Conservapedia:Community Portal

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search
This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.

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.


Restoring User Pages

I wonder if you [I was referring to User:Conservative in the original context] would be be so kind as to restore the following user and user-talk pages. Most of these people were long-time respected sysops and administrators, as I'm sure you, being a long-time respected sysop and administrator yourself, well know. Many of our important articles were written by these people. Current users may want to know something about the people that went before them and built Conservapedia. We should show some respect for our history and our founding fathers/mothers.

SamHB 23:33, 10 October 2014 (EDT)

Your suggestion is a reasonable one. I was not in favor of deleting user pages. But once deleted, I don't think it would be time well spent to restore the pages. Time moves on, and time could be better spent by improving substantive entries.--Andy Schlafly 00:37, 11 October 2014 (EDT)
I can see that all the active users are pretty busy, and are probably disinclined to do this. So how about letting me do it? I'm willing to restore those pages myself. You would have to give me the appropriate temporary rights, which might be "undelete" rights, or maybe full administrator rights, I don't know how this works.
I'm sure you know, from our many communications, both public and private, that I can be trusted not to harm Conservapedia in any way. During any period in which I have extra rights, I will refrain from annoying, harassing, irritating, teasing, insulting, or otherwise getting under the skin of any other user. I will not react to any taunts. I will not abuse the rights in any way. (Though if my rights include blocking, and I see any vandals come to town, I will of course take action.)
You didn't want the pages deleted? We can fix that. What say you? SamHB 12:48, 12 October 2014 (EDT)
There's an extremely troubling aspect to all this. You say you weren't in favor of deleting the pages, and yet, here, Cons says that the owner of the web site was in favor of the deletion. Was Cons lying? Also, here, Cons seems to indicate that he was in communication with you on the subject of giving JoeyJ deletion powers. These powers are not taken lightly. In fact, JoeyJ is the only non-admin who has them. So it looks as though you gave JoeyJ the deletion powers knowing full well that he would use those powers to delete user pages. What is going on? SamHB 00:05, 14 October 2014 (EDT)

God delusion

I finished reading the Prof. Dawkin's book. I have to admit that it has shaken my religious foundations... I sometimes wonder whether that has made me an Agnostic now. It has made me question a lot of my upbringing. I was a good catholic girl. I wonder what my mom will say --Maria O'Connor 12:44, 15 November 2014 (EST)

Richard Dawkins did not research or fact check his book very well and it has a number of errors in it as can be seen in this PDF version of The Irrational Atheist.
Second, how strong were your foundations before you read the book? How did you build your foundation?
In the physical life, if you are flabby, don't get enough sleep, etc., it provides an opportunity for disease to enter. The same is true in a person's spiritual life. How familiar are you with the classic defenses of the existence of God? How familiar are you with the various evidences for Christianity? See: Evidence for Christianity Did you ever repent of your sins and dedicate your life to following Jesus Christ? How often were you reading your Bible? How often were you praying? What are the most serious arguments against agnosticism? What are the most serious arguments against atheism. See: Rebuttals to atheist arguments.
Also, Jesus promises that those who repented of their sins and accept Jesus as their Savior and Lord will have communion with Him and will receive the Holy Spirit who will guide them. Did you ever know God or were you just engaging in religious rituals? Conservative 20:07, 16 November 2014 (EST)
Richard Dawkins has had his day, says Ravi Zacharias - Christianity Today, November 15, 2014 Conservative 04:04, 17 November 2014 (EST)
@Maria O'Connor: I'm really sorry that you have been abused so badly at Conservapedia. I want you to know that there are quite a number of decent and well-intentioned people here. You should ignore the abusers, and feel welcome to make contributions. We particularly need people who are knowledgeable in matters of science. If you can contribute in this area, dig in! SamHB 22:22, 20 November 2014 (EST)
Sam, you can contribute constructively to Conservapedia, or you can pick fights on the Main Page talk page. You cannot do both. VargasMilan 17:16, 21 November 2014 (EST)
Of course Sam can contribute constructively to Conservapedia whilst disagreeing with certain other editors. He's been doing it for years..... and more strength to his arm. There are not enough Sams these days. AlanE 19:36, 21 November 2014 (EST)

