Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

MediaWiki

2007-05-15T02:44:47Z

Linus M.: Expansion

MediaWiki is a [[free software]] [[wiki]] engine, licensed under the [[GNU General Public License]], or GPL.. The software was originally created to power [[Wikipedia]], and, as it is [[free software]], is now used to power many other sites of varying size, including [[CreationWiki]], Conservapedia, the various projects of the [[Wikimedia Foundation]], and [[Jimmy Wales]]'s [[for-profit company]], [[Wikia]], as well as being applied in small wikis for a single group. A notably different use of the MediaWiki software is by the company [[Novell]], which uses it to power several of its high-traffic websites, which are only editable by a select group, not the general public. As Wikipedia is an extremely high-traffic website, MediaWiki is highly optimized for preformance.

==Codebase==
The MediaWiki [[codebase]] is primarily written in [[PHP]], and can utilize either the [[MySQL]] or [[PostgreSQL]] [[relational database]] systems. MediaWiki is [[free software]], licensed under the [[GNU General Public License]], or GPL.

==Namespaces in MediaWiki==
MediaWiki divides pages into logical subdivisions by means of [[namespace|namespaces]], which, in MediaWiki, are denoted by a text string, descriptive of the purpose of the page, followed by a colon, all of which preceeds the title. This yields titles in the form of ''Namespace:Title''. MediaWiki is by default configured with certain stock namespaces, and others can easily be added for a website by those with access to the code. Different properties apply to different namespaces. The only exception to the naming scheme is that of the main namespace, which has no prefix.

==WYSIWIG editing==
Like many wikis, MediaWiki has a semi-[[WYSIWIG]] (an acronym for '''W'''hat '''Y'''ou '''S'''ee '''I'''s '''W'''hat '''Y'''ou '''G'''et) language for the editing of the content on the sites it powers, allowing users who do no know [[HTML]] to relatively easily generate web content of high technological quality.

==Customizable interface==
MediaWiki allows a high degree of customizability to websites it powers, often by directly editing the PHP of the site, although users are often able to edit a personal [[JavaScript]] or [[CSS]] (Cascading Style Sheets) file to customize large portions of the interface to their own preferences. An example of a common interface element primarily changed through direct editing of the PHP is the site logo, defined by the $wgLogo variable.

===MediaWiki namespace===
Many interface elements, collectively known as system messages, are defined by pages in the MediaWiki namespace. These pages are, by default, protected to be only editable by administrators, as they define global interface elements.

==Section editing==
MediaWiki allows articles to be broken up into sections for the sake of convenience, and generally allows these sections to be individually editable.

==See also==
*[http://www.mediawiki.org/ MediaWiki.org]
*[http://www.wikipedia.org/ Wikipedia]
*[http://www.creationwiki.org/ CreationWiki]

[[category:Wiki]]

User talk:CPWebmaster

2007-05-15T02:24:48Z

Linus M.: /* Changing Signature */ Response

<div style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; margin-bottom: 0; width: 100%; background-color: #4f402b; height: 200px; color: white; padding: 0;">

<div style="-moz-border-radius-bottomright: 16px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 16px; float:left; background-color: #97c000; width: 85%; height: 160px; margin-top: 20px; padding-left: 0.5em;">
<div style="font-size: 200%; text-align: center; padding-top: 0.1em;">Welcome to CPWebmaster's (aka: [[User:AmesG/PanelEvolution|Fearless Leader]]) talk page</div>
<div style="font-size: 70%; text-align: center; padding: 0.2em;">This talk page is best viewed in Mozilla Firefox.</div>
</div>

<div style="-moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 16px; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 16px; float: right; background-color: #74c0fa; width: 10%; height: 160px; margin-top: 20px; text-align: center;">
<div style="font-size: 120%;">[[User_talk:CPWebmaster/Archive1|Archive1]]</div>
</div>
</div>

<div style="width: 100%; background-color: #4f402b; height: 100%; color: white; padding-bottom: 20px;">
<div style="-moz-border-radius-bottomright: 16px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 16px; background-color: #fff; width: 85%; margin-left: 0; margin-right: auto; padding: 0.5em; color: black;">

==Intelligent design lock==
hi, I tried making a suggestion for the structuring of the ID page about a month ago and listed my comments on the talk page. I haven't received any replies indicating problems with my suggestion (see Evidence -> Support). Can you update the main article please? --[[User:Propro|Propro]] 14:03, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

== Uploads ==

Dude, what is the deal with [[Special:Upload]]? I can ''never'' cause it to function appropriately. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 18:58, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Pic==
LOL! Love the banner on your user page. Ames will be pleased :P. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:58, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

== User Boxes... ==

Do I understand yours to mean you have something against Poultry? I'm shocked! Were do you stand on Turkey and Chicken, Mr. Webmaster? Exactly. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:00, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Love==
I think the new look of your user page is simply ''fabulous!''.[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 21:35, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Sysop Pledge==

As my good deed of the day I am requesting that you place this template on your userpage. Participating sysops will earn my respect and gratitude. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:55, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

{{Sysop Pledge}}

Ben... you're a riot [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 10:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==Proposed Block Policy==
There has recently been some disagreement over blocks, so I have created a [[User:CPAdmin1/Proposed Block Policy|proposed block policy]]
Tell me what you think. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 23:23, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

: Responded via email... dislike it. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 10:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::Gosh, that is so "un-wiki" like, a private response, I would have been insulted for doing that, lol. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:01, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Philip, could you please explain what you have against my policy. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 09:32, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Tim, I believe that this Wiki is something like a free-market. You have the supply (us editors) and the demand (people who want to use the site). What usually happens when a free-market becomes regulated? It is no longer free. Rules and regulations destroy the system. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 09:44, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::So you prefer Anarchy? --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 14:35, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: No Tim. Rules that are essential to the site such as no obscenity, etc. are the only rules that are needed. In the real world this would be comparable to laws against murder, stealing, etc. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 17:05, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

==Unblock Myk==
I have agreed to unblocking Myk. Is there a function with which to do so? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:09, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

*Thanks, Karajou, I was supposed to message you too, but so much is happening it was delayed. I will do it for you, the unblocking.--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:23, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== Change to the T-Rex page==
CPwebmaster, why the change on the T-Rex page? The research was cited and just released. Did you happen to read it before reverting?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:04, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:I don't agree with TimS' edits (and I will explain why on the talk page tomorrow), but neither do I agree with the amount that you removed. In cases like there where there is obviously or likely to be disagreement, couldn't you at the very least explain your rationale in the edit comment or on the talk page? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:27, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:: Yes... I did remove too much information... fixed [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 12:43, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== Missing Links ==

For the computer illiterate, like me, would you consider restoring the link to "Special Pages" on the left? It is missing on several pages I was just on, but shows here on your own page...... --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 06:33, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== Good block ==

Good block this morning. The contributor has made many valid edits, so the one week time period is appropriate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:24, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== request ==

I sent a letter of assistance regarding our abortion articles to right to life groups and I sent about 40 emails. Keep an eye on my user discussion page for people saying they are interested in being Admins/SYSOPS. Look at their edits and promote them to Admins if you think it is warranted. Here is my discussion page: http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Conservative [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:35, 14 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Could you please revert the [[macroevolution]] article to the way it was before it was submitted to the panel? I left you a diff on the talk page. I understood that this was the policy regarding the panel - at least that's how it was with [[evolution]].-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:52, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::I really don't see why this should be done. The article in its present state is perfectly acceptable. Also, I don't know of the policy you speak of. Can you point it out? Thanks [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 12:12, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== [[CP:RFA]] ==

Someone needs to periodically update this, and take the appropriate course of action for the applicants, and you seem to be a likely canidate. Thanks. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 21:53, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== Anti Gun ==

I'm anti-gun, however I like to play devil's advocate sometimes. I do not believe that academic discourse can progress without competing ideas. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 20:30, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

: That is awesome! It's great to see some thinkers around here. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 20:33, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Edit War with Conservative ==

CPWebmaster, I was upholding the decision of the panel. See the discussion on Philip J. Rayment's talk page [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Philip_J._Rayment#question_regarding_pro_evolutionary_books_being_added_to_TOE_article here]. The Panel approved a version of the article ''with'' the free online text of "The Origin of Species", though Conservative removed the link merely eight minutes before the Panel made it's decision (Conservative removed book at 18:21 April 9, decision made 18:29 April 9); clearly too short of a time, as the panel had been deliberating for quite some time. Andy has also made his anti-censorship view very explicit. Other sysops had also supported the inclusion of the book, as it is the single most relevant book on the topic that exists. The pro-inclusion sysops provided their reasons and justifications, though Conservative kept reverting without ''any'' justification, or discussion (except for an attempt to draw the conversation off topic at [[Talk:Theory of evolution]]). Perhaps you should warn [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] to not work against what has been made explicitly clear. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

: Where does the Panel's decision state that the ref's cannot be changed? It doesn't. Please do not get into any more revert wars with Conservative or any other user. Thank you. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 19:58, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=96144 Here] is where the panel says that addition of references and further reading books is acceptable. And please, warn the other party in this edit war as well, as he is equally guilty. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:02, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::: I'm talking about the revert wars in general, not so much this specific case. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 20:06, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:::: Forgive me, but it is hard to avoid an edit war when you cite justifications for your edits, ''prove'' that you are undoubtedly correct, and the [[User:Conservative|other user]] provides no justification and runs from answering any kind of question. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:07, 18 April 2007 (EDT) 
::::What other revert wars is [[User:Hojimachong| Hojimachong]] engaged in?[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 20:14, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::None, at the moment. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:16, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::: You're dodging the bullet. Please just don't get into any revert wars. They waste everyone's time. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 20:17, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::: I fully understand that edit wars are bad to engage in, and should be avoided. But I think you are missing my point as well; There was evidence to back up a specific view, posted on the talk page, and told to Conservative even ''before'' he removed the books (He ''asked'' Philip J. Rayment about removing the books. Philip said he shouldn't; Conservative did it anyways). I think Conservative needs to be reprimanded in some way, shape, or form; I don't see him being warned for the edit war. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:19, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: Once again, Conservative made a change against the panel, consensus, and Andy. When is this ''vandalism'' going to be taken note of? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:02, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

CPWebmaster, I want to highlight two things that you said:
* "''I'm talking about the revert wars in general, not so much this specific case.''"
* "''You're dodging the bullet. Please just don't get into any revert wars. They waste everyone's time.''"
Okay, perhaps Hojimachong has been involved in other edit wars; I haven't checked. And if true, and if that is not true of Conservative, then perhaps you do have a defence for what is otherwise a prima-facie case of favouritism. But you also seem to be "dodging the bullet" yourself. On Wikipedia, ''both'' editors would have been given blocks twice over for this particular incident, and ''both'' editors are "wasting everyone's time". You also said:
* "''Where does the Panel's decision state that the ref's cannot be changed? It doesn't.''"
That's precisely the point. I "changed" (added) some references (books for further reading), and Conservative started the revert war (in the sense that he made the first reversion) by removing them on the grounds that they were against the Panel's decision. You have here acknowledged that they are not against the Panel's decision, indicating that it was Conservative who was in the wrong, yet it is Hojimaching that you are warning.

