Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia:Contact Us"

Revision as of 18:56, December 28, 2009

Taking AP Biology

Hello, I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but... I am a student in public high school, and am taking AP Biology. I have just learned that Evolution is an entire chapter in the course. Would it be moral for me to learn evolution without believeing it just to pass the test? Or should I drop the course? (This would be very time consuming and difficult)- David —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DavidKondner (talk)

Nothing immoral about learning about evolution at all. Go for it and you will be pleasantly surprised to learn what evolution is actually like. After all, the majority of people have major misconceptions on what it is which leads to their denial of it. Learning about something from those who support it is always best for learning the truth about the subject, don't limit your understanding of things to just those against it. Riddles 23:30, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

I think Riddle is a very smart man and you should listen to what he has to say. No, you don't need to believe in evolutionism, but how are we suppose to become one peaceful humanity without learning about one another. user:horenvalle 14:01, October 16 2009 (EDT)

Learn a falsehood and pretend it's true, and more falsehoods, confusion, depression and errors will follow. Realize that atheists must believe in evolution despite its falsehood and you'll immediately see why they push, and push, and push it in public schools.--Andy Schlafly 22:56, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

"Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never peril. Sun Tzu"

If there's only a chapter on evolution in your course, I'd be amazed. Any non-creationist course on biology is likely to be evolution-centric. After all, if one won't accept special creation, it's the only game in town! Just keep in mind the difference between science (testable, repeatable) and just-so stories ("This feature arose because ..."). Here are a couple of links you might find useful and encouraging:

• ‘Creation evangelism’ in the public school classroom
• How do I do my assignment about evolution?

You also might want to invest in a copy of Evolution Exposed, a book that breaks down the evolutionary assumptions and explanations, explicit and implicit, and provides both brief answers and directions to finding more information on line.

In short, you need to know what the evolutionists teach, even if you know it's wrong. ~ Webster (talk) 15:53, 24 October 2009 (EDT)

better learn the material. College consists of a lot of required courses you have to take but don't have to believe. RJJensen 01:05, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

All the examples of such requirements consist of learning and reciting anti-Christian beliefs. I'm not aware of any colleges or AP tests that require learning a Christian belief to obtain basic credits.

Try homeschooling David, or try a college that does not require recitation of evolutionary beliefs.--Andy Schlafly 01:12, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

Unable to edit?

I would like to post the following to the Jesse Helms article after "Foreign Policy" but am locked out. I don't know why. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BertSchlossberg (talk)

Editing is often turned off overnight (U.S. time), which may have been your problem, although that means that you shouldn't have been able to post here, so unless it was turned back on in the meantime, I can't explain it. Would you like to try it again? Philip J. Rayment 08:47, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Right. The Jesse Helms entry is not locked.--Aschlafly 09:06, 19 December 2007 (EST)

When only part of an article is accepted

I recently posted an entry, F-105 Thunderchief, and included a references section and a category, but in the final article, neither section shows up, although they are clearly present when the "Edit" button is clicked. Just now, this happened again with another entry I tried to make. What gives? Does the site only accept so much information in a new entry? --Frey 17:58, 27 February 2008 (EST)

You had a bad <ref> tag which I have fixed. BrianCo 18:02, 27 February 2008 (EST)

I did? Oopsie. And thanks.--Frey 18:09, 27 February 2008 (EST)

KAL 007 article on Main page

I would like to propose having the article Korean Airlines Flight 007 as a featured article on the Main page. Thanks.BertSchlossberg 15:32, 1 March 2008 (EST) (finally got it right!)

I'd like to review it in detail and hear what others think about it. On its surface, without yet studying it, it appears to be a major work. Congratulations!--Aschlafly 15:58, 1 March 2008 (EST)

There's a page for listing proposed featured articles. Philip J. Rayment 17:52, 1 March 2008 (EST)

To Kill The Child/Leaving Beirut

I just wrote an exteremly long and extensive artical about these two songs. Then, when I went to save the page, it said that it did not save it because there was a quote in their to explain about the song that contained a profanity. What gives? I thought that this website was supposed to educate people, yet people cannot be educated if they cannot know what the artical is talking about and what the proof is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Std (talk)

We have a profanity filter for good reason, but sometimes exceptions need to be made. You haven't supplied enough information for us to judge if this warrants an exception. Philip J. Rayment 22:47, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

What exactly are the exeptions that would get me the warrent?

How do you upload an image?

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

You have to ask an administrator. There was a problem with people uploading obscene materials. HenryS 00:42, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

An exception would be warranted if, for example, the word caught by the filter was not objectionable in the context. Philip J. Rayment 02:57, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Can anyone do an article on Cong. Larry McDonald, a passenger aboard KAL 007?BertSchlossberg 07:01, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

Proposal

I wrote some time ago about making plans to build Conservapedia into a force to be reckoned with. This site has the potential to become a powerful tool, but still has a ways to go, I think. As an example, I just did a search on ACORN, a group funded by leftist billionaire George Soros that is becoming a very serious threat to the integrity of local elections. All I found was a one-line page about the oak tree. Of course the solution to this is to simply create the page myself. But I don't think this solves the larger issue; to my knowledge, there isn't a program of incentives inviting conservatives to contribute high-quality information and research articles on our opposition. How do we do this?