Subject Matter Experts

I recently had to deal with a case of someone making an edit to a chemistry article (with a note that he has a chemistry degree, which of course we can't verify, but it very well may be true) that was reverted. It's true that his use of "subjective" and "objective" could give the wrong impression to non-experts, and I have cleaned it up. But it just needed to be cleaned up. (The cleanup that someone did afterwards was ridiculous.) This person was blocked, apparently just because of that edit. This should not have happened. Quite a number of good contributors, and potential good contributors—we'll never know—have been reverted and blocked because the people with blocking powers did not know how to evaluate the edits. Now Conservapedia often has people come here and make stupid/parody/vandalism edits. But it is monitored constantly by the sysops. It is not necessary for people to be trigger-happy. Except of course for clear vandalism. I would suggest a page, probably in the Conservapedia namespace rather than "mainspace", listing subject matter experts who can make expert analyses of these things. The list should be publicized to all sysops. Contributors can volunteer as experts in various subjects. And sysops could hold off on reverting questionable edits until an expert opinion is rendered. SamHB 23:45, 28 November 2014 (EST)

Best Troll Detection of the Public
You have no proof that the person who was blocked was merely a Subject Matter Expert and not a troll as well. This ought to be dealt with by the Best Troll Detection of the Public. Trolling techniques include emphasizing words (when the logic of argument doesn't require it) to trample over anticipated reasonable opposition to one's argument with raw emotion as well as arguing about things on the Main Page talk page that don't appear on the Main Page. VargasMilan 10:55, 29 November 2014 (EST)

I can assure you that, in my 7 years here, I have developed a good sense for the kinds of vandals, trolls, parodists, sycophants, "mall cops", and other unsavory personalities that we have. I also notice other fascinating types of people, like those who complain about posting to this page not on the topic of improving the main page content while making quite a few such postings themselves (though, in fairness, they also make on-topic postings, which I rarely do), people who did not realize that they had been given blocking powers until I told them, and people who use spectacularly recondite sentences while attacking other contributors. You see, I've been around for a while.

On the matter of making posts to this page that are not directly on the topic of improving the content of the main page, I'm sure you know that, for several years, this page has been used for a discussion of CP in general, and that everyone, including Andy and the other admins, is OK with that. A more natural place for such discussion might have been a general discussion page such as Conservapedia:Desk, but, as you can see, it has rarely been used of late. There is actually a (an?) historical reason, from a few years back, for this. I won't bore everyone with the details, but you can email me if you are interested.

Regarding my "subject matter experts" comment above, I wasn't asking for people who are good at detecting trolls. We already have plenty of people (including myself) who are good at this, and plenty of people (including you) who are good at dealing with them. We probably already have the "Best Troll Detection of the Public". I was requesting "subject matter experts", which we don't really have very many of, or don't know who they are on various topics, and requesting that subject matter expertise be used in deciding whether to revert an edit.

In the case of the molar mass edit, I was well aware that this person might be a troll—his use of the recondite (there's that word again) terms "subjective" and "objective" in a description of quantitative chemical analysis was a bit suspicious—these are quasi-philosophical terms that might be considered provocative on a wiki like this. But he also knew what molar mass means. His change was a vast improvement over the "fuel quantity" phrase. The article just needed to have the "subjective" and "objective" words taken out, which I have done. The person did know his subject matter. There was no urgency in reverting his edit.

A suggestion, Vargas: Let's both try to be nice. You do good work when you're not talking about "withering patrician disdain". We can both do better than fight with each other.

