Conservapedia:Community Portal

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Patmac (Talk | contribs) at 12:45, 3 June 2013. It may differ significantly from current revision.

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

Archive 1

I've put together a blog that applies tenets of the Christian faith to everyday life and our responsibility as citizens. I add a new article every few days and I would love it if you guys could start following and get people to read this. Remember James 2:17- "faith without works is dead." We have to start teaching those who come after us. Here is the link- I don't know how to get this in the News Feed on the main page.

I am an active military officer in my 20s and a combat veteran. It serves me best to keep my identity to myself for now. Below is the link.

http://www.defendingamericanvalues.blogspot.com

Insults

On Dec 16, 2011, I wrote an email to aschlafly@aol.com and conservapedia@zoho.com. No one bothered to answer me, though I asked repeatedly. So, that seems to be an insufficient way of communication, therefore I repeat the text of my email here:

Hi,

I use this way of communication as I want to stay away from public mud-slinging. But I expect that something is done about the tone at Conservapedia. Please have a look at this comment by User:Conservative, directed to me:

http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AMain_Page&action=historysubmit&diff=945748&oldid=945729

Excerpt: I know you are a so called "liberal Christianity" adherent. Face it liberal Christianity is an immoral, heretical and wimpified version of Christianity that tries to turn God into some kind of permissive Santa Clause. The only thing "liberal Christianity" loves more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is gay bathhouses!

I once stated that I'm a member of a mainstream Protestant Church (in fact, the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck) But I'm not liberal, pro-abortion, pro-sodomy or pro-adultery!

It seems to be impossible to get into a productive discussion with User:Conservative: Bullying, intimidating,and outright insulting the target-audience of Conservapedia is nearly always the consequence...

This has been worse enough. But today I read Talk:Essay: Militant atheism and short man's syndrome, where User:Conservative asks: By the way, is your "liberal Christianity" "pastor" a lesbian or sodomite? I fail to see any humor in it and I would expect that such accusations aren't made in a conservative environment.

AugustO 16:11, 1 January 2012 (EST)

Aschlafly, would you please stop to trim my contributions? Ignoring a problem generally doesn't lead to a satisfactory conclusion! AugustO 02:02, 2 January 2012 (EST)

AugustO, I am perfectly willing to apologize if necessary. Let me ask you a few questions for clarification. Is the Protestant denomination you belong to pro-evolution? Does the Protestant denomination you belong to ordain women as pastors? Does the Protestant denomination you belong to marry homosexuals? Is the Protestant denomination you belong to shrinking in membership? While I don't agree with this blog's entire contents, I have a feeling the Protestant denomination you belong to is on this slope and has a significant case of "truth decay". If you could provide additional clarification, it would be appreciated. Conservative 04:39, 2 January 2012 (EST)
  • The EKKW is one of the more conservative Landeskirchen of the EKD.
  • Generally in Germany you don't shop for a church - a relict of cuius regio eius religio. So under the tent of a Landeskirche you will find various, often struggling opinions.
  • All such questions should have been asked before you made your insulting remarks. You insulted my faith and my church without bothering to make the most basic inquiries.
  • I'm not the first one to be treated this way - User:MaxFletcher was insulted similarly.
AugustO 08:20, 2 January 2012 (EST)

AugustO, I have found that liberals are often evasive and don't want to be called liberals. I will ask for further clarification: Do most of the churches in your Protestant denomination you belong to take a pro-evolution stance? Do most of the churches in your Protestant denomination that you belong to ordain women as pastors? Do most of the churches in your Protestant denomination you belong to marry homosexuals? Is the Protestant denomination you belong to shrinking in membership?

I did do some cursory investigation into your denomination's stances (unfortunately the sources in English were very scarce and I could only find Wikipedia as a source) and it appears as if your denomination is generally pro-homosexual marriage, ordains women and the denomination you belong to is shrinking in size (But again, I only have one source and I don't take that source as the gospel truth). Given the cultural landscape of Europe, this does not surprise me if it is true.

Lastly, are you pro-evolution, are you for or against the ordination of women, are you for or against homosexuals being able to marry? Conservative 18:05, 2 January 2012 (EST)

