Talk:Main Page/archive2

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Okay, there we go

Thank goodness... 47 Kilobytes was getting kind of atrocious to load. If anyone has any complaints about the archive, do not revert. Discuss here, then revert. GofG ||| Talk 22:19, 11 March 2007 (EDT) http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Recentchanges

Statistics update

Since technically one can get the data off Alexa pretty quickly... one might want to correct the facts on the main page. Conservapedia is now #2. Old facts aren't good facts --Ronnyreg 00:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

The Star link needs to be fixed or removed

The link to Talk:Canada newspaper has several problems:

  • It's a link to a talk page for an article, not an article, which means there's no reasonable place to put discussion about the that content, or the article whose talk page it's using (hence this comment, here)
  • The text is horribly misleading. The newspaper / Web article in question makes several critical remarks about Conservapedia, but none of them bear on the topics mentioned here. Ayn Rand, for example, is mentioned only very late in the article, and only once in connection with Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, not Conservapedia.
  • The plug for contacting the paper is awfully self-serving, and doesn't help Conservapedia's image any.
  • There are no resonses in this to the actual meat of the article.

Hope this helps. -Harmil 03:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

New layout

Not… Wikipedia… not… *collapses* Geekman314(contact me) 22:26, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Wait… it just changed… how odd. Geekman314(contact me) 22:27, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
It's back… ow… take it away… Geekman314(contact me) 13:27, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
As amusing as these episodes are... what are you talking about? --Sid 3050 15:02, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
For some odd reason, Monobook seems to be changing between the standard Mediawiki layout and an odd, un-Wikipedia-like layout with the tools that are normally listed at the top of the page placed in the sidebar.-- Geekman314(contact me) 16:41, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
How and by whom it is decided to permanently make an article uneditable?--Anikitos 14:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
It's decided by any member of the Admin group on the fly. Officially, all currently locked articles (excluding special pages) were locked because of massive vandalism. In reality, that only applies to some articles, if any. Articles are locked when the Creationist/Conservative bias is in danger. There are several examples where attempts at balance or simply the correction of facts in articles has led to locks and reverts. Some of these articles stay frozen in their bizarre state, others become pet projects of certain admins. --Sid 3050 15:11, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Well this is just sad then. It reminds me of 1984 by Orwell - redefine reality by the select few. Why not then only allow a conservative to become an editor of any level. I assume that members of Admin group are all conservative. This site is like a mirror image of wikiality. Wikiality does not take itself seriously, conservapedia takes itself extremely seriously, wikiality is a parody, conservapedia is sadly not, although most articles in both are equally ridiculous. Articles can be locked in both, one has a heavy liberal bias, another has conservative one. Colbert plays a conservative pundit, Andrew Schlafly pretends to be mainstream.

Sad, I propose for all liberals to just leave this site and let it implode on itself. With all the bias posted, it will not ever become a legitimate source of information. Liberals only contribute either another point of view which is not welcome, or some misguided souls create pranks. I bet their time would be used better at wikiality to pun this whole thing with unicorns and polar bears, or at wikipedia to refine its content. I bet that the conservapedia's claim of an incredible growth is fueled by all the posts started by liberals and just people trying to create a non biased articles, which are in turn transformed into a some form of conservative bias. Dude - out. --Aramis 23:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

(unindent) keep in mind that 45% of the U.S. population believes the Earth to be less than 14,000 years old. --Hojimachongtalk 23:34, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

The threat on the top of the main page should probably be removed. If anything, it has acted like a magnet for vandals, and presents the web site in a negative tone. Just something along the lines of 'The webs site is accessed by people under 16. All articles and content must abide by the Convervapedia rules.' Todd 12:54 15, March 2007.

Posting of pictures in Conservapedia

I double-checked a courtcase called Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., case citation 36 F. Supp. 2d 191, which stated that copies of images in the public domain could not be protected by copyright because the copies are not original or lack originality. User:Cracker brought up a possible problem that I might have had regarding copyright matter, and it concerns an image of a page from a Gutenburg Bible, for the Bible article. In my opinion, I believe Conservapedia is covered in this matter, due to:

  • the image being made prior to 1923, in accordance with US copyright laws;
  • the image falling within the "life of the creator plus 100 years"
  • the afore-mentioned court file Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.