Maybe I should have spent the day shopping instead of this :-) SamHB 00:02, 1 December 2014 (EST)

I will not disregard Andy's express instructions at the top of the page! VargasMilan 16:12, 2 December 2014 (EST)
Fair enough. I will try to abide by that policy also. SamHB 17:11, 6 December 2014 (EST)
I would be interested to hear what Andy thinks of the "subject matter expert" approach. Wikipedia generally hates experts and does everything to drive them away as editors. Many of the early CP articles were written by home-schooled students. We then had Ed Poor spending years curating a large number of articles. A few other editors undertook work in particular areaa of expertise such as AlanE and BHathorn. I suspect that Andy has his own lists of experts in the back of his mind, if not written down. The problem is that everyone believes that they are an expert while management may not agree with that assessment. So, we have to see whether this proposal is compatible with the "best of the public" concept. Thanks for raising it. Wschact 07:16, 7 December 2014 (EST)

Growing Conservapedia's conservative readership and editor base

Now that Conservapedia's Twitter link on the main page, two things:

1. We could organize our wiki editors to create/expand conservative articles in order to feature them on the Twitter feed.

2. Twitter is popular among conservatives. This book shows people how to attract 200 Twitter fans every single day: The book is only $1.00 and it should be easy to implement. If it was implemented, the Twitter account would go from 10,000 Twitter fans/followers to 83,000 fans/followers in one year.Conservative 11:30, 3 December 2014 (EST)

Has anyone considered taking out some modest ($50-$100) number of Facebook advertising? We could use it to drive traffic to the site and to recruit new editors. Thanks, Wschact 05:34, 15 December 2014 (EST)
Wschact, create a web page called Conservapedia: New editors wanted which I will feature on the main page. I can also talk to Andy about various ways to drive traffic to the page like online advertising, etc.
It will not be Facebook advertising because Andy dislikes Facebook. Of course, if you want to take out a Facebook advert to have it go to Conservapedia: New editors wanted, you could certainly do so.
Regardless, the main page will give the page Conservapedia: New editors wanted some traffic. Conservative 15:34, 15 December 2014 (EST)

Make the username policy more clear

Copied on over from Help talk:How To Create a Conservapedia Account

I think it should be made clear that the username must include your real name, as opposed to recommending your real name; perhaps there could be a help page on Conservapedia's username policy. A few users have been blocked for violating an otherwise nonexistent policy (and also advised to create an account with a real name even though their account creation is disabled for two years). A clear username policy would probably be beneficial for Conservapedia. -- DanielJackson 10:46, 6 December 2014 (EST)

Conservative's "Message Area"

I seem to be unable to edit it, despite wanting to discuss something with him. As such I put out a general request for a way to contact him or for him to unlock his message area. Hopefully I'm not missing something really obvious! Nhodgson 20:18, 6 December 2014 (EST)

You would do well to just ignore him. There's really nothing that you could discuss with him. He is notoriously secretive, seeming to believe that other people go along with his games, and he often locks his own talk page, and the talk pages of his "pet" articles. He seems to expect other people to go along with his fantasy that he might be multiple people. Just ignore him. SamHB 21:37, 6 December 2014 (EST)
If we could talk to him, we might tell him that his reversion of this on purely political grounds was ludicrous and shows a serious failure to observe what is going on. That edit was more than just a minor thing about whether Lincoln was a "classical liberal" or a "post New Deal progressive"—it was blatant and outrageous vandalism, about which most admins are very vigilant. The user ("TheonlySIL", whatever that means) should be blocked permanently. Perhaps some other admin will notice. SamHB 21:48, 6 December 2014 (EST)

Setting aside SamHB's axe to grind because I/we are pro-biblical creationism and anti-Darwinism/liberal Christianity, my/our talk page has just been unlocked.

By the way SamHB, what do you think about the data contained in this article: Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity ? Can you refute it? It does not appear so! Conservative 13:00, 7 December 2014 (EST)

Haven't read it. But thanks for unlocking your talk page, Could you keep it that way, please? SamHB 23:52, 11 December 2014 (EST)
SamHB, may lock it again if I/we become extremely busy for an extended period or for other reasons which I/we prefer not to discuss. The talk pages of articles I/we created/contributed can certainly be used. Conservative 01:59, 12 December 2014 (EST)


There are two categories that are treating the same topic: Category:Best of Conservapedia and Category:Featured articles. How do they differ from each other and should they be merged?--JoeyJ 14:00, 12 December 2014 (EST)

