Behead those who insult Islam"].
 +
:You call me extreme because I don't want extremists in my country [Two men dressed in all black except hole for eyes: "God Bless Hitler" in bold red capital letters].
 +
:You call me a supremacist because I won't submit to invaders who believe their law & culture is supreme to ours [Muslims with black parade banner: "Shariah for the UK"].
 +
:I only need to call you one word...Traitor.
 +
[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 01:24, 14 July 2017 (EDT)
  
RobS is still an egotist and has learned nothing. It would be a big mistake at this time to give him back his Sysop/Admin rights. He would just foment a lot of useless drama and nonsense. Conservapedia doesn't need RobS the egotist to change its blocking policy and a panel of which he is not a part to refine its blocking policy is far better suited to the task. I invited people to take part in such a panel and some have accepted my invitation to take part in the panel.
+
== Recent issue(s) ==
  
I did block RobS earlier for a short spell due to him being disruptive to me posting a notice in this room that would be more constructive than much of the current content which I archived. However, with another Sysops's assistance I was able to send out invitations to the appropriate parties so the notice at the community portal was no longer needed so I unblocked RobS and de-archived the material. Given his past behavior, I see no reason to apologize for any inconvenience this caused RobS.  
+
So, with at least a few articles in the past, including the articles on [[Kate Upton]] and earlier [[Taylor Swift]], I am unsure about what direction the site should be taking regarding the topic of women wearing less than modest clothing. Should it be mentioned in the articles, and if so, how should it be done? The Upton situation seems to have at least two Senior Administrators and two Junior Administrators involved, and I think we should talk about how to address the issue, given that this is a conservative-minded encyclopedia and that social conservatism has been a key component of conservatism in the US. --[[User:Anglican|Anglican]] ([[User talk:Anglican|talk]]) 16:22, 14 July 2017 (EDT)
 +
:The trend of women wearing less modest clothes is a relatively recent development, and it is associated with feminism. I think things like this should be mentioned only if the person in question claims to be religious or traditional. This is just my take, however. We'll see what everyone else has to say. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 16:32, 14 July 2017 (EDT)
 +
::Your take does make sense, and a claim to be a Christian may imply something of the sort, as [[User:RonaldB]] pointed out. Since it has come up in at least a few articles it is something that really should be addressed. We should be able to do it in an encyclopedic tone, without sounding too preachy. One of the earlier revisions of the Upton article did come off rather preachy. --[[User:Anglican|Anglican]] ([[User talk:Anglican|talk]]) 16:41, 14 July 2017 (EDT)
 +
:::Yes, regardless of what we do, we should stick to an encyclopedic tone. I don't think we will have to mention these things on articles of people who clearly are secular liberals (unless that they do is blatantly outrageous, like what Miley Cyrus did a while back). --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 16:55, 14 July 2017 (EDT)
 +
::::I stepped in as far as the Kate Upton article because there was a dispute happening and there were nude photographs that she had taken. Plus, she lied about the issue shortly before the cloud website had a data breach which caused her pictures to become public.  
  
I will now let RobS give his empty sales pitch on how his desysoping was all a misunderstanding and a mistake on Aschlafly's part. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:28, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
+
::::You have to draw the line somewhere and I drew the line at nude. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])
:User:Conservative, I told Andy yesterday I would respond here, but was prevented by you and the whole day was wasted. Also, I see the whole page & its Archives have been vandalized, as well as other users private user space, so I hesitate in wasting anymore time here. I will however, respond with this:
+
When I was in high school, I volunteered to help in the school library.  We had a periodical collection, and students would have to request a specific magazine issue, and then the student assistant would go into the back room, pull the issue and have the student sign it out. The most requested magazines were ''Car and Driver'' followed by the ''National Geographic'' issues which photos of native African women.  We can discuss these subjects with an encyclopedic tone and without including examples.  In contrast, Wikipedia works extensively to collect as many nude photos as possible and is not family friendly.  We don't want Conservapedia to appeal to the crowd that reads ''National Geographic'' for just those few special photos. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 18:05, 14 July 2017 (EDT)
:'''"pesterfesting"''': this is the term User:Conservative uses for what is commonly refereed to in the outside world as '''"[[Advocacy]]"'''. An advocate is a person who acts on behalf of others who are incapable, or have been prevented from acting on their own behalf. Two examples of advocates would be, (1) [[Andrew Schlafly]], noted attorney, and (2) [[Jesus Christ]], [[savior]] of the [[planet]]. Advocacy is very common in the world of wikis, but I can see where you would have difficultly with the idea.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:57, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::It sounds like everyone basically agrees on this anyway, but I'll chime inI agree that we should keep such content to a minimum.  If such information can be used to prove hypocrisy, then it might be worth carefully mentioning.  However, in general, that's just a part of the secular world now. Let's keep it out of here, unless perhaps if it is beneficial to prove a different point. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 21:04, 14 July 2017 (EDT)
:::RobS, in retrospect, I believe your "pesterfesting" was just a petty and narcissistic post TK power grab which tried to show others that you were the "big man on campus". Second, I am sorry to hear that you couldn't find other things to do besides edit Conservapedia and that your whole day was wasted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:07, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
+
  
== The Conservapedia  Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings have begun ==
+
I'm thinking that there's an agreement about how to handle this particular issue from now on. Although, I still regret my rash judgment and current inability to correct it at this time. --[[User:Anglican|Anglican]] ([[User talk:Anglican|talk]]) 23:02, 14 July 2017 (EDT)
  
The Conservapedia  Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings have begun and can be found [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings|HERE]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:16, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
+
== Sam Chui's Little Theorem ==
  
 +
I wasn't able to find anything on the internet related to [[Sam Chui's Little Theorem]].  And there are no citations in the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 07:01, 19 August 2017 (EDT)
 +
:Appears to be a private gag between half a dozen 14-year olds from math camp. No encyclopaedic value, no educational value and, frankly, unfunny to boot. They have had their few days of glory, now burn it with fire. [[User:NeilWalker|NeilWalker]] ([[User talk:NeilWalker|talk]]) 07:57, 19 August 2017 (EDT)
 +
::I deleted the article.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 08:12, 19 August 2017 (EDT)
 +
== User:GinnyS ==
 +
I see that someone today blocked User:GinnyS for violating the 90%/10% rule.  Just so that the record is clear, since she created her account, GinnyS had 49 talk page edits and 22 article page edits leading to a 69%/31% ratio, which is seems to meet the rule's requirements. While today's exchange was intemperate, we do want users to feel free to raise concerns to ensure that what is posted matches the sources provided.  Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 20:50, 27 August 2017 (EDT)
 +
:"Ginny" was a man.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])
  
== Android App? ==
+
== Block flood ==
  
Does anyone have the link to the android app? I am unable to find it for some strange reason. [[User:JacobSmith|JacobSmith]] 22:05, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
+
Apologies for the block flood--I got the process derailed onto the wrong account (main rather than bot).  I will try to be more careful in the future. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 00:07, 8 September 2017 (EDT)
:I am an Android user. Nothing exists and was likely a person having fun with lies.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:14, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
+
  
== My Testimony ==
+
== Conservative of the Year 2017 ==
  
I was a liberal atheist.  About two weeks ago, I was talking to a Conservative friend of mine and she pointed me to the site conservapedia.com.  So I came here and read a few articles.  Then read a few more.  Then when I noticed registration was open, I signed up, but didn't contribute right away, but I kept reading.  I read [[Christian apologetics]], [[Counterexamples to Evolution]], [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]], [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian]] and some wonderful essays too numerous to list.  While reading, I felt...something.  Something I haven't felt since I was a child.  Yesterday, Sunday Morning, I did something I haven't done in nearly 30 years:  I went to church.  It was wonderful and I do believe I felt the Holy Spirit.  I don't believe I deserve to call myself a Christian yet, but I'm looking forward to next Sunday. :-) Thank you all.  --[[User:OliviaB|OliviaB]] 13:51, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
+
I created the article where we list the nominations for [[Conservative of the Year 2017]]. Feel free to add solid conservatives to the list who deserve mention. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 23:18, 8 November 2017 (EST)
  
== Summer Paper Gone Bad ==
+
== New essay, need contributors ==
  
Summer is drawing to a close and school is beginning again. I have decided to write my essay on the origin of the moon, citing Conservapedia several times. When my teacher (this is a public school) gave me my paper back with the grade an all, he gave me a 62. In addition, he gave me a "good talking to" on not using Wikipedia. I tried to explain him that Conservapedia is different, he just wouldn't listen! He gave me the opportunity to do the paper again using different sources. I don't want to use different sources, because they are most often plagued with bias. My question is simple- how do we separate ourselves from Wikipedia to the general public, and how to we improve our reputation? --[[User:WilliamMoran|WilliamMoran]] 17:13, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
+
I have created a new essay: http://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:Virtue:_Christian_vs_secular
:Wikis are not normally considered good sources for research as they are generally open and can be edited by anyone. And any decent teacher (public school or not) probably won't accept an encyclopedia of any kind (hard copy or online) as a source for a research paper, as they normally want the student to actually do some research. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:06, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
+
::William, the good news is you were docked points for your sources and not for content.  That implies that your teacher has an open mind.  I'd suggest Answers in Genesis, A Storehouse of Knowledge, Creation Ministries International or look at some of Ray Comfort's books.  Of course, these sources are all the work of man and are therefore always biased and flawed. For the truth, you'll want to turn to the Bible. --[[User:OliviaB|OliviaB]] 19:57, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
+
  
== An open apology to Conservative and Aschlafly ==
+
I would welcome contributions from other CP users. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 11:28, 28 December 2017 (EST)
  
I was [[User:WalterS]] and made an inappropriate comment several months ago.  Then two days ago I signed up again under the name JefferyA and tried to make some contributions to the Conservative dictionary.  I was banned by [[User:Karajou]] for my actions as WalterS and told that I could come back if I apologized.  I am therefore offering my apologies to [[User:Aschlafly]] and [[User:Conservative]].  I am sorry.  It was wrong to vandalize your site.  I know I don't deserve to stay, but if you can find it within you to allow me to, I would very much appreciate it.  God be with you. --[[User:JefferyA|JefferyA]] 09:23, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
+
== Conservatism sells: The growth of followers of conservatives on Twitter ==
::Your sentiments are appreciated. With the being said, to the best of my knowledge Mr. Schlafly is the sole owner of the website.  My articles tend to receive web traffic, but for the most part I create articles and I have blocked some vandals as well. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:09, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
+
  
== Banned user ==
+
See [[Essay:Top conservatives on Twitter]] for current number of followers of top Twitter users considered to be conservative.  Of those Twitter posters whose accounts on that page are still active, none lost in their total number of followers over the whole year of 2017.
  
Conservative recently banned SamCoulter for "putting garbage into article". However, the 'garbage' was a legitimate point backed up by a valid reference. Indeed, the same reference has been cited by Conservative on the main page. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 23:07, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
+
{| class="wikitable sortable" style="font-size:98%; margin:left;"
:This is a non-starter. Conservative is a senior admin with tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of quality edits. This is a meritocracy, David. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 23:36, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
+
|+ Promoters of conservatism with large gains of followers on Twitter, 2016-7 (top 20 each category)
::Almost 5% of his "tens of thousands" of quality edits are minor edits. He also created 4 different articles all with the same information as a main article. From what it seemed, SamCoulter was just trying to bring more facts to the table. Three months seems too excessive for something that wasn't even explained as to "why it doesn't belong". [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 23:52, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
+
|+
:::I don't agree with Conservative's articles on this topic. That said, I did not get the impression that SamCoulter meant what he posted as a serious contribution, but rather simply as an attempt to "prove a point". He basically [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:SamCoulter&curid=114914&diff=920263&oldid=920262 admitted the same himself, and called himself "juvenile"]. One should consider those facts before drawing any conclusions. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 00:14, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
+
!Twitter poster
::::Nice job taking things out of context. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 00:32, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
+
!Increase<br>in<br>followers<br>2016
:::::I do not see how I am doing so. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 00:55, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
+
!% in-<br>crs.<br>in<br>fol-<br>low<br>ers
::::::It's like people who quote verses from the Bible (specifically Leviticus). They quote what they want and not its entirety. He admitted what he did was juvenile, but he felt he had to do it that way to bring attention to a topic that Aschlafly appeared to be ignoring. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 01:04, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
+
!Increase<br>in<br>followers<br>2017
:::::::SamCoulter behaved in a manner which, by his own admission, was juvenile, and as a result was blocked. That is the topic being addressed in this section. The issue of those articles, and what position Mr. Schlafly takes or ought to take with respect to them, is a separate discussion which does not belong in this section. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 01:17, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
+
!% in-<br>crs.<br>in<br>fol-<br>low<br>ers
Getting back to the point; Conservative banned SamCoulter specifically for "putting garbage into article". However, the 'garbage' in question was fully-referenced material, indeed it used the same reference as Conservative had on the main page, and SamCoulter was pretty much quoting what the referenced article stated. The number of edits an admin has made is irrelevant when it comes to determining whether a particular block was justified. A block must be judged according to the specific circumstances of the case, not the past activities of the admin doing the blocking. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 09:26, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
+
!Increase<br>in<br>followers<br>Dec. 17 2018
 +
!% in-<br>crs.<br>in<br>fol-<br>low<br>ers
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|Pres. (or-Elect) [[Donald J. Trump]]
 +
|align="right"|+13,053,000
 +
|align="right"|+237%
 +
|align="right"|+26,905,000
 +
|align="right"|+145%
 +
|align="right"|+10,520,000
 +
|align="right"|+23%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|Dr. [[Ben Carson]]
 +
|align="right"|+1,475,000
 +
|align="right"|+136%
 +
|align="right"|0
 +
|align="right"|+0%
 +
|align="right"|91,000
 +
|align="right"|+3%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|[[Michelle Malkin]]
 +
|align="right"|+943,000
 +
|align="right"|+105%
 +
|align="right"|+328,000
 +
|align="right"|+18%
 +
|align="right"|-26,000
 +
|align="right"|-1%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|[[Sean Hannity]]
 +
|align="right"|+697,000
 +
|align="right"|+56%
 +
|align="right"|+1,266,000
 +
|align="right"|+65%
 +
|align="right"|+643,000
 +
|align="right"|+20%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|[[Laura Ingraham]]
 +
|align="right"|+550,000
 +
|align="right"|+89%
 +
|align="right"|+819,000
 +
|align="right"|+73%
 +
|align="right"|+575,000
 +
|align="right"|+30%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|[[Ann Coulter]]
 +
|align="right"|+463,000
 +
|align="right"|+63%
 +
|align="right"|+632,000
 +
|align="right"|+53%
 +
|align="right"|+279,000
 +
|align="right"|+15%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|Judge [[Jeanine Pirro]]
 +
|align="right"|+292,000
 +
|align="right"|+222%
 +
|align="right"|+479,500
 +
|align="right"|+113%
 +
|align="right"|+387,000
 +
|align="right"|+43%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|[[Franklin Graham]]
 +
|align="right"|+277,000
 +
|align="right"|+59%
 +
|align="right"|+565,000
 +
|align="right"|+76%
 +
|align="right"|+489,000
 +
|align="right"|+37%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|[[Sarah Palin]]
 +
|align="right"|+226,000
 +
|align="right"|+20%
 +
|align="right"|+139,000
 +
|align="right"|+10%
 +
|align="right"|+16,000
 +
|align="right"|+1%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|[[Tucker Carlson]]
 +
|align="right"|+224,000
 +
|align="right"|+89%
 +
|align="right"|+943,000
 +
|align="right"|+198%
 +
|align="right"|+930,000
 +
|align="right"|+65%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|[[Steven Crowder]]
 +
|align="right"|+180,000
 +
|align="right"|+122%
 +
|align="right"|+177,000
 +
|align="right"|+54%
 +
|align="right"|+151,000
 +
|align="right"|+30%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|[[Dinesh D'Souza]]
 +
|align="right"|+166,000
 +
|align="right"|+69%
 +
|align="right"|+313,000
 +
|align="right"|+77%
 +
|align="right"|+362,000
 +
|align="right"|+50%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|[[Mark Levin]]
 +
|align="right"|+157,000
 +
|align="right"|+30%
 +
|align="right"|+346,000
 +
|align="right"|+50%
 +
|align="right"|+398,000
 +
|align="right"|+39%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|[[James O'Keefe]]
 +
|align="right"|+147,000
 +
|align="right"|+198%
 +
|align="right"|+136,000
 +
|align="right"|+62%
 +
|align="right"|+125,000
 +
|align="right"|+35%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|[[Katie Pavlich]]
 +
|align="right"|+145,000
 +
|align="right"|+70%
 +
|align="right"|+111,900
 +
|align="right"|+32%
 +
|align="right"|+131,000
 +
|align="right"|+28%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|[[Allen West]]
 +
|align="right"|+137,000
 +
|align="right"|+29%
 +
|align="right"|+132,000
 +
|align="right"|+22%
 +
|align="right"|+15,000
 +
|align="right"|+2%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|Dr. [[Charles Krauthammer]]
 +
|align="right"|+121,000
 +
|align="right"|+20%
 +
|align="right"|+135,000
 +
|align="right"|+18%
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|[[Monica Crowley]]
 +
|align="right"|+114,000
 +
|align="right"|+42%
 +
|align="right"|+84,000
 +
|align="right"|+22%
 +
|align="right"|+51,000
 +
|align="right"|+11%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|[[Linda Suhler]], Ph. D.
 +
|align="right"|+90,000
 +
|align="right"|+48%
 +
|align="right"|+73,000
 +
|align="right"|+26%
 +
|align="right"|+24,800
 +
|align="right"|+7%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|Gov. [[Greg Abbott]]
 +
|align="right"|+65,000
 +
|align="right"|+40%
 +
|align="right"|+129,300
 +
|align="right"|+57%
 +
|align="right"|+40,300
 +
|align="right"|+11%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|[[John Nolte]]
 +
|align="right"|+46,000
 +
|align="right"|+74%
 +
|align="right"|+41,800
 +
|align="right"|+38%
 +
|align="right"|+8,900
 +
|align="right"|+6%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|[[Dennis Prager]]
 +
|align="right"|+28,000
 +
|align="right"|+50%
 +
|align="right"|+51,300
 +
|align="right"|+60%
 +
|align="right"|+47,100
 +
|align="right"|+35%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|[[Hugh Hewitt]]
 +
|align="right"|+42,000
 +
|align="right"|+47%
 +
|align="right"|+29,100
 +
|align="right"|+22%
 +
|align="right"|+10,500
 +
|align="right"|+7%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|[[Nikki Haley]]
 +
|align="right"|+57,000
 +
|align="right"|+47%
 +
|align="right"|+746,000
 +
|align="right"|+417%
 +
|align="right"|+725,000
 +
|align="right"|+78%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|Sen. [[Tim Scott]]
 +
|align="right"|+51,000
 +
|align="right"|+45%
 +
|align="right"|+177,200
 +
|align="right"|+108%
 +
|align="right"|+39,000
 +
|align="right"|+11%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|[[Kellyanne Conway]]
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|+1,376,000
 +
|align="right"|+232%
 +
|align="right"|+532,000
 +
|align="right"|+27%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|Sher. [[David Clarke]]
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|+540,000
 +
|align="right"|+123%
 +
|align="right"|-36,000
 +
|align="right"|-4%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|[[Dan Scavino]], Jr.
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|+196,000
 +
|align="right"|+74%
 +
|align="right"|+41,000
 +
|align="right"|+9%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|[[Bill Mitchell]]
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|+143,500
 +
|align="right"|+85%
 +
|align="right"|+89,000
 +
|align="right"|+29%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|[[Wayne Dupree]]
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|+136,100
 +
|align="right"|+91%
 +
|align="right"|+23,500
 +
|align="right"|+8%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|[[Larry Kudlow]]
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|+76,700
 +
|align="right"|+73%
 +
|align="right"|+53,800
 +
|align="right"|+30%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|[[Kayleigh McEnany]]
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|+39,100
 +
|align="right"|+57%
 +
|align="right"|+34,000
 +
|align="right"|+31%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|[[Sarah Sanders]]
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|+1,206,000
 +
|align="right"|+43%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|[[Candace Owens]]
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|+634,000 +
 +
|align="right"|+192% +
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|[[Charlie Kirk]]
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|+564,000
 +
|align="right"|+208%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|[[Diamond and Silk]]
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|+473,000
 +
|align="right"|+99%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|[[Sebastian Gorka]]
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|+175,000 +
 +
|align="right"|+36% +
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|[[John Bolton]]
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|+168,000
 +
|align="right"|+65%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|[[Chuck Woolery]]
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|+158,000
 +
|align="right"|+47%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|[[Alana Mastrangelo]]
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|+67,400
 +
|align="right"|+85%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|[[Liz Wheeler]]
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|+102,000
 +
|align="right"|+72%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|[[Sean Davis]]
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|+52,600
 +
|align="right"|+62%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|Rep. [[Mark Meadows]]
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|+100,000 +
 +
|align="right"|+51% +
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|[[Charles V. Payne]]
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|+99,300
 +
|align="right"|+49%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|[[Tim Young]]
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|+58,700
 +
|align="right"|+43%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|[[Dylan Wheeler]]
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|+100,200
 +
|align="right"|+41%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|[[Buck Sexton]]
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|+47,300
 +
|align="right"|+38%
 +
|}
  
== re: User: LeonardS wanting to debate User: Conservative ==
 
  
Don't you have ANYTHING to say about my challenge? There's no need to run away; if you don't want to debate a simple "No thank you, I'd rather not" will be quite sufficient. I mean, it's not like I'm some sort of power-crazed vindictive bigot or anything. '''voiceoftruth2006''' --[[User:LeonardS|LeonardS]] 03:16, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
+
[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 03:40, 1 January 2018 (EST)
:::Have you read [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] yet? There is hope and healing available. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:27, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
+
:I just had a big mystery solved. Monica Crowley was originally named as one of Trump's top advisors (see [[Jared Kushner]] page. She backed out at the last minute. I always wondered what dirt the FBI had on her, But it's something different. [[Victor Pinchuk]] hired her as his DC lobbyist. [https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/monica-crowley-registers-foreign-agent-lobbying-for-victor-pinchuk] She's probably making 3 or 4 times more as his attorney than she would on the National Security Council ([[Adam Waldman]] is being paid $40,000 a month). Pinchuk gave $29 million to the Clintons, and is behind [[Alexandra Chalupa]], [[Olga Bielkova]], and bunch of sources for the [[Steele dossier]].
:Interesting article. But it is not necessary to be obsessed with you, dear User:Conservative, to spot some inconsistencies between some of your statements and your actions: one can look into the logs of Conservapedia (your log-entries can be found [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Conservative&page=&year=&month=-1 here]). E.g., you stated on 31 July 2011 (and repeatedly after this date):
+
:So there are two observations here about corrupt DC politics: One, given a choice, does a person go for temporary power and influence ([[NSC]] staff) or greed (big cash)? Secondly, this explains why Trump has had some difficultly in getting an retain staff (in addition to the illegal FISA surveillance on Trump staffers and appointees), qualified people are simply targeted, paid off, and outbid on government pay scales by Trump opponents. I'm sure she's not the first or only one. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 00:55, 12 November 2019 (EST)
:::'''''I am not going to be very active at Conservapedia for the near term. '''''
+
:On the other hand, you performed more than 5,200 logged actions after that date - as many as the next three busiest sysops (Aschlafly, Karajou and Jpatt) '''''together'''''. Generally your behavior doesn't change, whether you announce to have ''a full schedule in the following 90 days'' or not.
+
  
:You achieve this remarkable output by contributing to Conservapedia without much pause: over the last three days I couldn't find a period where you have been away from the computer form more than 6 1/2 h: you should try to avoid to have this lack of sleep to have an influence on the quality of your contributions.
+
==Twitter reactions on the news==
  
:But this is not to uncommon for you: you can go for a nearly a whole day making pauses of half an hour, or for a couple of days without resting for six hours at a time. The only other sysop at Conservapedia who would do the same was TK. Now, it's clear why he showed this pattern - his illness didn't allow him to sleep for more than a precious two, three hours.  
+
I try to produce web pages at Conservapedia that are useful, or even seem like they may be useful but at the time can't put my finger on what they may be useful for.
  
:Your fellow sysops failed to spot TK's problems. I'm afraid they keep up this habit of ignoring disturbing signs in other editors...
+
This is one of those times when a use has become uncovered. Several news events involving the top Twitterers took place this month, and now we can see its effect on their followers.
  
