Conservapedia:Desk

From Conservapedia

Conservapedia Administrative Desk

Immediate Deletion Articles ^{Add an article}
Category:Speedy deletion candidates

This is the Administrative Desk for Conservapedia. Here you can notify the Administration of matters that require attention. For your convenience there is a list of quick links below.

Reporting Abuse by Users? (file)
Copyright Violations? (file)
Dispute Intervention? (file)
Something Else? (click here)

Articles for Deletion ^{Add an article}
Polyphymnia (test) Ode on the Mammoth Cheese Category:Geological time periods How Old is the Earth According to the Bible? (Talk page) Examples of Absurdities in Wikipedia (talk page) Atheistic Style Christian Style Conservapedia:Uploading

1 Abuse Complaints
2 Copyright Violations
3 User Disputes
4 General Messages

Abuse Complaints

Archives: 1

Wrongly block from Conservapedia

I tried to transfer five Wikipedia political articles to Conservapedia Sunday evening but was blocked at my home computer. I have been able to log in at the office computer. Once one is blocked, he cannot make any contact from that particular computer. Apparently, the one who blocked me, I cannot remember the moniker, but it started with a "J", thought that I had just scooped up some articles from Wikipedia. I have written 100 percent of those articles. Four are about conservatives.

The articles were:

Billy J. Guin
Allison R. Kolb
Hall M. Lyons
Ben C. Toledano, all Louisiana Republicans

and Roy R. Theriot, a Democrat.

Wikipedia does not want the articles after 12 to 18 months on the site.

Conservapedia allows a transfer if the author wrote the article on Wikipedia.

I should be unblocked and have these five articles reverted to the screen, particularly the four on conservatives.

Please unblock me,

Billy Hathorn

bhathorn

I can also get you several dozen Wikipedia articles still on the screen about conservatives if you would like them.

You were unblocked six hours after being blocked[1]. Are you sure that you are still getting a block, or is it just that you've encountered the night-editing restrictions?

If you are still getting a block, perhaps you should write to a sysop (see the "Email this user" link in the left column of a sysop's user page; but you must have your own e-mail set to do this), particularly if it's your IP address that is the problem.

Philip J. Rayment 01:59, 19 December 2007 (EST)

bhathorn, I deleted your pages because they were copied straight from Wikipedia. This site does not allow that unless it is your own work. You've been unblocked because the articles you copied have been verified by another administrator. Jallen 07:02, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Unblocking User:LardoBolger?

I've been trying to get my account unblocked (Lardo Bolger) For nearly two months now and have mailed several sysops, including Ed Poor and Aschlafly.

I have received no response from either but dead silence, but I was fortunate enough to get at least ONE reply from Iduan, so my thanks to him. Another thanks to Learn Together for possibly inquring my block, as TK emailed me with boastful words amounting to having more power than everyone else except Schlafly himself.

Due to the nature that the block message reads "Atheistic Deceit" by TK, when I had made inquiry of his blocking to AtheistKathryn as deceitful, and the fact that sysops neither reply or act to my emails, I feel a bit discriminated against. Not only that, but the insults TK said to me just shows the lack of accountability here. Seeing as he also banned another user with the statement that atheists aren't welcome on CP, it would seem but obvious to consider discrimination of religion, even though I'm not Atheist.

Among all this, not one reason I was blocked, just wild accusations and insults. I'm hoping this doesn't truly define how Conservapedia works. I never saw in the rules that being accused of Atheist, reporting/inquiring sysop abuse, or having a promiscuous mother (as was said by TK, among many other things) justifies a block here. Perhaps the rules should be changed so future editors can keep their mothers, religion, and thoughts of equality in check. Also, when signing up, it says "Real name (Optional)", so my username obviously didn't reflect my real name. However, that was also used to define why I was blocked by TK, and I feel I should say everything in one go.