Just to avoid any misunderstanding, I agree with Conservative's worldview, and disagree with some of Hojimachong's. And it was Conservative that first suggested that I be a sysop. It pains me to have to take a stand against him on this, but I believe that truth and justice  warrants it in this case.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:10, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well spoken, Philip. For me, this all fell under the "two wrongs don't make a right" consideration. Those who have been around more than a month know I have publicly disagreed with Sysop Conservative many times. Not on ideological or political grounds, but because of this absolute unwillingness to engage others, or even answer their questions. And I don't agree with blocking people without some explanation, if only to fellow Sysop's. He has gotten much better at responding, however. All of the points above, raised by everyone don't make engaging in a squalid public fight over editing, conducted by Sysop's, right. It is hard to preach to editors not to do something Administrators are constantly doing, eh? No matter if it is reverting each other's edits, or reverting blocks, it is the same principle; "Do as I say, not as I do". I think that is more what the Webmaster's point was, knowing full well the danger of supposition. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 03:10, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

== Problems with my watchlist ==

I appear to be having problems with my watchlist. Occasionally I notice articles that are changed are not appearing on my watchlist. It appears to be articles which have been protected. Protected articles that I put on my watchlist, or that I edit, are okay, but articles that I already have on my watchlist that are then protected don't appear, at least sometimes (until I edit them again). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:18, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== small favor ==

I permanently blocked someone and it was by mistake. I think I fixed it but I am not sure. Please make sure Bill_M can edit. 00:04, 22 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

: He's not blocked. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 00:06, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

== Please vote for me ==

Please vote for me here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Request_for_Bureaucratship [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:38, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

== Changing User Name ==

I'm wondering how I can change my User Name. Can it be done? If so, how? Please let me know. --[[User:Jtpaladin|Jtpaladin]] 21:47, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
: It would probably be best to just create a new account. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 23:10, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Any bureaucrat can handle a name change for you. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 02:09, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== My contributions ==

I think there's something wrong with my contributions, all edits prior to today seem to have vanished [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Aschl%D0%B0fly link]. Would you be able to look into it for me? Thank you and God bless. [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:17, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
: No there isn't. Look back in the recent changes for the creation of a new 'User:Aschlafly'. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]
:: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Log/newusers Here]. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

So is it possible to ban the fake ASchlafly and the fake Conservative before they do more damage to the site and to the reputations of the real things?--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 13:25, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:Sure, as long as the person doing it know what they are doing and pays attention. Oh................well...........it would normally be possible but after all SYSOP promotion here has little to do with understanding what the heck you are doing. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:28, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:: I don't know. No mods seem to be currently active. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

==thank you==

thank you for fixing my talk page. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 10:34, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

: you're welcome [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 11:31, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== Edit to wombat ==

Please see the talk page and explain your reversion. Thanks. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:16, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

== Image libs ==

Are we using GD or ImageMagick? --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:33, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

==Merge==

Thanks for this merge. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&curid=6394&diff=155595&oldid=155117]
What other maintenance tasks can we do together? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:04, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

: It seems that there are a '''lot''' of templates that are not being user and/or are worthless. Going through those would be good. Thanks for the help! [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 12:07, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::I deleted 4 unused templates. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:17, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Could you also remove them from [[help:templates]] please? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:38, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::::I was addressing that request to Ed, but thanks anyway. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:26, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Actually, a few of those deleted templates were either in use (although in only one or two pages). Also, a few were designed to be used with Subst:, which means that they aren't "in use" but may still be required. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:43, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

== MediaWiki stuff ==

I have two suggestions:

# You really should install [http://mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Interwiki_linking interwiki links] to Wikipedia, it would make life easier.
# [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:%24wgExtraNamespaces Extra namespaces], i.e. "Debate:" would also be helpful. Currently, all debate pages reside in the Project namespace, which, to a techie like myself, is physically painful :).

--[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 20:23, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:What's the point of the interwiki links if we are normally not supposed to link to Wikipedia anyway?
:I agree with the second suggestion.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:29, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, I agree with Philip. Another Sysop on Friday found several pictures linked to article pages here, from WP. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:53, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Kewl. Thanks. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:05, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Once more thing: for a wiki of this description, [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Oversight Oversight] might be quite useful. For instance, if Icew*dge decides to use an edit summary of "F*** F*** F*** F*** F***", it can be hidden, so people won't stumble across it. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 17:47, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Oh yes, and you should add a [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/ImageMagick#Licensing licensing menu] to the upload page. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 16:20, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== Spam Filters... ==

My talk page, somewhere on it is the ice name, and spam filter is not allowing me to save my changes with it on there.....--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:05, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:Fixed it. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:44, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

*Now, now, you fixed it on my page, but don't the filters need tweaking really? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 12:01, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Just put I**W*****. We really don't want them to be able to post that anywhere on the site. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 12:19, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Unless that is case-sensitive and excludes spaces, I can easily imagine that having too many false positives. By the way, you beat me to ban the latest incarnation of said vandal by a very few seconds! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:36, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

*Our two Philip's are like dynamos today! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 13:45, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::I used Unicode… --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 16:19, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

*Something has indeed changed, for I cannot remain logged in as I used to. I didn't change my comp settings, but now being idle for 15 + minutes, I must log in again. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:01, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== Changing Signature ==

I can't figure out how to change my default signature and decided you would be the most appropriate person to ask.--Favor 19:41, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:Go to [[Special:Preferences]], or click the "my preferences" link at the top of the page. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Problem with spam filter ==

It is now impossible to post in a section that contains the signature of a certain vandal who's signature I cannot post because the spam filter wont let me.--[[User:Favor|Favor]] 00:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

What I recommend you do it go ahead and remove all instances of that name on said page. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:29, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, replace all instances with I**W*****. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 10:00, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Why did you delete the article on "Why South Africa Sucks" ==
Please comment on my talk page. Did you delete it, or did you move it? {{unsigned|John99}}

I hope you won't mind. I created another article of "[[Why South Africa Sucks]]". The reason being that there is to much information available on this blog to warrent further expantion on the [[South Africa]] article. This website may be used as a source of information on South African Issues. --[[User:John99|John99]] 12:48, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I NOTED THE FOLLOWING ARTICLES WERE DELETED:

* [[The Right Perspective]] http://www.therightperspectivepodcastblog.blogspot.com/

* [[African Crisis]] http://www.africancrisis.org/default2.asp

* [[Crime Expo South Africa]] http://www.crimexposouthafrica.net/

Thanks for your understanding. All these articles were sabotaged on Wikipedia.

==Homo sapiens neanderthalensis is incorrect==
CPWebmaster, the Homo sapiens neanderthalensis is not the correct name for the neanderthal. It is Homo neanderthalensis. Neanderthalensis and Sapiens are different species. Please correct.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:05, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

: That is incorrect, they are not different species. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 11:08, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:CPWebmaster, you are wrong. Please provide your proof. According to Taxonomy they are different.
::http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/neand.htm
::http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/homoneaderthalensis.htm
::--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:12, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Both of those are false, biased sources of information. Read [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/worthy-ancestors this] please. Thanks [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 11:22, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:: AIG is unbiased? You are saying that AIG is more valid than the Smithsonian Institution? Homo sapiens neanderthalensis is a contraversial subspecies of the Homo sapiens whereas Homo neanderthalensis is the accepted species for the neanderthal. The correct way of listing taxonomy is genius and then species not genius, species then subspecies. So by your way of resoning this should be listed under Homo sapiens. Anyone one with a little biological taxonomy traning would see this as a farse.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:33, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:: When it comes to origins, AIG is obviously more valid than the Smithsonian. I am aware that Homo neanderthalensis is the "accepted" species, but this is merely hopeful thinking by evolutionists. In reality, Homo neanderthalensis is HUMAN. I placed it under a sub-species because I did not want it to conflict with the human article. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 11:49, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::If homo neanderthalensis is human as you said above, then why not list it with Homo sapiens? CPWebmaster, I can not understand why you would perceive AIG as more valid than the Smithsonian. There are thousands more scientists working and submitting to the Smithsonian than AIG. This provides a more critical environment for research. AIG struggles to have PhDs write articles within the scope of their discipline. How many times have you seen a physicist write about biology at AIG? The point is that if you plan to use taxonomy to describe an organism then you must follow taxonomy rules to describe the organism. Meaning if you wish to say that Neanderthal was a subspecies of Homo sapiens then you need to list Neanderthal as Homo sapiens. Otherwise you need to place it back with homo neanderthalensis.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:01, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Your source is also overstepping its bounds by claiming that Neanderthals and humans are both able to speak in the same manner. This is a mater still under debate by most physical anthropologists. There are also many skeletal differences between the two species. [[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 12:18, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Do I even have to mention that based on a taxonomy the way this article is listed Neanderthal is of the same level as European, African, Asian, ect. If this is the case then why did they die out while Europeans thrived?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 13:19, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Template:User Liberal

2007-05-14T21:00:04Z

Linus M.: Clarification

{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#000 |id-s=12 |id-fc=#00f |info-c=#000 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#00f |id=L |info=<div align="center">This user self-identifies as '''liberal''', in the United States sense of the term.</div>}}<includeonly>[[Category:Users who self-identify as liberal]]</includeonly>

User talk:CPWebmaster

2007-05-13T20:20:38Z

Linus M.: /* MediaWiki stuff */ Licensing

User talk:CPWebmaster

2007-05-13T20:19:43Z

Linus M.: /* Spam Filters... */ Unicode

<div style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; margin-bottom: 0; width: 100%; background-color: #4f402b; height: 200px; color: white; padding: 0;">

<div style="-moz-border-radius-bottomright: 16px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 16px; float:left; background-color: #97c000; width: 85%; height: 160px; margin-top: 20px; padding-left: 0.5em;">
<div style="font-size: 200%; text-align: center; padding-top: 0.1em;">Welcome to CPWebmaster's (aka: [[User:AmesG/PanelEvolution|Fearless Leader]]) talk page</div>
<div style="font-size: 70%; text-align: center; padding: 0.2em;">This talk page is best viewed in Mozilla Firefox.</div>
</div>

<div style="-moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 16px; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 16px; float: right; background-color: #74c0fa; width: 10%; height: 160px; margin-top: 20px; text-align: center;">
<div style="font-size: 120%;">[[User_talk:CPWebmaster/Archive1|Archive1]]</div>
</div>
</div>

<div style="width: 100%; background-color: #4f402b; height: 100%; color: white; padding-bottom: 20px;">
<div style="-moz-border-radius-bottomright: 16px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 16px; background-color: #fff; width: 85%; margin-left: 0; margin-right: auto; padding: 0.5em; color: black;">

==Intelligent design lock==
hi, I tried making a suggestion for the structuring of the ID page about a month ago and listed my comments on the talk page. I haven't received any replies indicating problems with my suggestion (see Evidence -> Support). Can you update the main article please? --[[User:Propro|Propro]] 14:03, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

== Uploads ==

Dude, what is the deal with [[Special:Upload]]? I can ''never'' cause it to function appropriately. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 18:58, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Pic==
LOL! Love the banner on your user page. Ames will be pleased :P. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:58, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

