Talk:Essay:Conservapedia Awards

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Name of the Award


You and I think alike. I put my suggestion on the main page, though. It'd have a cool nickname, too: the Ronny. Jinxmchue 16:14, 12 May 2008 (EDT)
That's clever: the "Ronny"!--Aschlafly 17:08, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps we should coin a new name. Shocking as this may be, most of students have no recollection of Reagan. Most were born after he was president. Also, other awards are named after Reagan and even liberals invoke his memory now!--Aschlafly 22:29, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

Makers of wiki

You are of course aware that the makers of the wiki software is the Wikimedia Foundation, the charity that run by Jim Wales, which owns Wikipedia, that has such an awful Liberal bias that you had to create this? DanielB 22:20, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

No, the makers of the wiki software were individuals who volunteered their time, not an entity that has been taken over by a liberal mob.--Aschlafly 22:26, 12 May 2008 (EDT)
Check out there website down the bottom in the little bar it say "A Wikimedia Foundation Project". The wikimedia foundation owns this Wikipedia and about 8 other projects. DanielB 23:10, 12 May 2008 (EDT)
That's silly, and says nothing about who developed the wiki software. If anything, that denies credit where credit is due.--Aschlafly 23:13, 12 May 2008 (EDT)
Actually the irony only just occured to me. MediaWiki is funded by the Wikimedia Foundation. The Wikimedia Foundation gets most of it contributions through Wikipedia. Your website relise on MediaWiki, ergo your website relise on the donations brought in through Wikipedia. DanielB 23:14, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

It is written the same way other open source projects are like LaTeX. Who ever happens to stop by and write some code. DanielB 23:17, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

In other words, you don't give credit where credit is due either, like Wikipedia itself.--Aschlafly 23:24, 12 May 2008 (EDT)
Oh no! Nobody thanks you. Is that why you started Conservapedia nobody thanked you for your help at Wikipedia?
All open source projects are like this lots of people do lots of work and nobody gets any recongition unless you creck open the code and have a look (LaTeX style files usually have the authors name commented out somewhere at the top of the source code). People have reasons other than recongnition when they participate in open source projects. LaTeX for example, you wanted to do something, you couldn't find a style file to do so you write one yourself and then upload it to the CTAN website so other people arn't met with the same problem. Nobody gets recognised but everyone gets something out of it. DanielB 01:15, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

I could be wrong, but it looks like this guy is the one who should be thanked, not Jimbo Wales. Took me about a minute to find that out. Jinxmchue 01:00, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

He invented the first wiki, not the software that powers Conservapedia. The software that powers Conservapedia is the same as the one that powers Wikipedia, which is the one that produced by people who submit program code to MediaWiki project in order to create Wikipedia. DanielB 01:15, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
And Henry Ford just invented the modern assembly line, not the robots that work on them today. No need to recognize him for anything. Jinxmchue 13:34, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
Right. And Thomas Edison merely invented the first light bulb, not the ones we use today. No one should bother recognizing Edison either!--Aschlafly 15:00, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
William Hammer did alot of the ground work research for the light bulb. He worked in Edison's lab and after the lab as a whole developed the light globe Edison took it and patented it. It looks like you enjoy rewarding the person who took the credit rather than the people who did the work, you should give your "award" to Jim Wales than. DanielB 18:43, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
So now you're agreeing with us. How convenient. How typical! Your arguments are a joke. It doesn't matter what Jimbo Wales actually did - you just want him to get an award from Conservapedia. Please go troll elsewhere. (And from your edit history, looks like you're here pretty much just to talktalktalk anyway.) Jinxmchue 11:52, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
I didn't say I wanted to give Jim Wales an award, I said that you are ignoring the fact that the software you use was developed with support (bandwidth of the website, ect.) from money raised through Wikipedia. Andy must have relised this when he was on their website downloading the files.
Your websites existence is entirly dependent on Wikipedia and any "award" for wikis will have to go in part to the Wikimedia Foundation for providing the platform for developing wikis. DanielB 19:08, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
Jimxmchue, don't bother responding. DanielB did not take your hint and he violated the 90/10 rule, and has been appropriately blocked for it.--Aschlafly 19:21, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
I was done anyway. :) Jinxmchue 00:08, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

Nice job nominating Ward Cunningham he might be as proud of his "Values Award" as he is that work lead to Wikipedia. DanielB 21:15, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Phyllis Schlafly

Isn't she associated with Conservapedia? FernoKlumpAll the funny lines are banned 23:09, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