Funny, I found that conservatives are often straightforward and don't want to be called liberals neither. As for the rest of your comment: it may be that the EKD is less to your liking. But I'm fairly sure that almost all of our brothers and sisters in the various Landeskirchen would repelled by your statement that the only thing they love more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is gay bathhouses. What percentage of Christian in the world do you try to alienate?
AugustO 18:51, 2 January 2012 (EST)
You didn't answer my simple questions regarding your views on evolution, ordination of women, an whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry (I should have said by a church) and if your denomination is declining in membership. I conclude therefore that you are not a conservative and you are liberal and that denomination is generally liberal also and declining in membership. There are consequences to rejecting biblical authority and some of them are: an increase in sex outside of a marriage (specifically marriage between a man and a women which is a legitimate marriage), an increase in abortions and a church that is spiritually dying and declining in membership. Generally speaking, churches/individuals that start the process of rejecting biblical authority drift more and more away from biblical authority and become more and more liberal and licentious. While I may have being wrong about the degree of licentiousness within your denomination and if so I apologize, but it does appear as if it is on the decline spiritually, morally and in membership. Conservative 19:23, 2 January 2012 (EST)
Addendum: The Book of Revelation declares: “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: 'These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation. I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.'" Based on your replies, I regrettably have to say that you and many if not all of the churches in your denomination are not hot but are very lukewarm and you and those churches have been spit out. Conservative 19:54, 2 January 2012 (EST)
Personal attacks are unbecoming and unproductive. I would suggest you stop, User:Conservative. You have passed the line from satire to the crude and tawdry--CamilleT 22:40, 2 January 2012 (EST)
Camille, you certainly made quite an allegation there. If you are confident your allegation can withstand scrutiny, I suggest you take it up with the owner of the website. We both know your allegation will be ignored/trimmed though, don't we? Conservative 23:08, 2 January 2012 (EST)
  • User:Conservative, you have made up your mind about my belief, and no simple statement of mine will change this. But that doesn't matter: I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.
  • Your ability to condemn your Christian brothers and sisters (I regrettably have to say that you and many if not all of the churches in your denomination are not hot but are very lukewarm and you and those churches have been spit out. ), while admitting that you have not much information (I did do some cursory investigation ) is truly amazing!
  • A statement like The only thing "liberal Christianity" loves more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is gay bathhouses! is just wrong, insulting, and should be rejected by all Christians. AugustO 02:26, 3 January 2012 (EST)

August, I asked you a few simple questions about biblical beliefs and received no reply as to your positions on these matters. For example, I asked if it is right for a church to marry two homosexuals and you gave no reply. You have given me no reason to believe that you are a bona fide Christian. Jesus warned about wolves in sheep's clothing so I see no reason to believe that every person who professes to be Christian is truly a Christian. There are plenty of cases in history of false/heretical people and sects proclaiming to be Christian when they have radically different beliefs than orthodox forms of Christianity.

For example, consider this: "In 1984, David Jenkins, Anglican Bishop of Durham, described Christ’s resurrection as “a conjuring trick with bones” (“English Bishop Calls Christ’s Resurrection Conjuring Trick,” AP, St. Louis Post Dispatch, Oct. 28, 1984). Jenkins also said, “The Christian is not bound up with freak biology or corpses getting up and walking around” and “You don’t have to believe in the virgin birth.” (On July 9, 1984, three days after Jenkins was consecrated bishop, lightning struck his cathedral and caused extensive damage. A spokesman for the fire brigade said that though the roof was fully wired with lightning rods, none of them worked that morning; the smoke detectors in the ceiling did not go off, even though they were tested only a month before; and there was no thunder accompanying the lightning. EP News Service, Dec. 21, 1984)."[2]

If you were more forthcoming, I might shed my skepticism, but instead you have given me no option but to still retain it. That's your choice. But you have to accept responsibility for the consequences of that choice. Conservative 07:29, 3 January 2012 (EST)

Lieber AugustO hoffe es macht dir nichts aus, wenn ich ihm seine Fragen beantworte (leider nur über Online-Recherche). Falls doch, so entschuldige ich mich und bitte dich meinen Eintrag zu streichen.
@ user:conservative: Since I speak German I checked out the website of the EKKW. This is what I found: Women can be ordained. Homosexuals can not be married. Unfortunately the membership of the EKKW is slightly declining. As for evolution: I could not find any information. As far as I can say, evolution vs. creationism is not that big of a deal in Europe, or at least the German speaking parts. I for one have never seen a discussion about it on TV or in a newspaper. Hope this helped to clarify your questions, so you can go back to the actual argument, which was that AugustO felt insulted by your remarks.
AugustO denk doch auch an Lk. 6.29: Dem, der dich auf die eine Wange schlägt, halt auch die andere hin, und dem, der dir den Mantel wegnimmt, lass auch das Hemd. Herzlich --VPropp 08:25, 3 January 2012 (EST)

@VPropp: Thanks for your contribution! Sorry if I created the impression that I was after a personal apology by User:Conservative. That is somewhat meaningless for me. It is the language I just don't want to encounter in a family-friendly encyclopediay. I would like User:Conservative to stop spouting invectives without (or even) with reason.

Recently I discussed with friends whether it would be a good idea to steer candidates for conformation to Conservapedia, to help them to improve there knowledge of English (and the little they know already on Greek). We agreed that this wouldn't be a good idea:

  • they are more likely to stumble upon articles on homosexuality etc. on Conservapedia than on Wikipedia
  • there is a high probability that they get insulted after a short period of editing
  • frankly, the Popular articles at Conservapedia aren't written that well - and I can detect this though I'm not a native speaker!
  • finally: what should I answer a catechumen if he asks me whether our pastor is a lesbian or sodomite? Or what he loves most, extramarital sex, pro-abortion policies or gay bathhouses?