:[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:10, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
+
[https://twitter.com/BrittPettibone Brittany Pettibone] was detained three days and then turned away from the United Kingdom for loving Great Britain when it was populated by the BritishHer Twitter followers rose from 110,000 followers on March 2, 2018 to 133,000 on March 23, 2018 (+ 21%).
::Ronlar, I don't think it's very appropriate for you to be bringing up medical conditions in a public place. --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 09:16, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
+
:::Sorry, I didn't want to bring up ''medical conditions'', I just made some - as I hope helpful - observations, without offering a diagnosis. BTW: is [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] a medical condition?
+
:::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:25, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
+
::::Definitely not in the DSM --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 09:50, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::RonLar, setting aside whether your observations are correct about my sleep patterns and your apparent obsessiveness about my editing and sleep patterns, I will point out to you that some people don't need a lot of sleep and a cursory knowledge of history is all that is needed to know this. But I will make the allowance that perhaps you are an atheist that went to public schools and didn't learn much about history because you didn't apply yourself. With that being said, here is a list of famous people in history who didn't need a lot of sleep: [http://amolife.com/personality/great-people-sleep-less.html Famous people who didn't need a lot of sleep].  So even if you did obsessively log my time at Conservapedia (see: [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]]), you certainly have to take that into account. Plus, to my knowledge, there is no rule at Conservapedia indicating that people cannot share an account. Just out of curiosity why do you think there are some atheists who are very obsessed with myself and Conservapedia?  I can assure you the obsession is not one that is mutually shared as the lives of obscure atheist vandal community members are not exactly riveting. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:02, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::::''you maybe an atheist who want to public school and didn't learn much about history because you didn't apply yourself.'' I have had enough of your insults Conservative. Just cease it and be respectful of others as commanded: ''And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all ... (2 Timothy 2:24)''. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:15, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
+
  
User:Conservative, thanks for reacting to my comment. Let's have a look a it - I hope just answering to you won't get me blocked:
+
[https://twitter.com/scrowder Steven Crowder] was suspended from Twitter seven days for uploading a comic video, and meanwhile Louis Farrakhan's Twitter account uploaded many videos with anti-Jewish remarks and was left alone.  Crowder's Twitter followers rose from 549,000 followers on March 2 to 583,000 on March 23, 2018 (+ 6%).
*''to my knowledge, there is no rule at Conservapedia indicating that people cannot share an account'' No, there isn't, and there have been examples of this practice: [[User:History]] and [[User:CPanel]] spring to mind. Of course, you could be many - and this would explain you turning down even an audio debate. But you look more honorable seen as a single person:
+
 
**in all your challenges you use the ''1st person '''singular''''': ''my articles'', ''my work'', etc. It would be deceitful to create this impression when asking Dawkins, Jillette (and others) to a debate, who must assume that you are a single person. And you won't be that deceptive, I hope?
+
Not to leave out events about other Twitter users, [[Paul Nehlen]], a competitor in Paul Ryan's Congressional race was removed from Twitter over a certain picture he had posted.  Eventually you stop pursuing Twitter's rationales for removal of conservatives and just assume they are false.
**it would be lovely to read your ''manual of style'' which would be necessary to keep up your profile. This could be an excerpt:
+
 
::{|class="wikitable"
+
And [https://twitter.com/AmbJohnBolton John Bolton], who was recently added by President Trump to his National Security team, had his Twitter followers rise from 264,000 on March 2 to 290,000 on March 23 (+ 10%).  [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 20:10, 23 March 2018 (EDT)
|style "background: lightgrey"|
+
 
#Don't use the preview button!
+
:Specifically regarding Bolton, he now has nearly 306,000 followers as of the time I'm writing this. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 23:19, 28 March 2018 (EDT)
#phrase of the month: '''<s>with regards to</s> <s>obese</s> bestiality''' Use it often!
+
 
#Really, don't use the preview button!
+
:The month is not yet over and The Broward-County/Democrat-Party-disregard-of-gun-laws diversion circus swept in [http://twitter.com/IngrahamAngle Laura Ingraham] this month to attack her for making a random remark about it in passing:  Her Twitter followers rose from 2,111,000 on March 2 to 2,177,000 on March 31 (+ 3%). [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 14:39, 31 March 2018 (EDT)
+
 
 +
Conservative commentators [https://twitter.com/DiamondandSilk Diamond and Silk] caught Facebook shadow-banning their account and after months of inquiry received a reply April 5, 2018 regarding their Facebook page, "your content and your brand has been determined unsafe to the community."
 +
 
 +
The two women replied:  "So our questions to Facebook (Mark Zuckerberg) are:
 +
*1. What is unsafe about two Blk-women supporting the @POTUS @realDonaldTrump?
 +
*2. Our FB page has been created since December 2014, when exactly did the content and the brand become unsafe to the community?
 +
*3. When you say "community" are you referring to the Millions who liked and followed our page?
 +
*4. What content on our page was in violation? 
 +
*5. If our content and brand was so unsafe to the community, why is the option for us to boost our content and spend money with FB to enhance our brand page still available?  Maybe FB should give us a refund since FB censored our reach.
 +
*6. Lastly, didn't FB violate their own policy when FB stopped sending notifications to the Millions of people who liked and followed our brand page?
 +
 
 +
"This is deliberate bias censorship and discrimination. These tactics are unacceptable and we want answers!"
 +
 
 +
On March 2, Diamond and Silk had 584,000 followers on Twitter.  On April 8, their readership had grown to 621,000 (+ 6%) [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 03:00, 8 April 2018 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
<!--106,751 page views-->
 +
The House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee on April 11, 2018 interviewed Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg in the halls of Congress, and some of the members of Congress actually held up a poster-sized photograph of Diamond and Silk and  asked him if he recognized them or knew about the removal of their account from Facebook.  Zuckerberg tried to change the subject to a more general question, but eventually replied that the removal was an error.
 +
 
 +
Diamond and Silks' followers on Twitter rose from 584,000 on March 2 by 84,000 to 668,000 on April 18 (+ 14%). [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 17:20, 18 April 2018 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
===Someone or more than one person is targeting top conservatives on Twitter===
 +
 
 +
[http://twitter.com/WayneDupreeShow Wayne Dupree] is now claiming that he has noticed shadow-banning on his Twitter account.  That makes seven top conservatives on Twitter members being targeted in an attempt to marginalize them: Brittany Pettibone, Steven Crowder, Paul Nehlen, Laura Ingraham, Diamond and Silk, Wayne Dupree and Feisty☀️FL [FL = Floridian] (@Feisty_FL).
 +
 
 +
[http://twitter.com/IngrahamAngle [[Laura Ingraham]]]  was able to get some publicity and conservative support regarding the boycott staged against her advertisers regarding her having showed skepticism against the attempt to add new gun-restriction laws to those laws that are already not being implemented.  Her followers on Twitter rose from 2,111,000 on March 2 to 2,239,000 on April 18, a rise of 128,000 (+ 6%). [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 17:20, 18 April 2018 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
==April Fool's joke==
 +
 
 +
The ''Titanic'': built by experts.  Ark: built by [[best of the public]]. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 09:05, 28 March 2018 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== How would you guys convince an athiest about God? ==
 +
 
 +
Purely hypothetical, but I’m curious so see all the different tactics.  [[User:GoodWeather|GoodWeather]] ([[User talk:GoodWeather|talk]]) 18:39, 15 May 2018 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:The problem with your question is that it assumes atheists need to be convinced about the existence of God. God's existence is already obvious to everyone (see Romans 1:18-23, Psalm 14:1). The problem with atheists is not that they're unconvinced of God, it's that they reject God and His Word outright. Also, I can't convince anyone to submit God -- that's something God in His grace (alone) does to those He chooses to show mercy. If it weren't for God's opening up of the eyes of believers, none of us would submit to Him (see Romans 8:7-8, for example). --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 18:57, 15 May 2018 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::The "tactic" against you, "GoodWeather" is to boot you off the site, along with your many socks, for trolling, harassment, and outright lying.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 01:48, 16 May 2018 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::Another atheist who received [[atheist indoctrination]] in a poorly run public school. The telltale sign is that he cannot spell the word atheist correctly.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 01:56, 16 May 2018 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::::It's a pity that Chawcer, who had geneyus, was so unedicated as well.  He's the wuss speller I know of.  [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 10:31, 26 May 2018 (EDT)
 +
:::::1990sguy nails it. If you're a sceptic, you're already decieved (see 2 Tim 2:26). IMHO, one should begin by desiring to free their mind from Satanic enslavement, and that would put you on the path of the knowledge of God. It's not always a straight line from disbelief to belief. You need a desire to free yourself from deception to start. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 15:29, 26 May 2018 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Twitter prune ==
 +
 
 +
I read in passing that Twitter was going to start pruning non-responsive accounts soon.  I read the same thing about two months ago, and yet I didn't notice any difference in the follower count of conservatives that couldn't be explained by summer vacations.
 +
 
 +
But if so, this may mark the first time in about three years that conservatives will see a real downward "trend" (actually a one-time brief decrease).  Who knows which accounts will be affected, how long it will take for them to recover from these corrections, and whether these removals will be administered fairly.  [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 04:22, 13 July 2018 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:So far the purged accounts among conservatives with the largest number of followers have been mostly chicken feed:
 +
 
 +
::Donald Trump:  -0.04%
 +
::Sean Hannity: -2.0%
 +
::Sarah Sanders: -0.1%
 +
::Ben and Candy Carson: -3.4%
 +
::Laura Ingraham: -0.3%
 +
 
 +
::Kellyanne Conway: -0.04%
 +
::Michelle Malkin: -1.7%
 +
::Tucker Carlson: -0.4%
 +
::Ann Coulter: -0.9%
 +
::Franklin Graham: -0.15%
 +
 
 +
::Sarah Palin: -3.9%
 +
 
 +
:I read in articles about the inflation of Twitter accounts that journalists reporting on it expected some political figures with a large popularity to have 40 or 50 percent inactive or fake followers.  This brief survey shows this is not the case with conservative figures with large popularity.
 +
 
 +
:I think the reason for the faint exception in Ben and Candy Carson's and Sarah Palin's case, is that they had been inactive for a long period of time, so the people who subscribed to their accounts were going to wait until those conservatives posted "in person" rather than by their staffs, and when their feeds weren't being written by their staffs either, the zero newsfeed made their accounts easy to maintain (that is, not taking up any space) nor allowing any opportunity for those Twitter figures to say things with which these followers might disagree and cause them to unsubscribe.
 +
 
 +
:On the other hand, I also think these pruned subscribers possibly heard about these popular conservatives' Twitter accounts and made an impulse decision to subscribe to them due to their popularity, but weren't necessarily very committed to Twitter as a whole.  Hence they left to do other things, but still holding out hope for the popular figures to come back (I am willing to bet that Rush Limbaugh is among these), they never deleted their account, but only monitored it sporadically.
 +
 
 +
:Now you know that these things are going on, don't be discouraged from politics or feel you have to keep silent if you notice it happening elsewhere or hear complaints of your fellow conservatives or sneers by liberals about decreasing follower counts.  You're welcome.  [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 03:38, 14 July 2018 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
==Shadowban evidence==
 +
There is an online shadowban detector that I found today.  To catch Twitter in the act before they find out about it and possibly change their search algorithms (they have done this for a different tool), I entered all 100 names on my Top Conservatives on Twitter list because I believe that time may be of the essence.
 +
 
 +
[https://twitter.com/PoliticalShort Nick Short] 139,500 followers<br>
 +
[https://twitter.com/BrittPettibone Brittany Pettibone] 137,800 followers<br>
 +
[https://twitter.com/TheMarkPantano Mark Pantano] 119,500 followers<br>
 +
[https://twitter.com/Rockprincess818 RockPrincess] 104,400<br>
 +
[https://twitter.com/gatewaypundit Jim Hoft] 101,900 followers<br>
 +
[https://twitter.com/JBurtonXP Jack Burton] 71,500 followers<br>
 +
[https://twitter.com/Feisty_FL Feisty☀️FL] 18,920 followers<br>
 +
 
 +
These are "quality" shadowbanned.  I guess because they don't have enough liberal "quality". [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 00:58, 27 July 2018 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:Twitter spoke out yesterday about accusations of shadowbanning:
 +
 
 +
::"ACTUALLY what we do doesn't TECHNICALLY qualify as "shadowbanning." We just make certain users harder to see based on our totally opaque, uncontestable, unilaterally-determined definition of 'relevance.'"
 +
 
 +
:I was just pulling your leg; that was a satire written by Jack Burton above.  He actually may not even know that he himself is shadowbanned.  [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 19:57, 28 July 2018 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::BTW FYI, I checked, and the Conservapedia Twitter account (@Jay_pe) is not shadowbanned. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 23:22, 28 July 2018 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Yay! HTTPS! ==
 +
 
 +
I'm glad we managed to get HTTPS set up!  I know it's a bit of a nuisance, but it is a good idea!  It seems the PayPal plugin is still using HTTP, but this is still better than before! --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 17:28, 5 August 2018 (EDT)
 +
:It does seem that the favicon on the home page is not loading correctly, also. It seems to work elsewhere just fine. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 17:52, 5 August 2018 (EDT)
 +
::For the record, the favicon doesn't show up at all on Chrome (and I don't think it ever has). This might be something that should be fixed. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 18:00, 5 August 2018 (EDT)
 +
:::Scratch that--it's working now.  I don't know if the issue got fixed, or it was a temporary glitch. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 18:02, 5 August 2018 (EDT)
 +
:::That's odd... I use Firefox, Opera, Vivaldi, and a number of other browsers but not chrome. I'd never noticed. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 18:04, 5 August 2018 (EDT)
 +
::::I see what you mean. I tried it in a chrome install, and couldn't see it either.  Do we need to add it as a Base64 Encoded Image or some other such nonsense to get it to work? --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 18:08, 5 August 2018 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::::I really should stop edit flooding here, but one more thing. Someone else with a similar problem said the following:
 +
:::::{{cquote|Instead of using the filename favicon.ico for my icon, I renamed it to something else, ie myIcon.ico. Then I just used [this]:
 +
 
 +
:::::<nowiki><link rel="shortcut icon" href="myIcon.ico" type="image/x-icon" /></nowiki>}}
 +
 
 +
:::::The full discussion I'm talking about is found [https://stackoverflow.com/questions/16375592/favicon-not-showing-up-in-google-chrome here]. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 18:13, 5 August 2018 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== requested article: Trumponomics ==
 +
 
 +
Article request: [[Trumponomics]]. It would be a nice complementary article to our [[Obamunism]] article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:40, 5 August 2018 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== HTTP -->HTTPS URL update project ==
 +
 
 +
The Web is changing a great deal.  One of these changes is the shift from the [[HyperText Transfer Protocol]] to [[HyperText Transfer Protocol Secure]] (which we have recently done in part here at CP as well).  While HTTPS is not perfect (and it will continue to be less than ideal at least until/unless we get DNSSEC) this is a good move, as it provides some security and privacy using TLS.<br />
 +
 
 +
The problem for us is that we now have a great deal of links which still refer to the old protocol. 1990'sguy pointed out this issue and suggested that I use my bot to update our links.  I don't have the ability to automatically test URLs for TLS support, so I'm making a list of URLs to be updated. If there are any websites linked to anywhere on CP which have upgraded to HTTPS but are still linked to under HTTP, please add them to [[User:DavidB4-bot/HTTPS URL update project|the list]]. I will then attempt to verify that they are using sufficiently complete HTTPS configurations, and then do my best to apply the change to all CP articles and perhaps some other pages as well. <br />
 +
 
 +
I have never done this before, so it may take a little time and fine-tuning to get it right. Also, it will take time to process these  updates on all 46,236+ articles, plus a yet undecided number of other pages. Thank you for your patience and assistance! Let me know if you have any questions or suggestions. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 00:03, 11 September 2018 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:''And if this all sounds like nonsense, doesn't make sense, or doesn't seem to matter, that's fine.  Just let me know if anything catches fire, and other than that, I'll try to stay out of the way and not break anything.'' --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 00:15, 11 September 2018 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
==Overflow business==
 +
 
 +
Conservapedia has already reached 686,043,027 visits. It was a only a short time ago that I heard this site had reached 600,000,000 visits.  Andy deserves a lot of credit and should be proud for having built such a successful conservative website under his helm. Thanks, Andy! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 15:17, 18 October 2018 (EDT)
 +
=== Conservapedia - Alexa rankings ===
 +
[[File:Conservapedia v Rush page views.png|thumbnail|400px|center|November 2007 Conservapedia vs. Rush Limbaugh]]
 +
{{Clear}}
 +
[[File:Alexa.jpg||thumbnail|400px|center|April 2008]]
 +
{{Clear}}
 +
[[File:ConservapediaAlexaMay2010.jpg|thumbnail|400px|center|May 2010]]
 +
{{Clear}}
 +
[[File:Conservapedia web traffic in 2010 and 2011.png|thumbnail|400px|center|2011 and 2012]]
 +
{{Clear}}
 +
[[File:Conservapedia - Alexa ranking - December 23 2018.png|thumbnail|400px|center|12-23-2018]]
 +
 
 +
== Hi everyone ==
 +
 
 +
I'm new here. Is there anything important I should know before doing stuff? How do I add images to articles? How do I get around CAPTCHA's? Thanks, [[User:Edenfaithful|Edenfaithful]] ([[User talk:Edenfaithful|talk]]) 09:24, 25 December 2018 (EST)
 +
:Make substantial edits, show your good faith, obey Conservapedia's rules, and establish a good reputation. Then Andy will promote you to SkipCAPCHA. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 11:54, 25 December 2018 (EST)
 +
== Millenials mispronouncing common English words ==
 +
 
 +
Some Millenials do so much social media instead of hearing voices on TV and radio (unless it's their peers or near-peers on YouTube) and texting instead of talking to friends, that they mispronounce what were thought to be common English words.  I saw one pronounce "thorough" thō’ rō’ instead of thur’-ō.  Another had taught her mom to say osurring instead of occuring.  It's really jarring when it happens. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 16:42, 22 January 2019 (EST)
 +
 
 +
== Question (VargasMilan's April fool's joke that DavidB4 fell for) ==
 +
 
 +
Why is cream more expensive than milk? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 21:10, 1 April 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:There is less of it produced. Depending on the cow breed, age, period, diet, and more, raw milk typically consists of about 3.5% – 5% cream, with the rest being what we know as "skim milk" (what is left after the cream is skimmed off the top).  Skim milk (which used to be considered almost worthless, and fed to animals or used in lower-quality cooking) is now sold as a health food, as are 1% fat and 2% fat milks.  Even "Whole milk" has some cream removed, bringing it down to 3.25% cream.  However, there is only so much cream they can take out of the standard milk supply.  Cream is needed for a variety of dairy products, such as cheeses, butter, and ice cream, and it is also used as-is in some cases, such as adding to coffee. Basically, it goes back to supply and demand.  There is a somewhat limited supply (compared to skim milk), and great deal of demand. Besides, cream is considered the best part, so they know they can charge people more for the best milk product. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 23:55, 1 April 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::Wrong!  It's because the cows ''hate'' to squat over those little cartons.
 +
 
 +
::Hope everyone had a great April Fool's day, especially DavidB, who fell for my prank. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 15:28, 2 April 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::I wondered if there was a relation between the date and the odd question...Sorry, I'll try to assume the worst in everyone from now on, rather than taking the time to answer even odd questions. ;) --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 18:46, 2 April 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::Uhhh....Thanks, Conservative. I think. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 21:41, 2 April 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::::He he! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 22:57, 2 April 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Don't bite the newbie editors via reversions ==
 +
CP needs research assistants, copy editors, and people to do maintenance and formatting work, not just content contributers. Most wikis have a Don't Bite the Newbies policy. I find [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221367707_Don't_bite_the_newbies_How_reverts_affect_the_quantity_and_quality_of_Wikipedia_work this archived discussion useful.]  If CP doesn't have an official policy, it still is useful for CP Admins to know that reverting newcomers has the effect of limiting CP's user base. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 14:05, 28 July 2019 (EDT)
 +
:Other than people inserting nonsense and/pushing misleading/errant liberal/leftist tripe, I think this was an excellent post. A little politeness and diplomacy goes a long way.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 14:23, 28 July 2019 (EDT)
 +
::Oftentimes, new editors try to change the POV of articles, copy info from Wikipedia, or made other edits which are unencyclopedic (on an encyclopedia). Rob has a good point on treating new editors with respect, but it '''cannot''' be at the expense of the quality of CP's articles. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 14:26, 28 July 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::It shouldn't be at the expense of limiting CP's user and contributor base, either. Perhaps 90/10 has a negative impact, sometimes. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 14:53, 28 July 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== In the News  ==
 +
 
 +
Maybe this should be added to In the News:
 +
“Kavanaugh accuser's lawyer said allegations could help undermine abortion rulings: 'Part of what motivated Christine'” reports Fox News. (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/christine-blasey-ford-attorney-says-she-came-forward-to-get-asterisk-on-kavanaughs-name-ahead-of-abortion-rulings.amp) - JobsNotMobs
 +
 
 +
== Added topic ==
 +
 
 +
Hello!
 +
 
 +
I noticed that some image upload requests I made have been up for a few weeks and not handled yet. DavidB4 usually takes care of these, but I'm sure he has a lot on his plate, so I was wondering if maybe another admin with upload privileges could add them in. I think there's one other guy waiting on his requests, too. No rush, just wanted to ask. Thank you!
 +
[[User:Teakin88|Teakin88]] ([[User talk:Teakin88|talk]]) 11:41, 2 November 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:Thanks for the heads-up! Unfortunately, there's an apparent backlog at the page, so that's why the requests are taking so long. It's not uncommon for such requests to take so long. I let DavidB4 know about your message. Since your requested images are not from Wikimedia Commons, I, unfortunately, cannot upload them myself because of my lack of expertise regarding licensing (I'm sure they're appropriate to upload, but I'd rather let more knowledgeable editors handle such images). --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 14:20, 2 November 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::I have been hoping another admin would help, but if not, I'll get there eventually. I have a lot going on IRL for me right now, so I haven't had much time to help out here. Sorry for the wait! --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 17:28, 5 November 2019 (EST)
 +
 
 +
:::Unfortunately, I don't know enough about copyright law to help with the non-commons images. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 18:26, 5 November 2019 (EST)
 +
 
 +
== Pages for expansion ==
 +
 
 +
Hello! As you can see, I am new here, and have just started editing. May I ask, is there a page for stub articles or articles that need to be expanded? Thank you. {{unsigned|Malcolmdavis}}
 +
 
 +
:We don't have a page like that. The best thing to do is look for stubs in the topics you're interested in, and expand those.
 +
 
 +
:Very important -- always use reliable sources and encyclopedic wording, and adhere to CP's style guidelines. I have posted some helpful links on your user talk page. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 18:00, 12 December 2019 (EST)
 +
 
 +
::While we don't have a managed page like that, the wiki can give you a list of pages with very little contnet.  This includes disambiguation pages, index pages, and other stuff so it is a little messy. However, you could try taking a look at [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:ShortPages&limit=300&offset=240 Special:ShortPages] and see what you find.  It' snot a clean list or easy to use, but you can try it if you would like. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 21:04, 12 December 2019 (EST)
 +
 
 +
==Top conservative Twitter accounts suspended while everyone is getting ready for the holidays==
 +
 
 +
Two of my [[Essay:Top conservatives on Twitter]] list members were suspended this week:  Linda Suhler [a PhD] (387,460) and CC (300,300) @ChatbyCC, formerly known as Christie Chat).  They have been on my list since August 1, 2015 and January 3, 2017, respectively.  Twitter announced that they will be suspending accounts at-will in the future.  There is no way the suspensions of these two accounts are not strategic by Twitter to promote liberalism. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 01:06, 20 December 2019 (EST)
 +
 
 +
:Typical. Basically they have built a massive network, where most people are. Now they are quietly de latforming all conservatives, in an attempt to make liberalism look like the norm.  Only the conservatives see it happening, so everyone else is oblivious that it is more of a psyops move than a culture shift. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 11:54, 20 December 2019 (EST)
 +
 
 +
== How to add an image file to Conservapedia? ==
 +
 
 +
Just curious, how do I add an image in the form of a file to [[Conservapedia]] so I can use it to add to pages? Also, which types of images am I allowed to "borrow" from the internet? Thanks! - Liberaltears
 +
:[[Conservapedia:Image upload requests]]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 19:20, 20 January 2020 (EST)
 +
 
 +
::Thanks! [[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]] (8:12, 20 January 2020)
 +
 
 +
:::As for which images you can use, you should ideally find ones which have been released as [[Public Domain]] or under a [[Creative Commons]] license. Some good sources are listed below.  If you especially want an image wich is not available under one of these conditions, and there is no suitable substitute, it may still be usable under the [[Fair use]] doctrine, but it's better not to do this; I can give a second opinion as to whether it might be okay to use an image in this way, but I'm not a lawyer.
 +
 
 +
:::*[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page WikiMedia Commons]
 +
:::*[https://www.flickr.com/search/?license=2%2C3%2C4%2C5%2C6%2C9 Flickr]
 +
:::*[https://pixabay.com PixaBay]
 +
:::*[https://morguefile.com Morguefile.com]
 +
:::*[http://www.publicdomainpictures.net PublicDomainPictures.net]
 +
:::--[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 23:31, 20 January 2020 (EST)
 +
:::: Thanks! [[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]] 1:23, 21 January 2020
 +
 
 +
== Iowa Caucuses ==
 +
 
 +
Hello everyone! I just wanted to let it be known; I noticed that some additions had been made to my page on the [[2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses]], and I in turn edited some of that and made more additions myself, mostly revolving around whether the caucus was in fact rigged by the Democrats to deny Sanders a clear victory. Personally, I have no trouble believing that it was, but since it hasn't been definitively proven, I've changed the language a bit to make it more a matter of opinion, while leaving up all the information and sources that show the basis for this opinion, and how likely it is that the results were in fact manipulated. Just wanted to let everyone know about that. -[[User:Teakin88|Teakin88]]
 +
 
 +
== Template permission request ==
 +
 
 +
Hello, I'd like to request [[Conservapedia]] sysop permission to make a template titled "Template:Republican establishment". --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]] ([[User talk:Liberaltears|talk]]) 11:07, 8 March 2020 (EDT)
 +
:I dunno; is this an effort to divide the GOP establishment and Tea Party from Trump Republicans in an election year? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 12:49, 8 March 2020 (EDT)
 +
::No, I'm not trying to promote division, I just thought that it could be a productive addition to Conservapedia to use for specification purposes on many of the pages regarding establishment Republicans and groups such as the [[National Republican Senatorial Committee|NRSC]]. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]] ([[User talk:Liberaltears|talk]]) 13:12, 8 March 2020 (EDT)
 +
::So do I have permission to create the template or not? --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]] ([[User talk:Liberaltears|talk]]) 23:41, 8 March 2020 (EDT)
 +
:::I don't quite understand the use case for this template...What will it contain? --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 15:54, 31 March 2020 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Strange occurrence... ==
 +
 
 +
Can someone tell me what just happened? I remember making a page creation on [[Eugene Scalia]] just about half an hour ago as well as a few other edits, but it seems that they were somehow reverted/hidden mysteriously and I couldn't find any log details on it. I know that there was a server error or something similar to such just a few minutes ago, but I'm not sure how that would cause a revert of my edits. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]] ([[User talk:Liberaltears|talk]]) 12:48, 23 March 2020 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:So sorry!  That was a hosting glitch.  Please repost those edits - you might still have them in your cache in your browser. Thanks for understanding!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 13:50, 23 March 2020 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::Terry H's MPR post also disappeared. Nothing under Terry's H's contribs for today. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 14:07, 23 March 2020 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::My browser is set on private mode, so I can't re-access the information. Would the data be saved elsewhere? --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]] ([[User talk:Liberaltears|talk]]) 14:44, 23 March 2020 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::::Beats me. My computer crashed about the same time. I had the MPR Template open when it did with Terry's post, but when I rebooted it disappeared completely. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 15:56, 23 March 2020 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::::Hopefully the [[Deep state]] didn't hack the server and our computers and proceed to bleach bit the data. You get the joke? --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]] ([[User talk:Liberaltears|talk]]) 16:29, 23 March 2020 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::::::Could be, could be!  Maybe they were reading Conservapedia, got fed up and couldn't take anymore. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 16:41, 23 March 2020 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::::::Maybe Hillary's Deep state shilleries got triggered! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]] ([[User talk:Liberaltears|talk]]) 16:55, 23 March 2020 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::::::::No. It was the Chinese intelligence service [[AI]] that read all the [[ChiCom flu]], [[Chinese virus]], [[CCP virus]], ''et al'' redirects created in the last few days. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 17:08, 23 March 2020 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::::::::Ah, so that's why...haha!
 +
:::::::::Liberaltears, it sounds like that data is gone. Sorry! Andy is right--your browser could potentially hold on to recent posts, but only until the browser is closed.  If it is still open from then, literally try using the back button dozens of times until you reach the edit page for the article when you made the post. If you have closed your browser since then, though, the private browsing mode would have prompted it to be purged. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 17:45, 23 March 2020 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::::::::::You're right, the original data was purged. However, I took the effort and recreated the page on [[Eugene Scalia]]. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]'''''</sup> 18:07, 23 March 2020 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
Sorry about that--I know it is a real nuisance to re-write content! The problem should be fixed now--let us know if you have more issues like this. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 01:48, 24 March 2020 (EDT)
 +
:Alright, thank you DavidB4! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]'''''</sup> 11:02, 24 March 2020 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::And...it still isn't fixed.  Sorry, I'm seeing errors again too.  We're looking into it. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 15:24, 24 March 2020 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
Just curious, does it occur for any of you that while you're trying to make a significant edit, when you click the "preview" option to just to make sure you didn't make a huge mistake, especially if it's regarding a template, that the loading appears to take forever and that the preview simply doesn't show up? That happened to me while I was creating the page on [[Kelli Ward]], and it was somewhat of a nuisance. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]'''''</sup> 17:27, 24 March 2020 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:I've had that happen before.  I typically find that when that happens, if I open another conservapedia page in a new tab, it fails to load.  I think when you try to see a preview, it contacts the server. If the server is having a problem, the preview will also fail to work, therefore. If I try just submitting an edit when that is happening, it usually fails too. It seems like loading a preview could be done using client-side scripts (right in your browser), but from experience, I would say it does not. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 18:25, 24 March 2020 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::As far as today went, while I was editing, all [[Conservapedia]] pages loaded well most of the time when I open them in a new tab, although the server did seem somewhat slower than usual. However, the "preview" option for editing still doesn't work for all pages whose content is above around 100 bytes. For instance, it works if I'm making a redirect page, but not for content pages.
 +
 
 +
::By the way DavidB4, since you're around, I was wondering when you might finish uploading all the images for [[Conservapedia:Image_upload_requests#Photo_requests.2C_2.2F7.2F20|this long list]]. No rush or anything, but I'm largely curious if some of my image requests [[Conservapedia:Image_upload_requests#February_26.2C_2020_image_requests_by_Liberaltears|here]] and [[Conservapedia:Image_upload_requests#March_16.2C_2020_image_requests_by_Liberaltears|here]] that aren't covered under a Creative Commons or Public Domain license can be uploaded under the Fair Use license. Thanks! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]'''''</sup> 18:46, 24 March 2020 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::You're right, the preview isn't working at all for me, now.
 +
:::In regard to the upload requests, I'm trying to get through them a few at a time, but there is a serious backlog, and it looks like I'm the only one working on it right now.  I will try to give it more priority, but it is definitely going to take me some time. Thank you for understanding! What I can see by skimming through the list is that you have a lot from WikiMedia Commons and Flickr...that's good! I'll just check each one to make sure they are usable as I go.  As for the other sources, I will need to check one-by-one. As examples though, ballotpedia.org and studybreaks.com do not seem to publish a copyright policy, so I must assume that their content is under full copyright.  It would be better if we could use a different sources, but if there are no others available, we might be able to use these. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 16:06, 31 March 2020 (EDT)
 +
::::Alright, thank you DavidB4! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]'''''</sup> 16:09, 31 March 2020 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Improvising [[Template:Officeholder/senator]]... ==
 +
 