I apologize for not understanding what I did wrong, and I apologize for using a different account to get a response (if any) since email seems to be only an option to read here. PhilB 14:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

I can't see exactly why you were blocked, so I am just offering the benefit of the doubt and unblocking you.

Fox (talk|contribs) 14:58, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Thank you VERY much, mister Fox! By all means, watch my edits if you have any suspicions! :) LardoBolger 15:01, 28 December 2007 (EST)

User:GoObama

POV pusher. TheEvilSpartan 22:41, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Began vandalizing after I warned him. ThomasB 22:43, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Andy's dealt with him. Philip J. Rayment 02:52, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Aschlafly's Removal of Legitimate Information

After repeated edits of the Barack Obama article to include the following fully cited, unbiased, and completely factual information:

Both Democrats and Republicans have accused him of avoiding controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. The prime example being, as a state senator in Illinois, he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" 129 times.^[1] However, this is not unusual given the nature of the Illinois Senate as each senator votes through the use of three buttons, green for yes, red for no, and yellow for present. As Illinois political writer and blogger Rich Miller has said, "not all 'present' votes are cowardly, including those cast by then-state Sen. Obama."^[2] Chris Mooney, a professor of political science at the University of Illinois, Springfield, sheds further light on the situation: "Mooney and other state capitol watchers and players say Illinois lawmakers often vote 'present' as part of a larger party or issue bloc strategy."^[3] During that same period, he was planning to run for the House of Representatives, which was unsuccessful, and then successfully for U.S. Senate, in which he defeated Republican candidate Alan Keyes, also an African American.^[4]

Aschlafly, has threatened to ban me if I am to edit it again. However my edits were completely neutral in nature and only served to remove opinionated and accusative language and to elaborate upon the voting "present" controversy so that people will have a better understanding of both the Illinois Senate and why Sen. Obama voted in such a way.

On the talk page I have repeatedly defended the position as well as asked Aschlafly to refrain from removing the edits and at the very least, give some sort of justification for removal, something which he has yet to do. His only responses have been that what he said is right, giving no justification or information to support his claims, and to threaten me with banning if I am to edit the article again.

It is my personal belief on the matter, that he is using his administrative powers to enforce his opinion as fact and to limit attempts by others like myself, from trying to improve Conservapedia to be more neutral and factual.--ElliottRosewater 16:23, 17 February 2008 (EST)

Karajou's block of Jimmy is unwarranted

I believe Karajou has abused his position as a sysop and blocked Jimmy simply for disagreeing with him. Now, I could understand if Jimmy had been vulgar or insulting, but it's plain from reading the discussion at Talk: Obama on rifles that this was not the case. Jimmy was blocked for suggesting that a significant number of active and retired military members are Democrats and/or liberals. Karajou claimed in his block notice that Jimmy was insulting and denigrating service members. This clearly isn't the case. I believe Jimmy should be unblocked at the very least. SSchultz 19:37, 26 February 2008 (EST)

How do you know that "Jimmy was blocked for suggesting that a significant number of active and retired military members are Democrats and/or liberals" rather than for something else? Philip J. Rayment 21:09, 26 February 2008 (EST)

That's the only thing I saw in the discussion that could remotely be considered insulting and what's more is that it was the last statement Jimmy made immediately prior to being blocked. Do me a favor and read the page and tell me where you think Jimmy insults or denigrates service members? SSchultz 19:59, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Is there no response? SSchultz 16:47, 1 March 2008 (EST)

Regarding the lack of response, I think I saw your response when checking my watchlist whilst at work on Thursday, but didn't have time then to respond. Once home, I overlooked it because it was no longer highlighted on my watchlist. Sorry about that.

It's often the case that a block is imposed not for a specific comment or edit, but for a pattern of edits or a bad attitude. Based on comments that Karajou has made to me, I gather that this is the case with Jimmy. Regardless, Jimmy has written to me and I will be passing his concerns on to Karajou for review (Karajou's "e-mail this user" link doesn't work).