It is deeply disturbing that User:Conservative can be sure that all such concerns will be ignored/trimmed. AugustO 10:41, 3 January 2012 (EST)

Sorry if I misunderstood you AugustO. I can see your point, why you would not want candidates for confirmation working on Conservapedia. But I have to interject a few things: 1. I think a far bigger problem, language wise are not the active users here, but the vandals, who very often post disgusting things in a disgusting language. 2. Conservapedia is, in my opinion, still far more family friendly than Wikipedia. I strongly discourage you from bringing your confirmation candidates to Wikipedia. In my experience, one of the first things teenagers will look up are the articles on reproductive organs. On Wikipedia those articles are accompanied by, at the very least, borderline pornographic images. There is also a lot of extremely vile language on the talkpages, which is usually not reverted, unlike (with as you pointed out, a few exceptions) on Conservapedia.
If you want to improve their English language skills, there are other playfull methods to do so. For instance: watching English movies, discussing song lyrics, writing essays in English, which you or another member of your congregation could proof read. You can give all of those suggestions a strong Chritian focus rather easily. --VPropp 11:03, 3 January 2012 (EST)
Despite his refusal to answer my simple questions, it is obvious that August belongs to a so called "liberal Christianity" denomination and that they are on the slope and a denomination in moral, spiritual, and numerical decline. It is also equally obvious to anyone who has read Conservapedia's Christian apologetics, evolution, homosexuality and liberal articles that liberal theology is errant. I see no point in wrangling with someone who takes issue with what I am saying, but is unwilling to answer a few simple questions which are a starting point to a fruitful discussion. Conservative 17:46, 3 January 2012 (EST)
Dear user:conservative, I'm hesitant to call the EKKW a "liberal Christianity" denomination. Since I just gathered some infos from their website and you just read a very short article on Wikipedia, I think we should hear AugustO out, since he's the one that frequents this chruch and is thus more qualified to make statements about its principles.
I'm also not quite sure I agree with the blog post you provided about liberal Christianity denomination being "on the slope". While I can see how ordaining homosexuals can bring sexual depravity to a church, I don't see how this is connected with women being ordained. Unfortunately I have also to add that my church has had some history of sexual depravity. Regretfully I have to say, that among those depravities was just the one that was mentioned in the blog post. Is my church now on the slope. Is my church liberal?
I don't think we should judge whole churches based on the errors of a few of its sheep and shepards. I also am a bit disappointed that you refuse to discuss the issue any further with AugustO Sincerely --VPropp 19:12, 3 January 2012 (EST)

The EKKW is perhaps the most conservative church within the EKD. But that doesn't matter - even if I lived a couple of kilometers to the west in an enclave of the EKIR, I should be save from being accused from being a "liberal Christian". Fact is that Protestant churches in Europe generally work in a different way than in the U.S.: you have little choice which church to go to, but this is balanced by a greater spectrum within the membership of a church. And therefore, there often aren't official positions of a church, and rivaling views can be seen within a church (though the idea of "special creation" and especially the idea of a "Young Earth" is a minority position - held by only few people in Europe.)

As I said: this all is irrelevant. I shouldn't read a statement like The only thing "liberal Christianity" loves more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is gay bathhouses in a family-friendly encyclopedia, and I find the various interrogations into my faith - and whether my "liberal Christianity" "pastor" [is] a lesbian or sodomite insulting.

I'm not looking for an apology, I'd like the management of this site (this means User:Aschlafly) to step in and prevent such language. Unfortunately that won't happen - as User:Conservative has observed so smugly.

AugustO 08:10, 4 January 2012 (EST)