 +
Hello, I'd like to request an [[Conservapedia:Administrators|administrator]] to make a following change to [[Template:Officeholder/senator]], since I can't simply edit it due to the template being locked. As far as I know, whenever the template is used in a page, all the information needs to be filled properly for everything to appear in the correct manner. This means that if the information about the state isn't filled in, {{{state}}} will show up, and if the terms aren't filled in, {{{terms}}} will show up, etc. (the only exception is the “|succeeded=”, as “Incumbent (no successor)” shows up if left blank) However, the “|former=(y or n)” is the only exception, as if it's left out, it's automatically assumed that “former=n”, as it's only necessary to imply that a senator has left office. I would like to request replacing this part with a part such that:
 +
 
 +
*when using the [[Template:Officeholder/senator]], it would be filled as “|status=(s, j, or f)”
 +
*if the information is not inputted, “{{{status}}}” would simply show up before “U.S. Senator from {{{state}}}”
 +
*if “|status=s”, then “Senior” will show up before “U.S. Senator from {{{state}}}”
 +
*if “|status=j”, then “Junior” will show up before “U.S. Senator from {{{state}}}”
 +
*if “|status=f”, then “Former” will show up before “U.S. Senator from {{{state}}}”
 +
*if “|status=(anything filled in except for s, j, or f)”, then “{{{status}}}” will show up before “U.S. Senator from {{{state}}}”
 +
--[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]'''''</sup> 15:39, 31 March 2020 (EDT)
 +
:Oh, that's a problem. Writing/editing templates gives me a headache, but I might be able to fix this.  If it is unlocked, would you be able to fix it? --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 15:47, 31 March 2020 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::No, unfortunately I wouldn't be able to do it by myself. Having joined this site less than a year ago ([[Special:Log/Liberaltears|see here]]), I have gained much experience with [[CP]] formatting, but I'm not a hard-core expert, especially not with formatting for creating/improvising templates. While I can somewhat comprehend how certain inputs in template source codes correspond to certain functions (as I've done such in analyzing to fix [[Template:Officeholder/state representative|this template]]), I don't know enough to add in all the necessary information for my proposed improvisation. Since the template was locked anyway, I was hoping that a sysop would be able to do it. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]'''''</sup> 16:08, 31 March 2020 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::Update: I was able to improvise the template. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]'''''</sup> 13:21, 3 April 2020 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Fixing a mistake using the Infobox officeholder template... ==
 +
 
 +
Hello, I just created [[Donald Bolduc|this page]] that includes [[Template:Infobox officeholder]], but I don't understand how the formatting works when adding military info. I analyzed the source of the template, but I still don't understand how to fix the error. Can someone figure it out and fix it on the page? I have no idea. Thanks! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]'''''</sup> 22:41, 10 April 2020 (EDT)
 +
:I went through the same thing on Gen. [[Mike Flynn]]'s page. It was a nightmare. [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Michael_T._Flynn&action=edit#editform Here's how I fixed it, if it's any help.] [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 22:57, 12 April 2020 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::I just added a "|military=y" in the template in the [[Donald Bolduc]] page, but that didn't seem to make a difference. Also, the template used in the [[Michael T. Flynn]] page is [[Template:Officeholder]], and the one used in the [[Donald Bolduc]] page is [[Template:Infobox officeholder]]. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]'''''</sup> 23:10, 12 April 2020 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Question about files that can be uploaded under Fair use... ==
 +
 
 +
Just curious, can Getty images be uploaded to [[CP]] under the Fair Use license? Thanks! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]'''''</sup> 13:51, 14 April 2020 (EDT)
 +
:Probably not. That's why Getty has a watermark. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 14:02, 14 April 2020 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::Okay, thank you RobSmith! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]'''''</sup> 14:10, 14 April 2020 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::Agreed, Getty is a company which makes money from the sale of images.  This sort of company is not going to appreciate it if we try to make a "Fair Use" claim on them. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 14:16, 14 April 2020 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::::Thank you for the further specification, DavidB4! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]'''''</sup> 14:25, 14 April 2020 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Please look into this ==
 +
 
 +
https://www.conservapedia.com/Communications_Act_of_1934 this page is pretty vauge then has a hyper-link to this liberal site https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/LSB10082.pdf which is written by this democrat liberal who works for the ACLU of all places.  https://www.aclu.org/news/by/kate-ruane/ so if someone could change this or look into it, thanks.
 +
:FAS is a [[CIA]] front; I don't know if it should be described as "liberal". Sounds conspiratorial. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 17:17, 18 April 2020 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Changing font colors... ==
 +
{| class="wikitable" style="float:right"
 +
|-bgcolor=#cccccc
 +
|- valign="center"
 +
| [[File:SenatorCollins.jpg|237px]] || [[File:Sara Gideon.jpg|200px]]
 +
|-
 +
| <center>'''<font color="red">[[Susan Collins]]</font>'''<br>(likely nominee)</center> || <center>'''<font color="blue">[[Sara Gideon]]</font>'''<br>(likely nominee)[[File:Democraticpartyusalogo.png|right|20px]]</center>
 
|}
 
|}
*''I will point out to you that some people don't need a lot of sleep'' An interesting list of famous people you are giving there. But keep in mind that ''sleeping'' is not the only thing which prevents you from editing Conservapedia. Even living today, those celebrities would have difficulties to keep up a 18-hours-a-day pattern of editing, as they would have ''jobs'' (''you certainly have to take that into account'') - Frankly, could Thomas Edison have invented anything if he would have been detracted by the Internet for most of his waking time?
+
Just curious, how do I make words appear in a dark red or dark blue color? I know how the formatting works, but I'm not sure what keywords to use for dark red and dark blue. Thanks! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]'''''</sup> 20:19, 25 April 2020 (EDT)
*''So even if you did obsessively log my time at Conservapedia [] '' That's the fun of the WikiMedia software - I don't have to log your time, it's done automatically for me...
+
:Dark red I've had problems with so I use brown; for dark blue try boldening.
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 02:22, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
+
<font color="red">Red</font>
 +
 
 +
<font color="brown">Brown</font>
 +
 
 +
'''<font color="blue">Dark blue</font>'''
 +
 
 +
Not sure if this helps, but it's the best I can do. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 20:47, 25 April 2020 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:Thanks for the suggestion RobSmith, and here's the thing. So I created [[United States Senate election in Maine, 2020|this page]], and I was initially thinking of using dark red and dark blue for the font colors in the wikitable for [[Susan Collins]] and [[Sara Gideon]] respectively, thinking that it would contrast with the generic red/blue colors for internal links, but after closely observing the colors after your reply, it turns out that the regular red and blue colors differ from the generic colors for wikified text. However, there is also another problem. For the situation where I'm trying to change the font color, it seems that apparently font color can't be changed in a wikitable, or something else. I used a wikitable as I couldn't figure out a way to put one image directly to the left of another, and it seems that this issue with font color formatting arises.. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]'''''</sup> 21:43, 25 April 2020 (EDT)
 +
::So are you trying to contrast GOP for red and Dem for blue? Maybe a miniicon like this or somesuch formatting. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 22:02, 25 April 2020 (EDT)
 +
:::Great suggestion RobSmith; I just tried it and I think it works quite well! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]'''''</sup> 22:34, 25 April 2020 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::If it helps, you can also use a hex color code, like <code><nowiki>style="color:#000000"</nowiki></code> to indicate black. With a little trial and error (or a [https://www.w3schools.com/colors/colors_picker.asp hex color picking tool]) you could probably get it pretty close. If you want to match a specific color, you can get that code too. You could take a screenshot of that color, open it in a photo editor which tells you color codes (like gimp), and get the exact code you need. Or, if you use Firefox, open the menu, and select "Web Developer", then "Eyedropper" and move the pointer the color you want the code for. Using the default style, red links seem to be about "#c60000" and blue links seem to be about "#3366bb". I didn't test those though, so slight tweaks may be needed to get it exactly right. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 22:12, 25 April 2020 (EDT)
 +
::::That's a great idea DavidB4, but the problem is that I can't figure out a way to code that into the source properly. I tried using <code><nowiki><span style="(etc.)"</span></nowiki></code>, but it didn't seem to work. I think it probably has to do with the way the wikitable functions, but I'm not entirely sure. Since I used what RobSmith suggested, the party affiliations are distinguished, so I suppose the font colors don't really need to be changed, though I do very much appreciate your suggestion! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]'''''</sup> 22:34, 25 April 2020 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::::I am curious though, is there a way such that if two images are aligned to the right, that one image is directly to the left of the other? --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]'''''</sup> 22:37, 25 April 2020 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::::For plain text, you can just use "<nowiki><font color="000000">Colored text</font></nowiki>". Wouldn't that work? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the problem. Anyway, I'm glad Rob's suggestion is working! --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 00:40, 26 April 2020 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== McSally Derangement Syndrome ==
 +
 
 +
Just wondering, is it about time for [[Conservapedia]] to coin the term "McSally Derangement Syndrome" and make a page about it? After all, the [[liberal]] hatred for [[Martha McSally]] has been getting worse and worse, given the [[snowflake]]s erupting all over the internet, the [[establishment]] media being somewhat biased towards the senator, and even idiotic websites having been created as smears, all for the purpose of trying to oust McSally this election year. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]'''''</sup> 12:39, 3 May 2020 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:I tend to shy away from inventing terms, but I'm not firmly opposed to it, if this seems like a useful topic to others. I suspect that most snowflakes doesn't even know who McSally is, but they do know who Trump is. This seems to better justify having an article on the latter than the former. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 00:32, 5 May 2020 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::About [[TDS]], it seems that [[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] already created the page a few years ago. And about McSally, while some [[snowflake]]s may not have heard of her, those who do tend to despise her and constantly tout her likely 2020 [[Democrat]] opponent [[Mark Kelly]]. For example, after the "liberal hack" rebuke against Manu Raju, there was a massive left-wing meltdown that McSally would *dare insult a CNN reporter*. Many have also used McSally's vote against [[Obamacare]] to ridiculously argue that she is somehow opposed to protection for [[pre-existing condition]]s, despite the fact that the Republican-led repeal efforts ''does'' provide a certain degree of protection for such. Also, on ''[[The Hill]]'', I always notice in the articles about the senator that the comment sections are filled to the brim with idiotic liberal remarks, such as touting [[Mark Kelly]]'s little-known military record while blatantly ignoring McSally's Air Force record as a combat fighter for two decades (I noticed the idiocy when citing ''The Hill'' as a biased [[establishment]] media outlet [[United_States_Senate_elections,_2020#Establishment_media.2FDemocrat_collusion|here]]). And that's not to mention the "opinion" articles on AZ Central attacking the senator. As well as the threat by a Tuscon man in 2018, etc. Overall, given this as a major election year, liberals are pouring a massive effort to unseat McSally, and their nonsensical rhetoric getting out of hand. Thus, I suppose whether the page should be made or not could be up for consideration at the moment, as it's possible other editors may have certain disagreements. And I do appreciate your input, DavidB4! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]'''''</sup> 01:08, 5 May 2020 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== ICO file to highlight Conservapedia tab on browser ==
 +
 
 +
Most websites have a little jpg pic for the tab, like wikipedia or wordpress have a blue letter W.
 +
This helps people keep track of sites when they have multiple tabs open.
 +
It is done with a tiny image file with an .ico extension.
 +
It would need to be inserted somewhere in the site settings.
 +
(Without an ico or icon file, the tab presents on the browser as a plain blank rectangle.)
 +
 
 +
== Information Box ==
 +
 
 +
I've been working on a page for a World War I battle recently, and I want to add an information box at the top to include some of the basic facts and statistics. But I don't know for sure if I need to create a new template for that, or if there's an existing one I can apply: some exist for other wars like the Revolutionary War, but I can't tell if they will carry over to World War I or another conflict. Any ideas? -[[Teakin88]]
 +
 
 +
:I'm using the WWII battle Template on [[2020 Leftist insurrection]]. You could just cut n paste that one. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 23:39, 2 August 2020 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::Thanks Rob! That was very useful. -[[Teakin88]]
 +
 
 +
== Is it OK for me to copy stuff I wrote on Wikipedia to here? ==
 +
 
 +
I am primarily a Wikipedia editor. (Feel free to check me out, my username is the same there.) I don't really prefer reading here because I think this site is very opinionated and derogatory to many people, and I do not agree with all the views of this site, even though I am a Christian. However, I don't really mind copying my contributions to this and other wikis. Is it OK (for non-politically related subjects)? Thanks! [[User:Félix An|Félix An]] ([[User talk:Félix An|talk]]) 21:40, 5 August 2020 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:If it's your own work in your own words, then I believe it's fine. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]'''''</sup> Thursday, 21:43, 5 August 2020 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::Thanks! Which sources can I cite here that are considered "reliable"? [[User:Félix An|Félix An]] ([[User talk:Félix An|talk]]) 21:53, 5 August 2020 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::I don't believe there to be a very detailed guide on that. Just go with sources that you can instinctually trust and don't seem sketchy. For example, Wikipedia should ''not'' be cited unless it's to prove the latter's [[Leftist roots of Wikipedia|liberal bias]]. Most conservative sites like [[Breitbart]], [[Townhall.com]], and the [[Daily Caller]] are great. Just keep in mind that the main reason for citing references is to back up whatever points you're trying to make on the articles you're editing on. If you cite anything that contains inappropriate language/content in any context, then it's important that you specify in the reference whatever that needs to warned for readers. Hope this helps. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]'''''</sup> Thursday, 22:07, 5 August 2020 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Access Issues ==
 +
 
 +
Has anyone else been encountering serious problems accessing Conservapedia the last few days? It seems like half the time I get on here, I'm met with an error message: "Internal Server Error," "Gateway Timeout," "Unauthorized," etc. It isn't all the time, but it's often enough to be frustrating, and if I'm not the only one, it needs to be sorted out. -[[Teakin88]]
 +
:The [[DNC]] and their allied [[CCP]] hackers don't like the message getting out, so they are attempting to suppress information. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 15:06, 10 August 2020 (EDT)
 +
::My recent edits have disappeared--again. Does anyone know what is going on??? -[[Teakin88]]
 +
:::I have no idea what's happening either. Also, I had just mentioned about the issue [[Talk:Main_Page#Server_errors|here]]. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]'''''</sup> Wednesday, 11:04, 19 August 2020 (EDT)
 +
::::Continuing to figure things out now.  We have and will restore some of the edits.  Sorry for the unexpected disruption!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 14:42, 19 August 2020 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Request to change article on homosexuality ==
 +
 
 +
Hey, nice work guys, I really love the articles. One thing I have noticed though is the lack of articles like "arguments FOR homosexuality." Now, I'm just as God-fearing as the rest of you, and I refuse to buy into the Homosexual Agenda as well, but if we want this place to maintain its non-partisanship, we should address both sides and deal with the Left's arguments accordingly. I was thinking about changing the existing debate articles by also including arguments for both sides. I have seen these leftists bring up some terrible points lately and I have just wanted to address them with this wonderful community - LeftistSchools
 +
:You have to be an expert to talk about certain things discreetly.  After all, the Bible says about some: "What they do is too shameful to discuss." Is that how you spell God-fearing? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 10:07, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::I'd suggest a Debate page rather than a mainspace article at this point. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 12:43, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::My bad, I missed that typo when I was writing this up. It has been fixed. I believe you referenced Ephesians 5:12? Just before that verse, does it not also say that we should "Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them?" I agree with RobSmith in that a debate page should be set up. Active discussion must be involved if we are to expose the deeds of darkness - [[User:LeftistSchools]]
 +
 
 +
::::Verse 12 actually reads, ''For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.'' [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 18:46, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::The Holy Apostle says to expose "the futile works of darkness" ''by contrast'' through seeking "complete goodness and right living and truth."  It is also written, "cast not your pearls before swine, lest they trample them." The argument is over. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 20:16, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
==Ham and eggs==
 +
 
 +
If you say you have ham and eggs, you must have at least ''some'' ham or ''some'' eggs.  If you switch steak for ham and switch oatmeal for eggs, how can you still say you have "ham and eggs"?  That shouldn't be difficult to understand. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 10:36, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Night mode ==
 +
 
 +
Just wondering, is it just me, or is night mode not around anymore? Usually for a certain time period when night mode's on, account creation is disabled for everyone (except administrators), and editing is limited to those with the "Administrator" or "edit" tag. This usually prevents trolls from vandalizing when most editors aren't as active on CP. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier's mother be all well!]]'''''</sup> Wednesday, 13:56, 9 September 2020 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== More server issues ==
 +
 
 +
Is it just me, or does it occur for anyone else editing that CP would function normally for around nine minutes, then won't load for the next six minutes, with the process repeating? —[[User:Liberaltears|<code><span style="color:black; background:#FFABAB">Liberaltears</span></code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|<sup>May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!</sup>]]''''' Thursday, 23:47, 23 September 2020 (EDT)
 +
:I typically can make 2 or 3 edits, purge the history for the past hour, and can re-edit. I'm rotating between 4 browsers to do it. It's been happening for about 3 days. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 00:07, 24 September 2020 (EDT)
 +
::Ah, I see. I'll try purging my browser cache and see if it helps to at least partially resolve the nuisance. Thanks for the reply!<br>—[[User:Liberaltears|<code><span style="color:black; background:#FFABAB">Liberaltears</span></code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|<sup>May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!</sup>]]''''' Thursday, 00:15, 24 September 2020 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Hello ==
 +
 
 +
I'm new to Conservapedia, and I was wondering if there is a category for articles that need improvements? Such as spell-checking, adding wikilinks to dead-end articles, etc. Things that are easy to help me get familiar with the process of editing here. Thanks. [[User:MAGAViking|MAGAViking]] ([[User talk:MAGAViking|talk]]) 19:27, 24 October 2020 (EDT)
 +
:If you look at the left side on any CP page and under "Edit Console", there's a link that says "Special pages". That lists some maintenance reports, including dead-end pages, etc. —[[User:Liberaltears|<code><span style="color:black; background:#FFABAB">'''LT'''</span></code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|<sup>May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!</sup>]]''''' Saturday, 19:36, 24 October 2020 (EDT)
 +
(ec)
 +
:No, but that's a good idea.  Here's a suggestion: you could look at [https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:PopularPages Popular Pages], and begin with the newer ones that seemingly are receiving the most traffic right now.  Thanks!  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 19:38, 24 October 2020 (EDT)
 +
::Thank you for the suggestions! [[User:MAGAViking|MAGAViking]] ([[User talk:MAGAViking|talk]]) 19:45, 24 October 2020 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== "President Biden" ==
 +
 
 +
So, although I hope and pray that the courts do the right thing and invalidate the voter fraud occurring, there is of course the possibility that Joe Biden will be taking the oath of office on January 20th.
 +
 
 +
However, since it is now obvious that he will have only done so by stealing the election, I think it is necessary for Conservapedia to determine its policy on referring to Trump and Biden in that scenario. My position is, since Biden did not lawfully win the election, he cannot truly be considered President, and therefore the page(s) devoted to him should not label him as such. Similarly, the page on Donald Trump should state that he remains the actual President (though of course an explanation will be necessary, that he is not able at the moment to exercise the powers of the Presidency).
 +
 
 +
Again, that's my position. What say others? -[[Teakin88]]
 +
 
 +
:Do you believe everything the [[MSM]] and [[Big Tech]] says?  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 15:43, 6 November 2020 (EST)
 +
 
 +
::No. I do believe that the Democrats will try to steal it, and that the institutions which are supposed to stand in the way of that are too corrupt to be automatically trusted to do so. So my question remains--is the Conservapedia policy going to be to continue to acknowledge Trump as the lawful President, even if the worst comes to pass? [[User:Teakin88|Teakin88]]
 +
:::Trump remains the President and Joe Biden remains a suspected agent of a foreign power. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup>
 +
 
 +
::::I don't think the presidential election is over in Wisconsin. As the old saying goes, [https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/additional-benford-analysis-chicago-pittsburg-like-milwaukee-show-likely-voter-fraud-benefiting-biden/ a picture is worth a thousand words]. —[[User:Liberaltears|<code><span style="color:black; background:#FFABAB">'''LT'''</span></code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|<sup>May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!</sup>]]''''' Saturday, 15:06, 7 November 2020 (EST)
 +
 
 +
== 2020 results ==
 +
 
 +
Georgia and North Carolina have finally been called, giving Biden a winning Electoral College tally of 306 to 232. The popular vote was 51 percent (78.7 million) for Biden to 47 percent (73.1 million) for Trump. The total presidential vote was 13.2 percent higher than in 2016.[https://cookpolitical.com/2020-national-popular-vote-tracker?] On election day, Biden's net approval was at +6.2 compared to -12.8 for Trump.[https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president/trumpbidenfavorability.html] On election day 2016, Clinton had a net approval of -12.6 while Trump had -21.[https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president/clintontrumpfavorability.html] So Trump could cover a 8.4 gap in his favorability numbers, but apparently not a 19 point gap.
 +
 
 +
From the chart, I'd say the Trump campaign was on track until the riots hit at the end of May. In others words, we can't blame covid. But we can blame Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, who refused to send in the troops to recover the two police stations that were siezed by the rioters -- at least not without a request from the local governor. What are we to make of the Democratic governors, who sacrificed their own states to the rioters rather than request federal aid? Are they telling their own voters that they are a bunch of racists who had it coming? Jay Inslee in Washington State was reelected by a whopping margin of 57 percent to 43 percent. Inslee called up 200 guardsmen to clear the highways at one point, but only laughed when asked about CHAZ. The state is so blue that riots aren't even controversial.
 +
 
 +
There is also the odd phenomenon of Republican candidates being nearly tied with Democrats in the House vote and in other downballot votes, despite the fact that Republicans lost the White House by a significant margin. We can expect a Republican sweep in the midterms. Four years of Trump news has exhausted all of us. It seems that a significant number of voters were hoping that ousting Trump and electing Republicans to Congress would give us a break from all the drama. Of course, the problem here is not so much anything Trump has actually done as the hysterical way that the media reacts to him. I certainly hope Trump is not back in 2024 and that the nomination goes to someone like Vice President Mike Pence or Senator Tom Cotton. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 00:22, 15 November 2020 (EST)
 +
 
 +
:The ticket-splitting may have been more in some liberal-leaning districts like the ones that propelled [[Young Kim]], Maria Elvira Salazar, Carlos Gimenez, Michelle Steel to victory. —[[User:Liberaltears|<code><span style="color:black; background:#FFABAB">'''LT'''</span></code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|<sup>May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!</sup>]]''''' Sunday, 00:39, 15 November 2020 (EST)
 +
 
 +
:Also, the problem with a candidate other than Trump is that they may not have the populist-approach appeal to some voters that were crucial to his 2016 victory. By the way PeterKa, do you live in Washington? —[[User:Liberaltears|<code><span style="color:black; background:#FFABAB">'''LT'''</span></code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|<sup>May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!</sup>]]''''' Sunday, 00:44, 15 November 2020 (EST)
 +
::As of late, I have not followed the 2020 election news closely. But knowing that Donald Trump is a "New Yorker fighter", he will likely run again in 2024 if he does not win in 2020. He may launch a news website/channel too as a prelude to 2024. In addition, Trump has a big ego which could also cause him to run in 2024 should he lose the 2020 election.  Furthermore, I can't see Trump letting his very loyal fans down.
 +
::U.S. President [[Grover Cleveland]] was elected non-consecutive terms and he was a New Yorker.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 01:17, 15 November 2020 (EST)
 +
:::Yeah, I got to vote against Inslee and the state's appalling plan to teach sex education starting in the fifth grade.[https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2020/february/parents-alarmed-at-washington-state-k-12-sexxx-ed-that-would-offer-varieties-of-sexual-stimulation] Sadly, there is not much reason for a conservative to vote in Washington State.
 +
:::In the argot of campaign strategists, Trump commits the sins of going off message and shooting down (attacking targets not worthy of his attention). Just by fixing those problems, he could go up 2 to 3 points in the polls. He'll be 78 on election day 2024. That's a year older than Biden is now. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 02:51, 15 November 2020 (EST)
 +
::::Trump has a lot of energy (I think he might have ADHD). He is like the energy bunny. Barring circulatory problems such as a stroke or heart attack, Trump will run again in 2024.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 07:56, 15 November 2020 (EST)
 +
 
 +
== Continuous loading problems ==
 +
 
 +
CP continues to have loading problems. Often I'm trying to edit the House elections page, and after some updates, the site won't load for a few minutes. This type of issue happens over and over, and it drains my time. When will this be resolved? I really like editing here, though I wish the site could be more efficient than it currently is. Thanks! —[[User:Liberaltears|<code><span style="color:black; background:#FFABAB">'''LT'''</span></code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|<sup>May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!</sup>]]''''' Monday, 23:08, 15 November 2020 (EST)
 +
 
 +
:I'm suspecting that, like last time, this may be the result of attempted DDOS attacks by leftists who don't want people to see the truth as it comes out.  They're becoming increasingly desperate and they wouldn't be acting this way if they didn't have anything to fear.  [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 21:12, 16 November 2020 (EST)
 +
 
 +
::A larger problem with CP right now is that page views don't go up the way it used to, which probably could've been caused by those very server errors currently wasting my time. My page creations months ago such as [[Dan Forest|this]], [[Mike Bishop|this]], [[Bruce Poliquin|this]], and [[Abigail Spanberger|this]] all quickly got very high numbers despite very few revisions for them. If those leftists were trying to block off people from seeing the truth we're putting out, especially with updates related to the presidential, Senate, and House elections, they might've partially succeeded. Based off [[Special:Statistics|here]], it seems that total page views are going up steadily, though I don't know what pages account for that, though [[Drudge Report alternatives|this]] seems like one of them. However, ever since those series of annoying problems in August, CP's page view numbers for new page creations has dwindled over time. Now, one of my observations is that CP eliminated the www. from its URL, which may or may not have an impact. Another thing I noticed is that much of the page views could've simply been siphoned off to [[403.shtml|here]] due to those 403.shtml errors popping up. Right now, I just hope Andy can fix those loading problems soon, as I often am trying to update the [[2020 U.S. House elections]] page and find out three seconds later that the page won't load. —[[User:Liberaltears|<code><span style="color:black; background:#FFABAB">'''LT'''</span></code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|<sup>May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!</sup>]]''''' Tuesday, 21:29, 16 November 2020 (EST)
 +
 
 +
::Aaand we just got DDOSed for a day. Wow. Leftists are p*ssed. [[User:Sievert 81|Sievert 81]] ([[User talk:Sievert 81|talk]]) 19:07, 17 November 2020 (EST)
 +
 
 +
== Conceding an election: Carter versus Trump ==
 +
 
 +
Fer nearly two weeks, the media has been whining about Trump's failure to concede gracefully. Okay, I guess he should. But what Democrat has ever conceded gracefully? The ''New York Times'' is still running articles that accuse Nixon of stealing the 1968 election from Humphrey by communicating with the South Vietnamese president. In 2016, Hillary's campaign wanted the Electoral College briefed on Trump's supposed treason with the Russians. Were they supposed to undo the popular vote? Meanwhile, Carter's former aides are fighting for vindication by accusing Reagan of conspiring with the ayatollahs. Here is Anne Coulter, brillant as usual: "[https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2020/11/18/gee-why-cant-trump-accept-defeat-like-the-democrats-n2580328 Gee, Why Can't Trump Accept Defeat Like the Democrats?]" [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 08:29, 19 November 2020 (EST)
 +
 