This topic is also good for discussion. What say you? Karajou 22:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I think you're a genius!!! Your case citation is amazing. Your analysis above is exactly right. Your entry on the Bible is a phenomenal masterpiece. THANK YOU.
Karajou, I'm going to your talk page to comment further.--Aschlafly 17:20, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Sysop Privileges

Hello, everyone,

I am new to this web site, but have made hundreds of contributions to other wiki sites. There is one thing I am not clear on, how do you achieve sysop privileges? Most other wiki sites have set rules on how this happens, and I would like them clarified here. Thanks! --Zachsend me a message 01:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Sandbox

Might it be a good idea to add a sandbox to this site? I don't see one and its great for people new to the wiki markup. They can experiment, just no innappropriate experiments. --Zachsend me a message 15:48, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

There is a Sandbox, but it's currently quasi-orphaned (only link to it comes from Conservapedia Talk#Sandbox, which was a question about the existence of a Sandbox, too). Might be a good idea to link to it from a more prominent spot. --Sid 3050 16:14, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Wikicommons

Does Conservapedia have links to Wikicommons, or is it the property of Wikipedia? Karajou 19:21, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't know, but I'd like to learn more. Thanks.--Aschlafly 19:22, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
I just read it. Wikicommons and Wikipedia are part of the Wikimedia Foundation. Is it possible to use image files from Wikicommons over here, provided such files are clearly marked as being public domain? Karajou 22:32, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Images hosted on the Wikimedia Commons should all be tagged as to their status. Images tagged as PD should be examined very carefully. Sometimes that status is used loosely in the "I give this away," sense. There is substantial contention that copyright law doesn't actually provide a mechanism to perform this sort of release. In fact, Wikipedia has already dealt with this. In general, I would suggest that images and other media from the commons be used by Conservapedia a) when they are PD because of their age or government ownership b) once Conservapedia chooses a specific license and such images are compatible with said license. -Harmil 14:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm going to work on a page which is essentially a "how-to" blurb on writing a good article, and when it comes to pictures I'm going to see about various templates that one could use when uploading and posting images. Give it a few days. Karajou 16:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
It's Wikimedia Commons, not Wikicommons. Geekman314(contact me) 16:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Bible Verse of the day?