== User Boxes... ==

Do I understand yours to mean you have something against Poultry? I'm shocked! Were do you stand on Turkey and Chicken, Mr. Webmaster? Exactly. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:00, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Love==
I think the new look of your user page is simply ''fabulous!''.[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 21:35, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Sysop Pledge==

As my good deed of the day I am requesting that you place this template on your userpage. Participating sysops will earn my respect and gratitude. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:55, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

{{Sysop Pledge}}

Ben... you're a riot [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 10:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==Proposed Block Policy==
There has recently been some disagreement over blocks, so I have created a [[User:CPAdmin1/Proposed Block Policy|proposed block policy]]
Tell me what you think. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 23:23, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

: Responded via email... dislike it. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 10:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::Gosh, that is so "un-wiki" like, a private response, I would have been insulted for doing that, lol. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:01, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Philip, could you please explain what you have against my policy. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 09:32, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Tim, I believe that this Wiki is something like a free-market. You have the supply (us editors) and the demand (people who want to use the site). What usually happens when a free-market becomes regulated? It is no longer free. Rules and regulations destroy the system. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 09:44, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::So you prefer Anarchy? --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 14:35, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: No Tim. Rules that are essential to the site such as no obscenity, etc. are the only rules that are needed. In the real world this would be comparable to laws against murder, stealing, etc. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 17:05, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

==Unblock Myk==
I have agreed to unblocking Myk. Is there a function with which to do so? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:09, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

*Thanks, Karajou, I was supposed to message you too, but so much is happening it was delayed. I will do it for you, the unblocking.--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:23, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== Change to the T-Rex page==
CPwebmaster, why the change on the T-Rex page? The research was cited and just released. Did you happen to read it before reverting?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:04, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:I don't agree with TimS' edits (and I will explain why on the talk page tomorrow), but neither do I agree with the amount that you removed. In cases like there where there is obviously or likely to be disagreement, couldn't you at the very least explain your rationale in the edit comment or on the talk page? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:27, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:: Yes... I did remove too much information... fixed [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 12:43, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== Missing Links ==

For the computer illiterate, like me, would you consider restoring the link to "Special Pages" on the left? It is missing on several pages I was just on, but shows here on your own page...... --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 06:33, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== Good block ==

Good block this morning. The contributor has made many valid edits, so the one week time period is appropriate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:24, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== request ==

I sent a letter of assistance regarding our abortion articles to right to life groups and I sent about 40 emails. Keep an eye on my user discussion page for people saying they are interested in being Admins/SYSOPS. Look at their edits and promote them to Admins if you think it is warranted. Here is my discussion page: http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Conservative [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:35, 14 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Could you please revert the [[macroevolution]] article to the way it was before it was submitted to the panel? I left you a diff on the talk page. I understood that this was the policy regarding the panel - at least that's how it was with [[evolution]].-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:52, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::I really don't see why this should be done. The article in its present state is perfectly acceptable. Also, I don't know of the policy you speak of. Can you point it out? Thanks [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 12:12, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== [[CP:RFA]] ==

Someone needs to periodically update this, and take the appropriate course of action for the applicants, and you seem to be a likely canidate. Thanks. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 21:53, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== Anti Gun ==

I'm anti-gun, however I like to play devil's advocate sometimes. I do not believe that academic discourse can progress without competing ideas. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 20:30, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

: That is awesome! It's great to see some thinkers around here. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 20:33, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Edit War with Conservative ==

CPWebmaster, I was upholding the decision of the panel. See the discussion on Philip J. Rayment's talk page [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Philip_J._Rayment#question_regarding_pro_evolutionary_books_being_added_to_TOE_article here]. The Panel approved a version of the article ''with'' the free online text of "The Origin of Species", though Conservative removed the link merely eight minutes before the Panel made it's decision (Conservative removed book at 18:21 April 9, decision made 18:29 April 9); clearly too short of a time, as the panel had been deliberating for quite some time. Andy has also made his anti-censorship view very explicit. Other sysops had also supported the inclusion of the book, as it is the single most relevant book on the topic that exists. The pro-inclusion sysops provided their reasons and justifications, though Conservative kept reverting without ''any'' justification, or discussion (except for an attempt to draw the conversation off topic at [[Talk:Theory of evolution]]). Perhaps you should warn [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] to not work against what has been made explicitly clear. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

: Where does the Panel's decision state that the ref's cannot be changed? It doesn't. Please do not get into any more revert wars with Conservative or any other user. Thank you. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 19:58, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=96144 Here] is where the panel says that addition of references and further reading books is acceptable. And please, warn the other party in this edit war as well, as he is equally guilty. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:02, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::: I'm talking about the revert wars in general, not so much this specific case. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 20:06, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:::: Forgive me, but it is hard to avoid an edit war when you cite justifications for your edits, ''prove'' that you are undoubtedly correct, and the [[User:Conservative|other user]] provides no justification and runs from answering any kind of question. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:07, 18 April 2007 (EDT) 
::::What other revert wars is [[User:Hojimachong| Hojimachong]] engaged in?[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 20:14, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::None, at the moment. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:16, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::: You're dodging the bullet. Please just don't get into any revert wars. They waste everyone's time. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 20:17, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::: I fully understand that edit wars are bad to engage in, and should be avoided. But I think you are missing my point as well; There was evidence to back up a specific view, posted on the talk page, and told to Conservative even ''before'' he removed the books (He ''asked'' Philip J. Rayment about removing the books. Philip said he shouldn't; Conservative did it anyways). I think Conservative needs to be reprimanded in some way, shape, or form; I don't see him being warned for the edit war. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:19, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: Once again, Conservative made a change against the panel, consensus, and Andy. When is this ''vandalism'' going to be taken note of? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:02, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

CPWebmaster, I want to highlight two things that you said:
* "''I'm talking about the revert wars in general, not so much this specific case.''"
* "''You're dodging the bullet. Please just don't get into any revert wars. They waste everyone's time.''"
Okay, perhaps Hojimachong has been involved in other edit wars; I haven't checked. And if true, and if that is not true of Conservative, then perhaps you do have a defence for what is otherwise a prima-facie case of favouritism. But you also seem to be "dodging the bullet" yourself. On Wikipedia, ''both'' editors would have been given blocks twice over for this particular incident, and ''both'' editors are "wasting everyone's time". You also said:
* "''Where does the Panel's decision state that the ref's cannot be changed? It doesn't.''"
That's precisely the point. I "changed" (added) some references (books for further reading), and Conservative started the revert war (in the sense that he made the first reversion) by removing them on the grounds that they were against the Panel's decision. You have here acknowledged that they are not against the Panel's decision, indicating that it was Conservative who was in the wrong, yet it is Hojimaching that you are warning.

Just to avoid any misunderstanding, I agree with Conservative's worldview, and disagree with some of Hojimachong's. And it was Conservative that first suggested that I be a sysop. It pains me to have to take a stand against him on this, but I believe that truth and justice  warrants it in this case.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:10, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well spoken, Philip. For me, this all fell under the "two wrongs don't make a right" consideration. Those who have been around more than a month know I have publicly disagreed with Sysop Conservative many times. Not on ideological or political grounds, but because of this absolute unwillingness to engage others, or even answer their questions. And I don't agree with blocking people without some explanation, if only to fellow Sysop's. He has gotten much better at responding, however. All of the points above, raised by everyone don't make engaging in a squalid public fight over editing, conducted by Sysop's, right. It is hard to preach to editors not to do something Administrators are constantly doing, eh? No matter if it is reverting each other's edits, or reverting blocks, it is the same principle; "Do as I say, not as I do". I think that is more what the Webmaster's point was, knowing full well the danger of supposition. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 03:10, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

== Problems with my watchlist ==

I appear to be having problems with my watchlist. Occasionally I notice articles that are changed are not appearing on my watchlist. It appears to be articles which have been protected. Protected articles that I put on my watchlist, or that I edit, are okay, but articles that I already have on my watchlist that are then protected don't appear, at least sometimes (until I edit them again). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:18, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== small favor ==

I permanently blocked someone and it was by mistake. I think I fixed it but I am not sure. Please make sure Bill_M can edit. 00:04, 22 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

: He's not blocked. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 00:06, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

== Please vote for me ==

Please vote for me here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Request_for_Bureaucratship [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:38, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

== Changing User Name ==

I'm wondering how I can change my User Name. Can it be done? If so, how? Please let me know. --[[User:Jtpaladin|Jtpaladin]] 21:47, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
: It would probably be best to just create a new account. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 23:10, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Any bureaucrat can handle a name change for you. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 02:09, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== My contributions ==

I think there's something wrong with my contributions, all edits prior to today seem to have vanished [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Aschl%D0%B0fly link]. Would you be able to look into it for me? Thank you and God bless. [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:17, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
: No there isn't. Look back in the recent changes for the creation of a new 'User:Aschlafly'. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]
:: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Log/newusers Here]. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

So is it possible to ban the fake ASchlafly and the fake Conservative before they do more damage to the site and to the reputations of the real things?--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 13:25, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:Sure, as long as the person doing it know what they are doing and pays attention. Oh................well...........it would normally be possible but after all SYSOP promotion here has little to do with understanding what the heck you are doing. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:28, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:: I don't know. No mods seem to be currently active. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

==thank you==

thank you for fixing my talk page. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 10:34, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

: you're welcome [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 11:31, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== Edit to wombat ==

Please see the talk page and explain your reversion. Thanks. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:16, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

== Image libs ==

Are we using GD or ImageMagick? --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:33, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

==Merge==

Thanks for this merge. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&curid=6394&diff=155595&oldid=155117]
What other maintenance tasks can we do together? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:04, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

: It seems that there are a '''lot''' of templates that are not being user and/or are worthless. Going through those would be good. Thanks for the help! [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 12:07, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::I deleted 4 unused templates. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:17, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Could you also remove them from [[help:templates]] please? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:38, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::::I was addressing that request to Ed, but thanks anyway. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:26, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Actually, a few of those deleted templates were either in use (although in only one or two pages). Also, a few were designed to be used with Subst:, which means that they aren't "in use" but may still be required. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:43, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

== MediaWiki stuff ==

I have two suggestions:

# You really should install [http://mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Interwiki_linking interwiki links] to Wikipedia, it would make life easier.
# [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:%24wgExtraNamespaces Extra namespaces], i.e. "Debate:" would also be helpful. Currently, all debate pages reside in the Project namespace, which, to a techie like myself, is physically painful :).

--[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 20:23, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:What's the point of the interwiki links if we are normally not supposed to link to Wikipedia anyway?
:I agree with the second suggestion.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:29, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, I agree with Philip. Another Sysop on Friday found several pictures linked to article pages here, from WP. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:53, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Kewl. Thanks. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:05, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Once more thing: for a wiki of this description, [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Oversight Oversight] might be quite useful. For instance, if Icew*dge decides to use an edit summary of "F*** F*** F*** F*** F***", it can be hidden, so people won't stumble across it. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 17:47, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

== Spam Filters... ==

My talk page, somewhere on it is the ice name, and spam filter is not allowing me to save my changes with it on there.....--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:05, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:Fixed it. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:44, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

*Now, now, you fixed it on my page, but don't the filters need tweaking really? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 12:01, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Just put I**W*****. We really don't want them to be able to post that anywhere on the site. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 12:19, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Unless that is case-sensitive and excludes spaces, I can easily imagine that having too many false positives. By the way, you beat me to ban the latest incarnation of said vandal by a very few seconds! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:36, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

*Our two Philip's are like dynamos today! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 13:45, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::I used Unicode… --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 16:19, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Heterosexuality

2007-05-13T16:00:27Z

Linus M.: Changed def

'''Heterosexuality''' is sexual attraction solely to the opposite sex, that is, men with women.