For one, I take it that Conservapedia gets some heavy traffic. Heavy traffic = $$$ in potential advertising revenue. Use that money to attract the right people to help build Conservapedia into a powerhouse of information. This could include rewards for college students, or hired admins (background checked with references and resume, of course). Perhaps contact county or state Republican/conservative groups, show what you've done, and propose a team effort to get more people to contribute articles to the web site.

In short, there's a million ways that this project can grow, and it is more important to me that the conservative cause succeeds than to keep these ideas to myself. My hope is that someone reading this will take hold of them... Alexander 17:35, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

My IP address at home appears to have been blocked. Could someone please unblock me? FOIA 15:16, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Bobby R. Himes

I have a photo for the new article Bobby R. Himes. Can I get permission to upload it?Bhathorn 18:24, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

If the picture is on-line (and available for Conservapedia to use, of course), post the address here or click here to e-mail me the link and I can upload it to Conservapedia for you. If it's on your computer, e-mail me via that link anyway and I will reply with my e-mail address for you to e-mail me the picture, so I can then upload it. Philip J. Rayment 23:59, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Banning policy?

Hello, I represent a website interested in your work. However recently a member of ours, JMcClane used your website and edited a page on Obama because it stated he was a Muslim, which it has been proven he isn't, he has been banned for 5 years, care to comment? It was a JPatt who did the banning, would he like to comment too?

JMcClane removed a large amount of material in that article and replaced it with this:

"Obama is regularly mistaken as Islamic due to his second name, in fact he is not Muslim though stands for equality between religions. He is in fact Christian, though rumours were spread by Conservative spin Doctors hoping to turn the public against him."

And who is JMcClane to you? Care to comment on that? Karajou 14:16, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

Beyond the fact that you didn't answer my question mate, we're part of the same website who are interested in the current election in America, you might have heard of it. He became involved in this site and this happened, so I reiterate, gonna answer the question properly?

I did answer your question, "mate", and you're not going to act like you run this place; you will answer mine now. Karajou 14:33, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

As I said, we're part of the same website. I'm sorry about the mate comments, I'm just friendly like that. You've said you banned him cause of the edit, but isn't it kind of harsh as it is proven he's not Muslim so the entire article was pointless. That's all I'd like to know. And 5 years does seem steep.

Which website do you represent? Why are you interested in Conservapedia? Our banning policy is carefully calibrated and appropriate to the demands of the various situations. And sign your posts with four tildes, please; we are not interested in anonymous 'contributions'. Bugler 17:10, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

Google misdirection

In Google Search, the entry for ""Alger Hiss - Conservapedia" was changed today from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Alger_Hiss" to misdirect to the nonexistent Web page "http://www.conservativeencyclopedia.com/wiki/Alger_Hiss." Is there a way to ask Google to restore the correct link? FOIA 13:19, 4 February 2009 (EST)

• Thanks for noticing and reporting this, FOIA, but nothing needs to be done. When we had the hard drive failure, and temporarily re-directed, the search engine bots picked that up. Now that things are restored, the bots will report back to all the search engines, and in due time will be directing properly. The Google (and all other engines) are smart enough to compare and repair. Or so they say. Administrator Conservative might have more insight into this, and I have linked him to this page. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 14:23, 4 February 2009 (EST)
  • For what its worth, Google is pretty much 100% automated. They almost never manually intervene in their search results, and that's generally due to a court or otherwise governmental order. ArthurA 14:38, 4 February 2009 (EST)
    • You mean that they generally only intervene due to court or governmental orders, correct? Npov2 00:56, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

Copyright?

I'd like to comment that File:Kathleen Sebelius.jpg should probably be tagged as “fair use” rather than as “public domain.” Also, I think the description of the {{commons}} template, both in Help:List of Templates and in the template body itself, is slightly misleading: items in Wikimedia Commons are not necessarily in the public domain. Thank you. Npov2 00:56, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

In the News

I'm not sure how to submit suggestions, so I'll post this here: Timothy Larsen, "Look Who's a Believer Now," The Wall Street Journal, May 29, 2009, p. W13. FOIA 10:40, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

Google Gadget?

