SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1,545:
Line 1,545: − Line 1,598:
Line 1,597: + + Line 1,610:
Line 1,611: + + + + + + + + + +
autoconfirm
If I don't respond to messages you post to me, it is probably because I am attending to offline matters. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 01:53, 27 May 2016 (EDT)
If I don't respond to messages you post to me, it is probably because I am attending to offline matters. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 01:53, 27 May 2016 (EDT)
==Article "Two"==
==Article "Two"==
::::I should have been more clear--you're right of course, RW is not as a whole working to attack us. However, there are some hints that on and off-site attacks have been made by people either from or in support of RW. For example, this [https://profiles.google.com/schlafly.andrew/about phony Google profile] links to RW as a source of information on Mr. Schlafly. Anyway, I still agree that membership of RW alone should not be a ban reason on CP.
::::I should have been more clear--you're right of course, RW is not as a whole working to attack us. However, there are some hints that on and off-site attacks have been made by people either from or in support of RW. For example, this [https://profiles.google.com/schlafly.andrew/about phony Google profile] links to RW as a source of information on Mr. Schlafly. Anyway, I still agree that membership of RW alone should not be a ban reason on CP.
::::Until next time, take care! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 01:07, 20 June 2016 (EDT)
::::Until next time, take care! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 01:07, 20 June 2016 (EDT)
:::Well, there's no denying that Conservapedia is ridiculed all over the internet, a situation that makes it difficult and discouraging to work here. A quick survey found 8000 hits for articles about CP's relativity presentation, 97% of which were mocking. See [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Community_Portal/Archive_1#Two_millionth_page_view_for_the_.22Counterexamples_to_Relativity.22_page]]. Many (but probably not most) of those people know about, or are somehow connected to, RW, including the authors of that Google profile. But that's not vandalism; it's external ridicule, and there's really no way to stop it.
== re: "Atheism and rocking chairs" article idea you had ==
== re: "Atheism and rocking chairs" article idea you had ==
I understand that one of the first permission groups members are placed in that of "[[Conservapedia:Autoconfirmed_users|Autoconfirmed users]]" I've never understood what they mean by autoconfirmed, but given your vast knowledge of CP, it occurred to me you might know. Are you aware of that qualifies someone to be "confirmend" in this manner? In other words, does it actually mean anything, or does it just mean that their account has been successfully created? I know I've seem some pages protected from users who are not autoconfiremd. Does this do anything substantive?<br />
I understand that one of the first permission groups members are placed in that of "[[Conservapedia:Autoconfirmed_users|Autoconfirmed users]]" I've never understood what they mean by autoconfirmed, but given your vast knowledge of CP, it occurred to me you might know. Are you aware of that qualifies someone to be "confirmend" in this manner? In other words, does it actually mean anything, or does it just mean that their account has been successfully created? I know I've seem some pages protected from users who are not autoconfiremd. Does this do anything substantive?<br />
Thanks! --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup><small>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</small></sup> 00:24, 21 June 2016 (EDT)
Thanks! --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup><small>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</small></sup> 00:24, 21 June 2016 (EDT)
:My understanding of what is going on in wikis in general is that "autoconfirmed" means "has passed a probationary period and can now be trusted to edit important things." I don't know whether this is a matter of having made X number of inconsequential "safe" edits or of X days having passed since account creation. I believe it's a matter of wiki policy. I believe that CP policy is set so that it just means that the user has created an account. Since no one can edit anonymously (only the IP address would show), this really has no effect. I think anonymous editing was allowed once, a long time ago.
:Andy Schlafly's talk page is locked against any but autoconfirmed users, but I don't think that has any significance at present. I believe anyone who has created an account can edit. As a good scientist, I could conduct an experiment to test that by creating a fresh account, but (a) I'm not interested in the test, and (b) that would be socking! :-)
:A properly implemented policy for autoconfirmed users could effectively do what the "guard dog" did, but it would require making most pages edit-on-autoconfirm, the way Andy's page is, so that only harmless pages could be edited by newbies. Or say that no editing may be done until some silent period has gone by, but that would be inconsistent with the goals of CP. There was a time a few years ago when, in an attempt to stop vandalism, account creation had to be done by email request. That was abandoned, probably because it was antithetical to the goals of CP.
:It's a tough problem. The "guard dog" really is the right way to go about it.
:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 02:00, 21 June 2016 (EDT)