== Biblical Views on Heterosexuality ==

The Bible gives some guidelines for heterosexuals.

=== Old Testament ===

:"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that ''is'' thy neighbour's." (Exodus 20:17)

:"And if a man '''sell his daughter''' to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another ''wife''; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish." (Exodus 21:7-10)

:"And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins." (Exodus 22:16-17)

:"And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that ''is'' a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free." (Leviticus 19:20)

:"If a man find a damsel ''that is'' a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty ''shekels'' of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days." (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

=== New Testament ===
:"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." (Matthew 5:28)

:"''It is'' good for a man not to touch a woman." (1 Corinthians 7:1)

:"I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety." (1 Timothy 2:8-15)

== See Also ==

*[[Bisexuality]]
*[[Homosexuality]]

== References ==
<references />
[[category:biology]]

User talk:CPWebmaster

2007-05-13T15:44:09Z

Linus M.: /* Spam Filters... */ Fixed it.

<div style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; margin-bottom: 0; width: 100%; background-color: #4f402b; height: 200px; color: white; padding: 0;">

<div style="-moz-border-radius-bottomright: 16px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 16px; float:left; background-color: #97c000; width: 85%; height: 160px; margin-top: 20px; padding-left: 0.5em;">
<div style="font-size: 200%; text-align: center; padding-top: 0.1em;">Welcome to CPWebmaster's (aka: [[User:AmesG/PanelEvolution|Fearless Leader]]) talk page</div>
<div style="font-size: 70%; text-align: center; padding: 0.2em;">This talk page is best viewed in Mozilla Firefox.</div>
</div>

<div style="-moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 16px; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 16px; float: right; background-color: #74c0fa; width: 10%; height: 160px; margin-top: 20px; text-align: center;">
<div style="font-size: 120%;">[[User_talk:CPWebmaster/Archive1|Archive1]]</div>
</div>
</div>

<div style="width: 100%; background-color: #4f402b; height: 100%; color: white; padding-bottom: 20px;">
<div style="-moz-border-radius-bottomright: 16px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 16px; background-color: #fff; width: 85%; margin-left: 0; margin-right: auto; padding: 0.5em; color: black;">

==Intelligent design lock==
hi, I tried making a suggestion for the structuring of the ID page about a month ago and listed my comments on the talk page. I haven't received any replies indicating problems with my suggestion (see Evidence -> Support). Can you update the main article please? --[[User:Propro|Propro]] 14:03, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

== Uploads ==

Dude, what is the deal with [[Special:Upload]]? I can ''never'' cause it to function appropriately. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 18:58, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Pic==
LOL! Love the banner on your user page. Ames will be pleased :P. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:58, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

== User Boxes... ==

Do I understand yours to mean you have something against Poultry? I'm shocked! Were do you stand on Turkey and Chicken, Mr. Webmaster? Exactly. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:00, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Love==
I think the new look of your user page is simply ''fabulous!''.[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 21:35, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Sysop Pledge==

As my good deed of the day I am requesting that you place this template on your userpage. Participating sysops will earn my respect and gratitude. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:55, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

{{Sysop Pledge}}

Ben... you're a riot [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 10:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==Proposed Block Policy==
There has recently been some disagreement over blocks, so I have created a [[User:CPAdmin1/Proposed Block Policy|proposed block policy]]
Tell me what you think. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 23:23, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

: Responded via email... dislike it. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 10:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::Gosh, that is so "un-wiki" like, a private response, I would have been insulted for doing that, lol. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:01, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Philip, could you please explain what you have against my policy. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 09:32, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Tim, I believe that this Wiki is something like a free-market. You have the supply (us editors) and the demand (people who want to use the site). What usually happens when a free-market becomes regulated? It is no longer free. Rules and regulations destroy the system. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 09:44, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::So you prefer Anarchy? --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 14:35, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: No Tim. Rules that are essential to the site such as no obscenity, etc. are the only rules that are needed. In the real world this would be comparable to laws against murder, stealing, etc. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 17:05, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

==Unblock Myk==
I have agreed to unblocking Myk. Is there a function with which to do so? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:09, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

*Thanks, Karajou, I was supposed to message you too, but so much is happening it was delayed. I will do it for you, the unblocking.--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:23, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== Change to the T-Rex page==
CPwebmaster, why the change on the T-Rex page? The research was cited and just released. Did you happen to read it before reverting?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:04, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:I don't agree with TimS' edits (and I will explain why on the talk page tomorrow), but neither do I agree with the amount that you removed. In cases like there where there is obviously or likely to be disagreement, couldn't you at the very least explain your rationale in the edit comment or on the talk page? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:27, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:: Yes... I did remove too much information... fixed [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 12:43, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== Missing Links ==

For the computer illiterate, like me, would you consider restoring the link to "Special Pages" on the left? It is missing on several pages I was just on, but shows here on your own page...... --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 06:33, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== Good block ==

Good block this morning. The contributor has made many valid edits, so the one week time period is appropriate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:24, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== request ==

I sent a letter of assistance regarding our abortion articles to right to life groups and I sent about 40 emails. Keep an eye on my user discussion page for people saying they are interested in being Admins/SYSOPS. Look at their edits and promote them to Admins if you think it is warranted. Here is my discussion page: http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Conservative [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:35, 14 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Could you please revert the [[macroevolution]] article to the way it was before it was submitted to the panel? I left you a diff on the talk page. I understood that this was the policy regarding the panel - at least that's how it was with [[evolution]].-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:52, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::I really don't see why this should be done. The article in its present state is perfectly acceptable. Also, I don't know of the policy you speak of. Can you point it out? Thanks [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 12:12, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== [[CP:RFA]] ==

Someone needs to periodically update this, and take the appropriate course of action for the applicants, and you seem to be a likely canidate. Thanks. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 21:53, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== Anti Gun ==

I'm anti-gun, however I like to play devil's advocate sometimes. I do not believe that academic discourse can progress without competing ideas. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 20:30, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

: That is awesome! It's great to see some thinkers around here. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 20:33, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Edit War with Conservative ==

CPWebmaster, I was upholding the decision of the panel. See the discussion on Philip J. Rayment's talk page [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Philip_J._Rayment#question_regarding_pro_evolutionary_books_being_added_to_TOE_article here]. The Panel approved a version of the article ''with'' the free online text of "The Origin of Species", though Conservative removed the link merely eight minutes before the Panel made it's decision (Conservative removed book at 18:21 April 9, decision made 18:29 April 9); clearly too short of a time, as the panel had been deliberating for quite some time. Andy has also made his anti-censorship view very explicit. Other sysops had also supported the inclusion of the book, as it is the single most relevant book on the topic that exists. The pro-inclusion sysops provided their reasons and justifications, though Conservative kept reverting without ''any'' justification, or discussion (except for an attempt to draw the conversation off topic at [[Talk:Theory of evolution]]). Perhaps you should warn [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] to not work against what has been made explicitly clear. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

: Where does the Panel's decision state that the ref's cannot be changed? It doesn't. Please do not get into any more revert wars with Conservative or any other user. Thank you. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 19:58, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=96144 Here] is where the panel says that addition of references and further reading books is acceptable. And please, warn the other party in this edit war as well, as he is equally guilty. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:02, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::: I'm talking about the revert wars in general, not so much this specific case. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 20:06, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:::: Forgive me, but it is hard to avoid an edit war when you cite justifications for your edits, ''prove'' that you are undoubtedly correct, and the [[User:Conservative|other user]] provides no justification and runs from answering any kind of question. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:07, 18 April 2007 (EDT) 
::::What other revert wars is [[User:Hojimachong| Hojimachong]] engaged in?[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 20:14, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::None, at the moment. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:16, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::: You're dodging the bullet. Please just don't get into any revert wars. They waste everyone's time. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 20:17, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::: I fully understand that edit wars are bad to engage in, and should be avoided. But I think you are missing my point as well; There was evidence to back up a specific view, posted on the talk page, and told to Conservative even ''before'' he removed the books (He ''asked'' Philip J. Rayment about removing the books. Philip said he shouldn't; Conservative did it anyways). I think Conservative needs to be reprimanded in some way, shape, or form; I don't see him being warned for the edit war. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:19, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: Once again, Conservative made a change against the panel, consensus, and Andy. When is this ''vandalism'' going to be taken note of? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:02, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

CPWebmaster, I want to highlight two things that you said:
* "''I'm talking about the revert wars in general, not so much this specific case.''"
* "''You're dodging the bullet. Please just don't get into any revert wars. They waste everyone's time.''"
Okay, perhaps Hojimachong has been involved in other edit wars; I haven't checked. And if true, and if that is not true of Conservative, then perhaps you do have a defence for what is otherwise a prima-facie case of favouritism. But you also seem to be "dodging the bullet" yourself. On Wikipedia, ''both'' editors would have been given blocks twice over for this particular incident, and ''both'' editors are "wasting everyone's time". You also said:
* "''Where does the Panel's decision state that the ref's cannot be changed? It doesn't.''"
That's precisely the point. I "changed" (added) some references (books for further reading), and Conservative started the revert war (in the sense that he made the first reversion) by removing them on the grounds that they were against the Panel's decision. You have here acknowledged that they are not against the Panel's decision, indicating that it was Conservative who was in the wrong, yet it is Hojimaching that you are warning.