August, the EKKW is in spiritual decline and losing members, while Bible believing churches are vibrant and prospering in the world. Maybe you will find someone interested in talking about you and your dying denomination, but it is not going to be me given your stubbornness and unwillingness to have a fruitful conversation. I tried to help you discover the root cause of the problem that you and your church suffer from via some simple questions, but you didn't want to cooperate. When a church or individual starts getting slack about biblical authority and clear teachings within the Bible, church history shows they very often decline and enter into moral decline. The EKKW and EKD is on the slope. I did say that if I overestimated the amount of moral decline at this juncture, my apologies. However, you didn't want to accept my apology. But nonetheless, they are on the slope and in need of repentance. Conservative 10:24, 4 January 2012 (EST)
By the way, I seem to recall that you are the one who picked a fight with me. Then you get mad when I point out the shortcomings of your belief system in return. I wouldn't be surprised if you poke sleeping dogs with sticks in your neighborhood and then complain when you get bitten. I would suggest throwing your stick in the bushes if you can dish it out, but you get angry when criticism is directed towards your errant beliefs which you obviously cannot defend. Conservative 10:47, 4 January 2012 (EST)
  • August, the EKKW is in spiritual decline and losing members, while Bible believing churches are vibrant and prospering in the world. Show me some examples Bible believing churches in Germany - I would be surprised if their vibrancy and prosperity reaches the degree of my church though she is in spiritual decline. I assume that your Bible believing churches are as energetic as the Question Evolution campaign!.
  • Maybe you will find someone interested in talking about you and your dying denomination, but it is not going to be me given your stubbornness and unwillingness to have a fruitful conversation. It was you who asked about my denomination, so I assumed that you have some interest in it.
  • I tried to help you discover the root cause of the problem that you and your church suffer from via some simple questions, but you didn't want to cooperate. Sorry, but I don't trust your remote diagnosis.
  • When a church or individual starts getting slack about biblical authority and clear teachings within the Bible, church history shows they very often decline and enter into moral decline. Another hidden attack against my church - and me...
  • The EKKW and EKD is on the slope. You obviously aren't well informed. That's generally not a problem, as long as you don't offer advice.
  • I did say that if I overestimated the amount of moral decline at this juncture, my apologies. However, you didn't want to accept my apology. Of course, I would accept an apology. I just don't expect one. And I'm right: this isn't an apology, it's just another insult.
  • But nonetheless, they are on the slope and in need of repentance. Again, you gave no reason for having confidence in your remote diagnosis.
  • By the way, I seem to recall that you are the one who picked a fight with me. I didn't pick a fight with you, I criticized one of your statements: see here
  • Then you get mad when I point out the shortcomings of your belief system in return. I got mad because you aren't able to stay on the subject. Try to differ between the debate and the debaters - a good argument should be valid without judging the person who makes it.
  • I wouldn't be surprised if you poke sleeping dogs with sticks in your neighborhood and then complain when you get bitten. Sorry, not my sport.
  • I would suggest throwing your stick in the bushes if you can dish it out, but you get angry when criticism is directed towards your errant beliefs which you obviously cannot defend. *LOL*
So, let's summarize: my church and I are in moral decline, I adhere to errant beliefs, and my pastor has to be a lesbian or a sodomite. And the whole reason for this conclusion: I don't share your beliefs on Young Earth Creationism and you have read something on wikipedia about the EKKW.
Don't you see that this is quite ridiculous? AugustO 11:23, 4 January 2012 (EST)
I'm intrigued by all this about "liberal" Christianity versus "Bible-believing" churches. User:Conservative, which denominations do you consider to be "liberal"? What about the Church of England, for example? Are you saying that these aren't true Christians? How many "true" Christians would you estimate that there are worldwide? Which do you consider more pressing: evangelising to "liberal" Christians, or to atheists?--CPalmer 12:05, 4 January 2012 (EST)
CPalmer, there are a lot of denominations and I don't pretend to know all of their doctrinal beliefs nor do I want to take the time to do the requisite research. Plus, there are a lot of non-denomination churches and churches which are split between conservatives and liberals. For example, as far as the Anglicans it is well known there is a struggle going on between Bible believing Anglicans and liberal Anglicans and the flash point in recent times has been the homosexuality issue. Third, it is well known that moderate/liberal churches are losing members in the West and conservative, Bible believing churches are seeing growth. There have been numerous books/articles about this matter and this has been happening for decades. As far as evangelizing, a general principle is that Jesus said to preach to those who had ears to hear and to move on and shake the dust off your feet for heavily resistant populations. But that is a general principle, an atheist who just hit rock bottom might be open so you have to be Spirit led. I think prevention is far more effective when it comes to something like atheism as atheists tend to be very resistant to the gospel. On the other hand, if very tough economic times hit I think the atheist population could see big declines. Men do tend to arrogant when wealthy and tend to be more humble when experiencing economic problems. Next, I don't care to speculate on the amount of bona fide Christians in the world as I am not done a significant amount of research in terms of the current Christian population. I am encouraged though as Bible believing churches have seen significant growth worldwide and they appear to be the fastest growing faith in the world. Here is what I do know: 1) The Apostle Paul said to examine yourself and see if you are a member of the faith. 2) In the Book of Revelation a church body was warned that they were lukewarm and were about to be spit out of Christ's mouth. In addition, the Bible says God rewards those who diligently seek Him. However, information on Christianity is publicly available and church bodies do issue statements of faith, so if you are very interested in this matter, I am sure you can find out estimates of the amount of Bible believing Christians in the world. Conservative 17:01, 4 January 2012 (EST)
Just as I suspected! It appears the reason why August0 fired the first shot in this small series of exchanges is that he is upset about the Question evolution! campaign. I can see why since once it hits Germany, God willing, it will no doubt further accelerate his declining denomination's membership should they decide to be recalcitrant and continue to flout biblical authority. Given Germany's population relative to the European population, it wouldn't be surprised if the members of this young social movement have plans concerning Germany. Since evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer the questions, it would certainly be interesting to watch creationist throw spanners into the machinery of German evolutionary indoctrination. Spanner is a word for wrench with Germanic roots. :) Oh, look HERE, it seems as though Question Evolution! Germany preparations have started! :) I wonder when Germany will see waves of biblical creation material sweep across their land! :) Conservative 19:38, 4 January 2012 (EST)