 +
:Given the circumstances of this election, it's obvious that there was unprecedented fraud in favor of Biden. Also, Ann Coulter hasn't been on the right side of the issues every time; [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/ann-coulter-says-trump-deserves-to-lose-will-vote-for-him-anyway remember when she said Trump "deserved" to lose]? The lack of progress in reaching some goals in border security had nearly all to do with the Trump agenda blocked by the courts, so blaming it on Trump was rather unfair and ridiculous. —[[User:Liberaltears|<code><span style="color:black; background:#FFABAB">'''LT'''</span></code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|<sup>May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!</sup>]]''''' Thursday, 08:38, 19 November 2020 (EST)
 +
 
 +
::[https://imgur.com/g7iOP5l Here] is a 1988 ''Playboy'' cover promoting the "October surprise" theory of the 1980 election that I thought was pretty funny. ("Mom, I just got it for the crazy conspiracy theory! Honest!")
 +
::Trump's political career was both created and undone by ''Celebrity Apprentice'' and CNN, with Jeff Zucker presiding over both. Biden could be our most anti-Christian president ever, a Christian-bashing Catholic backed up by a Marxist pope and a Catholic-hating veep. Obama was elected as a Christian and shifted to Christian-bashing toward the end of his first term. We had five unitarian presidents, namely Jefferson, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Filmore, and Taft. Perhaps Pence can bring us back to Nicene-creed orthodoxy.
 +
::Liberals remain hysterical about whatever Trump happens to be doing. ''[https://www.huffpost.com/entry/republicans-trump-2020-election-democracy_n_5fb6fefec5b618e45b469b6b?ul HuffPost]'' is accusing him of "undermining democracy." Stacy Abrams lost the 2018 Georgia governor's race by 50 to 49 point margin. Ever since, she has been accusing Republicans of "voter suppression," whatever that means. But she isn't undermining democracy, at least not to according to the liberal media. In fact, they treat Abrams as a hero precisely because of this unsportsmanlike behavior.
 +
::As for Coulter, I think she has been giving Trump good advise. When the rioters took the police station in Minneapolis, she immediately tweeted that Trump should send in the troops. This was certianly a missed opportunity, one of the few Trump had to reset the race in his favor. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 05:29, 20 November 2020 (EST)
 +
 
 +
== Biden opens the border. What happened to covid? ==
 +
 
 +
What is the No. 1 policy priority of the incoming Biden administration? Covid? Global warming? Racial justice? No, no, and no. It is increasing the level of immigration in order to create more Democrat voters. With the media in peak covid hysteria, Biden has announced that he is going to let in more illegal immigrants. This is on top of the increase in legal refugees that he told us about last week. Not only will he stop wall construction, but he will also freeze deportations for 100 days. This may be a preliminary to ending deportation altogether. If that's not incentive enough, illegals will get free health care, including the covid vaccine. This is early, specific, action that suggests that Biden prioritizes opening the border over almost every other issue.
 +
 
 +
Current American citizens are not the constituency that Biden is appealing to. Only 34 percent of Americans want an increase in immigration, according to Gallup's lastest poll of this issue, which was taken on May 28-June 4. The idea of giving illegal immigrants free health care is both hugely unpopular and economically unsustainable. You can think of Bidenism as a reversed image of democracy. The country would be run, not for the benefit its citizens or even its current residents, but for non-citizens who now live outside its boundaries. See "[https://issuesinsights.com/2020/11/20/bidens-covid-mask-slips-when-it-comes-to-illegal-immigration/ Poll: 67% Of Likely Voters Say Illegal Immigration Is A Serious Problem, Most Believe Democrats Don't Want To Stop It]" and "[https://issuesinsights.com/2020/11/20/bidens-covid-mask-slips-when-it-comes-to-illegal-immigration/ Biden’s COVID Plan: Close The Economy, Open The Border]." [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 23:29, 20 November 2020 (EST)
 +
 
 +
== The future of the Republican party ==
 +
 
 +
Vice President Mike Pence looks awesomely presidential in [https://youtu.be/mJEBgjQIekE this video]. You won't get past a Pence-led Space Force, you filthy Martians! [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 12:34, 22 November 2020 (EST)
 +
 
 +
== An observation about the Gateway Timeouts ==
 +
 
 +
The Gateway Timeouts always appear to happen at the same frequency in terms of their occurrence. They seem to show up three times every hour, lasting for five minutes each time then going away for fifteen minutes only to show up again. —[[User:Liberaltears|<code><span style="color:black; background:#FFABAB">'''LT'''</span></code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|<sup>May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!</sup>]]''''' Tuesday, 22:52, 23 November 2020 (EST)
 +
 
 +
== What happened to Matt Drudge? ==
 +
 
 +
For many years, Matt Drudge was the top source of conservative news. In 2018-2019, his site gradually moved to the left. Nowadays, it is just another news aggregator. Viewship has declined sharply. What kind of business model is that? Perhaps Drudge sold out to some liberal billionaire. But who, when, and why? [https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/matt-drudge-logs-off This story] follows the rabbit hole as far down as it goes. In the summer on 2019, Drudge switched the site's advertising account to a company owned by Margaret Otto. She lives in Mountain View, California and is the wife of Adrian Otto, an executive at Google. The pair has been managing server traffic for the Drudge Report since at least 2005.
 +
 
 +
The writer didn't come up with anyone beside the Ottos who is directly connected to the site: no interns, no editors, no sign of what happened to Drudge himself. It seems that everything is automated. Drudge Report is in the process of the being transformed into a scam site. Since August, it has been running "hidden ads" they charge the advertiser for, but that don't actually appear on the site. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 04:08, 26 November 2020 (EST)
 +
 
 +
== Happy Thanksgiving! ==
 +
 
 +
Happy Thanksgiving, and THANK YOU to all the dedicated, hardworking editors on CP here! —[[User:Liberaltears|<code><span style="color:black; background:#FFABAB">'''LT'''</span></code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|<sup>May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!</sup>]]''''' Friday, 22:57, 26 November 2020 (EST)
 +
 
 +
== Saxon math ==
 +
 
 +
In a Biden presidency, the teacher's unions will be in driver's seat when it comes to education policy. So we can expect a lot more "anti-racist education." Pretty much every Democrat, including Biden himself, has called Trump a racist. Calling Trump supporters racists is common as well. Biden calls us "uglies" and "chumps." In short, "anti-racist" really means anti-American. A lot of parents may soon give homeschooling another look.
 +
 
 +
''[https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/11/k12_why_john_saxon_is_the_brightest_star_in_math_education.html American Thinker]'' has an enthusiastic report on Saxon math, a popular sequence of homeschooling classes. Saxon got a frontpage ''National Review'' story back in the 1980s. ''AT'' recommends the pre-2007 editions. On Amazon, I didn't find later editions for sale, aside from a couple of workbooks. The ''[https://nypost.com/2020/03/16/how-to-home-school-your-kids-like-a-pro-during-coronavirus-quarantine/ New York Post]'' also recommends Saxon. [https://www.hillsdale.net/news/20180726/students-to-get-new-math-texbooks Here] is a story about a school that switched from Saxon to another brand. The teachers complained that Saxon is repetitious. But is that really a flaw? The teacher can always adjust the pace and not every student needs to cover every problem. [https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED365728 Here] is a 1993 study that found that the Saxon method was effective. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 09:05, 27 November 2020 (EST)
 +
 
 +
== New topic: Trump Victory ==
 +
 
 +
How are you all feeling about Trump's likelihood of being named victor in the presidential election? His team's lawsuits don't seem to have had any positive results. I'm starting to lose faith that he'll be awarded a second term by the Electoral College. --[[User:IScott|IScott]] ([[User talk:IScott|talk]]) 18:14, 4 December 2020 (EST)
 +
 
 +
:The more illegal vote fraud committed by the Democrats that gets exposed (and more and more of it is getting exposed day by day), the less and less likely it is that the Democrats will be able to retain any semblance of power, much less get Biden into the White House.  Not only is Trump getting his second term (as, by all rights, Biden basically legally forfeited the election the moment it was discovered that the Democrats illegally cheated on his behalf), but it's a given that there will be massive fallout from this as he invokes EO 13848 (regarding illegal foreign interference in a United States election), which would allow the Trump administration to legally seize the assets of companies (including Facebook, Twitter and Google/YouTube) and individuals (which could even include members of the liberal media) that were complicit (whether by aiding or covering up) in said foreign interference.  This may very well also lead to the end of the Democrat Party as many of its members, along with their operatives, end up going to prison and face military tribunals for electoral fraud, sedition, insurrection (with intent of violently overthrowing the duly elected US Government) and many other crimes - and in the case of Democrats who committed treason (and there are quite a few of them), they would potentially face execution for that crime.  [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 18:47, 4 December 2020 (EST)
 +
 
 +
::Wait, we can contact the Trump Campaign and show Conservapedia sources the necessary evidence. --[[User:United States|United States]] ([[User talk:United States|talk]]) 18:48, 4 December 2020 (EST)
 +
:::The Secretary of State for California certified for Biden today.[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-04/biden-clinches-electoral-college-win-as-california-certifies] That gives the Democrats a certified majority in the Electoral College. So it is no longer possible for election fraud lawsuits to overturn the election. I suppose we could go the Hillary Clinton route and demand that the Electoral College be briefed on Hunter's corruption and how Joe is a treasonous stooge of China, or at least was for many years. In July, the Supreme Court affirmed unanimously that state laws binding electors are valid.[https://nypost.com/2020/07/06/scotus-presidential-electors-must-pick-their-states-popular-vote-winner/] Thirty-two states have laws of this kind. The governors count the electors's votes. They can presumably disregard votes of the kind that SCOTUS has now ruled illegal. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 10:26, 5 December 2020 (EST)
 +
::::California is just very Democrat, how about the toss-ups? --<span style="color:#3C3B6E">'''United States'''</span> 11:08, 5 December 2020 (EST)
 +
:::::[https://www.270towin.com/maps/2020-election-certification-status Here] is the certification site. Only Missouri and New Jersey remain uncertified at this point. Trump can't win without Pennsylvania. The U.S. Third Circuit upheld Pennsylvania's certification on November 27, so the legal options seem to have run out there. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 12:13, 5 December 2020 (EST)
 +
 
 +
::::::That looks absolutely bogus to me (and may, in fact, be one of numerous psy-ops ploys being employed by the Left to try to demoralize and discourage our side) and I'm not about to buy it, especially considering that Trump still has other avenues to go to get the illegal Democrat vote fraud overturned in the swing states and elsewhere.  In addition to him invoking EO 13848, if the SCOTUS is intimidated by the criminals in the Democrat Party to not rule as they should and declare the election in Trump's favor (which he rightfully won anyway, as all votes that came in ''after'' the closing of polls at 8:00 p.m. local time are invalid and don't count under federal election rules), then he'll have no choice but to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 against the Democrats, their operatives and their brownshirts to deep-six their illegal coup (which the vote fraud they're committing is a part of).  [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 13:54, 5 December 2020 (EST)
 +
:::::::Various states encouraged non-citizens to vote, notably California. But these states tend to be "deep blue" anyway. So this type of fraud would effect the popular vote more than the Electoral College vote. Every state should require voter ID. Whether fraud is an issue or not, it would make people take the process of voting more seriously.
 +
 
 +
:::::::The latest is that the Dems are calling for Trump's lawyers to be sanctioned. What about Gore's lawyers, who pushed the "hand recount" nonsense back in 2000? There was no basis in Florida law for counting votes by hand. Furthermore, there is no reason to think that this method is more accurate than a machine count. Ron Klain, who headed Gore's recount effort, is now White House chief of staff. In short, there is no shame in trying to cheat your way to victory if you are a Democrat. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 21:03, 5 December 2020 (EST)
 +
 
 +
::::::::The thing with that is, though, those who were witnesses first-hand to the vote fraud as they took part in it are now starting to feel shame and are speaking out against it due to the reawakening of their consciences.  The more hardcore "true believer" Democrats may not feel that way now, but they're going to have their "come to Jesus" moment the moment arrests for vote fraud (and related crimes) start being made.  [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 13:15, 6 December 2020 (EST)
 +
 
 +
:::::::::Also, Biden again defended China. That just gives me a headache. --[[User:United States|United States]] ([[User talk:United States|talk]]) 13:15, 6 December 2020 (EST)
 +
 
 +
== Will fraud allegations keep Republicans from the Georgia polls? ==
 +
 
 +
The Russia collusion hoax went on for years. Hillary could spend $2 billion on her campaign and millions voted. But up against Russian bots and $100,000 worth of ridiculous Facebook ads, she didn't have a chance. I don't recall that the media ever worried about the sanity of people who believed such nonsense.
  
== Atheists from a vandal website want to debate User: Conservative ==
+
When Mueller finally testified, it turned out that the man was an empty shell, or at any rate a guy with better things to do than read the Mueller Report or worry about whether Russians were colluding with "Trimp," as he called the president. Liberals didn't skip a beat. They moved right along to the Ukraine phone call issue. Why can't Trump ask anyone he likes to investigate Biden? Running for president certainly didn't give Trump any kind of immunity.
  
Adding cowardice characteristics:
+
That's why it's so thoughtful of the media to be concerned that Georgia Republicans will become so discombobulated by the allegations of fraud in the presidential election that they will neglect to vote in the all-important Senate runoffs on January 5. See "[https://www.ajc.com/politics/faith-shaken-in-system-trumps-georgia-supporters-consider-skipping-us-senate-runoffs/4KPPDIUSVBEFZD6OTTPGUAQ2SE/ Faith shaken in system, Trump’s Georgia supporters consider skipping U.S. Senate runoffs]." The headline may sound like parody, but this article is the real deal. Apparently, there was a townhall where attendees asked the state Republican chairwoman why Republicans should invest time or money in the runoffs. What do want to bet those people were Democrats? [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 06:50, 6 December 2020 (EST)
 +
:Rumor is, Durham has expanded his probe to include election fraud. Durham was appointed as special counsel in October. Special Counsels must be appointed from outside government. THis means Durham must have privately retired as a US Attorney at some point. Is firing a Special Counsel an impeachable offense? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 15:37, 6 December 2020 (EST)
 +
::Patrick Fitzgerald, special counsel in the Plame case, was also a serving U.S. attorney. He was appointed by Comey, who had "full power of the attorney general." The regulations were issued by the attorney general, so the AG can override them. Every special counsel appointment has been irregular in one way or another. Special counsels are supposed to investigate crimes, but communicating with Russians isn't a crime. That didn't slow Mueller down. Unlike Comey, Rosenstien did not the have the full power of the AG. He got around the regulation by appointing Mueller as a "special assistant." [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 02:06, 7 December 2020 (EST)
  
I've just found out 2 major characteristics for cowardice:
+
== Attention Hong Kong burglers: Carrie Lam's house is full of cash ==
*Trying to discredit opponents in view to avoid the confrontation
+
*Asking for unreasonable conditions and refusing the confrontation if those conditions are not fulfilled.
+
Would this be acceptable characteristics ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:57, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
+
:::One thing I do know is that obscure atheists who are members of vandal sites have to actually make a substantial donation to a Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability certified Christian relief organization and have a Bible believing pastor do the transaction for them before I would consider debating them since atheists have a penchant for deception (see: [[Atheism and deception]]).  Oh by the way, I may challenge another well known atheist to a debate such as [[Penn Jillette]].  Given that there are 300 less atheists in the world every day and 80,000 more people everyday calling themselves Christian (see: [[Global Christianity]]) and that the [[Question evolution! campaign]] will no doubt create ex-atheists and/or prevent people from becoming atheists in the first place[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbmAn3M8r0I], perhaps it is better to wait so I get more favorable debate terms (I do realize that prominent atheists are often too chicken to debate and of course this trend may continue though (see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]). :) On the other hand, after the atheist population has been whittled down through conversion to theism, perhaps prominent atheists may be desperate to debate anyone in the future. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:37, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
::::Is it a matter of them being too chicken to debate, or do they simply fail to see why they should make a "substantial donation" before debating an anonymous blogger? No offence, but if someone told ME that I'd have to hand over a few thousand dollars before he'd debate me, I'd think he was making excuses. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 14:58, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::Also I don't really get the thing about deception. I mean, I see some guy challenged you to an audio debate. If you arrange the audio hookup then he doesn't appear, that's a victory and it proves your point. If he DOES appear then you get to beat him in the debate. The whole thing with the money does sort of look like a way to get out of challenges, if you look at it from their point of view. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 15:04, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
  
::::And what do fat Christians need to do in order to debate you about how CP treats people with weight issues? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:59, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
Hong Kong is a major banking center, but the banks are too afraid of U.S. sanctions to let Chief Executive Carrie Lam open an account: "[https://www.businessinsider.com/hk-leader-doesnt-have-bank-account-because-of-us-sanctions-2020-11 Hong Kong's leader is being paid in cash due to US sanctions. Carrie Lam earns $56,000 a month and says money is piling up at her house]." [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 02:19, 7 December 2020 (EST)
:See my response to you at: [[Talk:Atheism and obesity]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:55, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
::::::::Just to confirm - you refuse to discuss with me the way CP demeans obese people by linking them to everything a conservative Christian finds negative (atheism, homosexuality, feminism, etc.) and refuses to present anyone who is obese in a positive light. (Don't throw health issues into the mix: we both agree with the information on those.) --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:11, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
User:Conservative, you asked for '''17,000$''' (or even '''20,000$''') to be donated to a charity. For this money, one could get a celebrity like R. Dawkins to speak on this matter, in person. Getting this money  for a written debate (though not given to you, but to a charity), you most certainly could enter the [[Guinness Book of Records]]! So, could you link to a debate here at a talk page at Conservapedia showing your debating skills? To prove that you a worth this kind of money? Just link us to a discussion where you think that you did exceptionally well! [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 15:19, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
::::If obscure internet atheists who are part of a vandal website don't want to meet my terms, I have no problem with that. The atheism and evolution articles that I largely created (which they cannot find one factual error in) certainly do not want of readership so I am certainly not desperate. I would ask though that they do not whine about the matter like typical socially challenged internet atheist nerds. :)  ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]'' magazine made the observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men. In short, quarrelsome nerds (see: [[Atheism and women]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:44, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::Do you honestly think it's reasonable to expect people to pay $20,000 to debate - in writing, not even live - an anonymous blogger, then accuse them of cowardice for deciding that they'd rather have a new car? Sorry, I disagree. If you really wanted to debate atheists you wouldn't be doing all this nonsense with the money, and you'd jump at the chance when it was offered. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 15:53, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
Thomas, would you like some cheese with that whine? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:56, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
:You didn't answer my question. Do you think it's reasonable to demand that people pay $20,000 for a written debate with an anonymous blogger, then accuse them of cowardice for declining to do so? I don't think you actually want to debate atheists, or you'd have taken up the offer from that voiceoftruth guy. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 15:58, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
:::Did I not challenge the atheist Penn Jillette to a debate? I may challenge other non-obscure atheist as well (see comments above). :) By the way, if you could resist the temptation to engage in further whining, I would appreciate it. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:04, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
::::Penn Jillette is, as you have pointed out, not obscure. Do you expect him to reply to a challenge from an anonymous blogger? He's WAY above needing to worry about that. As far as I can tell here you're the one that's whining, because yet again you've ignored my question about exactly how reasonable it is to demand that people pay $20,000 for a written debate with an anonymous blogger, then call them cowards when they don't feel like throwing their money away. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 16:08, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::I am a Christian and I will debate you on the topic of Atheism and Obesity. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:09, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::::Have not other Christians challenged Penn Jillette to a debate? Has Penn Jillette ever debated a Bible believing Christian? Face it, he evolved into a chicken! (see also: [[Atheism and cowardice]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:13, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
Max, I still think you are an atheist and an evolutionist. You certainly whine when I post material unflattering to atheism/atheist community and evolutionism enough. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:13, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
:Stop changing the subject. We're not talking about Penn Jillette; we're talking about YOU. Why do you make such unreasonable demands then accuse people of cowardice for refusing to meet them? To demand $20,000 for a written debate with an obscure blogger is absurd, and it's also dishonest, because even when offered the money you still declined. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 16:16, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
::Jesus Christ is my savior, Conservative. Whether you believe me or not is not a concern because ''He'' knows it true. I whine about poor scholarship, I don't care what anyone says about athesits but it must be grounded in ''fact''. Hence I will debate you on the topic of Atheism and Obesity right now, right here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:18, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
:::That sounds like a fair and reasonable debate offer to me. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 16:19, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
::::Is all of this really necessary? Yes, it is rather unusual for Conservative to request compensation for engaging in a debate given his lack of celebrity status, but you should still take into account that he's asking for the money to be donated to charity, not paid directly to him. He won't actually gain anything from the offer. [[User:RyanK|RyanK]] 16:23, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::It's not a matter of where the money GOES; it's the fact that it has to be paid in the first place. User:Conservative is not a prominent figure; he's just an anonymous blogger. The idea that anyone would pay $20,000 to debate him is laughable. Well, ALMOST laughable - an offer has actually been made, which he refused after quickly changing his rules. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 16:34, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::::I think it's fairly obvious why he wishes to remain anonymous. This page alone shows how much harassment he would face from trolls were he to reveal his identity. The internet isn't a nice place, and people are always on the look out for ways to have fun at another's expense. I believe the term is 'lulz'. He has every right to protect himself from that. [[User:RyanK|RyanK]] 16:43, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
::::::::Then he should expect others to do the same and not label them as 'chicken'.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:45, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::::::And he should also accept the fact that if he insists on remaining anonymous nobody's going to be stupid enough to hand over $20,000 to debate him. After all, what recourse do they then have if he fails to participate? If someone's paying that much for a debate it's perfectly reasonable for them to demand a proper contract laying down the conditions, and you can't do that if you don't know who you're meant to be debating. No, it's just a ploy to let him CLAIM he's willing to debate without ever actually having to do it. This was demonstrated when Jeeves at RW offered to pay the money, and User:Conservative still refused to debate him. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 16:51, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
Conservative, I am willing to debate with you if you agree to give $20,000 to charity. If you are going to refuse my offer, you may be a chicken. I would as well agree that you do not reveal your identity. (No whining in this offer)--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:25, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
::::Setting aside the matter of how desirable it is to be a celebrity, it does appear that some people are forgetting the press have quoted/cited my work (Chicago Tribune, St. Peterburg Times, LA Times, etc.). Of course, the Chicago Tribune and St. Petersburg Times quoted my work in a much more favorable light than more liberal press outlets being they are more conservative publications than many press outlets. In addition, gentlemen with doctorates in relevant fields have linked to my work. Of course, many of my atheist detractors are very aware of the press quoting my work, but being jealous, obscure, quarrelsome [[Essay: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd|atheist nerds]] they certainly are reluctant to admit this fact. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:54, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::Can you link to these press outlets and people with doctorates citing your work? I am curious to read them. Also, what about my debate offer on Atheism and Obesity? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:02, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
::::::First, I hope the 'atheist nerd' does not refer to me. Second, can you provide the links to these press articles ? Third, I think I am neither jealous, obscure nor quarrelsome... So why would you refuse to debate me ? Unfortunately, I am not wealthy enough to spare $20,000 for a debate but you will agree that lack of money is not a sin.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:03, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
::::::Irrelevant. We're not talking about press coverage of your work (do you have any links to support that, by the way?) but about the ludicrous conditions you attach to debates, while at the same time claiming that atheists are too scared to debate you. Well they aren't - you've had two offers from atheists in the last 48 hours, plus two more from fellow Christians, all of which you've avoided or refused - and it is dishonest of you to make this claim. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:05, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
::::Max, Veritas48 was a kind and thoughtful Christian apologists at YouTube who was harassed in very inappropriate ways by atheists. [[JP Holding]] had an obsessive atheist call his wife at work. If you think I am going to allow some obscure, socially challenged atheist nerds (see: [[Atheism and women]]) to needlessly hassle people with doctorates who like my work and have cited it, that is not going to happen. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:12, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
::::::Harassment like continually calling them chickens, mocking their weight and farcical accusations bestiality? What about newspapers that have cited your work? How about my offer of a debate? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:24, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::Again, that's not relevant unless you're saying that you're refusing to debate because you insist on anonymity. I don't see how an audio debate is going to affect that, so why did you refuse? And surely you realise that to ask people to pay $20,000 when they have no legal recourse if you don't attend the debate is completely unreasonable?--[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:17, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::::Thomas, bring some non-obscure atheists to debate me with reasonable offers to debate me via written debate or pony up the $20,000 to be given to a ECFA certified Christian relief charity that is requested of me to debate obscure atheists who are part of vandal websites. It's that simple. Deal with it and stop whining. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:22, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
::::::::Conservative, people won't pay $20,000 to debate with an obscure christian nerd. No whining here.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:25, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::::::Yet AGAIN you have avoided the question: why do you impose such ludicrous conditions for a debate then accuse people of cowardice for not meeting them? If you genuinely want to debate atheists why don't you - as an obscure blogger - do so without demanding that they hand over $20,000 with no assurance other than your word that the debate will ever happen? --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:25, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
::::::::::Oy, Reminder, Keep the discussion civil.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 17:29, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::::::::I'm certainly willing to avoid the word "ludicrous" in future if other participants stop calling people cowards, quarrelsome nerds or socially challenged, and agree to stop questioning the faith of the Christian participants here. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:33, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
::::::::::::Agreed to avoid calling others 'obscure nerds'--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:35, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::::::::By the way, given that: 1) each day there are 300 less atheists in the world and 80,000 additional people who call themselves Christian each day (see: [[Global Christianity]]) 2) The [[Question evolution! campaign]] will cull the atheists population further.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbmAn3M8r0I] -  I certainly may up the amount obscure atheists who are part of a vandal website must donate to a Christian relief organization in order for me to debate them. :) And of course, given the way that [[Ben Bernanke]] prints money, inflation is certainly a consideration as well. Also, I do realize it is often difficult to find non-obscure atheists who are willing to debate (see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]), but I certainly would look at reasonable debate offers from such individuals. :) 17:43, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
::::::::::::::I am offering you a reasonable debate on the topic of Atheism and Obesity. I am not a "quarrelsome atheist" or anything else. We can have a written debate here on conservapedia right now or at an agreed time. Why are you avoiding this offer yet calling everyone else a coward? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:49, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::::::::::::For the same reason as he avoided the offers from Jeeves, Ace McWicked and voiceoftruth2006, I imagine. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:52, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
::::::::::::::::I don't know who those people are...? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:54, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::::::::::::::Jeeves and Ace McWicked are two members of RW who each offered to pay the required $20,000 for a debate with User:Conservative; even so, he declined. voiceoftruth2006 is a YouTube atheist who offered to debate him two days ago; he ignored the offer. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:57, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
::::::::::::::::::Gee, if I had a spare $20,000 I certainly wouldn't be offering it up for an internet debate! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:01, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::::::::::::::::It's probably quite safe to offer it to Ken; after all, if history is anything to go by he's not going to accept. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 18:03, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::::::::::Excellent response, Conservative! Your intelligence level is obviously very, very high. [[User:AverageJoe|AverageJoe]] 17:47, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
::::::::::::How long do you intend to continue avoiding my question? --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:44, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
::::::Oh I give up, it just doesn't make any sense...--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:45, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
  
Conservative, do you think your comments on this page give a promising preview of your debating skills? Frankly, after  reading your non-answers I have difficulties to imagine someone to pony up 2$ for the pleasure to have a written debate with you. But perhaps you can increase your market value by answering my question above:
+
== Attempted murder of election fraud witness ==
::''So, could you link to a debate here at a talk page at Conservapedia showing your debating skills? To prove that you a worth this kind of money? Just link us to a discussion where you think that you did exceptionally well!''
+
Thanks, [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 17:52, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
::Jeeves and Ace never showed that they had a trustworthy Christian to make the donation which certainly was a condition to debate. I did suggest giving the money to a Bible believing pastor of their choosing, but of course, that never happened. I understand that obscure atheists who are part of a vandal site don't like my debate conditions, but I think it is safe to say that this does not keep me up at nights. :) My back is not against the wall - it is the atheist population that is shrinking the world each day while the conservative Christian population appears to be exploding in numbers each day (see: [[Global Christianity]]). :) Keep squabbling amongst yourselves quarrelsome [[Essay: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd|atheist nerds]] (see: [[Essay: Atheism: A house divided and in global decline]] and [[Elevatorgate]] and [[Atheism and women]]), while God keeps expanding the Christian population! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:26, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
::So Aschlafly isn't a trustworthy Christian? I mean, they DID offer to give the money to him. Anyway you still haven't answered my question, have you? Do you really think it's reasonable to demand that people pay $20,000 to debate an obscure blogger, with no legal assurance that the debate will actually take place even after they've paid, then call them cowards when they decline to do so? --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 18:32, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
::::Hi Conservative, my comments may have been lost on this page so please see [[Talk:Atheism_and_obesity#Reasonable_debate_offer|here]]. Thanks, [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:33, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
  