Philip J. Rayment 22:59, 1 March 2008 (EST)

Block of SSchultz

It seems to me that Karajou has blocked SSchultz for very little cause. As far as I can tell, SSchultz wasn't lying about anything; he just made the mistaken factual assumption that sections of the O'Bannon article were copied from Wikipedia. Naming the primary source when the accusation was made would have alleviated any confusion and the matter would have been closed. --Jimmy 20:32, 5 March 2008 (EST)

I guess you should be careful about making an accusation based on an assumption. But in any case, SSchultz has indicated elsewhere that he is not wanting to return. Philip J. Rayment 06:39, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Index item - Bible is for C**ts

I think you should remove this item from the index. It redirects to the "Bible" page. The word used carries a sexual meaning that is not appropriate for this site.

Censored words

When I first heard about conservapedia I thought, "Excellent, a place to talk to like minded individuals", however I am shocked at the fact that this 'family friendly' encyclopedia allows obscenity. No matter what the subject, the term Ed Poor used (and the complaint that was deleted) is NEVER ok. As you say many times yourself, there are children reading this. Also if your sysops can use this term without any warning or blocking then you have opened the floodgates and now everyone can feel as though the can use such terms. Again I stress that such terms are obscene no matter what the context. If nothing is done about this I can only assume that conservapedia is not willing to adhere to its own rules, that the sysops are above the law and I will not consider contributing to what I once thought was clean educational resource. AdenJ 00:00, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

In at least partial defence of Ed Poor, I would point out or remind you (and others) that although there are some words that almost everyone considers unacceptable, there are others that are more borderline, that some consider unacceptable and others consider acceptable. Furthermore (and I don't know if this applies in your case), there are words that some societies (e.g. America) considers acceptable or unacceptable but which other consider the opposite. Personally, this Aussie agrees with you regarding the word that Ed Poor used in an uncensored way. He, however, clearly considers that word to be acceptable. Philip J. Rayment 02:10, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the rational reply Phillip. I will drop this matter now, having got a well thought out answer such as yours but before I do my I just say that I dont believe there is an english speaking country (I have been all over the world) where the word f*** is acceptable. There is nothing borderline about it and as Andy harps on about this being a clean, high quality resource I thought more would be done about it. You sysops need to set the example. I will settle the matter now but I do not wish to see anymore swearing. AdenJ 14:06, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Don't be a d***. --Ed Poor ^Talk 08:33, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Copyright Violations

Archives:

A-10 Thunderbolt

Sadly the A-10 Thunderbolt article is a blatant copyvio of aerospaceweb.org, a site which does not release its content into the public domain. The entire content of the article bar the first 17 words (out of about 220) are a direct copy and paste from the site. Furthermore it appears at least one picture is in violation of the sites copyright. EQ 20:08, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

This has been dealt with. Philip J. Rayment 09:12, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

WWE Championship

Without the attribution that GFDL requires, WWE Championship is a blatant copyvio of Wikipedia. Please delete immidiately. --Deskana 22:25, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

If you look at the history of the article, the author of the article has stated that he wrote it on wikipedia. Bohdan 22:27, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

If you look at the editor on wikipedia, you will discover he has been blocked multiple times and didn't write the entire article. NeutralParty 22:48, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, I will delete it. Bohdan

Lostcaesar and wikipedia

It appears User:Lostcaesar has violated the first commandment on Historicity of Jesus (and perhaps his other articles). It is clear that a significant portion of the text is from Wikipedia. My concern in this matter is that you are violating wikipedia's GFDL by using so much Wikipedia content without citing and linking back to the Wikipedia article. I'm not sure how you usually deal with these matters, so I am bringing it to your attention. I'm not sure if the content needs to be blanked, or if adding the link back to Wikipedia is enough. Lostcaesar used to be a Wikipedia editor, so I do understand that he can use content that he personally created on both wikis. However, I know for a fact that there is content that Lostcaesar did not write from Wikipedia in the Historicity of Jesus article here. Thanks.-Andrewc 11:36, 16 November 2007 (EST)