Just to avoid any misunderstanding, I agree with Conservative's worldview, and disagree with some of Hojimachong's. And it was Conservative that first suggested that I be a sysop. It pains me to have to take a stand against him on this, but I believe that truth and justice  warrants it in this case.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:10, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well spoken, Philip. For me, this all fell under the "two wrongs don't make a right" consideration. Those who have been around more than a month know I have publicly disagreed with Sysop Conservative many times. Not on ideological or political grounds, but because of this absolute unwillingness to engage others, or even answer their questions. And I don't agree with blocking people without some explanation, if only to fellow Sysop's. He has gotten much better at responding, however. All of the points above, raised by everyone don't make engaging in a squalid public fight over editing, conducted by Sysop's, right. It is hard to preach to editors not to do something Administrators are constantly doing, eh? No matter if it is reverting each other's edits, or reverting blocks, it is the same principle; "Do as I say, not as I do". I think that is more what the Webmaster's point was, knowing full well the danger of supposition. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 03:10, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

== Problems with my watchlist ==

I appear to be having problems with my watchlist. Occasionally I notice articles that are changed are not appearing on my watchlist. It appears to be articles which have been protected. Protected articles that I put on my watchlist, or that I edit, are okay, but articles that I already have on my watchlist that are then protected don't appear, at least sometimes (until I edit them again). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:18, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== small favor ==

I permanently blocked someone and it was by mistake. I think I fixed it but I am not sure. Please make sure Bill_M can edit. 00:04, 22 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

: He's not blocked. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 00:06, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

== Please vote for me ==

Please vote for me here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Request_for_Bureaucratship [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:38, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

== Changing User Name ==

I'm wondering how I can change my User Name. Can it be done? If so, how? Please let me know. --[[User:Jtpaladin|Jtpaladin]] 21:47, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
: It would probably be best to just create a new account. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 23:10, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Any bureaucrat can handle a name change for you. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 02:09, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== My contributions ==

I think there's something wrong with my contributions, all edits prior to today seem to have vanished [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Aschl%D0%B0fly link]. Would you be able to look into it for me? Thank you and God bless. [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:17, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
: No there isn't. Look back in the recent changes for the creation of a new 'User:Aschlafly'. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]
:: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Log/newusers Here]. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

So is it possible to ban the fake ASchlafly and the fake Conservative before they do more damage to the site and to the reputations of the real things?--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 13:25, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:Sure, as long as the person doing it know what they are doing and pays attention. Oh................well...........it would normally be possible but after all SYSOP promotion here has little to do with understanding what the heck you are doing. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:28, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:: I don't know. No mods seem to be currently active. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

==thank you==

thank you for fixing my talk page. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 10:34, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

: you're welcome [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 11:31, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== Edit to wombat ==

Please see the talk page and explain your reversion. Thanks. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:16, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

== Image libs ==

Are we using GD or ImageMagick? --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:33, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

==Merge==

Thanks for this merge. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&curid=6394&diff=155595&oldid=155117]
What other maintenance tasks can we do together? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:04, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

: It seems that there are a '''lot''' of templates that are not being user and/or are worthless. Going through those would be good. Thanks for the help! [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 12:07, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::I deleted 4 unused templates. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:17, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Could you also remove them from [[help:templates]] please? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:38, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::::I was addressing that request to Ed, but thanks anyway. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:26, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Actually, a few of those deleted templates were either in use (although in only one or two pages). Also, a few were designed to be used with Subst:, which means that they aren't "in use" but may still be required. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:43, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

== MediaWiki stuff ==

I have two suggestions:

# You really should install [http://mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Interwiki_linking interwiki links] to Wikipedia, it would make life easier.
# [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:%24wgExtraNamespaces Extra namespaces], i.e. "Debate:" would also be helpful. Currently, all debate pages reside in the Project namespace, which, to a techie like myself, is physically painful :).

--[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 20:23, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:What's the point of the interwiki links if we are normally not supposed to link to Wikipedia anyway?
:I agree with the second suggestion.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:29, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, I agree with Philip. Another Sysop on Friday found several pictures linked to article pages here, from WP. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:53, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Kewl. Thanks. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:05, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Once more thing: for a wiki of this description, [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Oversight Oversight] might be quite useful. For instance, if Icew*dge decides to use an edit summary of "F*** F*** F*** F*** F***", it can be hidden, so people won't stumble across it. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 17:47, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

== Spam Filters... ==

My talk page, somewhere on it is the ice name, and spam filter is not allowing me to save my changes with it on there.....--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:05, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:Fixed it. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:44, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Userboxes/Conservapedia

2007-05-13T14:38:49Z

Linus M.: /* Conservapedia */ help

===Conservapedia===
{| class="wikitable"
|-
|{{UB|Rich}}
|-
|{{UB|CPLeader|your favorite admin}}
|-
|{{UB|CPA1Blk}}
|-
|{{UB|NoArbBlk}}
|-
|{{UB|Block|num}}
|-
|{{UB|No CP Barnstars}}
|-
|{{UB|Barnstar?}}
|-
|{{UB|Sysop|help=Must only be used by [[Conservapedia:Administrators|sysops]].}}
|-
|{{UB|Vandalized|num}}
|-
|{{UB|too liberal|your favorite user|help="your favorite user" may be replaced with a user who is or is not your favorite.}}
|}

Conservapedia:Userboxes/Conservapedia

2007-05-13T14:37:32Z

Linus M.: /* Conservapedia */ {{User too liberal}}

Conservapedia:Userboxes/Politics

2007-05-13T14:34:55Z

Linus M.: /* Politics */ Added {{User Liberal}}

===Politics===
{| class="wikitable"
|-
|{{UB|Constitution party}}
|-
|{{UB|patriot}}
|-
|{{UB|Bushfan}}
|-
|{{UB|Reagan}}
|-
|{{UB|ronny}}
|-
|{{UB|progun}}
|-
|{{UB|antigun}}
|-
|{{UB|guncontrol}}
|-
|{{UB|guns illegal}}
|-
|{{UB|ClintonFan}}
|-
|{{UB|Arkansas Leg-Hound}}
|-
|{{UB|Clintonlied}}
|-
|{{UB|Clinton}}
|-
|{{UB|not Regan}}
|-
|{{UB|Political Compass|x|y}}
|-
|{{UB|patriot questions authority}}
|-
|{{UB|guns harm}}
|-
|{{UB|free speech}}
|-
|{{UB|gay is ok}}
|-
|{{UB|Liberal}}
|}

Template:User Liberal

2007-05-13T14:30:36Z

Linus M.:

{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#000 |id-s=12 |id-fc=#00f |info-c=#000 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#00f |id=L |info=<div align="center">This user self-identifies as '''liberal'''.</div>}}<includeonly>[[Category:Users who self-identify as liberal]]</includeonly>

Template:User too liberal

2007-05-13T14:26:56Z

Linus M.: New page: {{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#9966FF|info-s=8 |info-fc=#000 |id=45px |info=<center>This user thinks that '''{{{1|your f...

{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#9966FF|info-s=8 |info-fc=#000 |id=[[Image:Donkey.JPG|45px]] |info=<center>This user thinks that '''{{{1|your favorite user}}}''' is too '''Liberal'''.</center>}}

Conservapedia:Sysop contest/Nominations/JLindon

2007-05-13T14:14:48Z

Linus M.: /* Discussion */ My input

==Rules==
When discussing, please do not set up or participate in a "vote" as this is not an [[election]]. If you wish to participate, write a short explanation of your opinion. Try to avoid repeating the same arguments made by others, instead just state that you agree with them. Try to avoid [[namecalling]] and [[personal attacks]].
==Discussion==

I still don't think that a nomination system is the right way to go in such a [[tournament theory|relative performance competition]], but since you apparently need to have such a page in order to participate, I'll open up this nomination for myself.

I'm a relatively new member ([http://faleg.org/cgi-bin/conservapedia/editcounter_Tool1?username=JLindon 80 edits] so far, not counting this one), but I think I proved my worth (or at least gave a good impression of what I'm capable of).

I seem to get along well enough with users and sysops, and one of my fields of interest (economics) is in an area that's not exactly overcrowded with sysops from what I saw so far, so I would be able to do some maintenance work in this area as I go along.

My major contributions can be found on [[User:JLindon|my user page]]. On the more technical side, I have a good bit of experience with templates and their application (like my correction to the use of the Sysop Nomination Discussion template used on these pages, which I silently fixed before the major discussions started) and know my way around the MediaWiki markup and structure. --[[User:JLindon|JLindon]] 13:31, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:I endorse this nomination. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:45, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

::No, I cannot endorse this user. He has been here for less than one week, and has already shown a lack of judgement. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:32, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I assume this is about me voicing my disapproval of Flippin's block and the following discussion [[User talk:JLindon#Threats and Insults|on my user talk page]] where I said that your addition to CP:Civility is apparently being used to erase all traces of criticism of CP, thus driving away productive contributors? If so, I would hardly call that a "lack of judgment". I just happened to have an opinion that didn't echo yours. --[[User:JLindon|JLindon]] 07:08, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

: I support JLindon's nomination. I think ASchafly could side with Ed Poor in this. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 07:20, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

You don't seem to cause too much trouble, and you're good with templates - we techies must stick together in such a technically desolate wasteland, you know :) - and I feel that you would make a fine sysop. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 10:14, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Multiculturalism

2007-05-12T21:54:16Z

Linus M.: NPOV

'''Multiculturalism''' used to mean the celebration of the good things that other cultures bring to the melting pot of America. This ''pluralism'' has given way to a ''particularism'' which exalts foreign culture, language and even national identity over American ideals.

Many conservatives - in the US, largely Christian conservatives - tend to see multiculturalism as an attack on America's traditional Christian culture.

==External links==
*[http://www.robinsoncurriculum.com/view/rc/s31p1000.htm Multiculturalism and Curricula] - "Difference can be cool. But not when it's the rule." By Dr. [[Arthur Robinson]]

User talk:CPWebmaster

2007-05-12T21:47:45Z

Linus M.: /* MediaWiki stuff */ Oversight

Talk:Douglas Adams

2007-05-12T17:31:54Z

Linus M.: Marvin!

Whoever put the reference website in should place the <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tags in the text so we know to what it refers. [[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 14:53, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

42. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 14:54, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I think you ought to know I'm feeling very depressed. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 13:31, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-05-12T17:09:03Z

Linus M.: What the heck…?

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive1]]
[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive3]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive4]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive5]]

== #1 ==

Again, this isn't bias. If it had been an ''FA'', that would have been one thing, but ''GA'' is not quite the same level of recognition. This list is getting more and more ludicrous. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 21:00, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

: Don't follow you here, Linus the Turbogeek. But can I call on you if I have technical computer questions? :-) A good Easter to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Um… you can't ''call'' me, but feel free to send me e-mail. A happy Easter to yourself as well. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 20:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal bias ==

The list contains still the statement that "Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public", which still makes every statistician frown at conservapedia as soon as he looks where we get the data for Wikipedia from. A self-selected sample, with 131 categories, from which respondents can choose as many as they like, is compared to a Harris poll.

The other innovation of this example of Wikipedia bias is the definition of liberal bias; it now even has its own article as [[Liberal_quotient|Liberal Quotient]]. This article will make every mathematician frown, and it demonstrates that LQ is highly confusing. The article defines the LQ as Liberals/Conservatives, which has its own problems, but the illustrative part is that the article does not even once uses the definition of LQ correctly. None of the LQs mentioned in the article for particular groups, such as journalists, uses LQ correctly. It was never correct since it was created by [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]. And if you look at the [[Talk:Liberal_quotient|talk page]] you'll notice that most editors aren't able to apply the definition correctly either.