I suggest a Bible verse of the day on the main page. CEinhorn 19:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Maybe just words of wisdom in general. --John 19:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I mocked one up here, tell me what you think. Feel free to change colors, margins, etc. --Hojimachongtalk 19:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
I like it! CEinhorn 20:04, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
I am against this idea. We are conservapedia, not christianopedia, and while those overlap in many areas, they are not mutually inclusive. GofG ||| Talk 21:30, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Same here. I'm a Christian, I acknowledge that this site gives "full credit to Christianity" (whatever that means), and I know that this site apparently sees the Bible as a 100% accurate source for science, history and moral guidance, but a Bible Verse of the Day would go too far. Let's not make it TOO easy for critics to make fun of this site. It's bad enough that things like "six times more liberal" and articles like Faith and Kangaroo made international news, no need to give people more ammo. --Sid 3050 21:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
I like the idea too. The problem I have faced, and I cited such in a published letter in the Nashville Tennessean newspaper two years ago, was that liberals are the most intolerant, hypocritical, hate-filled people I have had the mis-pleasure of crossing. You read it in the papers every day: they attack somebody carrying a Bible; they are vehemently opposed to anyone trying to stop the killing of an unborn child; they bash America on a regular basis; they rant about how evil oil companies are, but have no problem going to a gas station to fill up their own cars; and just an hour ago the Bible article was trashed by one...and when I saw the man's "contribs" list, every article he vandalized was of a conservative person or subject. So, my suggestion, kangaroos not withstanding, is to make this website better with each passing day, including adding that daily Bible verse, if for all intents and purposes to be a thorn in the side of those who simply never liked us to begin with. Karajou 22:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Liberals aren't intolerant, hypocritical, and hate-filled. They simply don't like it when a website pops up with incorrect information completely biased towards a stance which in many cases is incorrect. Conservatives on this website seem much less tolerant than anyone I've ever met, and definately the most hypocritical.
Who says the info here is incorrect? If it's not, we'll correct it. Just not to your version.
Not to my version because I'm liberal no doubt.
"they are vehemently opposed to anyone trying to stop the killing of an unborn child"
Probably because the "unborn child" is really a less than six-week old embryo which by definition is not a living thing, and they did not intend to have a child in the first place. Get in the 21st Century.
And what is your own excuse for not being aborted? Is it because your own mother said you had a right to live? Don't explain your answer to me...explain it to God. I'm sure He'll understand.
Because my parents wanted to have me, and I was not an accident. Also, before six-weeks I wasn't living, so I doubt I would care (being non-existant) or god would care (also being non-existant in my opinion) if I was aborted or not. I don't have the right to live, I have the privelage.
"they bash America on a regular basis"
Incorrect again, they bash the American government - generally because Bush is one of the stupidest men alive, and has no useful contribution to the world. Oh, and attacking Iraq for oil.
Well, if you're smarter than Bush, by all means run for president. And attacking Iraq for oil? Show me from Iraqi sources that we now control the oil.
Oh how I wish I could, but I live in Canada, generally you must be a U.S. citizen. Even you're smarter than Bush. Hard to believe, I know. Oh...and you don't control the oil yet because well...let's face it...the war isn't going so great.
"they rant about how evil oil companies are"
How aren't they? They make billions, and billions, and billions of dollars by ripping the consumers off. The only up-side is that it will become too expensive to use oil, and we will be forced to finally convert to clean fuels which do not burn holes in the atmosphere. Why don't we use them yet? Oil companies pay them off to stop production.
I'd love to see sources from this allegation, I really do. Especially the receipts from the oil barons to the guys keeping quiet.
Nobody's keeping quiet, where have you been the past few years? Recently there was an incident where oil prices were actually at a several-year low, yet the prices were an all-time high. Tell me how that makes any logical sense. Oh, and you might not know this, but the richest men in the world are living in the middle-east with huge mansions and tons of exotic cars because they own oil companies.
"but have no problem going to a gas station to fill up their own cars"
Public transit is often not an option depending on location. Electric cars are very uncommon, as are places to recharge them. Even more-so are hydrogen cars. If the Oil companies let the transition happen, and started getting into these other industries, I'm sure everyone would be more than happy to not destroy the Earth or pay ridiculously high prices.
Hates the oil guys so much, but refuses to stop buying their products. Either walk to work or be a hypocrite.
I explained that, moron. Maybe read the entire thing next time. I would LOVE to drive a hydrogen car or electric car, yet I have not seen a single hydrogen station, or electric car recharger anywhere. Think through your arguments next time bud.
"every article he vandalized was of a conservative person or subject"
Probably because they were extremely biased like most articles on this website.
No it wasn't, and if you bothered to click on the history tab of the subject in question, you'd see the childish, hate-filled evidence for yourself.
Hate-filled is such a strong word. Perhaps annoyed because of the biases, but not hate-filled.
Every person I know (Conservative AND Liberal, Non-Christian AND Christian, and from many different nationalities) finds this website to be an absolute joke. I (and they) cannot believe that some people can take these articles seriously. --ALFa 02:18, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Typical of the liberal establishment...excuse anything, deny everything. And ALFa is wrong on every count. Karajou 15:05, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Are you blind or just stupid? I said every person I know, including conservatives and christians, from many nationalies, find this a complete joke. How does that have anything to do with liberal establishment if they all have different views? Oh...and look at this...I spy with my little eye....a hipocrit. You're denying everything I say (and leaving out points to suit your needs just like this website), and then you say I'm wrong on every count. Huh. Seems you're very similar to me, yet you're criticising me. Go figure. --ALFa 01:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
I didn't deny everything you said, because it is clear right here that you said it. You also still never bothered to provide your proof about the oil companies and their riches, their shady deals, etc etc. You're also providing more excuses to drive a car and use oil products for your car from the so-called bad guys in the oil business when you could easily toss away the car...but you don't want to do that. And of course I'm criticising you; your whole blurb here, on talk pages, your own user page is one criticism after another of myself, my fellow conservatives, and the content of this site. You need to take a time out in the corner. Karajou 10:29, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I like the idea. PhilipB 22:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Another vote for this. It's a great idea! --Ashens 04:43, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm with GofG and Sid3050, I don't think it's a good idea. I say work on the content of the existing articles before worrying about extras to be added to the site. Jrssr5 08:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Same here, one can be conservative without being christian. let's be a little open-minded. Menkatron 13:40, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
I like John's "words of wisdom" idea; of course Bibilcal verses could be included in this, but it doesn't resrict us solely to the Bible. --Hojimachongtalk 23:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