Given that you admit that only parts are copied from Wikipedia and that the user did contribute parts to the Wikipedia article, it's hard to check this claim out, without specifics as to which parts are copied that the user did not write. I also realise that it's been some time since this complaint was posted, but I also note that this complaint is the only contribution of this user. Unless more specifics are forthcoming, I think this one need not be taken further. Philip J. Rayment 06:55, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Name of God

Direct copy/paste copyvio from http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=52&letter=N. Don't know how to warn the creator, so I won't, though I'm a bit disappointed that sysop would do such a thing. TheEvilSpartan 13:05, 8 January 2008 (EST)

The article attributes it to the public domain version of The Jewish Encyclopedia. You have not made a prima facie case. Philip J. Rayment 06:40, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Bahá'í

Direct copyvio from http://www.bahai.org/faq/facts/bahai_faith. Again, I do not know how to warn the user. TheEvilSpartan 13:18, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Their website gives permission to copy[2] with appropriate attribution. I've improved the attribution. Philip J. Rayment 06:38, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

User Disputes

kosovo - removal of information about destruction of christian heritage etc.

in article about kosovo, information about violence since 1999, KLA being described as terrorist organisation in 1998 by US administration, burning of churches and destruction of christian heritage, and albanian mafia, were removed by User:Karajou and he locked the page, despite of references being provided, including those of many conservatives who point out these things in the US. Mekety 14:02, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Preachology: speedy deletion?

I do not understand why my contribution "Preachology" is STILL marked for speedy deletion.

Preachology is from the words "preach" (to deliver a sermon) and "ology" (any science or branch of study). Of course, it is also an "art" (a superior skill that you can learn by study and practice and observation). Preaching is an art because it is a craft that must be performed by a real person. We will talk much more about that later. (Definitions from Word Web-Princeton University).

From: www.preachology.com (used by permission)

Thank you,

Michael E

Content dispute for Left Behind: Eternal Forces article

I'd appreciate some other opinions in the issue currently causing the dispute for Left Behind: Eternal Forces. See the Talk page and edit history. Jinxmchue 14:38, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

This is the first edit by Urushnor: [3]. Based on this, I'm for granting control of the article to Jinxmchue. Karajou 14:59, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

General Messages

Archives: 1 2

Question about Ten Most Viewed Pages

Your ten most frequently viewed pages includes 9 entries featuring the word "homosexuality." This seems strange to me, especially as some of the entries are relatively new. Is there a possible alternative explanation for those sites showing up on the Top Ten, besides their popularity? I don't understand much about computers, but, for example, perhaps people have set up computers that repeatedly open up web pages on a particular site, just to skew the numbers?

Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harpers (talk)

I don't think the server logs would have that information. Philip J. Rayment 08:06, 5 December 2007 (EST)

Recommendation: Maybe you guys can track possible abuse using www.sitemeter.com or google analytics? Alexander 18:54, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Page move request

Could someone please move Ann Widdicombe to Ann Widdecombe (correct spelling). BrianCo 13:57, 5 December 2007 (EST)

Done. Philip J. Rayment 14:59, 5 December 2007 (EST)

Account Creation suggestion

Although I saw the comment that account creation is only allowed at certain times, it might be a good idea to let potential users know what these times are. It took me several attempts over two days to eventually "strike lucky". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unclebill (talk)

I agree. It took me a few times to realise that you could only make an account at certain times during the day. I was trying to find how to make an account last night and gave up. Luckily, I found out an hour or so ago.--Joel 20:39, 25 December 2007 (EST)

Sorry you both had troubles registering. I'm sure the relevant people will take note of your issue and maybe something will be added to the registration page

Fox (talk|contribs) 20:45, 25 December 2007 (EST)

Agreed with all of the above, but I'm not sure where the info should be added.