I don't know what gave you the impression that the reason I fired the first shot in this small series of exchanges is that he is upset about the Question evolution! campaign - I criticized two sentences in which you described how to debate atheists, namely:

  • Bring down the banhammer early and often at Christian/creationist forums and wikis when it comes to these types of atheists/evolutionists. It's fun and entertaining! Mr. Militant, Rude and Ignorant Atheist/Evolutionists, don't get sassy with me! Bam! You're out of here! and
  • Never read more than a few words or sentences of inane and socially challenged atheist/evolutionist comments before deleting them

I think that these ideas don't help to have a fruitful dialog. AFAIK, you elaborated these ideas at first without mentioning Question Evolution!, though you published them on the blog of the campaign.

My position to the campaign: I'll judge it by its fruits. And as you stated here, this gives me ample time... At the moment, I'm reminded of the Hornberger Schiessen.

AugustO 20:07, 4 January 2012 (EST)

Did I publish "them"? Secondly, where in the New Testament does it say to have dialogues with rude and militant people? Didn't Jesus talk about not casting pearls before swine and shaking the dust off your feet? Am I missing something? Lastly, I am still not impressed with the fruits of your declining denomination and I have noticed your silence on the issue of marrying homosexuals in the church and other matters. Conservative 20:53, 4 January 2012 (EST)
AugustO, some Flickr user by the username "atheism" has a rather unique picture relative to criticizing Darwinism. User: Atheism also has pictures taken in Germany in his/her photostream as can be seen HERE and HERE. Do you think the creationist "User: Atheism" has been to Germany? Do you think User: Atheism knows fellow creationists in Germany? There may be some Bible believing churches in Germany. If so, I would guess there is a good chance they are growing. Conservative 21:27, 4 January 2012 (EST)
  • Am I missing something? Yes, the point: whether you were convinced by my arguments is secondary, the statement August0 fired the first shot in this small series of exchanges is that he is upset about the Question evolution! campaign is just not true.
  • Do you think the creationist "User: Atheism" has been to Germany? And to Greece, the Netherlands and France. Looks like a guided tour - the probability that he could engage some people living there in a discussion on creationism is fairly small.
  • If so, I would guess there is a good chance they are growing. One of the main problems with your arguments - you take your guesses as something to bolster your convictions!
AugustO 03:16, 5 January 2012 (EST)
It does appear as if you didn't take a poke at me and merely criticized my approach. I do stand by my approach as far as dealing with militant atheists who are rude though. Second, because I had limited information about your church in Germany at the time of my initial comments, I do think I should have had a more measured response at the time and I assumed too much. Given that my atheism, evolution and homosexuality articles have factual content which is upsetting to liberals, I do get my share of attacks, but I needn't have a hair trigger in terms of letting someone have it with both barrels which is what happened in your case. However, given that it appears as if your denomination appears to flout what the Bible says about homosexuality and other issues and is losing membership, it does appear as if it is in need of repentance. Conservative 03:40, 5 January 2012 (EST)
  • It does appear as if you didn't take a poke at me and merely criticized my approach. Indeed.
  • I do stand by my approach as far as dealing with militant atheists who are rude though. Your prerogative. But it won't strengthen your position, doesn't help to evolve debating skills, and can be often seem to be overly defensive. BTW, how to you deal with rude Christians?
  • Second, because I had limited information about your church in Germany at the time of my initial comments, I do think I should have had a more measured response at the time and I assumed too much. Yes, you should have had a more measured response - but not only because of your lack of knowledge! Before writing sentences like The only thing "liberal Christianity" loves more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is gay bathhouses! you should ask yourself whether this is something you want to read in a family-friendly environment.
  • Given that my atheism, evolution and homosexuality articles have factual content which is upsetting to liberals, I do get my share of attacks, but I needn't have a hair trigger in terms of letting someone have it with both barrels which is what happened in your case. Especially under attack you should try to show the superiority of your position by levelheaded responses.
  • However, given that it appears as if your denomination appears to flout what the Bible says about homosexuality and other issues and is losing membership, it does appear as if it is in need of repentance. A non sequitur. Yes, not all is well in the EKD, and even not in the EKKW. And I'm generally willing to discuss the problems, though I don't see any benefit in doing so with you: it would put to much strain on you to make yourself acquainted with the situation so that you can provide fruitful advice. Generalities and tautologies are easy to come by.

As a conclusion from my experiences: when asking about the religious beliefs of somebody, you should be as polite as possible, as this is a sensitive area. And even if you think that your interlocutor isn't honest about his beliefs, you shouldn't insult him - as you may alienate those readers who share his pretended belief.