I'd just like to say that I think Conservative is not a coward and that he would debate if he could find a worthy opponent. Also, it is inappropriate to discuss this issue in public. --[[User:JohnCD|JohnCD]] 18:45, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
On the main page, there is a headline on the "In the News" column that claims to link to an article with a video of an apparent attempted murder of an election fraud witness. However, on that very same article, an editor's note claims that it is not an attempted hit on a fraud witness. I think this headline should be removed from the main page as soon as possible, to ensure that Conservapedia maintains its credibility. --[[User:Toby Chester|Toby Chester]] ([[User talk:Toby Chester|talk]]) 06:17, 9 December 2020 (EST)
:That's your opinion, of course, and you're entitled to it. However as Conservative frequently discusses the cowardice of atheists on this site he can hardly complain when his own willingness (or otherwise) to debate crops up, can he? --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 18:49, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::Thomas, what was stopping Jeeves and Ace from giving the donation to Bible believing pastor of their choosing to give to a Christian relief organization? Were they unable to find Bible believing pastors?  Are there no Bible believing pastors in their country or in the world? I am sorry, but their bluff was called and shown to be the farce that it was.  Please feel free to blather on today, but don't be surprised if I disregard your blather. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:57, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
::::::What was stopping them giving the money to Andy Schlafly? I'll tell you what was stopping them giving it to a vicar; they didn't trust you and they wanted a properly witnessed and signed contract that legally committed you to doing the debate once the money had been paid. And you STILL haven't answered my question! You're just an obscure, anonymous blogger; don't you think it's utterly unreasonable to demand that people pay $20,000 to debate you, with no assurance that you'll even attend, then call them cowards for not doing so? --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 19:02, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::::User:Conservative, if you have the courage of your conviction then debating anyone about what you are sure is right then should be easy. Yet you avoid. Harding filling those who are watching this with confidence. I believe this to be an Encyclopedia where getting to the truth should be paramount. This can only be done by debate and a free exchange of ideas. Not be nit-picking the motives of those who wish to discuss things and come to a valid and provable conclusion[[User:Aortuso|Aortuso]] 03:04, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
+
I am going to be frank.  The idea of debating obscure atheist members of a vandal site is repugnant to me and I don't see much value in it. It would be the equivalent of negotiating with terrorists which I think is generally a bad practice and to be avoided if possible. I would need to see a lot of good come out of it, hence the requirement that these people donate $20,000 to a Christian relief organization. I also see a lot of trends that don't bode well for atheism both in the Western World and Eastern World so I think the [[decline of atheism]] will continue (deficits causing budget cuts to liberal Western public universities, further decline of the liberal mainstream press audience, tough economic times causing individuals to turn back to God, [[Question evolution! campaign]], explosive growth of [[global Christianity]], etc. etc.). Of course, this further reduces my incentive to want to debate obscure atheists. Lastly, there are some personal things which I put off doing that I wish to attend to. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:57, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
+
  
:Strange. I  thought that converting these atheist by using your superior debating skills would be a kind of reward in itself. How do you intend to help to cut the ''squeak'' of atheists in half if you are unwilling to engage them? Is this the reason that the [[Question Evolution!]] campaign is oriented to churches - which are the most unlikely places to find a atheist to convert him (or her)? And surprisingly, you are willing to speak with the ring-leaders, the ''top terrorists''! If you don't think yourself to be fit to move the heart - and brains - of the ''obscure atheists'', what do you think you can accomplish by speaking to the more famous ones? Oh wait: do you have a secret rhetorical device which can be used only once - and you try to optimize its impact? Sorry, those things work only in the fantasy of little boys plotting in their super-secret tree-houses...
+
== History of Conservapedia ==
  
:[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:01, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
+
I was looking at the [https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/conservapedia.com Alexa ranking] and statistics on this site and as I noticed the 'similar sites by audience overlap' statistic. I thought to myself, "I wonder if there are other good conservative sites out there," thinking that this would lead me to them. I was mistaken for one. When I saw 'Rationalwiki.org', I thought it would be another good conservative site like this one, hence 'rational', but it's swarming with liberals. I was a little annoyed at first, but some of their content funny, just because it's so wrong. As I was browsing the site, I came upon Conservapedia's article. Evidently, they have an extensive network of (mis)information about this site. If the liberals are going to write our history, I think the admins should create a page on this site detailing the history of Conservapedia from a conservative point of view. -[[User:Mark Adams|Mark Adams]][[User Talk:MAdams|(Discuss with me) ]] 10:33, 18 January 2021 (EST)

Latest revision as of 15:33, 18 January 2021

(this page redirects from CP:COMPORT)
This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.

Community Portal/Archives

This page contains some material that has been moved from Talk:Main_Page. We are attempting to get general discussion of issues relating to Conservapedia's content and policies on this page, leaving the main talk page for its original purpose of discussing the content of the Main Page.



Contents

Cool article

I found a cool article about atheism in the National Post. You might not like it at first, but read past the first couple of paragraphs.--Abcqwe (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2017 (EDT)

Error

Error in the Move log. I dont have delete powers so I cant fix it. RobSTrump now is fighting back against the coup plotters 17:17, 12 May 2017 (EDT)

Overly long articles

From what I understand, the typical Conservapedia article should be accessible to a secondary school student or at least a freshman in university. Some articles, such as Alger Hiss, Elvis Presley, and Barack Hussein Obama, are some of the longest articles on this site. They rival the overly verbose entries on Wikipedia, in my opinion. Should these and other overly long articles be trimmed and extraneous content possibly be moved to more subpages? Just a thought. --Anglican (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2017 (EDT)

I'm personally against it. I'm glad that these articles are detailed. For me, it's fine just as long as they are well-organized. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
These articles aren't exactly accessible to the target audience, and overly complex I think. Basic biographies should really be the emphasis most of the articles on here are shorter and more digestible than WP and aren't weighed down with non-essential information. I personally like articles that resemble the old school paper encyclopedias of my youth than WP's excessively long articles. Encyclopedia entries are meant to be starting points for research. --Anglican (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
If you really think these articles should be split up, I recommend asking the editors most occupied with them. The Alger Hiss article is predominantly edited by User:FOIA. Maybe ask RobS or Andy regarding Obama. The editors most familiar with the articles will probably give you the best answer. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
Some articles can be split up, if done carefully with a summary of the forked article remaining in the main article. It is best if the expert on the topic do the splitting up because they are best at summarizing what is most important. Thanks, JDano (talk) 08:12, 30 May 2017 (EDT)
In the print encyclopedias I recall, there was a Micropedia and a Macropedia, short and long articles. An article about George Ade, Hoosier playwright and fable writer, would only need to be a brief paragraph. An article called "Rocks and Minerals," meanwhile, would detail every type, the various classifications, chemical compositions, and means of formation, though both would be really an outline to the sum of human knowledge on the subject. In the area of biographies, length was variant - short biographies for Jeppe Aekjaer and Abbas I, a longer biography for Alvar Aalto, and a massive Macropedia biography for Isaac Newton or William Shakespeare. As we specialize in politics, it would make sense to have such articles for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump.--Nathan (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2017 (EDT)
That was the later Encyclopedia Britanica. The earlier EBs when I was a child were like the World Book encyclopedia with all of the articles (long and short) in an alphabetical list. My parents bought both. As a child, I would pick up a volume and start reading articles in alphabetical order sometimes. Unfortunately, Wikipedia killed off the market for printed encyclopedias (and for professionally written encyclopedias.) There is no viable market for printed encyclopedias today. People would hand down their printed encyclopedias and dictionaries from generation to generation, because they did not think that the world was changing quickly. However, none of the country names and maps of Africa that I learned as of 1960 were around by 1970. After 9/11 all of the stuff that was of little consequence became of vital importance to the American public. People had to know about Osama bin Laden, but less so about Isaac Newton or William Shakespeare. So, the pace of change killed off the printed encyclopedia. JDano (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2017 (EDT)

Religion in America

After reading a number of CP articles, I realize that we accidentally present an inaccurate or outdated view of religion in America. Religion in America has changed since we were growing up. 1) The traditional churches have declined in attendance. To attract new members some churches have offered new ministries: weight loss, financial counseling, youth, etc. 2) Some churches are offering foreign language services or sublet to a separate foreign language congregation (such as Korean, Filipino, etc.) 3) More people are getting their sermons via television, radio or the internet. 4) Military chaplains and chapels are important for worship by the military and their families. 5) Wealthy people have private chapels on their weekend estates for privacy and security. 6) College based ministries must compete for student time and attention. 7) Historic downtown congregations have had to respond to migration to the suburbs, and small congregations face competition from mega-church congregations. Religion continues to be an important social force in America -- it is not as much of a melting pot as it was decades ago. Does anyone want to work on an article or additions to related articles? Perhaps AlanE or AugustO can tell us if similar changes are happening in other countries. JDano (talk) 08:12, 30 May 2017 (EDT)

My feedback

Michael Brown wrote:

"Several decades ago, church statistician and demographer David Barrett began to report the surprising news that around the world, the most rapidly growing faith was Spirit-empowered Christianity, marked by clear gospel preaching, belief in the literal truth of the Scriptures, and the reality of God’s presence. (The data were compiled in the prestigious “World Christian Encyclopedia,” published by Oxford University Press.)...

This is confirmed in the new Pew Forum report, which showed that evangelical Protestant churches in America grew by 2 million from 2007 to 2014 whereas the so-called mainline (liberal) Protestant churches declined by 5 million, meaning that evangelical Protestants now make up the largest religious group in the nation. (Although this is not part of the Pew Forum survey, my surmise is that the evangelical churches that are most Bible-based and make the most serious, grace-empowered demands on their congregants are, generally speaking, the ones that are growing rather than declining.[1]

I hope the helps. Conservative (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2017 (EDT)

Is this article appropriate to cite?

I and JDano have been in a major dispute on the Donald Trump achievements article over what is probably a silly and absurd issue: whether this article is appropriate to cite. JDano believes that we should not cite it because adding it to this article would somehow increase the chances of people who practice FGM of being ruled not guilty and having the practice legalized -- something which I frankly think is completely absurd and ridiculous. But JDano will not give up in his attempts to delete the source, and I am fully convinced that it is appropriate, so I an bringing it here. Is this article appropriate or inappropriate to cite? Thanks. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2017 (EDT)

There are two Brettbart articles. The first one was a straight news story about three people being arrested for performing female genital mutilation on two Minnesota girls in a clinic outside of Detroit. The second article, the one at issue, is an ax-griding piece that has the following points:
  • Trump Has a New Policy - there is nothing to show that the policy changed in April from the "old" Trump policy or the policy under the Obama administration.
  • There is "a national campaign" to eradicate FGM. This was an action brought by the US Attorney in Michigan, not some newly-announced task force.
  • That one media critic is complaining that there is not enough MSM coverage of this "new national campaign" - perhaps because it does not exist.
  • That the critic says that is due to "political correctness" and "fear of offending Muslims" - but it could be due to the fact that the government is not bringing religion into this and does not want to set up the defense counsel with a "religious defense" to the criminal charges. This is speculation.
  • That a few MSM media stories have followed the government' lead in the bringing religion into this.
  • The story then conclude with an attack on the MSM as "conspicuously silent on this case and their silence is deafening" and "aiding and abetting violence against women out of a politically correct fueled fear of offending Muslims." On the whole, this is an advocacy piece trying to bootstrap a failure of the MSM to play up the religion angle so as to explain why they did not report on the dramatic launch of a "new national campaign" when there apparently is no such campaign.
I think the article is very misleading, and plays into the hands of those who would assert that this prosecution is anti-Muslim motivated. We don't need to cite it. We have now fixed the Donald Trump achievements article to just focus on the individual prosecution. I have been trying to take any mention of religion out of the article bullet as well, because neither the statute nor the indictment mentions religion. Thanks, JDano (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
I think it is an appropriate article to cite. Conservative (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
For the record, I linked the article that is in dispute, and both Andy and Conservative have seen the article. They know which article we are referring to, and they think it's fine. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
Nobody's asserting that the prosecution is motivated by "Islamophobia," and the article certainly does not say that. It is noting that this practice is one that is promoted by the leaders of sects of Islam. It is also noting MSM bias in covering the story. The MSM cannot admit that certain sects of Islam promote this practice. We know the religon and even the sect (the Dawoodi Bohra sect) of those who committed the crimes. They are crimes nonetheless. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
The article does not advance the bullet in the article. It is focusing on Islam, but we all agree that so far, this case has nothing to do with Islam. Let's wait until the Defense raises it. The "Trump Administration achievement" has nothing to do with Islam, just as the bullets in Obamagate timeline have nothing to do with "Russian conspiracy." JDano (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
I am involved with several projects right now so I unfortunately don't have time to investigate this issue further and mediate this issue. However, I do have a message for 1990sguy and JDano: Please consider the possibility of a compromise position. Perhaps, there is some middle ground position that you two could settle on. Again, my regrets for not being able to investigate this issue further. Conservative (talk) 03:05, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
@Conservative: JDano got about 80% of what he wanted: we originally cited only the Breitbart source, but now other sources are cited as well. I removed mentions of "Islamic" from the Donald Trump achievements article (even though those prosecuted clearly are Muslim and that FGM is mainly Islamic). I changed other wording after JDano criticized it. I have been extremely patient, and I have been very considerate. It is time for JDano to accept a middle ground position, which I think is how it is now, which actually would be 80% JDano's version. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:18, 15 June 2017 (EDT)

The matter was easier to research than I expected.

Obama commissioned a study on FGM in 2014 and a fairly mainstream press outlet, The Hill, wondered if he was serious about the the issue.[2] A politician saying he is commissioning a study is often like a husband telling a wife "we'll so" or a sales prospect saying "I'll think about". In short, it is often a ploy to do nothing. Obama does not have a good record on FGM or equal pay for equal work in terms of White House employees.[3]

Trump quickly took action on this issue which shows at least some commitment. So it is a new policy rather than Obama's do nothing FGM policy for 8 years which obtained zero convictions.

So I vote for 1990sguys' decision and oppose JDano. Conservative (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2017 (EDT)

JDano

I did not want to do this, and I waited 24 hours and 1-2 dozen reversions, but I was forced to block JDano for three days for poor editing in Donald Trump achievements.

He added irrelevant information with a liberal POV, he blindly reverted edits that I made that had nothing to do with our disputes that he had no apparent problem with, and in his latest edit, he duplicated information to create a new "education" section without deleting the duplicate information that was listed in the "government size" section.

We had a serious dispute over whether to cite a single Breitbart article, and he continued edit warring even though I asked him to keep the status quo until we resolved the dispute. He was the only editor to oppose citing the article, and I still made many changes to satisfy him.

JDano's behavior has been very irritating, and he has been almost impossible to work with. Please judge the edits on Donald Trump achievements for yourselves (the "education" section he added are just copied-and-pasted info from other portions of the article). I gave him a three-day block for him to cool off. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:54, 15 June 2017 (EDT)

JDano's objections to Richard Dawkins' health have been adequately answered at Talk:Richard Dawkins' health. Yet, I do not expect him to acknowledge this matter.
On top of this, Dawkins is clearly acting hypocritical when it comes to his views on experts/consensus/science when it comes to the application of medical science/medical advice to his health. His doctors are clearly giving him sound advice and he is clearly acting foolishly and ignoring their advice. And the proof is in the pudding. Namely, Dawkins ignored and continues to ignore their sound medical advice and continues to go back to the "controversy trough" again and again even after his stroke.
I thought JDano had some reasonable objections to the Obama's religion article, but I thought his picture choice of Obama standing in front of a glorious looking cross like he was some kind of devout Christian preacher was over the top. Do I like the present Obama's religion article? I am not a fan of it. That is why I provided the counterexamples to Obama being a Muslim.
Many conservatives are reactive and overly defensive. When liberals invariably and reflexively yell racist/misogynist, etc. regardless of the merit of their charges, conservatives often cower like kicked puppies. I like the fact that Sean Hannity took on a liberal via threat of a slander suit in order to stop her nonsense. I wish more conservatives were like Hannity.
Sun Tzu said a strong defense makes one invincible, but an attack brings victory. At some point, Hitler/other unsavory characters and harmful ideologies have to be challenged. The one thing I like about Trump is that he is willing to go on the attack. For years, conservatives largely ignored liberal indoctrination in public schools. What did Trump do? He picked Betty Devos as his Secretary of Education to promote school choice. Trump pushed for a wall on the Mexican border. Trump has "NY attitude" like assertiveness and boldness. He is the George Patton of American politics. That is why people voted for him. Does Trump go too far sometimes? Yes, he does. Attacking Carly Fiorina's looks in terms of her face was crass and foolish for example.
Maybe JDano is being overly reactive. At the same time, I do believe in accuracy in both content and sources. I wish I had time to investigate this matter and mediate it, but I don't. I will say that as long as the Breitbart article has no inaccuracy in it, I have no problems with it. Conservative (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
Conservative, JDano's dispute with me over the Breitbart reference was not the only problem.
JDano also wanted to add other information that I did not think was appropriate. Some of the information was irrelevant (it should have been added in other articles) or had a liberal POV, some of the information was unsourced (everything should be sourced so we can verify it as true). I explained my edits, but he reverted them.
Although I made several edits in the meantime that were completely unrelated to what we were disputing, JDano reverted those edits as well.
When trying to add changes, JDano also said he created a new section on Trump's achievements on education. This seems good, but he just copied and pasted information that already existed in the article, and he did not delete the duplicates. I seemed like a ploy for him to continue reverting.
It's also not just the past 24 hours. I have had disputes with him in the past where he repeated the same behaviors, constantly reverting without discussing, adding irrevevant content with a liberal pov, and removing unrelated changes I had done in the meantime.
Overall, his behavior was too disruptive and was doing CP more harm than good. I had to temporarily block him. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2017 (EDT)

1990sguy, I revised my commentary/decision on this issue. I took your side. See my post above.Conservative (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2017 (EDT)

Still having a hard time wrapping my head around the dispute here. Is it (a) Brietbart is not credible if it's not backed up by MSM reporting, or (b) the Brietbart article is irrelevent to the text in mainspace? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 18:39, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
The funniest thing about this is that 1990sguy has actually removed his own factually incorrect editorialising about Islam and FGM from the Conservapedia text, but still insists on retaining a reference which engages in exactly the same kind of editorialising, only turned all the way up to 11 and with a dirty great fireworks and laser show to boot.
JDano has probably done himself an injury with all the facepalming he must've been doing last night. He deserves a medal, not a 3 day block. JohnZ (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2017 (EDT)

Today was a separate problem from yesterday. I wanted to add content about Title IX and the appointment of Adam Kissel to head up these Dept. of Education reforms. I realized that although Education policy is a very important area of Trump policy changes, and is of high interest to Conservapedia readers, there was no section for it on the page. So, I started to move education bullets from other sections and to add the Kissel bullet, but every time I would hit "save", 1990sguy would create an "edit conflict" Rather than loose the text, I saved it so that I could go back and fix the conflicts, but 1990sguy blocked me before I could complete the work as intended. The plan was to move the bullets not duplicate them. I think we need more group effort and less "individual ownership" of pages. Also, less name-calling. I am a life-long conservative, and Lindsay Graham is a life-long conservative, who is a good-guy. If he offers concise, good-natured advice to President Trump to stop tweeting, it is very newsworthy and worth including in a discussion of the Trump Twitter account. I am here to build a well-researched reliable encyclopedia, not to see how much I can build a false narrative to advance my own political agenda. I expect everyone else to be here for the same reason. So: 1) Let's give each other some space - make sure the first editor is done before you start to rewrite his contribution. 2) Look at multiple sources - if only one source has the story and everyone else has the opposite, consider that the outlier may have the facts wrong or has miscommunicate to you. 3) If you don't understand what you are trying to write, ask for help. If your understanding is not clear, what you write will only confuse other Conservapedia readers. JDano (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2017 (EDT)

Just the facts, ma'am

Ok, so we have established the dispute is over inclusion of a Brietbart citation. Now, can you answer my inquiry over why Brietbart is inappropriate for the language in text, without going into extraneous discussion on unrelated matters. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 22:31, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
Correct. Setting aside the interwoven "edit conflict" confusion of today, we are back to the Brietbart article with a headline "Establishment Media Hides Trump’s New Policy to Stop ‘Genital Mutilation’ of American Girls". I described my concerns here. The revised bullet has nothing to do with Islam or any "Trump's New Policy to Stop FGM", rather it discusses just the Michigan prosecution, which is notable because it is the first prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §118. So, the Breitbart article is not relevant to the bullet in question. JDano (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
Ok. So it's not really a 'new policy', it is the first time prosecutions have been brought under a 20 year old federal law. The Trump White House and sympathetic media charge the mainstream media is covering this fact up, which is both pro-woman, pro-child, and even designed to protect Muslims. What's wrong with that? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:39, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
Perhaps I am missing a source. The White House (Sean Spicer) is not commenting. The main stream media is not covering up "a new policy" because the policy and law have been the same for years. How can Brietbart beat up on the mainstream media if there has been no announcement of a "new policy?" What is new was the FBI was able to prove that two girls were transported across state lines for FGM, so they arrested the doctors and got medical help for the girls. Prior actions have been focusing on international "FGM tourism" at border crossings. State Dept. Fact Sheet Intrastate FGM cases are in the hands of local and state police. JDano (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
So there are two issues, correct me if I'm wrong. One, enforcement of a law to protect young girls, which is an achievement; secondly, the debate over identifying victims and perpetrators of these crimes as Muslims. Is this a fair synopsis? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:12, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
No. The second issue is whether there was a "new" policy or a policy change. There is a long tradition in the media of not identifying young victims of sexual crimes. Neither the government nor almost all of the media have said anything about the girls (names, hometown, nor religious sect.) The Breitbart article is misinterpreting the MSM's absence of detail as "fear of offending Muslims." The problem that I had with the original bullet was the claim that during the Obama Administration and the Trump Administration (Jan. 20 to mid-April) there was a policy of non-enforcement of 18 U.S.C. § 118. I can't find any evidence of that. It is easier to catch international "FGM tourism" at the border than to catch mothers driving daughters across state-lines for a domestic FGM trip. So, the achievement was the first domestic criminal prosecution. (Please watch this brief interview if you think it is a "Muslim issue": https://youtu.be/sb_YPFrWty0 .)JDano (talk) 05:22, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
Ok, fair enough. So your argument is that while the Trump Justice Department's first enforcement of federal anti-FGM is a recognizable achievement, the Brietbart article is irrelevent to that accomplishment. Should any reference be made to the fact that both perpatrators and victims were Muslim in this achievement? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 10:14, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
As an experienced encyclopedia editor on several wikis, I value your input on this. To me, the fact that no mention was made in the charging documents and that I don't want to give defense counsel any ammo leads me to say "no". Wikipedia would call that "synthesis". JDano (talk) 10:19, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
Would it be a valid citation to outline the facts of the case, without mentioning 'Muslim' or 'Islam' in the text? Secondly, in an article entitled 'Donald Trump achievements', why wouldn't the Trump administration aggressively enforcing federal law to protect little Muslim girls be an achievement? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 10:47, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
Answer #1: The first Brietbart article would be better than the second one that 1990sguy wants in the footnote. There are many other clearer sources including the DOJ press release, and 1990sguy and I have reached agreement on the text of the bullet and all references except the second Brietbart article, which I feel is nonsense. Answer #2: The US attorney would argue that religion was not relevant to the arrest and prosecution. FGM is not limited to one religious group, and the health-related statute focuses upon a specific action rather than upon the motives of the accused. Hypotheically, if DOJ was trying to prosecute a religious group for their beliefs, that move would be subject to the same court challenges as now apply to the "travel ban." 1990sguy chose to have this debate on my talk page rather than on this page. JDano (talk) 11:28, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
Well, my simple point is, the Trump administration protecting Muslims is a worthy accomplishment, which is the point the first Brietbart article - and no other source - makes. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:48, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

policy vs law

JDano states, "the policy and law have been the same for years". I bring this up here because understanding the difference can be valuable to us on multiple levels. What is the difference between policy and law?. I disagree with JDano's assertion: while the law outlaws FMG, the policy of three past administrations has been not to enforce the law. Similiarly, while sanctuary cities are illegal, and Dream Act is not law, the policy of past administrations has been to not enforce immigration law and treat the Dream Act as if it were law. Or the ABM missile Treaty with Russia, while the ABM treaty is binding law, the policy of the Bush & Obama administrations have been to ignore it and allow international tensions to escalate. Or Operation Fast and Furious. While the law required enforcement of illegal weapons sales, the policy allowed the government itself to facilitate illegal weapons sales. These issues will be revisted soon in the Supreme Court were the law entrusts national security to the president, the courts have denied the president's policy of enforcing the law in regard to the travel ban. So we can use all these illustrations to understand the difference. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 10:47, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

You can judge each President's administration by the totality of their actions. The bill was signed into law by President Clinton on Sept. 30, 1996. President Obama signed an amendment to the law to outlaw "FGM tourism" abroad in 2013. One of the things that custom and border patrol staff look out for is young girls traveling abroad for FGM. There is also continuous US support of anti-FGM actions via the United Nations. I realize that law and policy can differ. For example, President Lincoln made a deal with the Mormons to not prosecute bigamy laws in exchange for their not siding with the Confederacy in the Civil War. Everything I have found indicates that the DOJ policies inherited from the Obama Administration were to enforce 18 U.S.C. § 116. If we can find something credible to the contrary, it would be quite a scoop for Conservapedia. JDano (talk) 11:02, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
FMG tourism would be virtually impossible to enforce without a confession of intent from the adult escort, or perhaps on return if the facts can be documented. Are there any known cases of prosecution? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:22, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
I can look for sources, but it would be administrative action and not a criminal case in an Article III court. Only the travel and the adult escort would be targeted, since the person performing the procedure would be in the other country. JDano (talk) 12:46, 16 June 2017 (EDT)


JDano, Lindsey Graham is one of the most liberal Republicans.[4] He belongs to the "surrender Republicans" rather than someone like Newt Gingrich who forced Bill Clinton to have a balanced budget.
The GOP base is sick of surrender GOP members and that is why Trump far surpassed Graham in the 2016 GOP presidential primary. We're tired of GOP members who are terrified to have their uniforms soiled by the press/liberals calling them names. We want Donald "blood and guts" Trump.
Please don't bother me on a talk page page again if you want to fly the white flag rather than take the opposition to task for hypocritical/inconsistent behavior. You are not willing to concede reasonable points and impose time wasting opposition to others.
You were so busy to appease liberals with that ridiculous picture of Obama that you couldn't see the obvious truth: Obama is not a Christian. The Apostle Paul's views never "evolved" on homosexuality. Obama may not be a Muslim, but he is certainly not a Christian. Conservative (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
As far as clarification, I am not saying Trump or any other politician should go out of his way to create unnecessary conflict, but they shouldn't be afraid of conflict either. Conservative (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
You have totally lost me. What does Lindsey Graham have to do with female genital mutilation, a specific Brietbart citation, and the blocking of a constructive editor? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:42, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
Man if you lost nobs then that's like, some next-level obfuscation. Kudos, Conservative. Vive Liberté! 00:03, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
I'm really struggling to see what Sun Tzu, Lindsey Graham, and the Apostle Paul have to do with settling a dispute between users on female genital mutilation. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:14, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
Conservative was referring to this edit and previous edits done by JDano. He made other problematic edits before I blocked him. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

History of FGM in the United States

The history of FGM is more complex than I originally thought. My first inclination to not get involved in this matter unless I gave it the due diligence it may require turned out to be correct.

