Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia:Community Portal"

Revision as of 13:23, September 29, 2011 (view source) Conservative (Talk | contribs) (→‎Atheists from a vandal website want to debate User: Conservative) ← Older edit	Revision as of 14:13, September 29, 2011 (view source) DavidZa (Talk | contribs) (Undo revision 922978 by CPDisabilities (talk) vandalism) Newer edit →
(No difference)

---

Revision as of 14:13, September 29, 2011

This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.

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. 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. 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.--JamesWilson 20:14, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

I tried for the First Lady articles and was told I hadn't edited enough. --SharonW 20:18, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

HP, this edit is problematic; it looks like malevolent parody ("pervades the inner city culture greatly") and have advised Mr. Schlalfy of my opinion. 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 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. --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. HP 23:32, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

Blocking policy, RobS, atheists/evolutionists, deleting/oversighting and misc,

Here are a few comments for the record and a few comments:

1. I am not against improving CP's blocking policy and suggested a blocking review board HERE.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 traffic. Plus, 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 charlatans. On 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.

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 no proof and evidence for atheism and as mentioned above there is a 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. Conservative 17:19, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

• 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. [1]

• 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. Rob Smith 18:55, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

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 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. Conservative 21:02, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

• I cannot find it on the talk page of the project

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. Rob Smith 13:18, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

Rude and insulting behaviour

Could someone please step in here. I made a simple, polite and non-contentious comment and another user has sought to 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. MaxFletcher 22:34, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

Seems to me like standard operating procedure around these parts. You might as well complain about the sky being blue. 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. --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 Conservative

I am sorry my poetic language has confused you. MaxFletcher 23:37, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

Discussion on reversion (from User talk:Jcw)

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. 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. Karajou 18:01, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

Thanks for the support, Karajou. 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...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? 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. 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. Karajou 19:47, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

Who are you talking about here, and can you provide a diff of the eggregious offense? 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. 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 trolling, nothing more. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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? 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! 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.

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. --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. 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. 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. --Benp 22:38, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

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. 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'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. Rob Smith 16:06, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

a perspective from a pianist

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.

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.

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.

My two cents, for what it's worth. JDWpianist 17:02, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

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. 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. Jcw 17:27, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Here conservative questions my faith and this is but one page and here again he displays open hostility towards me for asking simple questions. 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. MaxFletcher 17:39, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

I would agree with this assessment, questioning a persons professed religious faith is vulgar. 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. 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. 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? MaxFletcher 17:51, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

Moved from above. If you must continue in this vein, do it here. Jcw 17:57, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

I have removed your dishonest section title. Don't put words in my mouth. I am talking civility here. 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

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... RonLar 18:01, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

Agree with RonLar. I do not wish to snipe with you Jcw, lets us mend our rift.. MaxFletcher 18:04, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

And end to this

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. Jcw 18:17, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

TracyS edits from the same IP address as RobS

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. Conservative 00:01, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

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! RonLar 07:39, 12 August 2011 (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".Conservative 11:10, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

• You're articles are quite noticeable, so many (including me) have an interest to talk to you
• 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...
• RobS was pestering you? *LOL*

RonLar 11:36, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

RobSmith relies on proxies because his personal web connection has trouble with Conservapedia.--CamilleT 12:27, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

So do a lot of vandals, but in this case there's more than a dozen individually-named socks. Karajou 12:29, 12 August 2011 (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? BradB 12:45, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

And how do you know a Canadian proxy was used? Karajou 12:53, 12 August 2011 (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? Jcw 13:37, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

I found out by checking the block log, which you can find by going to TracyS' userpage and clicking "View full log". BradB 20:02, 12 August 2011 (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. Jcw 20:18, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

User:Conservative

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.

A couple of times I asked him to show me to a talk page where he successfully debated with someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc. (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.

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: (1), (2) (3),(4), (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.

RonLar 11:28, 12 August 2011 (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? JohnMcL 11:41, 12 August 2011 (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. Conservative 11:46, 12 August 2011 (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.

Why not? Because there is no place, not even here at Conservapedia, where anything remotely resembling such a discussion ever happened.