If there's a Bible verse of the day, I want an Athiest quote of the day and/or Agnostic quote of the day, and other religion's quotes of the day as well, including Satanism. They are all legitimate religions.--ALFa 16:33, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Let’s just have “words of wisdom in general”? I lived in a place once where the people of the town changed the name of a festival that had been taking place for over one hundred years because they were now afraid of offending some. They changed the name from “A Christmas Festival” to “Festival in December.” Your comment just happened to remind me of that. Take it for what its worth. “A bible verse would go too far”…….really?........how far is that? Let’s not use bible verses on this web page, that would “make it too easy” for others to poke fun at us. Grab a backbone! You don’t hide from what is right just because others might tease you. You don’t set aside that which you do, that which you say or that which you believe for any reason. “Worrying about extras”………..let me put it simply; Jesus Christ was no “extra”. “Conservative with out being Christian”….with this belief, what is it that you are being conservative about? It was my understanding that we sailed over here so many years ago and gave birth to this new nation so that we could be Christians. It was my understanding that our founding fathers were the ones that proclaimed that this nation was to be a nation created and built on the fundamental beliefs of Christianity. One thing a Christian dislikes is another Christian that picks and chooses only that part of the bible that best suits their own needs. “Words of wisdom”, I think this is a wonderful idea. There is nothing wrong with having “words of wisdom,” how else are we to grow. But lets not exclude the very foundation from which most words of wisdom were birthed. How often do you believe our founding fathers read the bible? I guarantee that it was most likely more than you or I. I’d further bet that the vast majority of what they did was done only after heavy consideration to what the bible had to say about the situations at hand. “Atheists” and or “Satanism”, we are Conservatives, and in my opinion to give voice to an Atheistic or Satanistic point of veiw would be going against the grain of the foundation of being a Conservative. I say lets have a daily word of wisdom, and I say lets have a daily bible verse and in doing so lets conserve the very reason why this nation is even alive.--Constitution 20:15, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia is supposed to correct bias, right? Well if you have a bible verse of the day, how is that not biased against the many, many, many different religions in existence? Do you know what Satanism is? It's not even a bad thing like most christians believe. Satanism is knowing yourself, knowing your body, knowing nature, being peaceful. Not worshipping the devil and sacrificing animals or anything crazy. It's a legitimate religion. I'm a Liberal Athiest, not a Conservative like you said in your "we" generalization. This is supposed to be an unbiased site, but that seems to be going down the drain pretty quickly. I don't believe there's a god, and there should be no reason for you to discriminate against me - well...if you're unbiased that is. But apparently you think Christianity is the one and only religion, the "true" religion - what if you're wrong? What if there is a god, but...that happens to be Buddha? What if the greeks were right and there were many gods, the main one being Zeus? They had ancient texts too, and I fail to see how the Bible is any different from any other text written for any other religion. Don't be ignorant. Words of Wisdom would undoubtedly come from the bible anyway, so don't falsify what it really is. --ALFa 02:18, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

“Conservapedia is supposed to correct bias, right?” ALFa, if this is correct then I do apologize, I am in the wrong place. I thought Conservapedia was a website aimed to deliver Conservative views. By being Conservative I thought that we were to be the modern day protectors of the views set forth by our founding fathers. I thought that by being a Conservative that I was agreeing with the views on which this country was built and that I was pledging to do my part in insuring that those views continue to be upheld. Perhaps this is my over romantic misunderstanding. So far as my knowing about Satanisim, after reading your rendition, I must say that I am totally ignorant of it as you have described something much more wonderful than I had imagined it to be. Perhaps I need to read more. Thank you for the education however, and once again I find myself apologizing. So far as Satanisim being a religion, I must completely agree with you that it is. This may come as a surprise to you ALFa, I personally have little use for religion. Religions are man made institutions developed through selective interpretations of the bible or other historical documents. However, I do not knock others for their religious beliefs at all. People choose to believe in which ever style they choose, and I completely respect that. I don’t agree, obviously, but I do respect people in their choice. Personally I do believe Jesus Christ is the son of God. I do belive that he died for our sins and that on the third day he ascended into heaven. True, a day will come when each of us will see what lays ahead. I will keep you in my prayers ALFa. Oh, and to my not being “ignorant”, once again I do appreciate the stunning education you have spent the time to pass on to me. – Constitution 21:51 16 March 2007

Well the front page states that it is trying to correct liberal bias. If that is true, then this site is a joke. If it is meant to be completely biased towards conservatives, I'll leave, since it's all correct in its opinions in that case. I do not knock others religious beliefs either. That is, unless they can be proven wrong scientifically, and they argue against even the possiblity of this, or if they force their beliefs on me. Both of these are what have me arguing not against the christian views in these articles, but the creationist views in every article. That would not be a problem at all, however they are stated as fact, not opinion, and any attempt to edit and correct this bias is reverted. I personally do not believe in god, as you can tell, but I do not care if people believe in god or believe in something completely different. Just please do not try and force this on me as fact, and do not criticise my beliefs because I am non-religious. If this was the method in which this website worked, I would say best of luck to you, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

Well... looks like it has been decided... *points at Main Page* --Sid 3050 18:47, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Public domain pics

