Talk:Main Page

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This page is for discussion only of Main Page content and feature items. For discussion of other issues relating to the Conservapedia community please see: Conservapedia:Community Portal

Archive Index


Biblical creationism will be strong in 2015

The time of stalking Darwinism is over! It's time to move in for the kill! See: Biblical creationism will be strong in 2015.

See: Essay: Biblical creationism will be strong in 2015.

Stronger, higher, faster! Conservative 22:36, 17 January 2015 (EST)

Joni Ernst article

The Joni Ernst article at Tea Party Crusaders contains an error: Senator Ernst served two terms in the Iowa State Senate not one. VargasMilan 02:22, 20 January 2015 (EST)

But then again, "state senator" could have two meanings, U. S. senator of a state or senator within a state. VargasMilan 02:28, 20 January 2015 (EST)
I just like the fact that she is a feisty conservative who rides a motorcycle and is pro-gun. A Shockofgod for the US Senate. :) Conservative 14:46, 20 January 2015 (EST)

New planet

Our space probe is approaching the new planet at about the speed of jet airliner, and all through February we expect to get better and better views of its surface, the probe arriving in orbit in early March. This planet has already been featured on Conservapedia's main page (as well as Fox News), if you need help guessing what it is. VargasMilan 01:51, 23 January 2015 (EST)

Yahoo's top news link: "By the way, there happens to be a spacecraft near a planet. And I'll be darned, but the planet happened to be in visual range!" And the icing on the cake is the only thing they find unusual about the situation is a feature of the planet discovered years ago which they describe as the spacecraft having "found". Nothing is a drama (like a mission to a never-visited planet) unless Yahoo says it is, and if it's not a drama (like something already discovered), it is if Yahoo says so. Yahoo obviously adheres to a Yahoo-centric model of the universe. VargasMilan 01:51, 24 January 2015 (EST)

Atheism statistics article - The excitement is raging!

The fans of the Freedom from Atheism Foundation love the Atheism statistics article.

Here are some of the reviews after only 16 hours:

John Barbagiannis: Damning statistics

Jennifer Michele: Interesting

Stephen J. Ardent: It's not surprising. When you think that the only value a human has is the value another human places on that life, it's really easy to treat the bulk of humanity as simply trash to be dealt with.

Grace Kim Kwon It's nearly a billion if the unborns are counted. Christianity saves and rescues, but atheism kills and destroys.

Scott O'Steen: ...I actually pity them , often it seems like arguing with a spoiled teenager, I have to be in the mood to argue with them

Rhoda Winters: Yup. Atheism is poison.

Keith Wade: You should check up on that, because Conservapedia is a website writing an article. They are not the "source". The whole article shows all references for people just like you who (for some reason) think they wrote it all themselves despite the repeated explanations throughout.

Jeffrey McMunn: Good stuff, Señor Maickon. . .

Please notice the last comment. Evidently, he thought the article was well-done. Olé! Olé! Olé!

By the way, 11 hours ago I received a report of another Christian sharing the article with atheists/Christians/others.

Will the article be widely shared among Christian YouTubers and Christian bloggers/websites? Stay tuned for further developments! Conservative 02:00, 25 January 2015 (EST)

74 people told their friends about this article - so far.  :) Is this just the beginning? :) Conservative 13:17, 25 January 2015 (EST)
I like the article; it just shows how foolish atheists are. Karajou 08:29, 27 January 2015 (EST)

My spider sense is tingling

User Conservative, I thought I'd take a look at to check out the claims your collective made and I found that all the quotes your collective posted above were there. Your collective's article did indeed make an impact with these people.

I remember a few days ago that AugustO posted a comment on this talkpage (hastily archived by your collective) that brought attention to the fact that a lot of likes seem to originate from outside the U.S., particularly Middle/Far East countries.

I found this site which can show the countries which the 'facebook likes' originate from. It's in German but easy to work out! Don't take my word for it, do it yourself.

Here is what I found out: 59% of the total 'likes' for come from just 6 countries - Indonesia (17.6%), Pakistan (12.4%), Iraq (8.3%), Nepal (7.9%). Bangladesh (6.5%) and Algeria (6.4%).

Likes from America are 5.6%.

It could be argued that this is an international website so obviously it would attract a great deal of likes from all over the world. Although it is written in English... And all the comments are in English...

After a little more digging, I came across the phrase 'Click farms' [1]. Apparently there are many businesses where facebook users can purchase 'likes' to bolster support for their page. The workers for these sites are often paid very low wages[2]. The 'click farms' are often in developing countries and particularly in Asia.