The registration page is (if I recall correctly - my memory is acting up right now...) not accessible when account creation is disabled, so it would be of little use there ("If you can read this, you can register" is amusing, but not terribly helpful :P).
On the Login page, it might look a bit distracting (as the majority of users already has an account, so the info would be of little use for them).

Maybe our techies can hack up something to the effect of always having the "Register account" link available, but having it point at a "We're sorry, but account creation is currently disabled. Please try again at X o'clock in timezone Y" page? (I believe we have a Help page to that effect, but I also believe it's not exactly prominently linked for users who are new to the site). --JakeC 20:53, 25 December 2007 (EST)

Admin Question

How is it possible to become an Admin to help keep people from being stupid? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sohsowski (talk)

Admins aren't here to do that. Admins carry out essential maintenance of the site. One tip might be: "not to register an account and then throw mud at one's fellow editors" however :)

Fox (talk|contribs) 20:23, 25 December 2007 (EST)

Logo request

I'd like to create a link to Conservapedia on my websites. Can you provide a jpg of your logo? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Usmale (talk)

Um... no? It looks similar, but it's definitely different. The actually used file - different "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" font, and slightly different "Conservapedia" lettering. Can be easily seen when you look at the positions of the "v" and the last "a" in relation to the background. --JakeC 17:17, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Here you go.

CPWebmaster 20:03, 28 January 2008 (EST)

Found A Cuss Word

In the Userbox Index, there is a cuss word in a userbox in the uncategorized section.

It's called User lies and stats

In your third commandment, your call for family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language pages.

a kid could easily stumble into it.

I'm just trying to help Conservapedia.

Edit:

Opps, I didn't realized that I doubled posted, I thought that it didn't make it, sorry. Delete the other one please.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by EkulR29 (talk)

I see that Fox has deleted the template, and I've now deleted the link to it in the uncategorised index. Philip J. Rayment 01:26, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Confused by this message at my talk page

"Come back next year, when you're serious about helping write encyclopedia articles."

I didn't think there was restrictions on creating articles.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:EkulR29 (talk)

I can't speak for why you were blocked, but the "next year" thing was a joke, I think. You were blocked on December 31st for one day, so "next year" would only be one day later. 15:33, 3 January 2008 (EST)

You say it was 31st December, but when I look at his page history, it says that the message was left at 09:02 on 1st January, 2008. Of course, that is according to my time zone settings. What time zone is EkulR29 in? Yes, the message has 17:02 on 31st December on it, but at the very least, that could be "confusing".

EkulR29, I suspect that Ed Poor's comment may have been because you have made about 60 edits so far, only four of which were to anything other than this page and your user page. In other words, you seem to be more concerned with telling us about yourself (which is okay in itself) than with actually helping write an encyclopedia.

Philip J. Rayment 18:11, 3 January 2008 (EST)

How do you?

Ask for a change on a protected page? And is there any way to ask for a page to be unprotected? I imagine any vandalism could be fairly quickly reverted on many pages anyway. TheEvilSpartan 22:39, 3 January 2008 (EST)

To ask for a change on a protected page, ask on that page's talk page. To ask for a page to be unprotected, it's best to ask the Administrator who protected it. If that is not practicable, ask another Administrator. If you ask on the page's talk page, the first administrator to notice it could unlock it, but it's possible that nobody will notice for a while. If you ask on an Administrator's talk page, that Administrator should notice very quickly if they are on, or as soon as they next log on, but that might take a day or so (assuming they are not on holidays). If you choose to ask more than one administrator on their talk pages, let them know that you have asked others. Of course, in all such cases, your request might be declined. Philip J. Rayment 02:52, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Editing Help

I am having a hard time editing articles. Could you explain me how to go about that process? I'm used to using wikipedia, where they just have an edit button by the text, but here at Conservapedia I can't seem to find the edit button. Please help!