I hope these resources help resolve matters. I do think that JDano and 1990sguy should be able to work this matter out. Conservative (talk) 07:27, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

Dear Conservative, thank you for sharing your research. The first paper is a bit out-of-date. Since then, Congress amended the law to address FGM tourism, and more states have enacted laws. I have hesitated to greatly expand the FGM article because I want to keep it family-friendly. I believe that 1990sguy and I reached agreement on the FGM bullet, except for whether to include the Brietbart article. JDano (talk) 09:40, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
If you are a member of an Islamic sect that practices FGM, you will be offended by the US, the UN, and the EU outlawing the practice. So, you will not be surprised by news coverage of an arrest whether or not the mainstream media discusses the religion of the family or the doctor. If you are a non-Muslim whose family practiced FGM, you may feel uncomfortable every time FGM is in the news, but that does not dictate how we cover the subject. If you are a criminal defense lawyer, your only real option is to argue the statute is unconstitutional under the First Amendment and that this is more a question of free exercise of religion than of protecting the health of the girls. (You could also argue under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment because cutting girls is illegal when cutting boys is not.) Quite a difficult area to navigate. JDano (talk) 10:16, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
Without getting too far off course, and changing this to a sociological phenomenon, the practice among Muslims (and others) is mostly motivated by tribal custom, i.e. preparing a female for barter or trade in a marriage contract who will not dishonor the the family or tribe she originated from, thus violating the marriage contract that binds certain tribal alliances together. An unfaithful wife can cause wars, such as Helen of Troy, or serious internal breaches like Tristan and Isolde. At root of FGM is treating women as property. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:37, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

My response to JDano's other edits that I reverted

It seems we have solved the Breitbart source (finally! :) ). JDano made several other edits that I reverted because I thought they were not constructive. First, however, let me say thank you for not trying to re-add them after I reverted (and blocked) you. I don't think I did a good job of explaining my position, which I strongly hold.

One of these edits was adding the paragraph of Lindsey Graham. I am not opposed to having opposing viewpoints, but what makes Graham's single viewpoint so notable compared to other people? He is one of 100 Senators, 1 of 535 Congressmen, and 1 of over 7 billion people in the world. What makes his view so notable? If you want to add an opposing view of Trump's Twitter activity, please find a good source (preferably NOT from the MSM, or at least a fair MSM source) that speaks generally of opposition from conservatives and other people, rather than the opinion of a single RINO Senator. Anyone can say anything about everything. Let's not cherry pick quotes, please.

You also added a sentence saying that "The Trump Administration continues to offer spousal benefits to federal workers in same-sex marriages." However, there's no source. The intro paragraph of the article specifically tells you to add sources. Once again, anyone can say anything about everything. We need to be certain this fact you added is accurate. I am not opposed to adding that sentence, but there MUST be a source.

In your edit, you removed an unrelated edit I made in the meantime. You had no dispute with the edit, but you still reverted it. It was the single Breitbart reference I added (not the same Breitbart article -- a different article on a different topic). JDano, your edit was sloppy, and you need to avoid doing this in the future.

I did not like your wording of the Qatar failure because funding nations is more complicated that you made it seem. If the U.S. did not fund Qatar, a nation that does fund terrorists, Qatar might be driven to align itself with Iran. That would not be good. I simplified the wording.

Your typo in the Trump official portrait at the top did not help at all.

Thank you for improving the "education" section above. It was a lot better than you first made it in the edit I linked above. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:25, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

Also, JDano's edit summary in that edit was very misleading because it stated "new section" when in fact he did more than create a new section (namely revert all my edits). Edit summaries must not be misleading. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
And by the way, I know that I do not own the article. I was reverting what I believed (justifiably) to be simply bad edits (bad for various reasons which I explained above). I support having other people add constructive edits to the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:32, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
Since going with Windows 10, my computer crashes frequently, particularly upon times of inactivity. So, I have to save less than the complete set of changes. When you save edits while I am editing, when I save, I get a "edit conflict dialog box" which does not allow me to see your edit summaries, but requires me to locate my edit within the entire source code of the page. Because the page is so long, I copy and paste the entire contents of my source window over the entire article source and hope to work out any lost content by looking at the page history. I was getting three or four edit conflict dialog boxes per save yesterday. So, you need to edit a different section of the page, or give the other editor a chance to finish up before you edit the same section. I assume that a editor will go back and check for spelling or other mistakes and do not edit there for at least 5 min after the initial save. Thanks, JDano (talk) 11:40, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
Edit conflict ;)
JDano, if you want, I can try to help you diagnose the crashing problem. That does sound problematic! If you are letting the PC idle, it could even just be autostandby. Windows Vista and 7 had that kind of issue where it would crash when starting to standby or recovering from it. I dont know if the 8/8.1/10 core has the same issue or not. If you are constantly editing, them a bit more troubleshooting will be needed.
If you edit one section at a time and then save rather than moving around, it may cause more conflicts, but would also make it easier to recover from one. If both of you edit one paragraph or small section, it would be less destructive to reload the page and paste in that edited section only. --David B (TALK) 12:00, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
JDano, you may make the edits in the way you do for a reason, but it is very problematic because only you know why you edit the way you do. For the rest of us, for all we are able to see, you are being sloppy. I understand now, but please change your editing behaviors in the future. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
Isn't this just a question of "assume good faith"? If a known editor is starting to do something, wait 5 to 10 minutes before jumping in, rather than creating a lot of edit conflicts. I had the educational source windows open and was going to put the section as it is now, but never got a chance. I still do not understand how one of my cut-and-pastes accidentally butchered to top of the article, but I managed to fix it quickly. On Wikipedia, the edit conflict window is based on just the section open to editing, why does the edit conflict window expand the "conflict zone" to the entire article? JDano (talk) 12:32, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
I'm still not seeing where Lindsey Graham fits in this discussion on female genital mutilation. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:14, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
I'm talking about another problematic edit JDano made in this section. I'm not talking about FGM here. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
As a part-time JAG officer in the Air Force reserves, Lindsay Graham gets into more legal issues than you can imagine. JDano (talk) 12:37, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
Lindsey Graham was in on the Operation Zero Footprint coverup, which means he's likely in on the Russian hacking scam, as well. How does Lindsey Graham relate to any Donald Trump achievement? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:48, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
IOW, Lindsey Graham is complicit in Obama war crimes. The only way he can rehabilitate himself is by voting right in the Senate. Other than that, nobody should care or pay attention to what he thinks about Donald Trump or Donald Trump's accomplishments. We got plenty of dirt on Lindsey Graham, even going back to his inept mishandling of Bill Clinton's impeachment case. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:08, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

Can someone edit this template so the useful links are readable?

Useful links

Welcome!

Hello, Community Portal, and welcome to Conservapedia!

We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.

At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page. Any questions--ask!

Thanks for reading, Community Portal!


Can someone edit this template so the useful links are readable?

The blue links on a dark red background is hard to read.

Also, some people have started to edit Conservapedia and then quickly gave up because they didn't know how to edit a wiki. I noted about 3 people who did this. There are probably many more who quit but didn't say anything. I added a link entitled "How to edit a wiki". But I believe there are various versions of the welcome template so my link is not on all welcome template versions. For example, the welcome template that JPatt uses didn't incorporate my "How to edit a wiki" link.

Does the newest version of the Wikimedia software allow for WYSIWYG editing? In other words "What you see is what you get".

The newest version of the Wikimedia software does not have the counter at the bottom of the pages. I understand why Andy Schlafly likes the counters at the bottom. I like the counters too. I guess there might be an extension to add the counters to the newest version of Wikimedia. But after all is said and done, having WYSIWYG editing could greatly increase the participation rate at this wiki and lower the rate of people falling out because they don't know how to edit a wiki. Conservative (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2017 (EDT)

Here is the welcome to Wikipedia and it is much better and legible

Some cookies to welcome you! Face-smile.svg
Welcome to Wikipedia, Conservative! I am This lousy T-shirt and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions check out Wikipedia:Questions, or feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. Again, welcome!

I think Conservapedia needs a better greeting. Conservative (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2017 (EDT)

Donald Trump's tweets

We have had a lot of discussion about how to cover Donald Trump's twitter account on the main space pages. So, I have started a page Debate:Should President Trump stop tweeting? and invite interested editors to comment there. Thanks, JDano (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2017 (EDT)

Request for Conservative or another admin

You recently deleted the article entitled "Donald Trump's breaking of promises." I am OK with this action, but would you (or another admin) please copy-and-paste the article's content onto User:1990'sguy/Sandbox? There may be some content in the article worth saving. Thanks. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2017 (EDT)

I restored it to your Sandbox, but noticed that it quotes anti-Trump gasbags like Jason Chaffetz as though they are some kind of authority. The guy cannot even fulfill his own obligation to compete his 2-year term for his constituents.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2017 (EDT)
Thank you, Andy. Restoring the content has nothing to do with whether the content is accurate or good. I just want it to see if any of it is salvageable. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2017 (EDT)

BLOCK THIS GUY!!!!!!!!

As anyone who is logged in knows, there is a major vandalism wave going on (based on the topics being vandalized, it seems to have originated from the recent dust-up about "fake news", not that it matters.) The only assistant I can see currently aware of this seems to be Pokeria1. He has block powers. But I have attempted to alert him to this. He can't possibly be unaware of what is going on, since he has reverted my warnings on his talk page.

Can someone put a stop to this? Here is what I put (several times, getting blasted each time) on his talk page:

BLOCK THIS GUY!!!!!

What the Hell are you doing????? You have block rights!

[5]

SamHB (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

For the record, I DID respond to your post in the limited amount of time I could before that 2000'sguy person undid the revision, and I even attempted to ask how long I should block him. However, I also made it very clear that I'm extremely reluctant to do it because I fear ultimately being corrupted by that power (I've already witnessed plenty of admins on the forums and other wikis blocking people for the sheer heck of it, or even threatening people to keep them in line, and I want to go out of my way to avoid being like them). Pokeria1 (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

OK, I see it now. In the heat of battle, I did not. My answer to the "how long?" question is:
  • Correct answer: Infinite. That kind of stuff is infinite.
  • Acceptable answer: 1 day. That's enough for admins to notice what happened and take it from there.
  • Crazy answer: However long it takes for me to come over and beat you up. Non-violently, of course.  :-)
Your position on not letting power corrupt you is very similar to mine. See the discussion among Ed Poor, DavidB4, and myself on Ed's talk page. Blocking people for the heck of it, and threatening people, happens elsewhere, and it used to happen here. I think we have improved.
SamHB (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

If you see something, say something

More precisely: If you see blatant vandalism taking place, and you have block powers, block the perpetrator.

I believe most active users are "assistants", meaning they have the power, and authority, to block vandals. Yesterday there was a huge vandal attack, in which 65 acts of vandalism were committed in about 40 minutes. I saw that an assistant was logged in, and attempted to alert him on his talk page. The vandal reverted that, and I kept trying. The user saw the vandalism to his talk page and reverted it. He even reverted my warning. I sent private mail to Andy. Finally Ed Poor did the deed.

Assistants have the power to block vandals. Use it. That's what it's for. Don't just let vandalism sprees go on. SamHB (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

I think there are more vandal attacks because liberals are getting desperate. They are losing power and do not like it. They are like cornered rats right now. The engaging in violent tactics, violent demonstrations, etc. Conservative (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
It even happened here this morning, but the two perps (who, based on very similar user names, is most likely the same kid using multiple accounts) got cut off at the pass quickly. If I'd been on line yesterday when said vandalism happened, I would've stopped it right there and then, but no editor with blocking power can be on site 24/7. Best thing to do is pay attention to the Recent changes section and watch what happens. Northwest (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
I noticed that incredible spree after the fact--yikes! Sam, I was offline, but that doesn't mean I can't help. I've provided a link on my talk page to send my a text message for a reason too--that's what it's there for. I may not be available, but I would be happy to deal with the issue if I am. Just because I'm not editing doesn't mean I can help for a moment. :) --David B (TALK) 20:03, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
This is similar to when I kept on reverting the several accounts of this "James Wilson" fellow a few weeks ago. It took forever to block him, and he was able to get a lot of pages, including repeatedly vandalizing the Taylor Swift article and creating frivolous entries. There seems to be plenty enough "assistants" on here, so such long sprees shouldn't be happening so often. --Anglican (talk) 22:25, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

Political Directory

We have a project that started last February, but still needs teamwork to complete. This project accidentally drifted to Archive2, but still has work to be done.

A few years ago, some editors copied a lot of political directory information into CP. For example, the state articles list all of the Senators and Congressmen and the infobox has the Senators' telephone numbers. Much of this has changed in the 2014 and 2016 elections. In some cases, like Elizabeth Warren, the junior senator has become the senior senator of the state. I have corrected Ohio, but do not want to fix all of this by myself. Can we organize a work list and cross off each state as it is updated? Please let me know if you want to help. JDano (talk) 09:22, 15 February 2017 (EST)

I can't say I'm thrilled at the idea, but I can try to chip in a little, as time permits. That's a very good idea, and I'm glad you noticed--I'm just not sure how much time I can contribute. --David B (TALK) 11:03, 15 February 2017 (EST)
In my state even the official state website hasn't been updated in more than two years (it still lists an officer sitting in jail as Secretary of State). I'm sure the lazy government bureaucrats blame Republican budget cuts who took over the legislature in 2014. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 21:33, 15 February 2017 (EST)
This project is focusing on 1) list of US Congressmen and Senators and 2) Senators in infobox. JDano (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2017 (EST)

Sources: http://www.house.gov/representatives/ and https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?OrderBy=state&Sort=ASC When you have finished with a state, cross the state name out using <s>State</s>.

Many thanks to Pokeria1, AMorrow, and DavidB4 for their help on this project. JDano (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2017 (EST)

Since we finished the federal officers faster than I expected, I am proposing a Phase II, where we go back and check the names of the state-wide officers listed in each of the above articles. After you have checked an article please change <s>state</s> to <b>state</b>. Many thanks! JDano (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2017 (EST)

Clean sweep response to Muslim protestors

I saw this on a woman's Twitter page. She responded to four themes that make up quite a lot of common Muslim protest arguments in such a way as to maximize the exposure of their contradictions. Those who call for more Muslim immigration should be confronted with these short arguments and why they think they don't apply seriously to these all-too-typical Muslim sentiments:

You call me intolerant because I won't tolerate a religion of intolerance [Muslim activist's sign "Islam will dominate the world"].
You call me hate-filled because I'm against hate preachers [Muslim activist's sign: "Behead those who insult Islam"].
You call me extreme because I don't want extremists in my country [Two men dressed in all black except hole for eyes: "God Bless Hitler" in bold red capital letters].
You call me a supremacist because I won't submit to invaders who believe their law & culture is supreme to ours [Muslims with black parade banner: "Shariah for the UK"].
I only need to call you one word...Traitor.

VargasMilan (talk) 01:24, 14 July 2017 (EDT)

Recent issue(s)

So, with at least a few articles in the past, including the articles on Kate Upton and earlier Taylor Swift, I am unsure about what direction the site should be taking regarding the topic of women wearing less than modest clothing. Should it be mentioned in the articles, and if so, how should it be done? The Upton situation seems to have at least two Senior Administrators and two Junior Administrators involved, and I think we should talk about how to address the issue, given that this is a conservative-minded encyclopedia and that social conservatism has been a key component of conservatism in the US. --Anglican (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2017 (EDT)

The trend of women wearing less modest clothes is a relatively recent development, and it is associated with feminism. I think things like this should be mentioned only if the person in question claims to be religious or traditional. This is just my take, however. We'll see what everyone else has to say. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2017 (EDT)
Your take does make sense, and a claim to be a Christian may imply something of the sort, as User:RonaldB pointed out. Since it has come up in at least a few articles it is something that really should be addressed. We should be able to do it in an encyclopedic tone, without sounding too preachy. One of the earlier revisions of the Upton article did come off rather preachy. --Anglican (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2017 (EDT)
Yes, regardless of what we do, we should stick to an encyclopedic tone. I don't think we will have to mention these things on articles of people who clearly are secular liberals (unless that they do is blatantly outrageous, like what Miley Cyrus did a while back). --1990'sguy (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2017 (EDT)
I stepped in as far as the Kate Upton article because there was a dispute happening and there were nude photographs that she had taken. Plus, she lied about the issue shortly before the cloud website had a data breach which caused her pictures to become public.
You have to draw the line somewhere and I drew the line at nude. Conservative (talk)

When I was in high school, I volunteered to help in the school library. We had a periodical collection, and students would have to request a specific magazine issue, and then the student assistant would go into the back room, pull the issue and have the student sign it out. The most requested magazines were Car and Driver followed by the National Geographic issues which photos of native African women. We can discuss these subjects with an encyclopedic tone and without including examples. In contrast, Wikipedia works extensively to collect as many nude photos as possible and is not family friendly. We don't want Conservapedia to appeal to the crowd that reads National Geographic for just those few special photos. JDano (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2017 (EDT)

It sounds like everyone basically agrees on this anyway, but I'll chime in. I agree that we should keep such content to a minimum. If such information can be used to prove hypocrisy, then it might be worth carefully mentioning. However, in general, that's just a part of the secular world now. Let's keep it out of here, unless perhaps if it is beneficial to prove a different point. --David B (TALK) 21:04, 14 July 2017 (EDT)

I'm thinking that there's an agreement about how to handle this particular issue from now on. Although, I still regret my rash judgment and current inability to correct it at this time. --Anglican (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2017 (EDT)

Sam Chui's Little Theorem

I wasn't able to find anything on the internet related to Sam Chui's Little Theorem. And there are no citations in the article. Conservative (talk) 07:01, 19 August 2017 (EDT)

Appears to be a private gag between half a dozen 14-year olds from math camp. No encyclopaedic value, no educational value and, frankly, unfunny to boot. They have had their few days of glory, now burn it with fire. NeilWalker (talk) 07:57, 19 August 2017 (EDT)
I deleted the article.Conservative (talk) 08:12, 19 August 2017 (EDT)

User:GinnyS

I see that someone today blocked User:GinnyS for violating the 90%/10% rule. Just so that the record is clear, since she created her account, GinnyS had 49 talk page edits and 22 article page edits leading to a 69%/31% ratio, which is seems to meet the rule's requirements. While today's exchange was intemperate, we do want users to feel free to raise concerns to ensure that what is posted matches the sources provided. Thanks, JDano (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2017 (EDT)

"Ginny" was a man.Conservative (talk)

Block flood

Apologies for the block flood--I got the process derailed onto the wrong account (main rather than bot). I will try to be more careful in the future. --David B (TALK) 00:07, 8 September 2017 (EDT)

Conservative of the Year 2017

I created the article where we list the nominations for Conservative of the Year 2017. Feel free to add solid conservatives to the list who deserve mention. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:18, 8 November 2017 (EST)

New essay, need contributors

I have created a new essay: http://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:Virtue:_Christian_vs_secular

I would welcome contributions from other CP users. Shobson20 (talk) 11:28, 28 December 2017 (EST)

Conservatism sells: The growth of followers of conservatives on Twitter

See Essay:Top conservatives on Twitter for current number of followers of top Twitter users considered to be conservative. Of those Twitter posters whose accounts on that page are still active, none lost in their total number of followers over the whole year of 2017.

Promoters of conservatism with large gains of followers on Twitter, 2016-7 (top 20 each category)
Twitter poster Increase
in
followers
2016
% in-
crs.
in
fol-
low
ers
Increase
in
followers
2017
% in-
crs.
in
fol-
low
ers
Increase
in
followers
Dec. 17 2018
% in-
crs.
in
fol-
low
ers
Pres. (or-Elect) Donald J. Trump +13,053,000 +237% +26,905,000 +145% +10,520,000 +23%
Dr. Ben Carson +1,475,000 +136% 0 +0% 91,000 +3%
Michelle Malkin +943,000 +105% +328,000 +18% -26,000 -1%
Sean Hannity +697,000 +56% +1,266,000 +65% +643,000 +20%
Laura Ingraham +550,000 +89% +819,000 +73% +575,000 +30%
Ann Coulter +463,000 +63% +632,000 +53% +279,000 +15%
Judge Jeanine Pirro +292,000 +222% +479,500 +113% +387,000 +43%
Franklin Graham +277,000 +59% +565,000 +76% +489,000 +37%
Sarah Palin +226,000 +20% +139,000 +10% +16,000 +1%
Tucker Carlson +224,000 +89% +943,000 +198% +930,000 +65%
Steven Crowder +180,000 +122% +177,000 +54% +151,000 +30%
Dinesh D'Souza +166,000 +69% +313,000 +77% +362,000 +50%
Mark Levin +157,000 +30% +346,000 +50% +398,000 +39%
James O'Keefe +147,000 +198% +136,000 +62% +125,000 +35%
Katie Pavlich +145,000 +70% +111,900 +32% +131,000 +28%
Allen West +137,000 +29% +132,000 +22% +15,000 +2%
Dr. Charles Krauthammer +121,000 +20% +135,000 +18%
Monica Crowley +114,000 +42% +84,000 +22% +51,000 +11%
Linda Suhler, Ph. D. +90,000 +48% +73,000 +26% +24,800 +7%
Gov. Greg Abbott +65,000 +40% +129,300 +57% +40,300 +11%
John Nolte +46,000 +74% +41,800 +38% +8,900 +6%
Dennis Prager +28,000 +50% +51,300 +60% +47,100 +35%
Hugh Hewitt +42,000 +47% +29,100 +22% +10,500 +7%
Nikki Haley +57,000 +47% +746,000 +417% +725,000 +78%
Sen. Tim Scott +51,000 +45% +177,200 +108% +39,000 +11%
Kellyanne Conway +1,376,000 +232% +532,000 +27%
Sher. David Clarke +540,000 +123% -36,000 -4%
Dan Scavino, Jr. +196,000 +74% +41,000 +9%
Bill Mitchell +143,500 +85% +89,000 +29%
Wayne Dupree +136,100 +91% +23,500 +8%
Larry Kudlow +76,700 +73% +53,800 +30%
Kayleigh McEnany +39,100 +57% +34,000 +31%
Sarah Sanders +1,206,000 +43%
Candace Owens +634,000 + +192% +
Charlie Kirk +564,000 +208%
Diamond and Silk +473,000 +99%
Sebastian Gorka +175,000 + +36% +
John Bolton +168,000 +65%
Chuck Woolery +158,000 +47%
Alana Mastrangelo +67,400 +85%
Liz Wheeler +102,000 +72%
Sean Davis +52,600 +62%
Rep. Mark Meadows +100,000 + +51% +
Charles V. Payne +99,300 +49%
Tim Young +58,700 +43%
Dylan Wheeler +100,200 +41%
Buck Sexton +47,300 +38%


VargasMilan (talk) 03:40, 1 January 2018 (EST)

I just had a big mystery solved. Monica Crowley was originally named as one of Trump's top advisors (see Jared Kushner page. She backed out at the last minute. I always wondered what dirt the FBI had on her, But it's something different. Victor Pinchuk hired her as his DC lobbyist. [6] She's probably making 3 or 4 times more as his attorney than she would on the National Security Council (Adam Waldman is being paid $40,000 a month). Pinchuk gave $29 million to the Clintons, and is behind Alexandra Chalupa, Olga Bielkova, and bunch of sources for the Steele dossier.
So there are two observations here about corrupt DC politics: One, given a choice, does a person go for temporary power and influence (NSC staff) or greed (big cash)? Secondly, this explains why Trump has had some difficultly in getting an retain staff (in addition to the illegal FISA surveillance on Trump staffers and appointees), qualified people are simply targeted, paid off, and outbid on government pay scales by Trump opponents. I'm sure she's not the first or only one. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 00:55, 12 November 2019 (EST)

Twitter reactions on the news

I try to produce web pages at Conservapedia that are useful, or even seem like they may be useful but at the time can't put my finger on what they may be useful for.

This is one of those times when a use has become uncovered. Several news events involving the top Twitterers took place this month, and now we can see its effect on their followers.

Brittany Pettibone was detained three days and then turned away from the United Kingdom for loving Great Britain when it was populated by the British. Her Twitter followers rose from 110,000 followers on March 2, 2018 to 133,000 on March 23, 2018 (+ 21%).

Steven Crowder was suspended from Twitter seven days for uploading a comic video, and meanwhile Louis Farrakhan's Twitter account uploaded many videos with anti-Jewish remarks and was left alone. Crowder's Twitter followers rose from 549,000 followers on March 2 to 583,000 on March 23, 2018 (+ 6%).

Not to leave out events about other Twitter users, Paul Nehlen, a competitor in Paul Ryan's Congressional race was removed from Twitter over a certain picture he had posted. Eventually you stop pursuing Twitter's rationales for removal of conservatives and just assume they are false.

And John Bolton, who was recently added by President Trump to his National Security team, had his Twitter followers rise from 264,000 on March 2 to 290,000 on March 23 (+ 10%). VargasMilan (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2018 (EDT)

Specifically regarding Bolton, he now has nearly 306,000 followers as of the time I'm writing this. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2018 (EDT)
The month is not yet over and The Broward-County/Democrat-Party-disregard-of-gun-laws diversion circus swept in Laura Ingraham this month to attack her for making a random remark about it in passing: Her Twitter followers rose from 2,111,000 on March 2 to 2,177,000 on March 31 (+ 3%). VargasMilan (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2018 (EDT)

Conservative commentators Diamond and Silk caught Facebook shadow-banning their account and after months of inquiry received a reply April 5, 2018 regarding their Facebook page, "your content and your brand has been determined unsafe to the community."

The two women replied: "So our questions to Facebook (Mark Zuckerberg) are:

  • 1. What is unsafe about two Blk-women supporting the @POTUS @realDonaldTrump?
  • 2. Our FB page has been created since December 2014, when exactly did the content and the brand become unsafe to the community?
  • 3. When you say "community" are you referring to the Millions who liked and followed our page?
  • 4. What content on our page was in violation?
  • 5. If our content and brand was so unsafe to the community, why is the option for us to boost our content and spend money with FB to enhance our brand page still available? Maybe FB should give us a refund since FB censored our reach.
  • 6. Lastly, didn't FB violate their own policy when FB stopped sending notifications to the Millions of people who liked and followed our brand page?

"This is deliberate bias censorship and discrimination. These tactics are unacceptable and we want answers!"

On March 2, Diamond and Silk had 584,000 followers on Twitter. On April 8, their readership had grown to 621,000 (+ 6%) VargasMilan (talk) 03:00, 8 April 2018 (EDT)

The House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee on April 11, 2018 interviewed Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg in the halls of Congress, and some of the members of Congress actually held up a poster-sized photograph of Diamond and Silk and asked him if he recognized them or knew about the removal of their account from Facebook. Zuckerberg tried to change the subject to a more general question, but eventually replied that the removal was an error.

Diamond and Silks' followers on Twitter rose from 584,000 on March 2 by 84,000 to 668,000 on April 18 (+ 14%). VargasMilan (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2018 (EDT)

Someone or more than one person is targeting top conservatives on Twitter

Wayne Dupree is now claiming that he has noticed shadow-banning on his Twitter account. That makes seven top conservatives on Twitter members being targeted in an attempt to marginalize them: Brittany Pettibone, Steven Crowder, Paul Nehlen, Laura Ingraham, Diamond and Silk, Wayne Dupree and Feisty☀️FL [FL = Floridian] (@Feisty_FL).

Laura Ingraham was able to get some publicity and conservative support regarding the boycott staged against her advertisers regarding her having showed skepticism against the attempt to add new gun-restriction laws to those laws that are already not being implemented. Her followers on Twitter rose from 2,111,000 on March 2 to 2,239,000 on April 18, a rise of 128,000 (+ 6%). VargasMilan (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2018 (EDT)

April Fool's joke

The Titanic: built by experts. Ark: built by best of the public. VargasMilan (talk) 09:05, 28 March 2018 (EDT)

How would you guys convince an athiest about God?