To be blunt, I think is buying facebook 'likes' to boost the popularity of it's articles.

I know the evidence I've presented is circumstantial but maybe it would be wise if your collective could investigate this further before using this facebook page as a reliable source for proving your group's successes.

EJamesW 17:14, 26 January 2015 (EST)

A few points:
1. FFAF did NOT share Conservapedia's main atheism article. Yet, the CP's main atheism article has 25 Google Plus likes, 4,122 Facebook likes, and 343 Twitter tweets. And all of these social media likes/tweets were unsolicited.
2. I already covered the issue of Facebook advertising and the issue of it bringing some unwanted likes to your web page, etc. I was told by a friend of mine that FFAF does a lot of Facebook advertising so it is understandable that they would receive some unwanted Faceboook like. In addition, I am not sure if they do Facebook advertising in countries outside the USA. Wit that being said, I am really not a big fan of Facebook. I like YouTube much better. I like the business plan of YouTube much better than Facebook too and just saw an interesting video on this topic HERE.
3. FFAF is just a portion of the traffic to CP's atheism articles. I/we just like seeing some immediate feedback (their fans' comments about the CP atheism articles) to my/our new atheism articles that FFAF chooses to share with their fans. For example, FFAF shared my/our "Atheism statistics" article on the their Facebook page and it got 1,337 Facebook likes, 39 comments, and 93 shares. Personally, I like reading the comments and appreciate the 93 Facebook shares the article got. I really don't care about the Facebook likes. I just mentioned the Facebook likes for fun.
At the same time, the newly created CP atheism article called "Atheism statistics" currently has 1,623 Facebook likes and 2 Twitter tweets so far. So if you do the math you have 1,623 total Facebook likes minus 1,337 FFAF Facebook likes equals 286 Facebook likes not received from the FFAF source. So where did those extra 286 Facebook likes come from? Well, I believe most of them came from a Christian or Christians at Facebook who like my articles and share them with others.
4. If you don't think my articles are having an impact, I am fine with that. If you do, that is fine too. I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep over it either way and I/we am/are quite content. In fact, I actually prefer the opposition to underestimate me/us. :) As Sun Tzu said, 卑则骄之 and 知彼知己,百戰不殆;不知彼而知己,一勝一負;不知彼,不知己,每戰必殆 And of course, he also said, 微乎微乎,至于无形;神乎神乎,至于无声;故能为敌之司命。  :) I hope that clarifies things! :) Conservative 18:20, 26 January 2015 (EST)
By the way, will the "atheism and statistics" article be shared via YouTube Christians and amongst Christian bloggers? Stay tuned for further developments! Unless of course, it is done clandestinely! 此(译注:用间)兵之要,三军之所恃而动也。  :) Conservative 18:42, 26 January 2015 (EST)

Hello user:conservative. All I'm saying is that this your group should avoid citing this facebook page - as a success indicator for your articles. I'm glad you've conceded it uses 'underhand' techniques to boost support for the posts it makes. Why don't you make your own facebook page instead? EJamesW 18:40, 26 January 2015 (EST)

As far as it using so-called "underhanded" methods, I conceded no such thing. Did you watch this video or are you just spouting off without being knowledgeable about this matter? I have been told that FFAF is largely supported by a foundation with considerable resources. I would guess that they would have to submit reports on their operating expenses (Facebook adverting, etc) and a foundation would not pay for click farm fees. The bottom line is that legitimate Facebook advertisers will have some unwanted likes from click farmers.
I think you are wasting my time about this matter at this point. Feel free to engage in last wordism. :) Conservative 18:52, 26 January 2015 (EST)

Suggestion for fixing line height

There is a fix here for fixing line height of refs, which is a noticeable visual flaw on pages right now:

--Joshua Zambrano 19:25, 25 January 2015 (EST)

Joshua, the owner of the website is User:Aschlafly. I suggest contacting him via his user talk page about this matter. Also, give him a link to a wiki that uses this extension so he can see the results of employing this extension. Conservative 02:11, 26 January 2015 (EST)
I know. :) I've already made dozens of pages on Conservapedia.[3] I've just been away for a while. --Joshua Zambrano 04:22, 26 January 2015 (EST)
About a year and a half or so to be specific. I tend to do a ton of editing all at once in a short amount of time, but when active I get a lot accomplished. [4] --Joshua Zambrano 04:26, 26 January 2015 (EST)

Patriots football-deflating scandal

What exactly is Conservapedia claiming credit for correctly predicting on Main Page Right here?---eg

Personal tools