RonLar 13:18, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy

I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy.

Here are my suggestions:

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.

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.

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.

4. I suggest that Andy weigh in on the final product.

Please let me know if you think such a panel is necessary and if you think the above suggestions are good suggestions.Conservative 13:13, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Seems like a good idea.--JamesWilson 13:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Likewise. 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. 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. --SharonW 16:21, 12 August 2011 (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. MaxFletcher 16:43, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

The Conservapedian Iduan has expressed some interest in helping refine Conservapedia's blocking policy. He is currently on a summer vacation. Conservative 11:55, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

A blocking policy refinement panel is meeting in Summer or early Fall. Here are the people who signed up so far:

• Sysops and Sysop candidates with blocking rights

• Sysop candidates with blocking rights Conservative 15:14, 13 August 2011 (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 Conservative 22:17, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

The panel is convening on 8/17/11: Conservapedia:Blocking policy refinement panel proceedingsConservative 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

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.

Yes votes:

Yes. Conservative 13:44, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

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. Jcw 13:47, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes.--JamesWilson 13:58, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. --AlejandroH 16:12, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. DouglasA 01:32, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

No votes:

(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. RonLar 13:45, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. Attempting to bury the past doesn't deal with the valid questions already present. RobertE 14:31, 12 August 2011 (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. JDWpianist 15:31, 12 August 2011 (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". --MarkGall 15:37, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

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. --SharonW 16:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

A question for the ayes

Would you have voted for deleting the archives, too? 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. Jcw 16:26, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

Why were the archives deleted?

RonLar 08:50, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

I second that question. "Starting off with a clean slate" should not mean burning all of the old discussions. JDWpianist 09:00, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

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. 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? 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. Conservative 14:46, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

On archiving

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?" JDWpianist 09:01, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

It was 5-4. Sharon, was neither yes or no. It was "it does not matter". 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. JDWpianist 09:16, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

• the vote was up for less than 20 hours: that's an absurdly short time-
• 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!

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. 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? 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. 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.
• 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.)

RonLar 09:56, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

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.  :) Conservative 11:46, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

Did you post this in the wrong place? It doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand. RobertE 11:53, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

1. Western liberalism is running out of other people's money (Asian money, etc.) And that is relevant because....?
2. Conservatism and austerity budgets are on the rise in the Western World so conservative websites should experience some growth And that is relevant because....?
3. Conservapedia does plan on reviewing and improving its block policy That may be a very promising development...
4. 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

RonLar 11:58, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

RonLar, who said my plan was intricate? :) 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. Conservative 14:48, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

A blocking policy refinement panel is meeting in Summer or early Fall

A blocking policy refinement panel is meeting in Summer or early Fall. Here are the people who signed up so far:

• Sysops and Sysop candidates with blocking rights

• Sysop candidates with blocking rights

I am sending an email to User:Iduan to determine when he is returning from his vacation. Conservative 15:16, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

Just returned; first: sleep; then: back to business.--IDuan 17:01, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

I have blocking rights. May I join?--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. Conservative 19:58, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

Response to Karajou

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,

A little leven leveneth the whole lump.

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,

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. 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.

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.

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.

4. Both were annoying and needlessly argumentative.

5. Karajou claims there were multiple sockpuppets of RobS, but I have not personally investigated this matter.

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.

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.

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. Conservative 00:28, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

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:

"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. Rob Smith 18:57, 14 August 2011 (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. Conservative 21:07, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

The Conservapedia Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings have begun

The Conservapedia Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings have begun and can be found HERE. Conservative 12:16, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

Android App?