Click on this site:[1] It's the gallery from the Library of Congress, and it's very easy to tell if the pic shown there is copyrighted: if you can't see it, it's copyrighted. Easy! Karajou 20:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Looks great! However, one note of caution: if you can see it, it's not necessarily public domain. For example, some pictures say "Rights status not evaluated", I suppose that means that they don't know themselves. The site itself is not very clear about permissions and maybe a bit overcautious. The following link [2] provides some more information on copyright status of pictures in that collection. It's along read, unfortunately. PaulB 10:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
On this particular site, the ones that are copyrighted are available for purchase...they are the ones covered up. The remainder are considered public domain, but as you hinted, we should take the time out to determine that fact before we use them. Karajou 12:38, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
I would urge extreme caution in working under the assumption that everything in the Library of Congress is avaialble. A quick glance suggests they cannot give or deny publication rights "As a publicly supported institution the Library generally does not own rights to material in its collections. Therefore, it does not charge permission fees for use of such material and cannot give or deny permission to publish or otherwise distribute material in its collections." Unless you specifically know that the image is in the public domain or have purchased reproduction rights, it is safest not to use these images. --Mtur 20:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
I agree. Common sence still applies when we post pictures here; it is our responsibility to ensure each picture is authorized...and it doesn't hurt to ask! Karajou 21:23, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Articles to be improved

(Originally posted on Geo's talk page, but he seems to be busy) Why don't you just link directly to the category from the main page via Articles to be improved? Would make more sense than pointing at a placeholder article that is in the category for no reason... (Addition to original request: And when you do so, delete the placeholder article) --Sid 3050 10:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

More or less done. When I tried to place [[Category:Articles_needing_major_improvement|Articles to be improved]] it would destroy the link and screw up the page for some reason. Thus the link leads to a redirect. ColinR 00:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Ah yes, good call with the redirect. For future reference, you link to categories with [[:Category:Name]], not with [[Category:Name]]. The colon before "Category" makes all the difference between linking to a category and including the current page in it. So you'd have to replace the main page link with [[:Category:Articles_needing_major_improvement|Articles to be improved]]. I used the same to exclude "Articles to be improved" from the category it redirects to, so further edits to the main page are not really needed (even though it would be cleaner since it would lets us delete the redundant article - but I doubt that the server will collapse from the one additional page =P). --Sid 3050 23:34, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Pot and Kettle

My problem with Conservapedia is not that it exists, because it has every right to and more, but why complain about liberal bias on Wikipedia, then create a site that is completely Republican/Conservative biased? Sounds like the pot is calling the kettle black to me.

--Anikitos 14:42, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Liberal infiltration

I find more and more edits that show scant regard for either Christianity or America [3]. This site seems to have been inflitrated by liberals pushing their agenda. JC 12:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Sounds like someone is afraid of something. The first criteria ought to be, is the information accurate? Menkatron 13:41, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
I am all for truthiness, as long as it is conservative in nature--Anikitos 14:42, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Truth cannot have a "nature". Truth is not a variable. Truth will remain truth without any regard to political views. So if liberals are writing the truth on pages, and you don't like it. Then there must be a problem with your thinking, since the truth can not be altered.--ALFa 17:33, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Well NPOV is important on here, if not it would be breaking it's own rules. This site has rules against things un-American. The First Amendment is one of the things that makes America what it is. To deny this, is un-American.--JamesLipton 16:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm for accuracy at every point of the article subject. Whomever writes on a particular subject, get your sources together first and write as well as you can. Karajou 09:17, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Secret Revelations

I am a top-level administrator on one of the several non-English versions of Wikipedia. I can confirm that your concerns on severe liberal bias are indeed correct, as they have dogged Wikipedia from the very beginning of the project.
As a conservative, it felt that it was tougher in getting an admin position. As such, I have dedicated over 80 000 edits in removing all forms of bias against Western and Eastern civilization. Also, I made it easier for people to get to know christianity.
Several left-wing associations seem to influence on the organization of Wikipedia. Groups of freeware developers, members of the rationalist zetetique, libertarians in general, European socialists and American democrats, even anarchists, communists and freemasons seem to have a greater hold than the average conservative editor.


Specify "Freeware developer". The last sentence shows how you see the world.... --Stitch75 11:28, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
To deliver us from the utter control of sects, I am very pleased that you have begun the Conservapedia project. My prayer goes out to your very best success. Knight

Writing a Good Article

I did this page in order to have a set of guidelines here when someone wants to do an article in Conservapedia. It is suggested that it be linked to the main page, with it being locked after it has been polished and edited for additional content. Karajou 18:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Nice article, although it would also be nice to have some official clear policy on whether articles are supposed to be neutral, have a "conservative bias" or what? Also if articles are just for an American or for a global audience. JamesK 18:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
For now, it's just a "how-to" on writing an article. Karajou 19:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

There is no objectivity here

I joined this site thinking it was a real place for objectivity and truth. Instead, I have found that it is intended as a haven for fundamentalist Christian viewpoints to go unchallenged, to hide them from the "searching light of criticism," commentary, or just from other people's opinions with whom the founders disagree. I can only assume that this is because fundamentalist Christian viewpoints, like young earth creationism, cannot survive strict scrutiny from the outside world, and therefore need to be protected.