My suggestions would be 1) get a solid data base, since it it obviously a violation of good practice in statistics. 2) use a definition of liberal bias that people understand, now that it has been demonstrated, that the current definition is poorly understood. [[User:Order|Order]] 9 April, 18:40 (AEST)

:In addition, 3:1/1:2≠6. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 20:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Actually 3/(1/2) is 6. This is the correct part of it. You proabably mean 75%/33%? That is indeed something different and 225%. This just illustrates that the ''Liberal quotient'' is plain confusing. [[User:Order|Order]] 11 April, 11:00 (AEST)

== The Deluge criticism ==

As a Christian I can understand the criticism in which the Great Flood is treated as a piece of myth, or if you go to the Great Flood it will take you to the Deluge section: but what you have to realise is that the Great Flood can be seen in nearly all mythologies, for example, Dylan in Welsh and Atlantis in Greek. Therefore, the Noah account is part of wider scope, yet, it can be said that the Great Flood in all cultures could be the account of the same flood that Noah escaped in. {{unsigned|James M Hayes}}
:James, have you seen Conservapedia's article on the [[Great Flood]]? It covers the sorts of things you talk about, without using the word "myth" (or any derivative) at all (except in the external links). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

==Hmmm...==
"Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases." OK, but this page cannot be edited. Isn't that just as bad? [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 16:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Nooooo. this is entirely different in a way, I'm unable to explain to you. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 16:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:A page that has been removed cannot be read, this one can. That's a pretty obvious difference, I would think, and one that I had no difficulty explaining. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Wasn't Conservapedia's [[Examples of Bias in Conservapedia]] removed as well? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 23:37, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Hmmm, yes there was such an article that was deleted. But it was removed on the grounds that it was a rant with obscenities. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::And then deleted and then protected against further re-creation? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::It was created and deleted twice (with the second version apparently being a copy of the first version), so presumably it was thought prudent to prevent the same thing being done over and over. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:49, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Myk, we allow a great deal of criticism of our site here, far more than Wikipedia allows. I was not involved in the deletion of that particular entry but over time, as this site becomes more stable and secure against vandalism, that page can be reopened just as others have been.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Wikipedia allows unlimited criticism. It contains an article about Conservapedia that includes many of Conservapedia's criticisms of wikipedia. It even has a 106-source article entitled "Criticism of Wikipedia" that Wikipedia users wrote themselves. I criticized this article on this talk page, and my comment (along with many others) was deleted. If you aren't a liar, Aschlafly, then you are breathtakingly delusional. It would have been just as easy to remove the obscenities then protect the article.--[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 23:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: The "Criticism of Wikipedia" entry is a self-serving joke that censors any real criticism. I put in factual statements of bias in the Wikipedia and my factual, respectful statements were distorted and then censored.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: How many sources does this page cite? It would appear wikipedia is more exhaustive in criticizing themselves than Conservapedia is at criticizing Wikipedia.--[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 00:20, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Wow, is that the test you're proposing? Simply count the number of citations, no matter what they say? That does seem consistent with Wikipedia's philosophy. As shown by the content page here, Wikipedia makes a factual claim and then provides a citation that actually fails to support the claim at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:43, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Which has sometimes occurred at Conservapedia as well, of course... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:47, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Hasn't that logic been used before on CP? The Theory of Evolution article is touted as being the best because it gets so many hits and has so many citations, but if you took a second to read the talk page you'd see otherwise. I don't know what "factual" statements Andy added, but if they're anything like the bias listed here, of course they were removed since they don't meet the mainstream definition of bias. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:10, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm a specialist in analyzing and remedying bias. Please bring any examples to my attention. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:34, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

=="Wikipedia is six times as liberal"==

Isn't it time to do something about this? Whether or not the numbers are correct isn't for me to say, but if there are twice as many conservatives as liberals in the US, but three times as many liberals as conservatives on Wikipedia, then there must be about 2.27 times as many liberals on Wiki as in the US, not 6. The statement as it stands suggests that we don't know basic math, and I for one find that slightly embarrassing. --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 12:00, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Quiet you fool! Don't you realize that if you argue with ASchlafly's math that it means you're wrong about everything? If he says that the Wikipedia is 108% liberal then it must be so!--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 15:26, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::It's approx. 2.25, and that's not how "liberal bias" is defined. Stop being an idiot, Aschlafly. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 20:29, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You can think about it this way. If your data is correct, then if you were to walk down the street and grab 6 people, statistically you should get 2 liberals and 4 conservatives. At wikipedia, you should get 1.5 conservatives (statistically speaking) and 4.5 liberals. 1.5 times 3 equals 4.5, and 1.5 plus 4.5 equals 6. Divide 4.5 by 2, and you get 2.25. And Hacker's right, "bias" refers to the articles themselves, not to who wrote them. Being mostly composed of liberals is not an example of bias.--[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 00:06, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Oh, I'm going to be really really really sorry I ever mentioned this, but you '''can''' also think of it this way.

::::Accept for argument Andrew Schlafly's assumptions—(which I most bodaciously do ''not'' accept)—that America is conservative, 2:1 and that Wikipedia is liberal, 3:1. Now, imagine conservatives at Wikipedia encircled by and trying to fight off liberals, and ask: for every pair of conservatives, how many liberals on average must they vanquish in order to prevail? The answer is every pair of conservatives needs to subdue '''six''' liberals. Now ask the same question for America. Here, the answer is that every pair of conservatives only needs to dispatch '''one''' liberal. Ergo, at Wikipedia the conservatives would need to work six times as hard. QED. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:38, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I can't read Andy's mind, but I doubt that is how he arrived at his magic number of 6. Creative thinking though!! [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:21, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== #47 ==

<blockquote>Wikipedia's errors spill undetected into newspapers. A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the Daily News relied on it in [a] story</blockquote>

What does this have to do with any bias on the part of Wikipedia, and more to the point, in what way is any such bias shown, in this case, liberal? --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 05:52, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: Newspapers are known to have a liberal bias also, and hence the copying from the liberal Wikipedia is noteworthy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:54, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::Um, no. Some newspapers lean left, but there are plenty of newspapers that endorse a conservative position. Quite a few (if not most) of the papers in my area are pretty conservative actually. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:59, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:::What does any liberal bias in the written press (LOL) have to do with whether Wikipedia has a liberal bias or not? Number 47 simply is not an example of bias in wikipedia. You may think it's "noteworthy" but so what? It's listed as an example of bias in Wikipedia. I think that counts as [[deceit]].--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 09:59, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== #41 ==

That shouldn't be there, surely, as it is simply someone saying Wikipedia is biased, rather than an actual example of bias. --[[User:Protocletos|Protocletos]] 14:41, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: It quotes an insightful remark by an authority. That's what good encyclopedias do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:54, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I don't dispute this, but the fact remains that it's not actually an example of bias. --[[User:Protocletos|Protocletos]] 11:29, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== What the heck…? ==

I'm sorry about this, and I'll get to work on [[MediaWiki]] and stay out of trouble for a while after I have my say, but how is criticism of articles without a worldwide viewpoint a "bias"? Wikipedia is a worldwide project, and yes, America is not the only English-speaking country around, so it can't claim ownership of even the English edition. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 13:09, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Scopes Trial

2007-05-12T15:06:18Z

Linus M.: Word choice

The '''Scopes Trial''' of 1925 was engineered as a challenge to the Tennessee Butler Act that prohibited the teaching of evolution in publically funded schools and universities. The willing defendant, John Scopes, was convicted of violating the Butler act, though the conviction was later overturned on a technicality. The Scopes trial was made infamous in 1955 with the play ''Inherit the Wind'', and the 1960 Hollywood motion picture with the same title; both works took great artistic license.

== Publicity Conspiracy ==
The Scopes trial began as a conspiracy among town leaders at a drugstore in Dayton, Tennessee, in response to a newspaper advertisement placed by the American Civil Liberties Union ([[ACLU]]) offering to provide legal services to anyone willing to be prosecuted under the Butler Act.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2006}}, {{hnb|Linder|2002}}. See also {{hnb|Coulter|2006}}</ref> Town leaders agreed that a trial would provide publicity to the town,<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2006}}</ref> whose population had dwindled to 1,800.<ref>{{hnb|Linder|2002}}</ref> The town leaders found a willing defendent in John Scopes, a gym teacher and football coach who also substituted (sometimes as a biology teacher), though Scopes could not recall ever teaching evolution.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2006}}. See also {{hnb|Coulter|2006}}</ref> John Scopes told the town leaders, "If you can prove that I've taught evolution and that I can qualify as a defendant, then I'll be willing to stand trial."

== Grand Jury ==
Racing other Tennessee towns, Judge John T. Raulston accelerated the convening of the grand jury and "...all but instructed the grand jury to indict Scopes, despite the meager evidence against him and the widely reported stories questioning whether the willing defendant had ever taught evolution in the classroom."<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2006|p=108}}</ref> He was indicted on May 25, after three students testified against Scopes at the Grand Jury, at Scopes' behest.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2006|p=89, 107}}</ref>

== The Trial ==
The trial in 1925 of [[John Scopes]] for teaching evolution in Tennessee was a defeat of Darwinism. The [[ACLU]] and liberal trial lawyer Clarence Darrow brought the Scopes case in the hopes of winning a public relations and legal victory, but in fact [[William Jennings Bryan]], the evangelical Christian who had been Secretary of State in the Wilson Administration, decisively beat them.

The [[ACLU]] challenged a Tennessee statute, the Butler Act, that imposed a fine for teaching in public school that man descended from more primitive life forms. The statute did not prohibit teaching most aspects of evolution. The textbook at issue in the case taught eugenics, including that man supposedly descended from lower life forms and that some racial groups had evolved to more advanced levels than others.

The textbook also featured the fraudulent [[Piltdown Man]]. At the time, Darwinists claimed that this and eugenics were indisputable science to be taught to students.

Bryan quoted for the court how Darrow had previously claimed that murder defendants Leopold and Loeb were driven to crime by what they were taught, which was Nietzche's atheistic philosophy. Bryan quoted Darrow as saying that "Is there any blame attached because somebody took Nietzsche's philosophy seriously and fashioned his life on it? ... The university would be more to blame than he is. ... Your honor, it is hardly fair to hang a 19-year-old boy for the philosophy that was taught him at the university."

Bryan was an extraordinary speaker, recognized to be among the best in American history. Darrow wanted to prevent Bryan from making a persuasive closing argument to the jury, and Darrow searched for another way to try to score points for his side.

So Darrow stunned the court by requesting to cross-examine Bryan, in the hope that Bryan, like many attorneys, would be a poor witness. Darrow's attempt was unprecedented, because trial attorneys almost never take the witness stand in their own cases. Bryan agreed only on the condition that he could cross-examine Darrow. Based on that agreement, Bryan took the witness stand.

A witness in a trial is always at a disadvantage on cross-examination, because he can only answer questions that are posed by a hostile adversary. On cross-examination, Attorneys are allowed to ask leading(yes or no) questions to force the desired response, unlike on direct examination. Attorneys are particularly vulnerable, because their knowledge of the law and tendency to speak in legalese hinder their performance.

Darrow undoubtedly thought that he could turn Bryan into the proverbial buffoon that liberals wanted. The transcript can be interpreted in a variety of fashions, largely dependent on the preconceptions of the translator, allowing one to see Darrow's attempts as either a success or failure. Here is a sample of the transcript:<ref>http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/day7.htm</ref>

Bryan--These gentlemen have not had much chance--they did not come here to try this case. They came here to try revealed religion. I am here to defend it and they can ask me any question they please.

Judge--All right. (Applause in audience.) …

Bryan--Those [the audience] are the people whom you insult.

Darrow--You insult every man of science and learning in the world because he does believe in your fool religion. ....

Darrow: Wait until you get to me [N.B. this apparently refers to Darrow's agreement to be a witness]. Do you know anything about how many people there were in Egypt 3,500 years ago, or how many people there were in China 5,000 years ago?

Bryan --No.

Darrow--Have you ever tried to find out?

Bryan--No, sir. You are the first man I ever heard of who has been in interested in it. (Laughter)

Darrow--Mr. Bryan, am I the first man you ever heard of who has been interested in the age of human societies and primitive man?