My guess is that when authors of articles wanted to get extra views for their articles that they spent a lot of time on, they gave their articles these category labels. Conservative 15:52, 12 December 2014 (EST)
So should these categories be deleted?--JoeyJ 16:01, 12 December 2014 (EST)
While I have the greatest respect for Cons's diligence in spending a lot of time on her articles, and in getting them recognized (all her past SEO talk, for example), I notice that she does not put them into the the "best of CP" category. So I suspect that even she doesn't think the category is worth much. It does not seem to be noticed much. I just removed two obvious vanity/silliness things from it. Only three things remain. But their authors did put a lot of effort into them, and two of them are "flagship articles" by Andy. So I would consult with him on this. He probably wants a better way to promote the CBP and the Conservative words articles. In fact he has a better way: they are on the main page. So maybe you should ask him whether the "best of CP" category is worth keeping. SamHB 00:23, 13 December 2014 (EST)
SamHB, no true analyst would pretend to know the gender/genders of the editor(s) of the User: Conservative account. Solve the mystery of who/whom edited the Atheist actions against homosexuals article and you will earn the right to declare the gender/genders using the User: Conservative account to edit.
But it is a moot point anyways as the feminine Sarah Palin has more machismo than all liberal "Christians" combined!
By the way, have you read the Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity article yet? Conservative 22:15, 17 December 2014 (EST)

Purpose of this page

This page provides a forum for editors to discuss matters related to CP and its policies. Please do not use it as a sandbox for drafting article. You can create your own sandbox by making a subpage of your user page. Thanks, Wschact 09:43, 13 December 2014 (EST)

You're right. I was in a hurry before. Haste makes waste. :) Conservative 10:17, 13 December 2014 (EST)
There was no need to be hasty. You, of all people, must have known that it wouldn't be lost. Take a deep breath before editing.
Speaking of careless editing, I'm pleased that you correctly used "you're" above, though it took another edit, at 10:17 yesterday, to fix it. Haste makes waste. But your recent edit to the bottom of TAR's talk page has that mistake. You're in need of more care in editing. Take a deep breath (and get some sleep!) now and then. SamHB 11:31, 14 December 2014 (EST)
@TAR: I've taken out the rest of your stuff. You can move it to your talk page if you like. You can get it out of the page history, of course; nothing is ever lost unless an admin explicitly vapes it, which I don't think is going to happen. You do not need to worry about vandalism; it's easy to revert. SamHB 11:31, 14 December 2014 (EST)
@SamHB, thanks, I didn't know I could make a sandbox page beneath my username page that won't be indexed. I will do that from now on for articles I am working on. TheAmericanRedoubt 20:11, 14 December 2014 (EST)
There's a quick-and-easy trick to doing it, that I guess I ought to explain, though you might already know it. To create a new page subordinate to your user page, talk page, whatever, edit the user/talk page, and insert something like
[[User talk:TheAmericanRedoubt/sandbox99|My spiffy subpage]], and save it. When you look at it, it will be a redlink. Click on it, and you will get something like "this page doesn't exist. If you want to create it, enter the text below." Or something like that. Then paste in you new stuff. SamHB 20:25, 14 December 2014 (EST)

Deleting material from talk pages, or, even worse, deleting the page outright

Talk page material should not be deleted unless it is truly libelous or detrimental. Talk pages should be an ongoing journal of discussion of the corresponding project page. There is nothing wrong with a talk page being very short, and it is perfectly acceptable, albeit unusual, for an article page's author to say something on the talk page.

I recently had to re-create Talk:IP_camera to make a comment on the article.

SamHB 17:05, 15 December 2014 (EST)

Is there any way to recover the earlier material. Perhaps Andy or an admin could review the situation? Wschact 06:50, 18 December 2014 (EST)

Two millionth page view for the "Counterexamples to Relativity" page

The Counterexamples to Relativity has just gotten its two millionth hit. It is one of Conservapedia's best-known pages.

It seems that this page is very famous all over the internet. A Google search of Conservapedia+Relativity gets about 8000 hits. (Your mileage may vary; the test was done several months ago.) I didn't look at all of them, but I looked at the first 100, other than the CP article itself. Two were completely neutral and matter-of-fact, one was an item on that was a discussion of what "theory" means in a scientific sense, and was neutral. The other 97 were all derisive, mocking, contemptuous, and sarcastic.