This goal of stifling criticism makes me ashamed to have participated on this page. Nothing ever gets better without being exposed to dissent, to challenges, and to opposing points of view. Insofar as this site fails to recognize this, it will also fail to foster a viewpoint that is a valuable and useful contribution to the American experiment. In fact, it will fail to be American at all.--AmesG 01:38, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Your liberal scientific method POV might find more sympathy here.
JC 06:08, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

A long time ago, God told both Adam and Eve not to eat from a certain tree, or they will die. And just like you, AmesG, Satan went against everything God was for and questioned whether or not God actually said that (Gen 3). Conservapedia editors want the truth and the facts here, and all you want to do is challenge it, dissent from it, and oppose it, just like you said. Wikipedia is down the road from here, so I suggest if you don't like facts, their door is open. Karajou 08:53, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Challenge and dissent makes everything better. If we didn't challenge our status quo, America would never have been founded.--AmesG 11:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
As long as the challenge and dissent makes it RIGHT as opposed to WRONG; there is a big difference between the two. Karajou 12:34, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Ah, you mean as long as the challenge and dissent agree with what you think, don't you?--Dave3172 12:35, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
I mean exactly what I said, not your version of what you think I said. Karajou 12:39, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
I know. All I did was make what you meant clear to everybody.--Dave3172 12:47, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I love how the theory of evolution page gets locked and then the person in charge of putting stuff into it also locks his page in order to better ignore any conflicting views. Very unbiased. good job. -Gasmonkey

Yeah, he's pretty bat**** crazy. I guess if your beliefs are weak and can't stand up to the challenge, you just have to hide them.--AmesG 12:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)


First thing I'd like to point out is: yay for stating the obvious. This site is as biased as it would be if it were named liberapedia. That's a part of the site. What bugs me more is the information posted. I did a quick search of the obvious historical figures: Hitler, and then Reagan. It is important to note that Hitler, the man who commited genocide and killed 6 million ppl during the Holocaust, in addition to starting WWII, can be seen as a more important historical figure, not only internationally, but also for his affect to America, then Reagan. Sure, Reagan may have helped bring about the end of the USSR, and been a good president, but his historical effect is not as large as Hitler's. Hitlers site has 3 paragraphs, Reagan several pages. How odd....

Reagan's effect on the world was positive; Hitler's was negative. 'Nuff said. Karajou 22:15, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Obscenity in not nice

but this seems a little anti-American...

Minors under 16 years use this site.

   * Posting of obscenity here is punishable by up to 10 years in jail under 18 USC § 1470.

what happened to free speech?

The 1st amendment actually doesn't protect obscenity. ColinR 16:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Well, that's not exactly true, otherwise none of us would be reading Ulysses today. --Dave3172 16:11, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
If children want to see obscenity, they can easily find it. Hiding obscenity will not stop it from being a problem, it simply slows down progress. Also the word Obscene is very ambiguous and is completely relative. Anybody can see anything as obscene. Heck, why don't we start burning books?--JamesLipton 16:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Obscene has been defined by the Supreme Court. I don't remember the exact definition, but I'm sure it can be found online. ColinR 16:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Protecting obscenities is pointless, I mean, the article S - E - X (sorry, wouldn't want to offend anyone) isn't allowed despite it being completely natural and common? That's a ridiculous amount of censorship, and seeing as the entire site is like that, it shows how biased it is.--ALFa 16:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Sound's like someone want's to turn this site into a free-for-all...like Wikipedia enjoys now. Karajou 18:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
I find that protecting all entries which have a possible obscene meaning is not a reasonable measure. How would you talk about STDs - one bad side effect of promiscuity - in an objective way if you are not allowed to make articles about related things. Studies show that the number of unwanted pregnancies among teenagers can be reduced by giving them an objective education about topics you protected from writing. If you like you can even add a reference to the Bible, where something is discussed. Also the bible was censored before giving it to young girls in the medieval ages in Europe, because it was considered to be to obscene Stitch75.
I find Conservapedia is more of a free-for-all right now than Wikipedia, mainly because there's SO much bias, that liberals, non-christians, non-creationists, and non-americans get angry and vandalize. Maybe if this site had legitimate content, it would be less prone to such things. Wikipedia is far better managed, and is nowhere near a free-for-all. But yes, if I posted an article on a female dog, it would probably get taken down, ridiculous. --ALFa 02:00, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

New Users

Why are new users given instant editing privileges? If there was a lag between the time an account was created, and when they were allowed to edit articles, it would probably curb a lot of the drive-by vandalism. Maybe eight hours to a day. --Todd 4:19, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

This is a wiki powered site, I do not believe there is a wiki site on the entire internet that has not been vandalized.--JamesLipton 16:26, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Indeed, but there is no need to hand people a can of spray paint. By putting a minor speed-bump in the path, you could probably discourage a large number of would be vandals without turning away people who actually want to contribute. --Todd 18:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Legal question

Minors under 16 years use this site.
  • Posting of obscenity here is punishable by up to 10 years in jail under 18 USC § 1470.
  • Vandalism is punishable up to 10 years in jail per 18 USC § 1030. We will trace your IP address and give it to authorities if necessary.