Not spouting vitriol against anyone who doesn't share your beliefs completely doesn't make you lukewarm.

AugustO 17:53, 6 January 2012 (EST)

AugustO, as far as the issue of dealing with a difficult people: our recent discussion, other events and material I read recently, has caused me to rethink matters and make some beneficial changes.Conservative 05:58, 8 January 2012 (EST)
Conservative, you seem a bit obsessed with gay bathhouses, gay marriage, and homosexuality in general...is there something that you would like to share with the class? --RudrickBoucher 09:26, 9 January 2012 (EST)

Deletion of debate aboute 15 questions

User:Conservative deleted Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists. and stated as the reason for this action ‎if you want to keep deleting my posts to this debate page fine - bye page!

This comment strikes me as a little juvenile, especially for an administrator (I'll take my ball and go home), therefore I created Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists. The debate is important, as the 15 questions are featured all over Conservapedia and not showing the attempts to answer them could lead to accusations of censorship.

To avoid further tit-for-tat, I try to get a moderated debate.

AugustO 08:17, 12 January 2012 (EST)

It is interesting that he justified deleting it based on the fact that his repeated comments (calling me a "shyster") were deleted. It seems that these are the 15 questions that no biologist ("evolutionist" is a rather empty neologism) is allowed to answer...--RudrickBoucher 21:28, 12 January 2012 (EST)

90/10 block of Rudrick Boucher

User:RudrickBoucher was blocked for two years for breaking the 90/10 rule. As he is a first-time offender this seems to be an extraordinary long ban - and therefore smacks of ideological censorship.

AugustO 03:15, 14 January 2012 (EST)

I do find the 90/10 rule a bit of a strange one. Considering how so many articles here are protected, in many cases for no apparent reason it seems, and how the Conservapedia:Editing etiquette encourages a cautious approach to editing with an emphasis on discussing changes first, the best contributor could be someone who actually violates the 90/10 rule, because they are careful to ensure there is agreement about the change they want to make or simply that they can't edit the article due to protection. Then of course there are the debate pages which are clearly venues for people to talk about issues. The ratio of talk page to article edits alone is a very poor measure of the value of a contributor. It does seem one rule that can easily be abused. Adambro 08:14, 14 January 2012 (EST)

Page protect requests

What is the point of getting a page protect request granted from the site owner so editors can work collaboratively on a sub page, only to have the site owners action undone and opening of a key article to vandals and revert wars? Does the unlocking sysop's action encourage collaborative editing by good faith users, forcing them to waste their time that could be used contributing content, rather than revert warring with trolls? What recourse do good faith editors have for sysop actions from sysops that are incommunicado? Rob Smith 17:05, 28 January 2012 (EST)

We should be nicer

After seeing all the ranting and harsh words to Liberals, Democrats, and Conservative users that are trying to fix something that's wrong (that category includes me), I want to share 2 Bible passages:

 1 John 3:11-15 NIV

11 For this is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another. 12 Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous. 13 Do not be surprised, my brothers and sisters, if the world hates you. 14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death. 15 Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him.

 Proverbs 15:1

1 A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

-JonnyAmerican 10:23, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

Libertarians

I noticed that the rules of conservapedia state the libertarian views are considered "conservative". Presumably, this would apply to economic issues only as their views on social issues are typically quite liberal. I don't have a problem with this, seeing as I am a libertarian myself and have essentially agreed to disagree on the social stuff and focus on the economic stuff. But, since we allow libertarians, who are fiscally conservative/socially liberal, would we allow groups like Peronists, who are fiscally liberal/socially conservative? I forget the link where I saw libertarians specifically mentioned as allowed, but I'll try to find it. Gregkochuconn 09:33, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

Mediawiki features

Wondering if these features are implemented here:

  • <categorytree>
  • page transclusion, e.g.:
Template:Wikiproject:Ex-gay movement/Members

Thanks, LJoseph 00:44, 12 May 2012 (EDT)

Requesting well-written response

Having recently found the wikipedia page Religiosity and intelligence, I found myself in the strange situation of not knowing where to look for another perspective. Clearly they misinterpret the results of the few studies cited, but it would be very interesting to see if any studies provide different results or at least discuss the accuracy of the cited studies. It would be great to see an article Religiosity and intelligence on Conservapedia to provide a rebuttal to the other wiki. -- Jehoshaphat 00:20, 9 August 2012 (EDT)

Clearly there is a link. Newton was a devout Christian and look what he achieved!! Whether the link is causative or merely correlative is hard to say. On the one hand God is likely to look with favour on his adherents, but on the other it may be that intelligent people are just more likely to believe in God. I am not aware of any biblical references that will help you with your research, but others may be able to assist. --DamianJohn 07:14, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
see: Atheism and intelligence. I hope that helps. Conservative 03:37, 7 September 2012 (EDT)

Proposed update to Mediawiki 1.18.x

This is a redux of User:Conservative's suggestion to update Mediawiki to version 1.18.x (where x is any release version that is stable). His rational for this is to allow support for Extension:Wikilog (a wiki blogging device), and to update the php script used to create titles (so AT&T shows up instead of AT%20T in search, etc).