Same as on this page; third tab from the left at top of article.

Fox (talk|contribs) 21:21, 11 January 2008 (EST)

Uploading an images or images

How do I obtain upload privileges? I want to upload a picture on a page.

Christopher Persaud

You hang around for a long time until you are trusted with them. --Tim (CPAdmin1)^talk Vote for President 15:29, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Please be more specific. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cperlobo (talk)

If you have a specific image you want to be uploaded then please submit it at image upload request. BrianCo 17:35, 27 January 2008 (EST)

See User rights (Requesting further rights), which is linked from Editor's guide which is in the welcome box on your talk page. Philip J. Rayment 19:16, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Firefox search bar

I'm not sure what is involved technically, but I use Mozilla Firefox as my internet browser and regularly use the search bar in the top right for Google and Wikipedia searches. Though this search bar recognizes Conservapedia as a possible search engine, Firefox won't allow me to add it as one. The message

Firefox could not download the search plugin from:
http://www.conservapedia.com/opensearch_desc.php

appears. I don't know if this is the correct place to report technical problems (or if you are already aware of this), but I thought I should report it. Is there a reason for this? Hampshire2600 20:10 29 January, 2008 (EST)

Enlisting College Student Help

I'm a member of a campus conservatives organization, and I think Conservapedia could definitely benefit by enlisting the help of college students to improve the quality of articles, as well as expand Conservapedia's contents. I might recommend creating some sort of program to encourage campus conservative groups to have a part in Conservapedia's development? Thanks! Honorbound Conservatives Alexander 19:21, 5 February 2008 (EST)

"In The News

Under "in the news" on the "Main Page" there is this entry: Liberal denial has begun for NIU killings: "Grad student killer didn't fit the profile," screams the Associated Press. In fact, the killer did fit the profile of a public school-trained atheistic: dressed in all black, was an above-average student (at age 27!), and obsessed with self-injury.

The above entry implies that all people who have attended public school fit the profile of someone who would murder people. This is a woefully inaccurate and unwise statement. There are other ideas I would like to share concerning the inappropriateness this entry, but it I would not want these additional comments to become public.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blazer (talk)

Question about Religion

Hi, I'm an atheist who stumbled upon this website after a friend told me about it. I am a Liberal, and although I disagree with some points you present on this site, one thing I found has truly offended me. In the artible "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia", the page begins with a graph showing the number of Wikipedia users by religion. It shows a large amount atheists compared to other religions. First of all, I read this as being considered a "problem", and I would like to know why. Secondly, I assume from the "Daily Bible Verse" that an overwhelming amount of Conservapedia users are Christians. Is that better? I assure you I'm not here to stir up a controversy, I'm just puzzled and would like a straight answer. VonShroom 19:59, 23 February 2008 (EST)

Perhaps the graph needs more explanation, but (not having put it there myself), I'd say that it's to illustrate the cause of much of the bias, with the number of atheists editing on Wikipedia being quite out of proportion of the number of atheists in society. Yes, a large proportion of Conservapedia users are Christians. This is more in proportion with their representation in society, particularly American society (where most of the editors would be from) and even if this were not so, Conservapedia is explicitly conservative, not neutral, as Wikipedia claims to be. Furthermore, I would claim that Christianity is the only true religion. People of other religions, including atheism, disagree, of course, but in most cases consider their religion to be the only correct one, so Christians are not alone in believing their religion to be correct. Atheists often claim that we shouldn't claim to be the correct religion because we can't know for sure, or they are all subjective, or some similar reasoning, but rarely substantiate this claim, and usually exempt their own beliefs from this statement on the self-serving grounds that atheism is not a religion (if you think that way, please read the Religion article). Philip J. Rayment 04:47, 24 February 2008 (EST)

UKIP

The current article on UKIP is a direct copy from Wikipedia. Administrators/sysops might care to check this and take appropriate action Koba 11:13, 1 March 2008 (EST)