This should be modified, as the legislation cited does not apply outside the United States. Either that, or editing access should be limited to Americans. I also feel the last sentence is completely unnecessary and verges on being a threat. Besides, for most users, all the IP address would be is the gateway from their ISP to the net; you'd need a court order to get the provider's internal network IP address which would identify a specific customer. Niwrad 16:37, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, and I would like to see this "vandalism" be taken on by a court. Hah. --Nipwid 18:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
I hardly think the 'powers that be' are worried too much about what countries the legislation apply to. I mean, it's not as if this sham of an enyclopedia is here to discuss anything outside of America. --Dark Comet 01:00, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Not only does this legislation not apply outside of America; it doesn't apply to this situation, America or anywhere. If I write a dirty word in an article, to which minor am I transmitting obscene material? Ah yes, a hypothetical one. Hypotheticals do very well in court. Not to mention the definition of obscenity we are using (keep in mind what those laws were actually designed for). Not to mention the vast wealth of legal problems brought up by the statement "we will trace your IP address." Conservapedia should take that down before they get themselves in trouble. Thanks, --Ralph 01:41, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Wonder how they'll get around proxies, too. --ALFa 01:56, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
I am also concerned about the image that this disclaimer conveys to visitors. The first thing the see is this disclaimer and threat, while they haven even enterd the site yet. If your family-friendly restaurant would greet you with a similar disclaimer at the front door, it won't be in business for long. This disclaimer gives a bad impression of this project, and is at the same time an encouragement for the vandal. --Order 10:25, March 2007 (AEST)
No doubt, the threat needs to go for a variety of reasons. Who has editing access to make that change? Todd 7:30, 16, March 2007 (EDT)

Putting that sign up there speaks volumes of how vandalisable Conservapedia is, simply because it isn't objective, factual or even well-written. I'd like to contribute to improve it, but I see that notice as a step backwards since it immediately gives the place a tone of "we spend most of our time reverting vandalism, not writing quality content". Mark 11.45, 18 March 2007 (GMT)

Tone

I have noticed a lot of unencyclopedic tone in almost every article I have read. Please try to write in proper tone and avoid using contractions. I am doing what I can to fix this problem, but everyone must do their part. --Wikidan81 16:39, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Featured article

Other wikis have a featured article on their mainpage which is changed daily or less so often. I think that this would be a good idea here as well. We could have a featured article and update it once every few days and once this wiki gets bigger, we can update it daily. Thoughts?Patton 16:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

How can you get featured articles when none of them can be edited by anyone anyway? Dallas 23:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

First, we should try to get some articles up to featured article standard... none of them are, yet XD. --Hojimachongtalk 23:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Nomenclature

We need to establish a set system for how to create entries for people. I suggest sticking with the standard Last, First and just add a redirect from the First Last to the correct page. Any thoughts? ColinR 17:21, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

We have been doing First Last. change ane Last, First to First Last. --TimSvendsen 19:00, 15 March 2007 (EDT)





--Renaissancefan98 20:26, 15 March 2007 (EDT)== Change the legal statement. ==

Minors under 16 years use this site. Posting of obscenity here is punishable by up to 10 years in jail under 18 USC § 1470. Vandalism is punishable up to 10 years in jail per 18 USC § 1030. We will trace your IP address and give it to authorities if necessary.




Shouldn't the person receive a Warning the first time they do it then the second time,they should be banned, Because i think People should be given a chance to change or correct their behavior.


BTW the posting system seems to be bugged, because my post appeared below the other persons.