Bryan--You are the first man I ever heard speak of the number of people at those different periods.

Darrow--Where have you lived all your life?

Bryan--Not near you. (Laughter and applause).

Darrow tried again and again to trap Bryan, but struck out each time. A later exchange ended, once again, with the audience laughing:

Darrow--I will read it to you from the Bible: "And the Lord God said unto the serpent, because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life." Do you think that is why the serpent is compelled to crawl upon its belly?

Bryan--I believe that.

Darrow--Have you any idea how the snake went before that time?

Bryan--No, sir.

Darrow--Do you know whether he walked on his tail or not?

Bryan--No, sir. I have no way to know. (Laughter in audience).

The next day, it was Darrow's turn to be cross-examined. But Darrow stunned the public by giving up rather than upholding his end of the bargain. Darrow took the unprecedented step of asking the jury for a guilty verdict against his client, the defendant teacher John Scopes.<ref>http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/day8.htm</ref>

After 8 days of trial, the jury gave Darrow exactly what he requested, after 9 minutes of deliberation. Scopes was found guilty on July 21 and ordered to pay a fine of $100 US, which was eliminated on a technicality on appeal.

== The movie and play ==
The play ''Inherit the Wind'', and the adapted movie, were fictional accounts of the Scopes Trial.<ref>http://www.themonkeytrial.com/</ref> Several modifications were made; characters names were changed, and many crucial facts were changed. The authors have said that the play was really an attempt to mock Senator Joseph McCarthy, and to equate anti-communism with anti-intellectualism.<ref>http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2005/07/08/07</ref> The movie featured the popular Spencer Tracy as Clarence Darrow, and even garnered a few Academy Award nominations.

The movie features an angry mob trying to lynch a jailed teacher; in fact, the ACLU ran advertisements with offers to pay expenses for a teacher to volunteer for the case, and Scopes was never jailed and never paid even a fine.

The movie version heaped mockery on any argument that teaching evolution could be socially harmful.

The movie portrayed the character based on Bryan as a complete buffoon. Bryan's death was also portrayed as happening in the courthouse, when in fact he was an elderly man suffering from diabetes who died peacefully in his sleep.

American history books often describe this case as a catalyst for evolution supporters.<ref>The Enduring Vision, Fifth Edition, Chapter 23: The 1920s: Coping with Change, Paul S. Boyer, University of Wisconsin, Madison; Clifford E. Clark, Jr., Carleton College; et al. (a commonly used American history textbook for Advanced Placement US History classes).</ref>

== Aftermath ==
Bryan, a 65-year-old diabetic lacking in modern treatments, died peacefully in his sleep five days after the conclusion of the Scopes trial. Bryan's victory in the Scopes trial was a fitting end to a principled, illustrious career.<ref> http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/ea/side/bryan.html</ref> Scopes never had to pay the fine - the judge had set the amount but Tennessee law at the time prohibited judges from setting fines over $50.

The law challenged by the [[ACLU]] in the Scopes Trial remained in effect for over 50 more years. In 1967, Tennessee repealed the Butler Act, and in 1968, the Supreme Court ruled in ''Epperson v. Arkansas'', 393 U.S. 97, that such bans on teaching are unconstitutional if they are primarily religious in intent.

Tennessee continued to downplay evolution in its schools until 2005.<ref>http://www.edexcellence.net/institute/publication/publication.cfm?id=352&pubsubid=1169#1169</ref>

==References==
<references/>
==Sources==
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Coulter
| Given = Ann
| Year = 2006
| Title = Godless: The Church of Liberalism
| Publisher = Crown Forum.
| ID = ISBN 978-1400054206
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Larson
| Given = Edward J.
| Year = 2006
| Title = Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial And America's Continuing Debate over Science And Religion
| Publisher = Basic Books
| ID = ISBN 978-0465075102
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Linder
| Given = Douglas
| Year = 2002
| Title = The Scopes Trial: An Introduction
| Publisher = University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law
| URL = http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/evolut.htm
}} Retreived on 05-11-2007

User talk:CPWebmaster

2007-05-12T15:05:02Z

Linus M.: /* MediaWiki stuff */ Namespaces

User:ChrisS

2007-05-12T01:19:09Z

Linus M.: Should I let the sadly reflective spelling error remain…? Or not…? :)

{{Sysop Pledge}}

{{userboxtop
| backgroundcolor = #999966
}}
{{User Home-Learned}}
{{User 6000YearOldEarth}}
{{User straightforwardbiblereading}}
{{User Christian1}}
{{User tolerancecompromisetruth}}
{{User ronny}}
{{User patriot}}
{{User American}}
{{userboxbottom}}

I am '''''Proudly''''' biased in favor of '''The Bible''' and '''conservative values'''!

Do you want to tell me anything? Click [[User talk:ChrisS|here]].

Conservapedia talk:Abuse

2007-05-12T00:26:16Z

Linus M.: /* Accusations of trolling */ Come on.

I'm not objective because I've been editing the article myself. It seems to ''me'' that [[User:RightWolf2]] has the impression that unsupported opinion is OK as long as it's ''conservative'' opinion, and is at least near the borderline of Conservapedia Commandment #6. It particularly bothers me that, in order to support the statement that
:"[Wikipedia's] Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site administrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community."
he cites http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ although the link page contains neither the word "homosexual" nor the word "gay." Perhaps there is relevant material on that site, but it's his job to find it and cite it, not to keep reinserting a link to this site's home page. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:Wikipedia-Watch is Daniel Brandt's site. I don't know if it states that outright, but I try and look into it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:This here http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html I think is what he is referring to. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::The word "homosexual" isn't on that page, either. Only one reference to "gay," an assertion that a Wikipedia administrator "attempt[ed] to falsely suggest that Brandt is gay."
::My objection is ''not'' that he's citing a strongly anti-Wikipedian website, although this should probably be made clear. The question is: does the site really say what he says it says, and, if so, where? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I think that's right; what the editor is probably suggesting is if someone did the actual leg work of checking those users cited on that list, they would come up with a high percentage disproportionate to the general population of people who openly confess to being gay. Of course this, in Wikipedia, would be considered Original research. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Current Alerts==

We need to make sure that we removed current alerts after they have been handled. I propose that once someone has addressed a current alert, we only leave it up for a day max, because the current alert section is getting messy with comments.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 20:23, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:I also moved Current Alerts to the Top of the page, so we don't have to dig to find them.

*Excellent! --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:56, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== What happened here ==
Goodness! Whatever happened here? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:15, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:The page was archived, TK. Use the little history button at the top of the page. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:18, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::I archived the page, as it was too large. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 02:19, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Speaking of large...that Conservative Abuse page is very much too long! I shall archive it now. Gee, I hope I do it right...anyone wanna say how to do it correctly? Or maybe someone wants to do it themself? :p --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 03:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:*I see the helpfulness is overflowing, and once again proving my point. A few who consider themselves "elite" will never offer help or information, because they like their positions of knowing the Wiki so well, they can supplant their ideas for the majority of the users. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::This sure seems like “criticize[ing] without solutions” [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Zach_Johnson&diff=next&oldid=96133]. I was under the impression that “Criticism, without offering a solution...is unacceptable behavior.” [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Zach_Johnson&diff=prev&oldid=96161] I mean you posted your question less than 24 hours ago and “We don't have a running clock here, demanding instant action.” [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:AmesG&diff=prev&oldid=98009]--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 19:54, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

*Exactly, as opposed to being rat packed instantly with criticism. Yes, you have it right. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:58, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
:I’m not sure what you mean by “rat packed” but I’ll go ahead and assume it was intended in the politest and most civil manner possible and not as a baseless ad hominem attack. I’m also not sure what your other point was, but I think mine was fairly clear, if you are going to attack people for complaining about things then you ought not complain rather than fix things (I on the other hand have never told people to stop complaining as I think legitimate complaints well expressed benefit the site, especially on locked pages) .--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 20:18, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

*Last night, I was talking to TK and I mentioned the possible idea of a tutoring system for new sysops or editors. I know this isn't really the appropriate page to bring this up, but it's a possible solution. I know Wikipedia does it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 19:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::I once had the motivation for something like that (and I still occasionally got the drive back, like in [[Conservapedia:Footnotes - technical help]]). Even these days, I try to help where I find calls for help, but it's relatively thankless work in many cases.
::On-topic: I think the first step for that would be to compile a list of open questions. We have some sysops who need a few pointers for sysop tools, and we got some sysops who need a full-scale "MediaWiki 101". It will be impossible to write a help without a starting point. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:08, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I am afraid we are past that now, they don't want others sharing knowledge, it robs them of their elite status. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:02, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:TK, I'm disappointed. I thought I helped you often enough for you to avoid such broad statements. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:08, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Maybe eventually the field of thistles will be burned to grow anew. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:02, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:The archive didn't really suit me. Can you leave some of the recent stuff up, so it's handier to use? When I drop in, I'm usually in a hurry. I just want to add a one-liner, on the model of what I see in front of me. If it's too clean, I kind of freeze up. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Accusations of trolling ==

Excuse me, but adding the conservative Christian view of sex to [[Heterosexuality]] is not "trolling", and neither is removing loaded words like "genocide" and "murder" from [[Holocaust]]. [[User:AppliedFaith|AppliedFaith]] 10:53, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::We are debating "editing done in an attempt to embarrass conservapedia" [http://www.conservapedia.com/User:CPAdmin1/Proposed_Block_Policy#Attempting_to_embarass_Conservapedia]right now with a recommended ban of 6 months. These two edits, in my view, could earn you a one year ban, but you are free to put your input on that discussion page if you feel these were not attempts to embarrass Conservapedia. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:19, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

: 'Genocide' and 'Murder' are both legal charges that the instigators of the Holocaust were found guilty of. They are facts. Conservapedia is in favour of facts (a fairly difficult statement, but bear with me). Hence removing facts from Conservapedia is trolling. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
::So because the winners get to write the history books, objectivity and neutral language are to be thrown out the window? [[User:AppliedFaith|AppliedFaith]] 11:15, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
AppliedFaith, the winners in World War II were those who were opposed to slaughtering innocents. I think it's okay that people who are ''not'' in favor of slaughtering innocents get to write the history books. Do you disagree?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:24, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::as someone if favor af abortion, you have nothing to say about slaughtering innocents. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 21:21, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:I think an encyclopedia shouldn't be using loaded terms that by their nature tell readers what to think. And try telling the civilians of Dresden, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima that the Allies were opposed to slaughtering innocents. [[User:AppliedFaith|AppliedFaith]] 14:38, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::Don't be an idiot. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 21:56, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Hacker, there is no need for you to call a person an idiot. --'''[[User:AdrianP|Adrian]][[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 21:45, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:::: Look, I'm half Jewish. I don't appreciate attempted negation of the Holocaust, and I reserve the right to call it for what it is. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 20:26, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