Purely hypothetical, but I’m curious so see all the different tactics. GoodWeather (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2018 (EDT)

The problem with your question is that it assumes atheists need to be convinced about the existence of God. God's existence is already obvious to everyone (see Romans 1:18-23, Psalm 14:1). The problem with atheists is not that they're unconvinced of God, it's that they reject God and His Word outright. Also, I can't convince anyone to submit God -- that's something God in His grace (alone) does to those He chooses to show mercy. If it weren't for God's opening up of the eyes of believers, none of us would submit to Him (see Romans 8:7-8, for example). --1990'sguy (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2018 (EDT)
The "tactic" against you, "GoodWeather" is to boot you off the site, along with your many socks, for trolling, harassment, and outright lying. Karajou (talk) 01:48, 16 May 2018 (EDT)
Another atheist who received atheist indoctrination in a poorly run public school. The telltale sign is that he cannot spell the word atheist correctly.Conservative (talk) 01:56, 16 May 2018 (EDT)
It's a pity that Chawcer, who had geneyus, was so unedicated as well. He's the wuss speller I know of. VargasMilan (talk) 10:31, 26 May 2018 (EDT)
1990sguy nails it. If you're a sceptic, you're already decieved (see 2 Tim 2:26). IMHO, one should begin by desiring to free their mind from Satanic enslavement, and that would put you on the path of the knowledge of God. It's not always a straight line from disbelief to belief. You need a desire to free yourself from deception to start. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:29, 26 May 2018 (EDT)

Twitter prune

I read in passing that Twitter was going to start pruning non-responsive accounts soon. I read the same thing about two months ago, and yet I didn't notice any difference in the follower count of conservatives that couldn't be explained by summer vacations.

But if so, this may mark the first time in about three years that conservatives will see a real downward "trend" (actually a one-time brief decrease). Who knows which accounts will be affected, how long it will take for them to recover from these corrections, and whether these removals will be administered fairly. VargasMilan (talk) 04:22, 13 July 2018 (EDT)

So far the purged accounts among conservatives with the largest number of followers have been mostly chicken feed:
Donald Trump: -0.04%
Sean Hannity: -2.0%
Sarah Sanders: -0.1%
Ben and Candy Carson: -3.4%
Laura Ingraham: -0.3%
Kellyanne Conway: -0.04%
Michelle Malkin: -1.7%
Tucker Carlson: -0.4%
Ann Coulter: -0.9%
Franklin Graham: -0.15%
Sarah Palin: -3.9%
I read in articles about the inflation of Twitter accounts that journalists reporting on it expected some political figures with a large popularity to have 40 or 50 percent inactive or fake followers. This brief survey shows this is not the case with conservative figures with large popularity.
I think the reason for the faint exception in Ben and Candy Carson's and Sarah Palin's case, is that they had been inactive for a long period of time, so the people who subscribed to their accounts were going to wait until those conservatives posted "in person" rather than by their staffs, and when their feeds weren't being written by their staffs either, the zero newsfeed made their accounts easy to maintain (that is, not taking up any space) nor allowing any opportunity for those Twitter figures to say things with which these followers might disagree and cause them to unsubscribe.
On the other hand, I also think these pruned subscribers possibly heard about these popular conservatives' Twitter accounts and made an impulse decision to subscribe to them due to their popularity, but weren't necessarily very committed to Twitter as a whole. Hence they left to do other things, but still holding out hope for the popular figures to come back (I am willing to bet that Rush Limbaugh is among these), they never deleted their account, but only monitored it sporadically.
Now you know that these things are going on, don't be discouraged from politics or feel you have to keep silent if you notice it happening elsewhere or hear complaints of your fellow conservatives or sneers by liberals about decreasing follower counts. You're welcome. VargasMilan (talk) 03:38, 14 July 2018 (EDT)

Shadowban evidence

There is an online shadowban detector that I found today. To catch Twitter in the act before they find out about it and possibly change their search algorithms (they have done this for a different tool), I entered all 100 names on my Top Conservatives on Twitter list because I believe that time may be of the essence.

Nick Short 139,500 followers
Brittany Pettibone 137,800 followers
Mark Pantano 119,500 followers
RockPrincess 104,400
Jim Hoft 101,900 followers
Jack Burton 71,500 followers
Feisty☀️FL 18,920 followers

These are "quality" shadowbanned. I guess because they don't have enough liberal "quality". VargasMilan (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2018 (EDT)

Twitter spoke out yesterday about accusations of shadowbanning:
"ACTUALLY what we do doesn't TECHNICALLY qualify as "shadowbanning." We just make certain users harder to see based on our totally opaque, uncontestable, unilaterally-determined definition of 'relevance.'"
I was just pulling your leg; that was a satire written by Jack Burton above. He actually may not even know that he himself is shadowbanned. VargasMilan (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2018 (EDT)
BTW FYI, I checked, and the Conservapedia Twitter account (@Jay_pe) is not shadowbanned. VargasMilan (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2018 (EDT)

Yay! HTTPS!

I'm glad we managed to get HTTPS set up! I know it's a bit of a nuisance, but it is a good idea! It seems the PayPal plugin is still using HTTP, but this is still better than before! --David B (TALK) 17:28, 5 August 2018 (EDT)

It does seem that the favicon on the home page is not loading correctly, also. It seems to work elsewhere just fine. --David B (TALK) 17:52, 5 August 2018 (EDT)
For the record, the favicon doesn't show up at all on Chrome (and I don't think it ever has). This might be something that should be fixed. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2018 (EDT)
Scratch that--it's working now. I don't know if the issue got fixed, or it was a temporary glitch. --David B (TALK) 18:02, 5 August 2018 (EDT)
That's odd... I use Firefox, Opera, Vivaldi, and a number of other browsers but not chrome. I'd never noticed. --David B (TALK) 18:04, 5 August 2018 (EDT)
I see what you mean. I tried it in a chrome install, and couldn't see it either. Do we need to add it as a Base64 Encoded Image or some other such nonsense to get it to work? --David B (TALK) 18:08, 5 August 2018 (EDT)
I really should stop edit flooding here, but one more thing. Someone else with a similar problem said the following:
Instead of using the filename favicon.ico for my icon, I renamed it to something else, ie myIcon.ico. Then I just used [this]:
<link rel="shortcut icon" href="myIcon.ico" type="image/x-icon" />
The full discussion I'm talking about is found here. --David B (TALK) 18:13, 5 August 2018 (EDT)

requested article: Trumponomics

Article request: Trumponomics. It would be a nice complementary article to our Obamunism article. Conservative (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2018 (EDT)

HTTP -->HTTPS URL update project

The Web is changing a great deal. One of these changes is the shift from the HyperText Transfer Protocol to HyperText Transfer Protocol Secure (which we have recently done in part here at CP as well). While HTTPS is not perfect (and it will continue to be less than ideal at least until/unless we get DNSSEC) this is a good move, as it provides some security and privacy using TLS.

The problem for us is that we now have a great deal of links which still refer to the old protocol. 1990'sguy pointed out this issue and suggested that I use my bot to update our links. I don't have the ability to automatically test URLs for TLS support, so I'm making a list of URLs to be updated. If there are any websites linked to anywhere on CP which have upgraded to HTTPS but are still linked to under HTTP, please add them to the list. I will then attempt to verify that they are using sufficiently complete HTTPS configurations, and then do my best to apply the change to all CP articles and perhaps some other pages as well.

I have never done this before, so it may take a little time and fine-tuning to get it right. Also, it will take time to process these updates on all 46,236+ articles, plus a yet undecided number of other pages. Thank you for your patience and assistance! Let me know if you have any questions or suggestions. --David B (TALK) 00:03, 11 September 2018 (EDT)

And if this all sounds like nonsense, doesn't make sense, or doesn't seem to matter, that's fine. Just let me know if anything catches fire, and other than that, I'll try to stay out of the way and not break anything. --David B (TALK) 00:15, 11 September 2018 (EDT)

Overflow business

Conservapedia has already reached 686,043,027 visits. It was a only a short time ago that I heard this site had reached 600,000,000 visits. Andy deserves a lot of credit and should be proud for having built such a successful conservative website under his helm. Thanks, Andy! VargasMilan (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2018 (EDT)

Conservapedia - Alexa rankings

November 2007 Conservapedia vs. Rush Limbaugh
April 2008
May 2010
2011 and 2012
12-23-2018

Hi everyone

I'm new here. Is there anything important I should know before doing stuff? How do I add images to articles? How do I get around CAPTCHA's? Thanks, Edenfaithful (talk) 09:24, 25 December 2018 (EST)

Make substantial edits, show your good faith, obey Conservapedia's rules, and establish a good reputation. Then Andy will promote you to SkipCAPCHA. Shobson20 (talk) 11:54, 25 December 2018 (EST)

Millenials mispronouncing common English words

Some Millenials do so much social media instead of hearing voices on TV and radio (unless it's their peers or near-peers on YouTube) and texting instead of talking to friends, that they mispronounce what were thought to be common English words. I saw one pronounce "thorough" thō’ rō’ instead of thur’-ō. Another had taught her mom to say osurring instead of occuring. It's really jarring when it happens. VargasMilan (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2019 (EST)

Question (VargasMilan's April fool's joke that DavidB4 fell for)

Why is cream more expensive than milk? VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 21:10, 1 April 2019 (EDT)

There is less of it produced. Depending on the cow breed, age, period, diet, and more, raw milk typically consists of about 3.5% – 5% cream, with the rest being what we know as "skim milk" (what is left after the cream is skimmed off the top). Skim milk (which used to be considered almost worthless, and fed to animals or used in lower-quality cooking) is now sold as a health food, as are 1% fat and 2% fat milks. Even "Whole milk" has some cream removed, bringing it down to 3.25% cream. However, there is only so much cream they can take out of the standard milk supply. Cream is needed for a variety of dairy products, such as cheeses, butter, and ice cream, and it is also used as-is in some cases, such as adding to coffee. Basically, it goes back to supply and demand. There is a somewhat limited supply (compared to skim milk), and great deal of demand. Besides, cream is considered the best part, so they know they can charge people more for the best milk product. --DavidB4 (TALK) 23:55, 1 April 2019 (EDT)
Wrong! It's because the cows hate to squat over those little cartons.
Hope everyone had a great April Fool's day, especially DavidB, who fell for my prank. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 15:28, 2 April 2019 (EDT)
I wondered if there was a relation between the date and the odd question...Sorry, I'll try to assume the worst in everyone from now on, rather than taking the time to answer even odd questions. ;) --DavidB4 (TALK) 18:46, 2 April 2019 (EDT)
Uhhh....Thanks, Conservative. I think. --DavidB4 (TALK) 21:41, 2 April 2019 (EDT)
He he! VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 22:57, 2 April 2019 (EDT)

Don't bite the newbie editors via reversions

CP needs research assistants, copy editors, and people to do maintenance and formatting work, not just content contributers. Most wikis have a Don't Bite the Newbies policy. I find this archived discussion useful. If CP doesn't have an official policy, it still is useful for CP Admins to know that reverting newcomers has the effect of limiting CP's user base. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:05, 28 July 2019 (EDT)

Other than people inserting nonsense and/pushing misleading/errant liberal/leftist tripe, I think this was an excellent post. A little politeness and diplomacy goes a long way.Conservative (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2019 (EDT)
Oftentimes, new editors try to change the POV of articles, copy info from Wikipedia, or made other edits which are unencyclopedic (on an encyclopedia). Rob has a good point on treating new editors with respect, but it cannot be at the expense of the quality of CP's articles. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2019 (EDT)
It shouldn't be at the expense of limiting CP's user and contributor base, either. Perhaps 90/10 has a negative impact, sometimes. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:53, 28 July 2019 (EDT)

In the News

Maybe this should be added to In the News: “Kavanaugh accuser's lawyer said allegations could help undermine abortion rulings: 'Part of what motivated Christine'” reports Fox News. (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/christine-blasey-ford-attorney-says-she-came-forward-to-get-asterisk-on-kavanaughs-name-ahead-of-abortion-rulings.amp) - JobsNotMobs

Added topic

Hello!

I noticed that some image upload requests I made have been up for a few weeks and not handled yet. DavidB4 usually takes care of these, but I'm sure he has a lot on his plate, so I was wondering if maybe another admin with upload privileges could add them in. I think there's one other guy waiting on his requests, too. No rush, just wanted to ask. Thank you! Teakin88 (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2019 (EDT)

Thanks for the heads-up! Unfortunately, there's an apparent backlog at the page, so that's why the requests are taking so long. It's not uncommon for such requests to take so long. I let DavidB4 know about your message. Since your requested images are not from Wikimedia Commons, I, unfortunately, cannot upload them myself because of my lack of expertise regarding licensing (I'm sure they're appropriate to upload, but I'd rather let more knowledgeable editors handle such images). --1990'sguy (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2019 (EDT)
I have been hoping another admin would help, but if not, I'll get there eventually. I have a lot going on IRL for me right now, so I haven't had much time to help out here. Sorry for the wait! --DavidB4 (TALK) 17:28, 5 November 2019 (EST)
Unfortunately, I don't know enough about copyright law to help with the non-commons images. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2019 (EST)

Pages for expansion

Hello! As you can see, I am new here, and have just started editing. May I ask, is there a page for stub articles or articles that need to be expanded? Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Malcolmdavis (talk)

We don't have a page like that. The best thing to do is look for stubs in the topics you're interested in, and expand those.
Very important -- always use reliable sources and encyclopedic wording, and adhere to CP's style guidelines. I have posted some helpful links on your user talk page. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2019 (EST)
While we don't have a managed page like that, the wiki can give you a list of pages with very little contnet. This includes disambiguation pages, index pages, and other stuff so it is a little messy. However, you could try taking a look at Special:ShortPages and see what you find. It' snot a clean list or easy to use, but you can try it if you would like. --DavidB4 (TALK) 21:04, 12 December 2019 (EST)

Top conservative Twitter accounts suspended while everyone is getting ready for the holidays

Two of my Essay:Top conservatives on Twitter list members were suspended this week: Linda Suhler [a PhD] (387,460) and CC (300,300) @ChatbyCC, formerly known as Christie Chat). They have been on my list since August 1, 2015 and January 3, 2017, respectively. Twitter announced that they will be suspending accounts at-will in the future. There is no way the suspensions of these two accounts are not strategic by Twitter to promote liberalism. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 01:06, 20 December 2019 (EST)

Typical. Basically they have built a massive network, where most people are. Now they are quietly de latforming all conservatives, in an attempt to make liberalism look like the norm. Only the conservatives see it happening, so everyone else is oblivious that it is more of a psyops move than a culture shift. --DavidB4 (TALK) 11:54, 20 December 2019 (EST)

How to add an image file to Conservapedia?

Just curious, how do I add an image in the form of a file to Conservapedia so I can use it to add to pages? Also, which types of images am I allowed to "borrow" from the internet? Thanks! - Liberaltears

Conservapedia:Image upload requests. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 19:20, 20 January 2020 (EST)
Thanks! Liberaltears (8:12, 20 January 2020)
As for which images you can use, you should ideally find ones which have been released as Public Domain or under a Creative Commons license. Some good sources are listed below. If you especially want an image wich is not available under one of these conditions, and there is no suitable substitute, it may still be usable under the Fair use doctrine, but it's better not to do this; I can give a second opinion as to whether it might be okay to use an image in this way, but I'm not a lawyer.
--DavidB4 (TALK) 23:31, 20 January 2020 (EST)
Thanks! Liberaltears 1:23, 21 January 2020

Iowa Caucuses

Hello everyone! I just wanted to let it be known; I noticed that some additions had been made to my page on the 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses, and I in turn edited some of that and made more additions myself, mostly revolving around whether the caucus was in fact rigged by the Democrats to deny Sanders a clear victory. Personally, I have no trouble believing that it was, but since it hasn't been definitively proven, I've changed the language a bit to make it more a matter of opinion, while leaving up all the information and sources that show the basis for this opinion, and how likely it is that the results were in fact manipulated. Just wanted to let everyone know about that. -Teakin88

Template permission request

Hello, I'd like to request Conservapedia sysop permission to make a template titled "Template:Republican establishment". --Liberaltears (talk) 11:07, 8 March 2020 (EDT)

I dunno; is this an effort to divide the GOP establishment and Tea Party from Trump Republicans in an election year? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:49, 8 March 2020 (EDT)
No, I'm not trying to promote division, I just thought that it could be a productive addition to Conservapedia to use for specification purposes on many of the pages regarding establishment Republicans and groups such as the NRSC. --Liberaltears (talk) 13:12, 8 March 2020 (EDT)
So do I have permission to create the template or not? --Liberaltears (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2020 (EDT)
I don't quite understand the use case for this template...What will it contain? --DavidB4 (TALK) 15:54, 31 March 2020 (EDT)

Strange occurrence...

Can someone tell me what just happened? I remember making a page creation on Eugene Scalia just about half an hour ago as well as a few other edits, but it seems that they were somehow reverted/hidden mysteriously and I couldn't find any log details on it. I know that there was a server error or something similar to such just a few minutes ago, but I'm not sure how that would cause a revert of my edits. --Liberaltears (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2020 (EDT)

So sorry! That was a hosting glitch. Please repost those edits - you might still have them in your cache in your browser. Thanks for understanding!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2020 (EDT)
Terry H's MPR post also disappeared. Nothing under Terry's H's contribs for today. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:07, 23 March 2020 (EDT)
My browser is set on private mode, so I can't re-access the information. Would the data be saved elsewhere? --Liberaltears (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2020 (EDT)
Beats me. My computer crashed about the same time. I had the MPR Template open when it did with Terry's post, but when I rebooted it disappeared completely. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 15:56, 23 March 2020 (EDT)
Hopefully the Deep state didn't hack the server and our computers and proceed to bleach bit the data. You get the joke? --Liberaltears (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2020 (EDT)
Could be, could be! Maybe they were reading Conservapedia, got fed up and couldn't take anymore. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 16:41, 23 March 2020 (EDT)
Maybe Hillary's Deep state shilleries got triggered! --Liberaltears (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2020 (EDT)
No. It was the Chinese intelligence service AI that read all the ChiCom flu, Chinese virus, CCP virus, et al redirects created in the last few days. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:08, 23 March 2020 (EDT)
Ah, so that's why...haha!
Liberaltears, it sounds like that data is gone. Sorry! Andy is right--your browser could potentially hold on to recent posts, but only until the browser is closed. If it is still open from then, literally try using the back button dozens of times until you reach the edit page for the article when you made the post. If you have closed your browser since then, though, the private browsing mode would have prompted it to be purged. --DavidB4 (TALK) 17:45, 23 March 2020 (EDT)
You're right, the original data was purged. However, I took the effort and recreated the page on Eugene Scalia. --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 18:07, 23 March 2020 (EDT)

Sorry about that--I know it is a real nuisance to re-write content! The problem should be fixed now--let us know if you have more issues like this. --DavidB4 (TALK) 01:48, 24 March 2020 (EDT)

Alright, thank you DavidB4! --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 11:02, 24 March 2020 (EDT)
And...it still isn't fixed. Sorry, I'm seeing errors again too. We're looking into it. --DavidB4 (TALK) 15:24, 24 March 2020 (EDT)

Just curious, does it occur for any of you that while you're trying to make a significant edit, when you click the "preview" option to just to make sure you didn't make a huge mistake, especially if it's regarding a template, that the loading appears to take forever and that the preview simply doesn't show up? That happened to me while I was creating the page on Kelli Ward, and it was somewhat of a nuisance. --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 17:27, 24 March 2020 (EDT)

I've had that happen before. I typically find that when that happens, if I open another conservapedia page in a new tab, it fails to load. I think when you try to see a preview, it contacts the server. If the server is having a problem, the preview will also fail to work, therefore. If I try just submitting an edit when that is happening, it usually fails too. It seems like loading a preview could be done using client-side scripts (right in your browser), but from experience, I would say it does not. --DavidB4 (TALK) 18:25, 24 March 2020 (EDT)
As far as today went, while I was editing, all Conservapedia pages loaded well most of the time when I open them in a new tab, although the server did seem somewhat slower than usual. However, the "preview" option for editing still doesn't work for all pages whose content is above around 100 bytes. For instance, it works if I'm making a redirect page, but not for content pages.
By the way DavidB4, since you're around, I was wondering when you might finish uploading all the images for this long list. No rush or anything, but I'm largely curious if some of my image requests here and here that aren't covered under a Creative Commons or Public Domain license can be uploaded under the Fair Use license. Thanks! --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 18:46, 24 March 2020 (EDT)
You're right, the preview isn't working at all for me, now.
In regard to the upload requests, I'm trying to get through them a few at a time, but there is a serious backlog, and it looks like I'm the only one working on it right now. I will try to give it more priority, but it is definitely going to take me some time. Thank you for understanding! What I can see by skimming through the list is that you have a lot from WikiMedia Commons and Flickr...that's good! I'll just check each one to make sure they are usable as I go. As for the other sources, I will need to check one-by-one. As examples though, ballotpedia.org and studybreaks.com do not seem to publish a copyright policy, so I must assume that their content is under full copyright. It would be better if we could use a different sources, but if there are no others available, we might be able to use these. --DavidB4 (TALK) 16:06, 31 March 2020 (EDT)
Alright, thank you DavidB4! --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 16:09, 31 March 2020 (EDT)

Improvising Template:Officeholder/senator...

Hello, I'd like to request an administrator to make a following change to Template:Officeholder/senator, since I can't simply edit it due to the template being locked. As far as I know, whenever the template is used in a page, all the information needs to be filled properly for everything to appear in the correct manner. This means that if the information about the state isn't filled in, {{{state}}} will show up, and if the terms aren't filled in, {{{terms}}} will show up, etc. (the only exception is the “|succeeded=”, as “Incumbent (no successor)” shows up if left blank) However, the “|former=(y or n)” is the only exception, as if it's left out, it's automatically assumed that “former=n”, as it's only necessary to imply that a senator has left office. I would like to request replacing this part with a part such that:

  • when using the Template:Officeholder/senator, it would be filled as “|status=(s, j, or f)”
  • if the information is not inputted, “{{{status}}}” would simply show up before “U.S. Senator from {{{state}}}”
  • if “|status=s”, then “Senior” will show up before “U.S. Senator from {{{state}}}”
  • if “|status=j”, then “Junior” will show up before “U.S. Senator from {{{state}}}”
  • if “|status=f”, then “Former” will show up before “U.S. Senator from {{{state}}}”
  • if “|status=(anything filled in except for s, j, or f)”, then “{{{status}}}” will show up before “U.S. Senator from {{{state}}}”

--LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 15:39, 31 March 2020 (EDT)

Oh, that's a problem. Writing/editing templates gives me a headache, but I might be able to fix this. If it is unlocked, would you be able to fix it? --DavidB4 (TALK) 15:47, 31 March 2020 (EDT)
No, unfortunately I wouldn't be able to do it by myself. Having joined this site less than a year ago (see here), I have gained much experience with CP formatting, but I'm not a hard-core expert, especially not with formatting for creating/improvising templates. While I can somewhat comprehend how certain inputs in template source codes correspond to certain functions (as I've done such in analyzing to fix this template), I don't know enough to add in all the necessary information for my proposed improvisation. Since the template was locked anyway, I was hoping that a sysop would be able to do it. --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 16:08, 31 March 2020 (EDT)
Update: I was able to improvise the template. --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 13:21, 3 April 2020 (EDT)

Fixing a mistake using the Infobox officeholder template...

Hello, I just created this page that includes Template:Infobox officeholder, but I don't understand how the formatting works when adding military info. I analyzed the source of the template, but I still don't understand how to fix the error. Can someone figure it out and fix it on the page? I have no idea. Thanks! --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 22:41, 10 April 2020 (EDT)

I went through the same thing on Gen. Mike Flynn's page. It was a nightmare. Here's how I fixed it, if it's any help. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 22:57, 12 April 2020 (EDT)
I just added a "|military=y" in the template in the Donald Bolduc page, but that didn't seem to make a difference. Also, the template used in the Michael T. Flynn page is Template:Officeholder, and the one used in the Donald Bolduc page is Template:Infobox officeholder. --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 23:10, 12 April 2020 (EDT)

Question about files that can be uploaded under Fair use...

Just curious, can Getty images be uploaded to CP under the Fair Use license? Thanks! --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 13:51, 14 April 2020 (EDT)

Probably not. That's why Getty has a watermark. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:02, 14 April 2020 (EDT)
Okay, thank you RobSmith! --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 14:10, 14 April 2020 (EDT)
Agreed, Getty is a company which makes money from the sale of images. This sort of company is not going to appreciate it if we try to make a "Fair Use" claim on them. --DavidB4 (TALK) 14:16, 14 April 2020 (EDT)
Thank you for the further specification, DavidB4! --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 14:25, 14 April 2020 (EDT)

Please look into this

https://www.conservapedia.com/Communications_Act_of_1934 this page is pretty vauge then has a hyper-link to this liberal site https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/LSB10082.pdf which is written by this democrat liberal who works for the ACLU of all places. https://www.aclu.org/news/by/kate-ruane/ so if someone could change this or look into it, thanks.

FAS is a CIA front; I don't know if it should be described as "liberal". Sounds conspiratorial. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:17, 18 April 2020 (EDT)

Changing font colors...

SenatorCollins.jpg Sara Gideon.jpg
Susan Collins
(likely nominee)
Sara Gideon
(likely nominee)
Democraticpartyusalogo.png

Just curious, how do I make words appear in a dark red or dark blue color? I know how the formatting works, but I'm not sure what keywords to use for dark red and dark blue. Thanks! --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 20:19, 25 April 2020 (EDT)

Dark red I've had problems with so I use brown; for dark blue try boldening.

Red

Brown

Dark blue

Not sure if this helps, but it's the best I can do. RobSLive Free or Die 20:47, 25 April 2020 (EDT)

Thanks for the suggestion RobSmith, and here's the thing. So I created this page, and I was initially thinking of using dark red and dark blue for the font colors in the wikitable for Susan Collins and Sara Gideon respectively, thinking that it would contrast with the generic red/blue colors for internal links, but after closely observing the colors after your reply, it turns out that the regular red and blue colors differ from the generic colors for wikified text. However, there is also another problem. For the situation where I'm trying to change the font color, it seems that apparently font color can't be changed in a wikitable, or something else. I used a wikitable as I couldn't figure out a way to put one image directly to the left of another, and it seems that this issue with font color formatting arises.. --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 21:43, 25 April 2020 (EDT)
So are you trying to contrast GOP for red and Dem for blue? Maybe a miniicon like this or somesuch formatting. RobSLive Free or Die 22:02, 25 April 2020 (EDT)
Great suggestion RobSmith; I just tried it and I think it works quite well! --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 22:34, 25 April 2020 (EDT)
If it helps, you can also use a hex color code, like style="color:#000000" to indicate black. With a little trial and error (or a hex color picking tool) you could probably get it pretty close. If you want to match a specific color, you can get that code too. You could take a screenshot of that color, open it in a photo editor which tells you color codes (like gimp), and get the exact code you need. Or, if you use Firefox, open the menu, and select "Web Developer", then "Eyedropper" and move the pointer the color you want the code for. Using the default style, red links seem to be about "#c60000" and blue links seem to be about "#3366bb". I didn't test those though, so slight tweaks may be needed to get it exactly right. --DavidB4 (TALK) 22:12, 25 April 2020 (EDT)
That's a great idea DavidB4, but the problem is that I can't figure out a way to code that into the source properly. I tried using <span style="(etc.)"</span>, but it didn't seem to work. I think it probably has to do with the way the wikitable functions, but I'm not entirely sure. Since I used what RobSmith suggested, the party affiliations are distinguished, so I suppose the font colors don't really need to be changed, though I do very much appreciate your suggestion! --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 22:34, 25 April 2020 (EDT)
I am curious though, is there a way such that if two images are aligned to the right, that one image is directly to the left of the other? --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 22:37, 25 April 2020 (EDT)
For plain text, you can just use "<font color="000000">Colored text</font>". Wouldn't that work? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the problem. Anyway, I'm glad Rob's suggestion is working! --DavidB4 (TALK) 00:40, 26 April 2020 (EDT)

McSally Derangement Syndrome

Just wondering, is it about time for Conservapedia to coin the term "McSally Derangement Syndrome" and make a page about it? After all, the liberal hatred for Martha McSally has been getting worse and worse, given the snowflakes erupting all over the internet, the establishment media being somewhat biased towards the senator, and even idiotic websites having been created as smears, all for the purpose of trying to oust McSally this election year. --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 12:39, 3 May 2020 (EDT)

I tend to shy away from inventing terms, but I'm not firmly opposed to it, if this seems like a useful topic to others. I suspect that most snowflakes doesn't even know who McSally is, but they do know who Trump is. This seems to better justify having an article on the latter than the former. --DavidB4 (TALK) 00:32, 5 May 2020 (EDT)
About TDS, it seems that 1990'sguy already created the page a few years ago. And about McSally, while some snowflakes may not have heard of her, those who do tend to despise her and constantly tout her likely 2020 Democrat opponent Mark Kelly. For example, after the "liberal hack" rebuke against Manu Raju, there was a massive left-wing meltdown that McSally would *dare insult a CNN reporter*. Many have also used McSally's vote against Obamacare to ridiculously argue that she is somehow opposed to protection for pre-existing conditions, despite the fact that the Republican-led repeal efforts does provide a certain degree of protection for such. Also, on The Hill, I always notice in the articles about the senator that the comment sections are filled to the brim with idiotic liberal remarks, such as touting Mark Kelly's little-known military record while blatantly ignoring McSally's Air Force record as a combat fighter for two decades (I noticed the idiocy when citing The Hill as a biased establishment media outlet here). And that's not to mention the "opinion" articles on AZ Central attacking the senator. As well as the threat by a Tuscon man in 2018, etc. Overall, given this as a major election year, liberals are pouring a massive effort to unseat McSally, and their nonsensical rhetoric getting out of hand. Thus, I suppose whether the page should be made or not could be up for consideration at the moment, as it's possible other editors may have certain disagreements. And I do appreciate your input, DavidB4! --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 01:08, 5 May 2020 (EDT)

ICO file to highlight Conservapedia tab on browser

Most websites have a little jpg pic for the tab, like wikipedia or wordpress have a blue letter W. This helps people keep track of sites when they have multiple tabs open. It is done with a tiny image file with an .ico extension. It would need to be inserted somewhere in the site settings. (Without an ico or icon file, the tab presents on the browser as a plain blank rectangle.)