Pros

  • I agree, as it will also allow for the installation of various extensions, that I find are incredibly useful on a wiki community, such as VandalBrake (a extension that slows down vandals significantly, but still lets them lodge complaints, etc [The original link is apparently blacklisted: rhymes with nationalpikcy]), the WIGO extension, by Nx again, and even core reversion deletion. The update itself is a simple, clicking proccess that ASchafly could spend a matter of minutes configuring.brenden 00:10, 25 September 2012 (EDT)

Cons

Vote

This is not open for voting yet

question

I'm pretty sure that on wikipedia there is the ability to see the number of page views, does this website allow you to do anything similar? Cmurphynz 08:59, 4 October 2012 (EDT)

Yes. Please look at the very bottom of each page in the white "margin". Also please look at Special:PopularPages, which gives a sorted list. Wschact 09:05, 4 October 2012 (EDT)

Editor retention

Do we have any statistics on editor retention? I know that the Special:Statistics page says that 719 people have edited in the past 91 days, but I suspect that this includes spammers and sockpuppets who are promptly blocked. What is the current size of our editor corps? What can we do to retain more editors or to recognize and reward editors for their service?

Wikipedia has a "Wikimania" conference. Has CP considered a face-to-face event to encourage comraderie among our volunteers? Thanks, Wschact 11:58, 16 November 2012 (EST)

Main Page proposal

Currently only two editors control most of the content for the main page. Rather than promote the great content of Conservapedia, the main page promotes off-wiki content. Obvious suggestions, such as noting the passing of Senator Daniel Inouye, do not receive serious consideration. Other proposals have been ignored. I have just proposed on Talk:Main Page that we establish a three person committee to filter and edit main page items. If there is a disagreement about an item, they can vote to decide the issue. Because this would be a lot of day-to-day work, I propose that people would serve on the committee for 9 months, with staggared terms. So, every calendar quarter, the membership of the Committee would be different. People would volunteer and Andy would select among the volunteers. Nobody would be selected to serve a second time until all volunteers had a chance to serve once. I would welcome the thoughts of others on this plan. Thanks, Wschact 09:15, 18 December 2012 (EST)

Please leave your comments here. Thanks, Wschact 14:14, 20 December 2012 (EST)

Conservative Hypocrisy (Please read FULLY before judging/deleting/blocking

I know I'm new here and that my opinions have already run counter to a few of the more senior users here; however I'd like to reiterate how much I respect the work you're doing and my desire to help make this site a respected alternative to wikipedia. Now, onto the point of this post. One of the biggest and most frequent complaints I've seen on this site in my time here, first just as a read and now as an editor, seems to have been the lack of a Conservative Hypocrisy page. Now, I know that this has been a very unpopular topic, but I also think it's a large enough issue to require addressing if we want to be taken seriously by the center/undecided population in the political, social and religious aspects of society. The true conservatives already agree with what is being presented on this site and will no matter what, we need to gain acceptance from those who are not already on our side in order to expand. Now, does gaining that acceptance mean we have to weaken our stances or compromise our beliefs? Not in the least. I merely suggest that it means we need to be honest and open about all of the truth, not just the parts we like. So, if anyone is still reading with an open mind at this point, here my suggestion for a Conservative Hypocrisy page. We already have pages on RINOs, PLINOs and XINOs as well as personal biography pages on public figures who claim to be conservative while demonstrating the complete opposite through their actions. Like it or not, these are all examples (to my understanding of the definition of the word hypocrisy) of Conservative Hypocrisy. As far as I can tell, I'm going about making this suggestion in the right way and in the right place, but I'll be the first to admit that I'm no expert on wiki-etiquette, so please feel free to move it to the proper place and let me know if I've made a mistake. Thank you for your time and I hope to hear some feedback in the near future, Fnarrow 11:19, 7 April 2013 (EDT)

I find it very hard to believe that no one has any opinion on this so I'm assuming it just got missed... I'll give it 24 more hours and if there's still no objection or comment I'm going to start working on drafting a Conservative Hypocrisy page according to the outline I described above. Fnarrow 23:18, 8 April 2013 (EDT)
You can write a page concerning the abandonment of conservative principles by some, but the answer is no for a "conservative hypocrisy" page. This was attempted by trolls and thugs several years ago when they tried to force their way on the site, and it won't be allowed now. Karajou 00:02, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
I think you missed my point while actually making my point for me at the same time... I haven't been here long, yet I've already seen the trolls and thugs repeatedly bring it up and attempt vandalization through the fact that the page doesn't exist. If we make the page, present the facts and admit while that conservatives as a whole are not perfect, we are still much better than the alternatives, we take that power away from them. Please reread my initial post, take some time to contemplate 1 John 1:10 and/or Romans 3:23 and then if you still believe we should not publicly admit the shortcomings of some of our conservative brothers and sisters in order to make this site a more accepted and viable alternative to wikipedia, then I'll drop the subject. Thanks, Fnarrow 00:54, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
The answer is still no. Karajou 01:11, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
Thank you for being open minded enough to give my suggestion a full 17 minutes and 5 words worth of your time. As promised, I won't bring it up again. Sincerely, Fnarrow 10:02, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