I understand that google has problems, but has there ever been thought to developing a "Google Gadget" with a conservapedia news feed?Mrguido45 20:59, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

Evolution Feature on the Main Page

The section of the main page devoted to the Evolution article states that, "In 2006, the prestigious science journal Science reported concerning the United States: "The percentage of people in the country who accept the idea of evolution has declined from 45 in 1985 to 40 in 2005. Meanwhile the fraction of Americans unsure about evolution has soared from 7 per cent in 1985 to 21 per cent last year." The study was conducted with 2000 Americans (approximately), selected by pseudo-random digit dialing over the telephone. the study found that the portion of people unsure about evolution has increased in a statistically significant manner. The second finding of the study was that the proportion of people who believe in evolution and creationism have not changed in any statistically significant way (i.e.: That the p-value of the 1985 and 2005 data sets is greater than 0.05 - simply put, that there is not enough detectable difference between the respondents in 1985 and 2005 to make any kind of statement about it). Essentially, the study cited on the main page didn't actually prove that the public belief in evolution is declining. I would request a change to that article to remove the irrelevant citation about a decrease in evolutionary thinking among Americans. Praboud 19:52, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

Referred to as a Methodist

Hi, I am not sure if this is the right location to ask this, but at the bottom of my user page there is a category section that says "Category: Methodist Conservapedians". I didn't place that there and it isn't available for editing out when I look at the editable content for my user page. I only bring this up because I am not a Methodist and I do not wish to mislead anyone into thinking I am. I do not know who added me to this category or why, or somehow if I accidentally did this myself. If possible, may I be added to the "Agnostic conservapedians" category instead? Thank you. -- BMcP 8:42, 20 June 2009 [EDT]

It appears to be because of your userbox "This user believes in the United States Constitution." When I tried putting it on my user page, the Methodist category automatically appeared there as well. --OscarJ 09:02, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

Fixed. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 11:20, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

I might be wrong...

But I do see quite a bit of bias on Conservapedia. If this is supposed to be "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" then shouldn't bias be removed? I think that some of the articles are great and others are blatantly biased based upon the authors moral views. I know that some of the topics go against the beliefs of the people who run this site but it isn't a great way to run things. Tolerance of others and their beliefs, no matter what we think of them, is what Conservapedia should be about. Just my opinion and nothing more.

Just your unsupported opinion and nothing more, you might have said.--Andy Schlafly 21:35, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

I could have, but I figured that people would pick that up from "I might be wrong...". I never had any beliefs that my opinions were supported here, as I had to make an effort to "vocalize" them. Generally people on and off of the internet don't support my opinions.

What I meant was that you made a claim of bias without providing any examples to support your claim.--Andy Schlafly 22:02, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

Ah. [[1]] "Ernesto "Che" Guevara" "became a cultural icon for" "dumb white teenagers." [[2]] "Communism is an atheistic political system" Although extremely hilarious, I think that those articles are somewhat biased and detract from Conservapedia's accountability. I have not seen Wikipedia style hijackings yet though.

Tau ceti to Tau Ceti

I created an article called Tau ceti, but it should be Tau Ceti, is there anyway the name can be reset as the latter? Thank you. -- BMcP 16:00, 24 June 2009 [EDT]

Yes, there is. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 16:17, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

Thanks! -- BMcP 16:22, 24 June 2009 [EDT]

Alger Hiss

I just tried to link to The Encyclopedia of Ukraine at and got this message:

Spam protection filter

The page you wanted to save was blocked by the spam filter. This is probably caused by a link to a blacklisted external site.

The spam filter apparently mistook part of the URL for an obscenity.

Is there any way to fix this? Thanks!FOIA 21:40, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

• You can give the URL without making it a link, so that people can copy and paste the link into their own browser, but I am not inclined to unblock any part of that corner of the world, for pretty obvious reasons. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 21:44, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

Kapteyn's star to Kapteyn's Star

The article I created called Kapteyn's star was created with a lower case s for star, it should be upper case, could someone with the rights change the title to Kapteyn's Star? Thank you. -- BMcP 15:00, 8 July 2009 [EDT]

Double Redirects

All three of the current double redirects are protected. Could a Sysop fix them, please? Thanks. ~ Webster (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2009 (EDT)

I'm having a bit of trouble with some linking

I'm trying to get the "Weather Report" and "Return to Forever" articles to link to jazz fusion. Instead, it's linking me to another jazz fusion article that I accidentally created and was recently deleted. Any help is much appreciated. Jdelong11

Did my change fix this?--Andy Schlafly 13:55, 28 December 2009 (EST)

Username change

Is it possible to change one's username? I haven't decided what I want the new one to be but will let you know when I have.--TedM 13:30, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

If this is possible, I would also be interested in doing so, since I have been recently denuked, and it would be disingenuous to continue with this username. Navy Nuke

Sure, just provide your requested new name here and I'll change it.--Andy Schlafly 08:35, 1 December 2009 (EST)

User Additions to this site

Hi, I'm new here and I'm interested in adding some content to Conservapedia, namely in respect to firearm laws. Just a cursory glace makes me think that users can only edit existing topics? Am I wrong? --LibGunslinger 11:28, Dec 10 2009

You can add new pages if you so desire.--Jpatt 14:32, 10 December 2009 (EST)

Nova

I believe this is right place to ask this, so here I am. I want to write an article on the astronomical phenomenon known as a "Nova", however all search on this site for that word is already directed towards "NOVA", a stub on the PBS series of that name. Should I rebuild that article to focus on the astronomical phenomena as that is what the base definition of a nova means? Or start a whole new article, such as "nova_(star)"? Thanks. --BMcP 13:18, 28 December 2009 (EST)

I'll move "NOVA" to "NOVA (PBS)", and you can then have "Nova". Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 13:56, 28 December 2009 (EST)