I think it may be bandwidth concerns, I wonder how the server(s) are hukt up to the net? One would think at LEAST a T2 line. --Crackertalk 23:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Seems to be server overload rather than bandwidth. Static pages load fine but edits are slow and sometimes give errors. JamesK 23:51, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm an Attorney

And you cannot threaten people with ten years imprisonment for either obscenity on the internet or "vandalism" on the internet. Well, you can actually threaten them, but not do anything about it. --Ralph 01:33, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

AND THE DISCLAIMERS PAGE IS BLANK????? WHO ARE YOU KIDDING?? --Ralph 01:46, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

In the store where I once worked there were signs clearly posted that we could not change the $100 bill, but when an individual came in and demanded to do it, he threatened me with the line "I'm an attorney!". I threw him out anyway. The point is, we have rules here, and we expect anyone and everyone to follow them. Those that can't get tossed out the door; those that want to destroy, we can legally go after them. Karajou 11:12, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
This is an archive so no one will see it anyway but there's a problem with your argument. It is every vendor's right whether or not to accept certain forms of tender. A vendor is within their rights to not break a $100 bill. Conservapedia is within their rights to ban any one, any time, for any reason. Whether or not a crime is being commited however is up to interpretation. Myk 13:33, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Problem

A lot of pages in Conservapedia are blank and protected, like Sex, Penis, and Vagina on the justification that Conservapedia must be family-friendly. My question is, shouldn't you censor the Bible then, because what about Song of Solomon and many of the moral laws of the Old Testament. Why are these allowed to be discussed and read by young readers, but not on Conservapedia? Are we better than the Bible? -- Whatis 02:27, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

This whole issue kinda reminds me of this Bash.org quote (Warnings: Linked page contains the words "*ss" and "d*mn". Site in general contains definitely not family-friendly material) --Sid 3050 11:15, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Modern connotation of such words has become vulgar, as opposed to, say, the 1850's. We have to think of what are the standard norms for the present, and we have to think of the fact that a lot of children are coming into this channel. One could very well say "well, the internet has porn sites which children can get into" and so on, but we're all going to think...NOT THIS SITE. We're not going to have what a normal man or woman would consider filth. Whatever it is they don't want their child to see, it won't be here. Karajou 11:20, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
But now the children will have to learn about sex from the liberally-biased Wikipedia! Isn't that worse than telling them the truth? I'd rather my son read on Conversapedia some small information about the p**** instead of finding nothing here, going to Wikipedia, and learning that he should use it all the time. --ReaganLives 11:42, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Vandalism

Is vandalism really punishable in jail? It doesn't really strike me as a national or state offense (although I'm really irritated with all the vandals on this site). Scorpionman 09:38, 16 March 2007 (EDT)


Vandalism getting out of control

Can we restrict sign ups again. vandalism is getting out of control for UK based entries. --AustinM 10:33, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I've removed my own reply to an upset "user" who chose to use foul language because he couldn't edit Conservapedia his way. That's sad. Karajou 12:27, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Threats of prosecuting over Vandalism are false

Sorry, but no, vandalism is not illegal on this website under 18 USC § 1030. To summarize the legalese:
a.1: obtaining information off a protected computer
a.2: accessing a computer without authorization to obtain information
a.3: accessing a computer used exclusively for the Government of the United States
a.4: defrauding and as a result obtaining anything of value
a.5.A.I: transmitting information that knowingly causes damage to a protected computer
a.5.A.II: intentionally accesses a computer to recklessly cause damage
a.5.A.III: intentionally accesses a computer to cause damage
AND NECESSARILY AS A RESULT CAUSES something in a.5.B (for all of a.5.A)
a.5.B.I: causing someone to lose at least $5000
a.5.B.II: affecting someone's medical care
a.5.B.III: physically hurting someone
a.5.B.IV: threatening public health
a.5.B.V: damaging a computer using by or for a government agency "in its furtherance of the administration of justice"
a.6: password phishing ONLY if used for interstate/foreign commerce or by the Government
a.7: extorting money.
b->: people who violate above will be punished by the rules in section c.
c->: the punishments
d->: who the investigators will be
e->: terms and definitions
f->: "above rules don't apply to state department"
g->: if the above happens to you, you can take civil action
(summarized from http://www.conservapedia.com/18_USC_%C2%A7_1030)


So either there is a better piece of legislation than the afforementioned 18 USC § 1030 or this is just to scare you, because I do not see anything that applies to making posts on a free, non-government sponsored website that isn't being used to do anything but freely exchange information.
GTA10477 3:15, 16 March 2007 (EDT)


How about starting over?

What if this project just started from scratch? Here are some benefits as I see them.

  • We could start out with a better idea of our goals. Making sure everything is organized from the start. Rather than posting a lot of text, and trying to organize it later.
  • We could start with better technology in place to prevent and detect spam. Therefore eliminating all the current spam and slowing down all future spam.

I think Conservapedia definitely has the user base to be able to do it, and since it is still relatively young and all.
--Ymmotrojam 10:56, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Picture problem

When I tried uploading several images, I get error codes stating it couldn't be done, and when I am actually successful, the page it's intended for (in this case, Bible) won't load it. Any suggestions? Karajou 15:43, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Personal tools