Does anyone have the link to the android app? I am unable to find it for some strange reason. JacobSmith 22:05, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

I am an Android user. Nothing exists and was likely a person having fun with lies.--Jpatt 22:14, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

My Testimony

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. --OliviaB 13:51, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

Summer Paper Gone Bad

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? --WilliamMoran 17:13, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

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. --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. --OliviaB 19:57, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

An open apology to Conservative and Aschlafly

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. --JefferyA 09:23, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

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. Conservative 04:09, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

Banned user

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. DavidZa 23:07, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

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. BrentH 23:36, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

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". ~ 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 admitted the same himself, and called himself "juvenile". One should consider those facts before drawing any conclusions. Maratrean 00:14, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

Nice job taking things out of context. ~ JonG ~ 00:32, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

I do not see how I am doing so. Maratrean 00:55, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

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. ~ JonG ~ 01:04, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

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. Maratrean 01:17, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

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. DavidZa 09:26, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

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 --LeonardS 03:16, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

Have you read Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder yet? There is hope and healing available. Conservative 03:27, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

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 here). E.g., you stated on 31 July 2011 (and repeatedly after this date):

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.

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.

Your fellow sysops failed to spot TK's problems. I'm afraid they keep up this habit of ignoring disturbing signs in other editors...

RonLar 09:10, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

Ronlar, I don't think it's very appropriate for you to be bringing up medical conditions in a public place. --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?

RonLar 09:25, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

Definitely not in the DSM --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: Famous people who didn't need a lot of sleep. So even if you did obsessively log my time at Conservapedia (see: 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. 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). 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:

• 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?
  • it would be lovely to read your manual of style which would be necessary to keep up your profile. This could be an excerpt:

Don't use the preview button! phrase of the month: with regards to obese bestiality Use it often! Really, don't use the preview button! …

• 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?
• 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...

RonLar 02:22, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

Atheists from a vandal website want to debate User: Conservative

Adding cowardice characteristics:

I've just found out 2 major characteristics for cowardice:

• 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 ?--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[2], 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. :) 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. --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. --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? --SharonW 14:59, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

See my response to you at: Talk:Atheism and obesity 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.) --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! 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 made the observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men. In short, quarrelsome nerds (see: Atheism and women). 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. --ThomasMacD 15:53, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Thomas, would you like some cheese with that whine? 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. --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. :) 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. --ThomasMacD 16:08, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

I am a Christian and I will debate you on the topic of Atheism and Obesity. 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). 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. 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. --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. MaxFletcher 16:18, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

That sounds like a fair and reasonable debate offer to me. 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. 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. --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. RyanK 16:43, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Then he should expect others to do the same and not label them as 'chicken'.--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. --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)--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 atheist nerds they certainly are reluctant to admit this fact. :) 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? 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.--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. --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. 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? 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?--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. Conservative 17:22, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Conservative, people won't pay $20,000 to debate with an obscure christian nerd. No whining here.--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? --ThomasMacD 17:25, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Oy, Reminder, Keep the discussion civil.--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. --ThomasMacD 17:33, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Agreed to avoid calling others 'obscure nerds'--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.[3] - 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? MaxFletcher 17:49, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

For the same reason as he avoided the offers from Jeeves, Ace McWicked and voiceoftruth2006, I imagine. --ThomasMacD 17:52, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

I don't know who those people are...? 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. --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! 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. --ThomasMacD 18:03, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Excellent response, Conservative! Your intelligence level is obviously very, very high. AverageJoe 17:47, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

How long do you intend to continue avoiding my question? --ThomasMacD 17:44, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Oh I give up, it just doesn't make any sense...--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:

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, 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 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! :) 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? --ThomasMacD 18:32, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Hi Conservative, my comments may have been lost on this page so please see here. Thanks, 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. --JohnCD 18:45, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

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? --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. 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? --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 conclusionAortuso 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. 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...

RonLar 08:01, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

RonLar, I think the type of atheists who are part of vandal websites or the type of atheists who harassed Veritas48 at YouTube are the bottom of the barrel and are not the type of people who are good candidates for engagement. Jesus advised Christians not to cast pearls before swine. Second, I have always claimed that due to the weakness of atheism and the strength of the Christian position that it doesn't take exceptional debating skills to prevail and that is why a 15 year old boy can win debates with adult atheists as can be seen HERE. Next, in most cases there is a reason why obscure internet atheists from vandal websites are obscure. Few people are interested in what they have to say. Lastly, tracts are designed to be evangelical and the Question evolution! campaign tracts are no different. Conservative 08:47, 29 September 2011 (EDT)