Now I know that principled people are not deterred by popular opinion. But people might want to ask themselves whether the page has convinced anyone that Relativity is wrong. Or, more generally, whether it has accomplished anywhere near what its goals were. People might also want to ask themselves whether the counterexamples are objectively correct, and whether Relativity is objectively wrong. Now a lot of the discussion at CP has been about what people think about Relativity—for example, discussion of Laurence Tribe, and Barack Obama, and the folks that designed the GPS system, and the folks that operate that system, and so on. I'd like to get completely away from consideration of what people think about Relativity. Vox Populi and all that. I'd like to propose 3 questions about objective, observable facts, and ask the senior admins here to explain them without reference to people's opinions. These are matters of fact and incontrovertible observation.

  1. It is known that the perihelion of Mercury precesses, beyond Newtonian calculations, by an amount of about 43 arcseconds per (Earth) century. Without getting bogged down into quibbling over thousandths of an arcsecond, and just using the accepted figure of 43 arcseconds, why do you think this is so? Now there has been extensive discussion at Conservapedia over the possibility that the exponent in the "inverse square law" is not exactly 2. People have argued over whether or not that satisfies some principle of theoretical elegance, or makes integration easier, or whatever. I'm not interested in any of that. What I am interested in is that it doesn't work. That theory was proposed by Hall and Newcomb about 100 years ago, and quickly discarded, because it predicts a completely wrong precession for the Moon. So, why do you think this precession occurs? Do you have some theory of gravity that correctly predicts the precession of Mercury, other planets, the Moon, and Earth satellites?
  2. It is known that the received frequency of GPS satellite clock signals is about 0.44 parts per trillion faster than the frequency at which the signals were transmitted from the satellite. This discrepancy is well known, and there is circuitry in the satellites to compensate for it. Minuscule as this discrepancy is, compensating for it is essential to the correct operation of the system. Without getting into what people believed or were thinking about when the system was designed, or what people believe or think about when they upload correction parameters, why does this discrepancy exist?
  3. It is known that the mass of a Radium-226 atom (including the electrons--it makes no difference in the final outcome) is 226.025403 amu. When it undergoes alpha decay, it turns into an atom of Radon-222 (222.017571 amu) and an atom of Helium (4.002603 amu). This constitutes a loss of .005229 amu. Why is that? Is the law of conservation of mass not correct?

SamHB 00:18, 17 December 2014 (EST)

  1. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury disproves Relativity. People stopped reporting the discrepancy as technology provided greater precision; yet Relativists still insist that this proves their theory when the actual data disproves it. Newtonians are honest about the issue. Why can't liberal Relativists publicly admit that the data disproves their theory? Every scientist knows that if he questions or criticizes Relativity, then he disqualifies himself from ever winning a Nobel Prize (see, e.g., Robert Dicke), obtaining a doctorate, or receiving any research funding.
  2. There are a variety of possible explanations for the GPS discrepancy, starting with the obvious plausibility that the laws of physics are not invariant at every point in the universe. An honest, open-minded discussion of the issue would likely yield some valuable insights.
  3. There is nothing startling about an emission or loss of energy when something decays. It certainly does not prove Relativity.
Liberals make false statements about science all the time. Jimmy Carter became president by claiming that oil would run out in 35 years. There is nothing new about liberals misusing science to advance liberal goals.--Andy Schlafly 00:33, 17 December 2014 (EST)


I generally have a "live and let live" attitude towards the edits of others on CP, and don't want to criticize any particular editor. However, CP has experienced over time that editors come here from Wikipedia, where there are millions of articles and a very high number of Categories. Because CP is much smaller, we have opted for fewer categories, Over the past day, someone has created a bunch of new categories like Category:Conservative Authors. Category:Christian Authors, etc. Such narrow new categories will make a lot more work for everyone and may discourage editors from categorizing their articles. Perhaps Andy and management could please take a look? Thanks, Wschact 06:58, 18 December 2014 (EST)

Personal tools