I've reverted it and given the editor a 1-day block. Repeats will be dealt with more severely. BrianCo 11:15, 1 March 2008 (EST)

You don't waste much time - I hadn't even finished writing my first message! Koba 11:17, 1 March 2008 (EST)

I'm watching recent changes as I listen to the sport on TV so I spotted the plagiarism before I saw your message. It's always a big giveaway when the text is riddled with red-links and calls to templates that we don't have here. BrianCo 11:21, 1 March 2008 (EST)

Grammatical errors

Hi, I just looked up Palestine in Conservapedia and found two errors in the first few lines. Do you have editing and correcting capability? I love the idea of this website to combat the terrible Wikipedia, but to be taken seriously you must have a way to correct grammatical errors and awkward sentences. Otherwise, people won't use the website for reference. Thanks, Barb bhhawley4@gmail.com

Yes, when you go to most pages there is an "edit" tab at the top. Please correct our grammar and sentence structure if you see something that needs work! It's rare, but we sometimes make mistakes ;-) Help Jazz 00:39, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

A Call For Conservapedia's Rise to Activism

While the left continues to deride just about any effort the right makes to build a solid knowledgebase on the web, I saw in Conservapedia from its earliest days an opportunity to really build a powerhouse of information. In today's age of information warfare (between corporations, nation-states, and political organizations), managing vasts amounts of information has now become key in gaining the upper hand in any dispute.

I confess, I'm merely a small fish among thousands here, so I have no idea what major priorities the admins of this site are currently working on. Does Conservapedia have plans to become a powerful political tool for serious students and leaders within the conservative movement, or is it just a hobby? Think about it: there exists no alternative general conservative knowledgebase out there. Conservapedia is the only major conservative wiki (that I know of) that can fill a great need within the conservative movement. But I'm not sure that we're using this opportunity toward having an immediate impact on the world of politics today.

I say this, because anytime there's a news article or editorial that comes up, I like to look up the political background and information behind people and organizations. And unless the personality is unavoidably famous, my searches on this site turn up nothing. Maybe this is because much of what Conservapedia focuses on are broad issues, categories, scientific and religious doctrine rather than the current big players in today's world?

Consider that this is an election year. In political terms, we are now in a state of war, and the battle is about go nuclear once the Democrats crawl their way out of the mess they're in. But you wouldn't know it when you look at the most recent edits on this site. With so many registered users, why isn't there a concerted effort to dig up and record every detail of each candidate's career and policies? There are literally hundreds of conservative blogs out there recording precious intel that could be of great use to someone looking for a central location to find all that info. But much of the info you see here on Obama, for example, is mostly biographical.

I may be way off base in posting all of this, but I'm wondering, are there any plans like I'm describing already underway, or is this just beyond Conservapeida's priorities at this time? Alexander 22:33, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

We welcome suggestions and criticisms but, frankly, I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. Your only example is our Obama entry, which you complain is "mostly biographical." But what else would one expect about a political candidate, particularly one who has no clear beliefs of his own?

As to the supposedly great conservative blogs, I'm not sure what "precious intel" they are conveying that isn't in our entries. If you're referencing gossip, that's not going to make a difference and we're not going to waste time on it.

We welcome your contributions, and perhaps in reviewing those we can learn what you have in mind. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 23:51, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, the kinds of "blogs" I consider to be higher quality are littlegreenfootballs.com, hotair.com, and so on. These, I consider to be semi-reliable sources of cutting edge news, and they come out daily with useful information that would be handy in debates about the current Democratic candidates. If we think of an Conservapedia as an ocean of archived knowledge, then such news blogs can be endless fountainstreams of new information. All of us, who have been following the election process closely will easily recall many of the reasons why, for example, Barack Obama would be a terrible president. From the Reverend Wright comments, to his most recent remark about "clinging to guns or religion," to even more recent uncoverings of his promises to abortion lobbyists: "Well, the first thing I'd do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act." But a couple of years from now, few of us will remember those important details to pass down to those who come after us.