Moving / renaming pages

Please could someone explain how to rename pages on CP so as to preserve the editing history. I know it can be done on WP but I guess it isn't done the same way on CP. (I know it can be done on WP because I couldn't figure out how to do it on CP, so I looked up how to do it on WP, then I saw that their method doesn't apply to CP - a button is missing or something.) I want to do this because I've been studying British History at school and I want to change the names of pages about their Prime Ministers to those that people would recognise, e.g. Marquess of Rockingham instead of Charles Wentworth-Watson, Duke of Portland instead of William Cavendish-Bentinck, etc. This would make CP easier to use for studying British History. Thanks to anyone who can help me here. StaceyT 17:06, 13 April 2013 (EDT)

Is any sysop monitoring this page? If so, please could you answer my question. StaceyT 20:35, 10 May 2013 (EDT)

over 12 hours of not being able to edit

I posted this problem last week elsewhere and never received a response, just as I received no response from the email I sent when it happened the week before that... So I guess I'll try it here. From 10am to 1030pm (Eastern Time) I was unable to edit any page on this site, including my own user and user:talk pages. It occurred suddenly while I was removing dead end pages and according to my "block records" I have never been blocked, yet this is at least the 4th time it has happened. Can someone please explain this to me? Thanks, Fnarrow 22:56, 22 April 2013 (EDT)

Public notice to evolutionists - 6/1/2013

The Sherman tank(s), also known as User: Conservative :), is/are not going to be bogged down in the talk page hedgerows fighting pointless, low priority battles with insincere, evolutionist posers who are too afraid to debate the creationist VivaYehshua (the biology major at a university) on the 15 questions for evolutionists. See: VivaYehshua.

I/we hear the pings of your sniper fire in the recent changes log of CP, but your rifle fire is having no effect! I/we are not bogged down!

Do not get you hopes up that I/we will be checking the Community Portal frequently or at all. I/we reserve the right to read the Community Portal or post in the Community Portal whenever I/we are so inclined. :) Conservative 15:58, 1 June 2013 (EDT)

News from a Question evolution campaign blog: On June 3, 2013, VivaYehshua said he was pleased that evolutionist were afraid to debate him via a debate offer that has repeatedly been given to evolutionists.[3]
VivaYehshua's ability to make evolutionists quake in their boots (especially Fergus Mason) is becoming more widely known.[4] :)Conservative 04:00, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

QuestyCaptcha

I noticed that in the RC, there's been a large amount of spammers. Perhaps implementing QuestyCaptcha, a system that uses questions that Mr. Schlafly chooses, could stem the onslaught. It works excellently at my wiki. brenden 21:10, 1 June 2013 (EDT)

VivaYehshua vs. Fergus Mason. VivaYehshua won hands down and effortlessly

When the agnostic and evolutionist Fergus Mason agreed to debate VivaYehshua (who is a creationist and a biology major at a university) and then reneged on the debate, he intellectually decapitated himself as a Darwinist.[1]

Mr. Mason, anytime you want your head back, just agree to debate VivaYehshua and actually carry through with the debate this time. Unless of course, you are still a quivering bowl of jelly! Conservative 10:23, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

Haha, all the evolutionists I have ever met are like this, they run away from fights at every chance. RowanO 11:12, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

It has been agreed that debating this person is not a reason for being blocked, I think your hatred is a valid reason for a block, you are a coward and a bully. I am seriously considering reporting user:Conservative to UK immigration and having him declared "Persona non Grata" in the UK--Patmac 11:22, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

Patmac, you are an endless source of amusement! How many people do you think go by the name of User: Conservative on their passports when entering the UK. :) Second, Fergus Mason agreed to debate VivaYehshua. Now all he has to do to remove his stain of intellectual weakness, cowardice and dishonor is carry through on his promise and debate VivaYehshua. Unless of course, Fergus is afraid of being soundly thrashed in a debate and having the debate widely distributed. :) Conservative 12:15, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

Yes you are right Mr Ken D****** from a city named after a large bovine from the state that contains the US's largest city, I doubt there are many with your name in this city. You need to be more careful in concealing your identity.--Patmac 12:38, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

However, if you appologise to myself and fellow moderate Christians I will drop this matter--Patmac 12:45, 3 June 2013 (EDT)