No. Are you a conspiracy theorist, Ferno? Perhaps you believe in Hillary's claim of a vast right-wing conspiracy?--Aschlafly 23:17, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
What? What does that have to do with anything? I know she is your mother, I just didn't know if she was technically associated with Conservapedia. Geeze . . . FernoKlumpAll the funny lines are banned 23:22, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
Ferno, your first statement above is inconsistent with your second. When called on your contradiction, you just play dumb? Ferno, do you ever admit you're wrong?--Aschlafly 23:34, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
Maybe I am dumb then, because I don't have a clue as to what I did that was wrong or contradictory. If you are saying that Phyllis is not associated with Conservapedia, then thank you for answering my question. As for your remarks, if you look closely at my first sentence you'll notice that it was a question, not a statement, and was intended to be read as such. FernoKlumpAll the funny lines are banned 23:45, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
Ferno, I asked you a simple question. Are you going to answer it?--Aschlafly 23:50, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
As I explained above, that question has nothing to do with this topic because I asked a simple question. And yes, I do admit I am wrong if I'm actually wrong and if I'm not being randomly insulted by some guy on the internet who doesn't understand that my question was simply a question. FernoKlumpAll the funny lines are banned 23:55, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, gosh darn, it confuses me too Ferno. AdenJ 00:25, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Ferno, I suggest your answers should be: no, no, no, yes. StatsMsn 01:27, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
Ferno, your answer that you admit that you are wrong "if" you're actually wrong is not much of an answer. You may never think you're wrong. You've been blocked six times here by numerous Sysops; your signature line pushes a false statement; and your question above that started this discussion implies a falsehood. Yet I haven't seen you admit you're wrong about anything yet. I'll ask the simple question one last time, do you ever admit you're wrong?
Regardless, Ferno, remove the falsehood from your signature line or your account will be blocked for the 7th time.--Aschlafly 09:08, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

If Mrs. Schlafly is not associated with Conservapedia then why did the April 25th CP News headline refer to her as "Conservapedian Phyllis Schlafly"? --DinsdaleP 11:10, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Clever try, but Ferno gave his "reason" and that was not it. "Conservapedian" is an honorary title, as in the context of giving someone an award. My problem is not with disqualifying this nominee, but with Ferno's style of reasoning and his repeatedly unjustified insinuations, as in his signature above.--Aschlafly 13:45, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
I wasn't trying to be clever, and I really don't care about whether Mrs. Schlafly is eligible for a Conservapedia award or not - this site can honor anyone it chooses for any reason it wants to. When asked if she was a Conservapedian you answered "no", and I was simply asking for a clarification of what "Conservapedian" means since she was referred to as one. Lighten up. --DinsdaleP 14:06, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
Aschlafly, do you ever admit you're wrong? FernoKlumpWhenever I put something here I get in trouble 13:47, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
Yes. But notice how you couldn't say that.--Aschlafly 13:50, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
Your argument above is that it is pointless to say that you are wrong if you actually think that you're wrong, right? Why would someone admit they were wrong if they didn't think that they were wrong? You are using pretty circular logic. But to wrap this up, being a "Conservapedian" doesn't associate you with Conservapedia, and even questioning that makes you a conspiracy theorist. And BTW I never "gave" a reason why Phyllis Schlafly should not be included, I just asked a question. FernoKlumpWhenever I put something here I get in trouble 13:58, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
Whoa, stop the trolling and bullying. Conspiracies, Hillary Clinton, signatures, admitting being wrong, then threatening to block?... those go on user talk pages, not here where it appears as intimidation at best. I've seen others get life-long blocks for that. "Who polices the police?"
Although Conservapedia honored here on April 25 as "Conservapedian", it doesn't mean she is associated yet. That's like honoring my cat and saying my cat is associated. Being the mother of the owner of Conservapedia does not mean association to Conservapedia. But, this is a good way of defining how one is or isn't associated to Conservapedia through trial and error. Also, I'll add her founding of the Eagle Forum, since adding specifics to her lifetime contributions is pleasing to the eye. :) LardoBolger 14:42, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
耶穌說:「其次也相倣,就是要愛人如己。」-馬太福音22:39 (Look up Matthew 22:39 to see what it says. Or in other words, STOP KILLING EACH OTHER!)--私は 16:04, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Reasons For Nomination

I'm adding small specifics to some nominees, since some seem to be nominated for being something anyone can be. For example, Vice President Cheney being a true patriot. Anyone can be a true patriot... so I'd like to add better examples of nomination for better understanding. LardoBolger 14:51, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Great Idea

I think this is a brilliant idea. Whoever thought of the awards needs to be congratulated. I have some thoughts.

1. The name : I believe the best name is "Conservapedia award for ....". This will also promote the encyclopedia as a brand.

2. Of the many in the list, only Mrs. Schlafly and Mrs. Thatcher can be considered worthy of such an award. Many others are not that well known.

3. May be there should be a ceremony as well to honour the winner.

don't ridicule me... just some thoughts.

--MRain 15:47, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Good thoughts, but part of being conservative is not to worship fame. So I don't think the degree of being "well known" is a factor.--Aschlafly 21:45, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
Agreed. Fame shouldn't rule out a candidate, of course, but one of the values an award can have is to bring recognition to individuals who have earned it in quieter, low-key ways while making no less of a difference in the world. There's also value in raising the awareness of groups or causes that would have much more support if people only knew about them. --DinsdaleP 09:10, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Prior winners

Who has won this award in years past? I think we should include a list of winners on the article page. QWest 13:37, 7 December 2008 (EST)

This was only proposed in 2008, so I don't believe that there has been any formal or official presentation of an award from Conservapedia as yet. --DinsdaleP 08:43, 10 December 2008 (EST)
Personal tools