You can be sure Obama will continue to paint himself as someone who can "trascend party lines," but everything about the man's political (as opposed to merely biographical) history paints a very different picture. In short, suppose Conservapedia were developed into an information war machine, where most efforts during the election season would be used to collect the newest and latest information that would be useful for sustaining the conservative movement? I hope I'm making sense. Alexander 14:55, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

I might be a touch at odds with Aschlafly's aims here, but one problem I have with your (Alexander's) post is that it appears very American-centric. Philip J. Rayment 06:05, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Philip J. Rayment, I don't mean to offend your sensibilities by focusing my earlier remarks toward an exclusively American audience. I acknowledge we Yanks have like-minded friends in other countries, but the reason for my message being tailored to U.S. citizens is because ours happens to be the one nation currently embroiled in a very hotly contested election season, where the future of conservative values is at stake. Additionally, one might well accuse this entire web site of being American-centric... just look at the logo! Alexander 14:55, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Question

I saw up above that it's ok to copy things if you wrote them yourself. What if you didn't write them yourself, but the information is entirely accurate and you give sources? Like Wikipedia's stuff on math is really good and I'd like to work on that (as a place to start!), but if we can't use that stuff, then I'll start from scratch. OhioChris 12:40, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

You can use their sources as a starting point, but our copyright clauses are incompatable so you can not actually copy the text itself. Help Jazz 12:42, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Kind of funny

This site is kind of funny, and it's rather nicely done to be convincing that it's serious, I especially like the American flag logo thingy, that's hilarious, but it's still somewhat lacking, are there any really amusing articles here? Frank88 23:38, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

An American flag logo is hilarious? Nevertheless, I'm glad we have brightened up your day. HenryS 23:40, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Well ya, in its context, as an ironic symbol of conservatism, also the way it's displayed as Americans tend to do as if it's a symbol of greatness, it's a good parody. Frank88 23:48, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Okay, whatever. Please familiarize yourself with the Conservapedia Commandments before editing. HenryS 23:51, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Oh, I was hoping those would be funnier, I don't really like uncyclopedia, but this site has the potential to be funnier. Frank88 23:55, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Website search option

Hello, Please move the search box higher on the page, so when you open Conservapedia you can type into the Search box without having to scroll down to find it. I can't imagine why the search box is so low on the page that you have to scroll down.

Also, It's difficult to find a link to contact Conservapedia! Phew! You should make it easier to contact you with questions.

I love Conservapedia and I hope it becomes MUCH bigger than Wikipedia!

Thank you, Barb

I agree that it's a problem, and I've looked before into changing it. There appears to be only two ways to do so. One is simply to reduce the size of the menus above it (which means eliminating some entries) and the other (although I'm not certain about this one) is to put it above "master control". In other words, it's not possible to put it between "master control" and "help" or between "help" and "supreme court". Philip J. Rayment 22:55, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Front page

El que se sieta como rey en los cielos se rie, El Senor se burla de ellos! (Translated to English: He who sits in the heavens laughs, the Lord scoffs at them!). It should read "El que se sienta.... I would just like a project that I'm going to work on to not have an error on the front page. It on the part about castro. An accent should also be above the "E" in "El".Thanks--Die4Dixie 17:48, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Trouble editing some pages

I noticed several duplicate Supreme Court Case articles, so I tried to turn the shorter versions of them into redirects. However, my changes are not being shown. This is especially strange because if you hit "edit" it shows my changes, but the actually article does not.

Here are the articles I am having trouble with:

Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc'y

CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Georgia State Board of Equalization

Dred Scott v. Sanford

I apologize if these mistakes are somehow my fault. FernoKlump 20:26, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Hmm, nevermind. Whatever the problem was it seems to be fixed now. FernoKlump 20:36, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Desk"