Information Box

I've been working on a page for a World War I battle recently, and I want to add an information box at the top to include some of the basic facts and statistics. But I don't know for sure if I need to create a new template for that, or if there's an existing one I can apply: some exist for other wars like the Revolutionary War, but I can't tell if they will carry over to World War I or another conflict. Any ideas? -Teakin88

I'm using the WWII battle Template on 2020 Leftist insurrection. You could just cut n paste that one. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 23:39, 2 August 2020 (EDT)
Thanks Rob! That was very useful. -Teakin88

Is it OK for me to copy stuff I wrote on Wikipedia to here?

I am primarily a Wikipedia editor. (Feel free to check me out, my username is the same there.) I don't really prefer reading here because I think this site is very opinionated and derogatory to many people, and I do not agree with all the views of this site, even though I am a Christian. However, I don't really mind copying my contributions to this and other wikis. Is it OK (for non-politically related subjects)? Thanks! Félix An (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2020 (EDT)

If it's your own work in your own words, then I believe it's fine. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Thursday, 21:43, 5 August 2020 (EDT)
Thanks! Which sources can I cite here that are considered "reliable"? Félix An (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2020 (EDT)
I don't believe there to be a very detailed guide on that. Just go with sources that you can instinctually trust and don't seem sketchy. For example, Wikipedia should not be cited unless it's to prove the latter's liberal bias. Most conservative sites like Breitbart, Townhall.com, and the Daily Caller are great. Just keep in mind that the main reason for citing references is to back up whatever points you're trying to make on the articles you're editing on. If you cite anything that contains inappropriate language/content in any context, then it's important that you specify in the reference whatever that needs to warned for readers. Hope this helps. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Thursday, 22:07, 5 August 2020 (EDT)

Access Issues

Has anyone else been encountering serious problems accessing Conservapedia the last few days? It seems like half the time I get on here, I'm met with an error message: "Internal Server Error," "Gateway Timeout," "Unauthorized," etc. It isn't all the time, but it's often enough to be frustrating, and if I'm not the only one, it needs to be sorted out. -Teakin88

The DNC and their allied CCP hackers don't like the message getting out, so they are attempting to suppress information. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 15:06, 10 August 2020 (EDT)
My recent edits have disappeared--again. Does anyone know what is going on??? -Teakin88
I have no idea what's happening either. Also, I had just mentioned about the issue here. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Wednesday, 11:04, 19 August 2020 (EDT)
Continuing to figure things out now. We have and will restore some of the edits. Sorry for the unexpected disruption!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2020 (EDT)

Request to change article on homosexuality

Hey, nice work guys, I really love the articles. One thing I have noticed though is the lack of articles like "arguments FOR homosexuality." Now, I'm just as God-fearing as the rest of you, and I refuse to buy into the Homosexual Agenda as well, but if we want this place to maintain its non-partisanship, we should address both sides and deal with the Left's arguments accordingly. I was thinking about changing the existing debate articles by also including arguments for both sides. I have seen these leftists bring up some terrible points lately and I have just wanted to address them with this wonderful community - LeftistSchools

You have to be an expert to talk about certain things discreetly. After all, the Bible says about some: "What they do is too shameful to discuss." Is that how you spell God-fearing? VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 10:07, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
I'd suggest a Debate page rather than a mainspace article at this point. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 12:43, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
My bad, I missed that typo when I was writing this up. It has been fixed. I believe you referenced Ephesians 5:12? Just before that verse, does it not also say that we should "Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them?" I agree with RobSmith in that a debate page should be set up. Active discussion must be involved if we are to expose the deeds of darkness - User:LeftistSchools
Verse 12 actually reads, For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 18:46, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
The Holy Apostle says to expose "the futile works of darkness" by contrast through seeking "complete goodness and right living and truth." It is also written, "cast not your pearls before swine, lest they trample them." The argument is over. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 20:16, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

Ham and eggs

If you say you have ham and eggs, you must have at least some ham or some eggs. If you switch steak for ham and switch oatmeal for eggs, how can you still say you have "ham and eggs"? That shouldn't be difficult to understand. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 10:36, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

Night mode

Just wondering, is it just me, or is night mode not around anymore? Usually for a certain time period when night mode's on, account creation is disabled for everyone (except administrators), and editing is limited to those with the "Administrator" or "edit" tag. This usually prevents trolls from vandalizing when most editors aren't as active on CP. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier's mother be all well! Wednesday, 13:56, 9 September 2020 (EDT)

More server issues

Is it just me, or does it occur for anyone else editing that CP would function normally for around nine minutes, then won't load for the next six minutes, with the process repeating? —LiberaltearsMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Thursday, 23:47, 23 September 2020 (EDT)

I typically can make 2 or 3 edits, purge the history for the past hour, and can re-edit. I'm rotating between 4 browsers to do it. It's been happening for about 3 days. RobSFree Kyle! 00:07, 24 September 2020 (EDT)
Ah, I see. I'll try purging my browser cache and see if it helps to at least partially resolve the nuisance. Thanks for the reply!
LiberaltearsMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Thursday, 00:15, 24 September 2020 (EDT)

Hello

I'm new to Conservapedia, and I was wondering if there is a category for articles that need improvements? Such as spell-checking, adding wikilinks to dead-end articles, etc. Things that are easy to help me get familiar with the process of editing here. Thanks. MAGAViking (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2020 (EDT)

If you look at the left side on any CP page and under "Edit Console", there's a link that says "Special pages". That lists some maintenance reports, including dead-end pages, etc. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Saturday, 19:36, 24 October 2020 (EDT)

(ec)

No, but that's a good idea. Here's a suggestion: you could look at Popular Pages, and begin with the newer ones that seemingly are receiving the most traffic right now. Thanks! RobSFree Kyle! 19:38, 24 October 2020 (EDT)
Thank you for the suggestions! MAGAViking (talk) 19:45, 24 October 2020 (EDT)

"President Biden"

So, although I hope and pray that the courts do the right thing and invalidate the voter fraud occurring, there is of course the possibility that Joe Biden will be taking the oath of office on January 20th.

However, since it is now obvious that he will have only done so by stealing the election, I think it is necessary for Conservapedia to determine its policy on referring to Trump and Biden in that scenario. My position is, since Biden did not lawfully win the election, he cannot truly be considered President, and therefore the page(s) devoted to him should not label him as such. Similarly, the page on Donald Trump should state that he remains the actual President (though of course an explanation will be necessary, that he is not able at the moment to exercise the powers of the Presidency).

Again, that's my position. What say others? -Teakin88

Do you believe everything the MSM and Big Tech says? RobSFree Kyle! 15:43, 6 November 2020 (EST)
No. I do believe that the Democrats will try to steal it, and that the institutions which are supposed to stand in the way of that are too corrupt to be automatically trusted to do so. So my question remains--is the Conservapedia policy going to be to continue to acknowledge Trump as the lawful President, even if the worst comes to pass? Teakin88
Trump remains the President and Joe Biden remains a suspected agent of a foreign power. RobSFree Kyle!
I don't think the presidential election is over in Wisconsin. As the old saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Saturday, 15:06, 7 November 2020 (EST)

2020 results

Georgia and North Carolina have finally been called, giving Biden a winning Electoral College tally of 306 to 232. The popular vote was 51 percent (78.7 million) for Biden to 47 percent (73.1 million) for Trump. The total presidential vote was 13.2 percent higher than in 2016.[7] On election day, Biden's net approval was at +6.2 compared to -12.8 for Trump.[8] On election day 2016, Clinton had a net approval of -12.6 while Trump had -21.[9] So Trump could cover a 8.4 gap in his favorability numbers, but apparently not a 19 point gap.

From the chart, I'd say the Trump campaign was on track until the riots hit at the end of May. In others words, we can't blame covid. But we can blame Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, who refused to send in the troops to recover the two police stations that were siezed by the rioters -- at least not without a request from the local governor. What are we to make of the Democratic governors, who sacrificed their own states to the rioters rather than request federal aid? Are they telling their own voters that they are a bunch of racists who had it coming? Jay Inslee in Washington State was reelected by a whopping margin of 57 percent to 43 percent. Inslee called up 200 guardsmen to clear the highways at one point, but only laughed when asked about CHAZ. The state is so blue that riots aren't even controversial.

There is also the odd phenomenon of Republican candidates being nearly tied with Democrats in the House vote and in other downballot votes, despite the fact that Republicans lost the White House by a significant margin. We can expect a Republican sweep in the midterms. Four years of Trump news has exhausted all of us. It seems that a significant number of voters were hoping that ousting Trump and electing Republicans to Congress would give us a break from all the drama. Of course, the problem here is not so much anything Trump has actually done as the hysterical way that the media reacts to him. I certainly hope Trump is not back in 2024 and that the nomination goes to someone like Vice President Mike Pence or Senator Tom Cotton. PeterKa (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2020 (EST)

The ticket-splitting may have been more in some liberal-leaning districts like the ones that propelled Young Kim, Maria Elvira Salazar, Carlos Gimenez, Michelle Steel to victory. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Sunday, 00:39, 15 November 2020 (EST)
Also, the problem with a candidate other than Trump is that they may not have the populist-approach appeal to some voters that were crucial to his 2016 victory. By the way PeterKa, do you live in Washington? —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Sunday, 00:44, 15 November 2020 (EST)
As of late, I have not followed the 2020 election news closely. But knowing that Donald Trump is a "New Yorker fighter", he will likely run again in 2024 if he does not win in 2020. He may launch a news website/channel too as a prelude to 2024. In addition, Trump has a big ego which could also cause him to run in 2024 should he lose the 2020 election. Furthermore, I can't see Trump letting his very loyal fans down.
U.S. President Grover Cleveland was elected non-consecutive terms and he was a New Yorker.Conservative (talk) 01:17, 15 November 2020 (EST)
Yeah, I got to vote against Inslee and the state's appalling plan to teach sex education starting in the fifth grade.[10] Sadly, there is not much reason for a conservative to vote in Washington State.
In the argot of campaign strategists, Trump commits the sins of going off message and shooting down (attacking targets not worthy of his attention). Just by fixing those problems, he could go up 2 to 3 points in the polls. He'll be 78 on election day 2024. That's a year older than Biden is now. PeterKa (talk) 02:51, 15 November 2020 (EST)
Trump has a lot of energy (I think he might have ADHD). He is like the energy bunny. Barring circulatory problems such as a stroke or heart attack, Trump will run again in 2024.Conservative (talk) 07:56, 15 November 2020 (EST)

Continuous loading problems

CP continues to have loading problems. Often I'm trying to edit the House elections page, and after some updates, the site won't load for a few minutes. This type of issue happens over and over, and it drains my time. When will this be resolved? I really like editing here, though I wish the site could be more efficient than it currently is. Thanks! —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Monday, 23:08, 15 November 2020 (EST)

I'm suspecting that, like last time, this may be the result of attempted DDOS attacks by leftists who don't want people to see the truth as it comes out. They're becoming increasingly desperate and they wouldn't be acting this way if they didn't have anything to fear. Northwest (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2020 (EST)
A larger problem with CP right now is that page views don't go up the way it used to, which probably could've been caused by those very server errors currently wasting my time. My page creations months ago such as this, this, this, and this all quickly got very high numbers despite very few revisions for them. If those leftists were trying to block off people from seeing the truth we're putting out, especially with updates related to the presidential, Senate, and House elections, they might've partially succeeded. Based off here, it seems that total page views are going up steadily, though I don't know what pages account for that, though this seems like one of them. However, ever since those series of annoying problems in August, CP's page view numbers for new page creations has dwindled over time. Now, one of my observations is that CP eliminated the www. from its URL, which may or may not have an impact. Another thing I noticed is that much of the page views could've simply been siphoned off to here due to those 403.shtml errors popping up. Right now, I just hope Andy can fix those loading problems soon, as I often am trying to update the 2020 U.S. House elections page and find out three seconds later that the page won't load. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Tuesday, 21:29, 16 November 2020 (EST)
Aaand we just got DDOSed for a day. Wow. Leftists are p*ssed. Sievert 81 (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2020 (EST)

Conceding an election: Carter versus Trump

Fer nearly two weeks, the media has been whining about Trump's failure to concede gracefully. Okay, I guess he should. But what Democrat has ever conceded gracefully? The New York Times is still running articles that accuse Nixon of stealing the 1968 election from Humphrey by communicating with the South Vietnamese president. In 2016, Hillary's campaign wanted the Electoral College briefed on Trump's supposed treason with the Russians. Were they supposed to undo the popular vote? Meanwhile, Carter's former aides are fighting for vindication by accusing Reagan of conspiring with the ayatollahs. Here is Anne Coulter, brillant as usual: "Gee, Why Can't Trump Accept Defeat Like the Democrats?" PeterKa (talk) 08:29, 19 November 2020 (EST)

Given the circumstances of this election, it's obvious that there was unprecedented fraud in favor of Biden. Also, Ann Coulter hasn't been on the right side of the issues every time; remember when she said Trump "deserved" to lose? The lack of progress in reaching some goals in border security had nearly all to do with the Trump agenda blocked by the courts, so blaming it on Trump was rather unfair and ridiculous. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Thursday, 08:38, 19 November 2020 (EST)
Here is a 1988 Playboy cover promoting the "October surprise" theory of the 1980 election that I thought was pretty funny. ("Mom, I just got it for the crazy conspiracy theory! Honest!")
Trump's political career was both created and undone by Celebrity Apprentice and CNN, with Jeff Zucker presiding over both. Biden could be our most anti-Christian president ever, a Christian-bashing Catholic backed up by a Marxist pope and a Catholic-hating veep. Obama was elected as a Christian and shifted to Christian-bashing toward the end of his first term. We had five unitarian presidents, namely Jefferson, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Filmore, and Taft. Perhaps Pence can bring us back to Nicene-creed orthodoxy.
Liberals remain hysterical about whatever Trump happens to be doing. HuffPost is accusing him of "undermining democracy." Stacy Abrams lost the 2018 Georgia governor's race by 50 to 49 point margin. Ever since, she has been accusing Republicans of "voter suppression," whatever that means. But she isn't undermining democracy, at least not to according to the liberal media. In fact, they treat Abrams as a hero precisely because of this unsportsmanlike behavior.
As for Coulter, I think she has been giving Trump good advise. When the rioters took the police station in Minneapolis, she immediately tweeted that Trump should send in the troops. This was certianly a missed opportunity, one of the few Trump had to reset the race in his favor. PeterKa (talk) 05:29, 20 November 2020 (EST)

Biden opens the border. What happened to covid?

What is the No. 1 policy priority of the incoming Biden administration? Covid? Global warming? Racial justice? No, no, and no. It is increasing the level of immigration in order to create more Democrat voters. With the media in peak covid hysteria, Biden has announced that he is going to let in more illegal immigrants. This is on top of the increase in legal refugees that he told us about last week. Not only will he stop wall construction, but he will also freeze deportations for 100 days. This may be a preliminary to ending deportation altogether. If that's not incentive enough, illegals will get free health care, including the covid vaccine. This is early, specific, action that suggests that Biden prioritizes opening the border over almost every other issue.

Current American citizens are not the constituency that Biden is appealing to. Only 34 percent of Americans want an increase in immigration, according to Gallup's lastest poll of this issue, which was taken on May 28-June 4. The idea of giving illegal immigrants free health care is both hugely unpopular and economically unsustainable. You can think of Bidenism as a reversed image of democracy. The country would be run, not for the benefit its citizens or even its current residents, but for non-citizens who now live outside its boundaries. See "Poll: 67% Of Likely Voters Say Illegal Immigration Is A Serious Problem, Most Believe Democrats Don't Want To Stop It" and "Biden’s COVID Plan: Close The Economy, Open The Border." PeterKa (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2020 (EST)

The future of the Republican party

Vice President Mike Pence looks awesomely presidential in this video. You won't get past a Pence-led Space Force, you filthy Martians! PeterKa (talk) 12:34, 22 November 2020 (EST)

An observation about the Gateway Timeouts

The Gateway Timeouts always appear to happen at the same frequency in terms of their occurrence. They seem to show up three times every hour, lasting for five minutes each time then going away for fifteen minutes only to show up again. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Tuesday, 22:52, 23 November 2020 (EST)

What happened to Matt Drudge?

For many years, Matt Drudge was the top source of conservative news. In 2018-2019, his site gradually moved to the left. Nowadays, it is just another news aggregator. Viewship has declined sharply. What kind of business model is that? Perhaps Drudge sold out to some liberal billionaire. But who, when, and why? This story follows the rabbit hole as far down as it goes. In the summer on 2019, Drudge switched the site's advertising account to a company owned by Margaret Otto. She lives in Mountain View, California and is the wife of Adrian Otto, an executive at Google. The pair has been managing server traffic for the Drudge Report since at least 2005.

The writer didn't come up with anyone beside the Ottos who is directly connected to the site: no interns, no editors, no sign of what happened to Drudge himself. It seems that everything is automated. Drudge Report is in the process of the being transformed into a scam site. Since August, it has been running "hidden ads" they charge the advertiser for, but that don't actually appear on the site. PeterKa (talk) 04:08, 26 November 2020 (EST)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving, and THANK YOU to all the dedicated, hardworking editors on CP here! —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Friday, 22:57, 26 November 2020 (EST)

Saxon math

In a Biden presidency, the teacher's unions will be in driver's seat when it comes to education policy. So we can expect a lot more "anti-racist education." Pretty much every Democrat, including Biden himself, has called Trump a racist. Calling Trump supporters racists is common as well. Biden calls us "uglies" and "chumps." In short, "anti-racist" really means anti-American. A lot of parents may soon give homeschooling another look.

American Thinker has an enthusiastic report on Saxon math, a popular sequence of homeschooling classes. Saxon got a frontpage National Review story back in the 1980s. AT recommends the pre-2007 editions. On Amazon, I didn't find later editions for sale, aside from a couple of workbooks. The New York Post also recommends Saxon. Here is a story about a school that switched from Saxon to another brand. The teachers complained that Saxon is repetitious. But is that really a flaw? The teacher can always adjust the pace and not every student needs to cover every problem. Here is a 1993 study that found that the Saxon method was effective. PeterKa (talk) 09:05, 27 November 2020 (EST)

New topic: Trump Victory

How are you all feeling about Trump's likelihood of being named victor in the presidential election? His team's lawsuits don't seem to have had any positive results. I'm starting to lose faith that he'll be awarded a second term by the Electoral College. --IScott (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2020 (EST)

The more illegal vote fraud committed by the Democrats that gets exposed (and more and more of it is getting exposed day by day), the less and less likely it is that the Democrats will be able to retain any semblance of power, much less get Biden into the White House. Not only is Trump getting his second term (as, by all rights, Biden basically legally forfeited the election the moment it was discovered that the Democrats illegally cheated on his behalf), but it's a given that there will be massive fallout from this as he invokes EO 13848 (regarding illegal foreign interference in a United States election), which would allow the Trump administration to legally seize the assets of companies (including Facebook, Twitter and Google/YouTube) and individuals (which could even include members of the liberal media) that were complicit (whether by aiding or covering up) in said foreign interference. This may very well also lead to the end of the Democrat Party as many of its members, along with their operatives, end up going to prison and face military tribunals for electoral fraud, sedition, insurrection (with intent of violently overthrowing the duly elected US Government) and many other crimes - and in the case of Democrats who committed treason (and there are quite a few of them), they would potentially face execution for that crime. Northwest (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2020 (EST)
Wait, we can contact the Trump Campaign and show Conservapedia sources the necessary evidence. --United States (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2020 (EST)
The Secretary of State for California certified for Biden today.[11] That gives the Democrats a certified majority in the Electoral College. So it is no longer possible for election fraud lawsuits to overturn the election. I suppose we could go the Hillary Clinton route and demand that the Electoral College be briefed on Hunter's corruption and how Joe is a treasonous stooge of China, or at least was for many years. In July, the Supreme Court affirmed unanimously that state laws binding electors are valid.[12] Thirty-two states have laws of this kind. The governors count the electors's votes. They can presumably disregard votes of the kind that SCOTUS has now ruled illegal. PeterKa (talk) 10:26, 5 December 2020 (EST)
California is just very Democrat, how about the toss-ups? --United States 11:08, 5 December 2020 (EST)
Here is the certification site. Only Missouri and New Jersey remain uncertified at this point. Trump can't win without Pennsylvania. The U.S. Third Circuit upheld Pennsylvania's certification on November 27, so the legal options seem to have run out there. PeterKa (talk) 12:13, 5 December 2020 (EST)
That looks absolutely bogus to me (and may, in fact, be one of numerous psy-ops ploys being employed by the Left to try to demoralize and discourage our side) and I'm not about to buy it, especially considering that Trump still has other avenues to go to get the illegal Democrat vote fraud overturned in the swing states and elsewhere. In addition to him invoking EO 13848, if the SCOTUS is intimidated by the criminals in the Democrat Party to not rule as they should and declare the election in Trump's favor (which he rightfully won anyway, as all votes that came in after the closing of polls at 8:00 p.m. local time are invalid and don't count under federal election rules), then he'll have no choice but to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 against the Democrats, their operatives and their brownshirts to deep-six their illegal coup (which the vote fraud they're committing is a part of). Northwest (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2020 (EST)
Various states encouraged non-citizens to vote, notably California. But these states tend to be "deep blue" anyway. So this type of fraud would effect the popular vote more than the Electoral College vote. Every state should require voter ID. Whether fraud is an issue or not, it would make people take the process of voting more seriously.
The latest is that the Dems are calling for Trump's lawyers to be sanctioned. What about Gore's lawyers, who pushed the "hand recount" nonsense back in 2000? There was no basis in Florida law for counting votes by hand. Furthermore, there is no reason to think that this method is more accurate than a machine count. Ron Klain, who headed Gore's recount effort, is now White House chief of staff. In short, there is no shame in trying to cheat your way to victory if you are a Democrat. PeterKa (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2020 (EST)
The thing with that is, though, those who were witnesses first-hand to the vote fraud as they took part in it are now starting to feel shame and are speaking out against it due to the reawakening of their consciences. The more hardcore "true believer" Democrats may not feel that way now, but they're going to have their "come to Jesus" moment the moment arrests for vote fraud (and related crimes) start being made. Northwest (talk) 13:15, 6 December 2020 (EST)
Also, Biden again defended China. That just gives me a headache. --United States (talk) 13:15, 6 December 2020 (EST)

Will fraud allegations keep Republicans from the Georgia polls?

The Russia collusion hoax went on for years. Hillary could spend $2 billion on her campaign and millions voted. But up against Russian bots and $100,000 worth of ridiculous Facebook ads, she didn't have a chance. I don't recall that the media ever worried about the sanity of people who believed such nonsense.

When Mueller finally testified, it turned out that the man was an empty shell, or at any rate a guy with better things to do than read the Mueller Report or worry about whether Russians were colluding with "Trimp," as he called the president. Liberals didn't skip a beat. They moved right along to the Ukraine phone call issue. Why can't Trump ask anyone he likes to investigate Biden? Running for president certainly didn't give Trump any kind of immunity.

That's why it's so thoughtful of the media to be concerned that Georgia Republicans will become so discombobulated by the allegations of fraud in the presidential election that they will neglect to vote in the all-important Senate runoffs on January 5. See "Faith shaken in system, Trump’s Georgia supporters consider skipping U.S. Senate runoffs." The headline may sound like parody, but this article is the real deal. Apparently, there was a townhall where attendees asked the state Republican chairwoman why Republicans should invest time or money in the runoffs. What do want to bet those people were Democrats? PeterKa (talk) 06:50, 6 December 2020 (EST)

Rumor is, Durham has expanded his probe to include election fraud. Durham was appointed as special counsel in October. Special Counsels must be appointed from outside government. THis means Durham must have privately retired as a US Attorney at some point. Is firing a Special Counsel an impeachable offense? RobSFree Kyle! 15:37, 6 December 2020 (EST)
Patrick Fitzgerald, special counsel in the Plame case, was also a serving U.S. attorney. He was appointed by Comey, who had "full power of the attorney general." The regulations were issued by the attorney general, so the AG can override them. Every special counsel appointment has been irregular in one way or another. Special counsels are supposed to investigate crimes, but communicating with Russians isn't a crime. That didn't slow Mueller down. Unlike Comey, Rosenstien did not the have the full power of the AG. He got around the regulation by appointing Mueller as a "special assistant." PeterKa (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2020 (EST)

Attention Hong Kong burglers: Carrie Lam's house is full of cash

Hong Kong is a major banking center, but the banks are too afraid of U.S. sanctions to let Chief Executive Carrie Lam open an account: "Hong Kong's leader is being paid in cash due to US sanctions. Carrie Lam earns $56,000 a month and says money is piling up at her house." PeterKa (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2020 (EST)

Attempted murder of election fraud witness

On the main page, there is a headline on the "In the News" column that claims to link to an article with a video of an apparent attempted murder of an election fraud witness. However, on that very same article, an editor's note claims that it is not an attempted hit on a fraud witness. I think this headline should be removed from the main page as soon as possible, to ensure that Conservapedia maintains its credibility. --Toby Chester (talk) 06:17, 9 December 2020 (EST)

History of Conservapedia

I was looking at the Alexa ranking and statistics on this site and as I noticed the 'similar sites by audience overlap' statistic. I thought to myself, "I wonder if there are other good conservative sites out there," thinking that this would lead me to them. I was mistaken for one. When I saw 'Rationalwiki.org', I thought it would be another good conservative site like this one, hence 'rational', but it's swarming with liberals. I was a little annoyed at first, but some of their content funny, just because it's so wrong. As I was browsing the site, I came upon Conservapedia's article. Evidently, they have an extensive network of (mis)information about this site. If the liberals are going to write our history, I think the admins should create a page on this site detailing the history of Conservapedia from a conservative point of view. -Mark Adams(Discuss with me) 10:33, 18 January 2021 (EST)