==If you disagree==

*:- Ed, a kilt (pleated male skirt) and (on formal occasions) dress shirt with ruffles ''is'' traditional Scottish dress. [[User:Unthank|Unthank]] 07:26, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*:--The man in the traditional attire was in fact [[Jack McConnell]] the first minister of Scotland. The head of the Scottish Executive. I will revert you unintended vandalism. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 07:45, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#You are both on probation. Let's see your writing plans. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
-- for pointing out that the kilt is traditional Scottish dress? Google images of kilt if you don't believe us. Driving competent and experienced writers away is no way to make Conservapedia a success. [[User:Unthank|Unthank]] 08:04, 30 April 2007 (EDT) ---By the way I'm a grandfather called Nicolas and have nothing to do with Satan. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 08:09, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|Britinme}} history of adding copyright violations.[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Albania&diff=prev&oldid=64017][http://www.conservapedia.com/AFD_American_Friends_Service_Commission] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:06, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::I strongly object to this characterization. The American Friends Service Committee stuff is licensed under creative commons - no copyright violations there. If you check, you'll find that the Albania stuff is only on one other site on the internet, and that's QI. It's on QI because I am a moderator on that site and I wrote it, so if there's any copyright there it belongs to me. Please withdraw your accusation and apologize. This statement should not be posted here without checking any such issues with me - that's the height of discourtesy.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 18:30, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Thank you. It will be investigated. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:18, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::::QI says, "abridged from a longer version you can read here" [http://www.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?start=0&t=4471] which links to to ''Crossing Boundaries: Albania's Sworn Virgins'' [http://www.jolique.com/gender/crossing_boundaries.htm] on the Jolique site which has a copyright noitce. Is this correct? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:26, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::'Abridged' means I took a short section from it, which counts as fair usage, and I linked to the original article--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 12:47, 1 May 2007 (EDT)Corrected mis-statement--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 13:01, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Ok, that looks acceptable. And I appologize for any misunderstanding. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:07, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

User talk:CPWebmaster

2007-05-12T00:23:36Z

Linus M.: MediaWiki stuff

<div style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; margin-bottom: 0; width: 100%; background-color: #4f402b; height: 200px; color: white; padding: 0;">

<div style="-moz-border-radius-bottomright: 16px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 16px; float:left; background-color: #97c000; width: 85%; height: 160px; margin-top: 20px; padding-left: 0.5em;">
<div style="font-size: 200%; text-align: center; padding-top: 0.1em;">Welcome to CPWebmaster's (aka: [[User:AmesG/PanelEvolution|Fearless Leader]]) talk page</div>
<div style="font-size: 70%; text-align: center; padding: 0.2em;">This talk page is best viewed in Mozilla Firefox.</div>
</div>

<div style="-moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 16px; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 16px; float: right; background-color: #74c0fa; width: 10%; height: 160px; margin-top: 20px; text-align: center;">
<div style="font-size: 120%;">[[User_talk:CPWebmaster/Archive1|Archive1]]</div>
</div>
</div>

<div style="width: 100%; background-color: #4f402b; height: 100%; color: white; padding-bottom: 20px;">
<div style="-moz-border-radius-bottomright: 16px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 16px; background-color: #fff; width: 85%; margin-left: 0; margin-right: auto; padding: 0.5em; color: black;">

==Intelligent design lock==
hi, I tried making a suggestion for the structuring of the ID page about a month ago and listed my comments on the talk page. I haven't received any replies indicating problems with my suggestion (see Evidence -> Support). Can you update the main article please? --[[User:Propro|Propro]] 14:03, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

== Uploads ==

Dude, what is the deal with [[Special:Upload]]? I can ''never'' cause it to function appropriately. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 18:58, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Pic==
LOL! Love the banner on your user page. Ames will be pleased :P. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:58, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

== User Boxes... ==

Do I understand yours to mean you have something against Poultry? I'm shocked! Were do you stand on Turkey and Chicken, Mr. Webmaster? Exactly. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:00, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Love==
I think the new look of your user page is simply ''fabulous!''.[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 21:35, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Sysop Pledge==

As my good deed of the day I am requesting that you place this template on your userpage. Participating sysops will earn my respect and gratitude. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:55, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

{{Sysop Pledge}}

Ben... you're a riot [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 10:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==Proposed Block Policy==
There has recently been some disagreement over blocks, so I have created a [[User:CPAdmin1/Proposed Block Policy|proposed block policy]]
Tell me what you think. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 23:23, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

: Responded via email... dislike it. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 10:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::Gosh, that is so "un-wiki" like, a private response, I would have been insulted for doing that, lol. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:01, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Philip, could you please explain what you have against my policy. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 09:32, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Tim, I believe that this Wiki is something like a free-market. You have the supply (us editors) and the demand (people who want to use the site). What usually happens when a free-market becomes regulated? It is no longer free. Rules and regulations destroy the system. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 09:44, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::So you prefer Anarchy? --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 14:35, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: No Tim. Rules that are essential to the site such as no obscenity, etc. are the only rules that are needed. In the real world this would be comparable to laws against murder, stealing, etc. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 17:05, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

==Unblock Myk==
I have agreed to unblocking Myk. Is there a function with which to do so? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:09, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

*Thanks, Karajou, I was supposed to message you too, but so much is happening it was delayed. I will do it for you, the unblocking.--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:23, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== Change to the T-Rex page==
CPwebmaster, why the change on the T-Rex page? The research was cited and just released. Did you happen to read it before reverting?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:04, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:I don't agree with TimS' edits (and I will explain why on the talk page tomorrow), but neither do I agree with the amount that you removed. In cases like there where there is obviously or likely to be disagreement, couldn't you at the very least explain your rationale in the edit comment or on the talk page? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:27, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:: Yes... I did remove too much information... fixed [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 12:43, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== Missing Links ==

For the computer illiterate, like me, would you consider restoring the link to "Special Pages" on the left? It is missing on several pages I was just on, but shows here on your own page...... --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 06:33, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== Good block ==

Good block this morning. The contributor has made many valid edits, so the one week time period is appropriate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:24, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== request ==

I sent a letter of assistance regarding our abortion articles to right to life groups and I sent about 40 emails. Keep an eye on my user discussion page for people saying they are interested in being Admins/SYSOPS. Look at their edits and promote them to Admins if you think it is warranted. Here is my discussion page: http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Conservative [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:35, 14 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Could you please revert the [[macroevolution]] article to the way it was before it was submitted to the panel? I left you a diff on the talk page. I understood that this was the policy regarding the panel - at least that's how it was with [[evolution]].-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:52, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::I really don't see why this should be done. The article in its present state is perfectly acceptable. Also, I don't know of the policy you speak of. Can you point it out? Thanks [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 12:12, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== [[CP:RFA]] ==

Someone needs to periodically update this, and take the appropriate course of action for the applicants, and you seem to be a likely canidate. Thanks. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 21:53, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== Anti Gun ==

I'm anti-gun, however I like to play devil's advocate sometimes. I do not believe that academic discourse can progress without competing ideas. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 20:30, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

: That is awesome! It's great to see some thinkers around here. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 20:33, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Edit War with Conservative ==

CPWebmaster, I was upholding the decision of the panel. See the discussion on Philip J. Rayment's talk page [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Philip_J._Rayment#question_regarding_pro_evolutionary_books_being_added_to_TOE_article here]. The Panel approved a version of the article ''with'' the free online text of "The Origin of Species", though Conservative removed the link merely eight minutes before the Panel made it's decision (Conservative removed book at 18:21 April 9, decision made 18:29 April 9); clearly too short of a time, as the panel had been deliberating for quite some time. Andy has also made his anti-censorship view very explicit. Other sysops had also supported the inclusion of the book, as it is the single most relevant book on the topic that exists. The pro-inclusion sysops provided their reasons and justifications, though Conservative kept reverting without ''any'' justification, or discussion (except for an attempt to draw the conversation off topic at [[Talk:Theory of evolution]]). Perhaps you should warn [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] to not work against what has been made explicitly clear. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

: Where does the Panel's decision state that the ref's cannot be changed? It doesn't. Please do not get into any more revert wars with Conservative or any other user. Thank you. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 19:58, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=96144 Here] is where the panel says that addition of references and further reading books is acceptable. And please, warn the other party in this edit war as well, as he is equally guilty. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:02, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::: I'm talking about the revert wars in general, not so much this specific case. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 20:06, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:::: Forgive me, but it is hard to avoid an edit war when you cite justifications for your edits, ''prove'' that you are undoubtedly correct, and the [[User:Conservative|other user]] provides no justification and runs from answering any kind of question. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:07, 18 April 2007 (EDT) 
::::What other revert wars is [[User:Hojimachong| Hojimachong]] engaged in?[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 20:14, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::None, at the moment. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:16, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::: You're dodging the bullet. Please just don't get into any revert wars. They waste everyone's time. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 20:17, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::: I fully understand that edit wars are bad to engage in, and should be avoided. But I think you are missing my point as well; There was evidence to back up a specific view, posted on the talk page, and told to Conservative even ''before'' he removed the books (He ''asked'' Philip J. Rayment about removing the books. Philip said he shouldn't; Conservative did it anyways). I think Conservative needs to be reprimanded in some way, shape, or form; I don't see him being warned for the edit war. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:19, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: Once again, Conservative made a change against the panel, consensus, and Andy. When is this ''vandalism'' going to be taken note of? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:02, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

CPWebmaster, I want to highlight two things that you said:
* "''I'm talking about the revert wars in general, not so much this specific case.''"
* "''You're dodging the bullet. Please just don't get into any revert wars. They waste everyone's time.''"
Okay, perhaps Hojimachong has been involved in other edit wars; I haven't checked. And if true, and if that is not true of Conservative, then perhaps you do have a defence for what is otherwise a prima-facie case of favouritism. But you also seem to be "dodging the bullet" yourself. On Wikipedia, ''both'' editors would have been given blocks twice over for this particular incident, and ''both'' editors are "wasting everyone's time". You also said:
* "''Where does the Panel's decision state that the ref's cannot be changed? It doesn't.''"
That's precisely the point. I "changed" (added) some references (books for further reading), and Conservative started the revert war (in the sense that he made the first reversion) by removing them on the grounds that they were against the Panel's decision. You have here acknowledged that they are not against the Panel's decision, indicating that it was Conservative who was in the wrong, yet it is Hojimaching that you are warning.

Just to avoid any misunderstanding, I agree with Conservative's worldview, and disagree with some of Hojimachong's. And it was Conservative that first suggested that I be a sysop. It pains me to have to take a stand against him on this, but I believe that truth and justice  warrants it in this case.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:10, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well spoken, Philip. For me, this all fell under the "two wrongs don't make a right" consideration. Those who have been around more than a month know I have publicly disagreed with Sysop Conservative many times. Not on ideological or political grounds, but because of this absolute unwillingness to engage others, or even answer their questions. And I don't agree with blocking people without some explanation, if only to fellow Sysop's. He has gotten much better at responding, however. All of the points above, raised by everyone don't make engaging in a squalid public fight over editing, conducted by Sysop's, right. It is hard to preach to editors not to do something Administrators are constantly doing, eh? No matter if it is reverting each other's edits, or reverting blocks, it is the same principle; "Do as I say, not as I do". I think that is more what the Webmaster's point was, knowing full well the danger of supposition. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 03:10, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

== Problems with my watchlist ==

I appear to be having problems with my watchlist. Occasionally I notice articles that are changed are not appearing on my watchlist. It appears to be articles which have been protected. Protected articles that I put on my watchlist, or that I edit, are okay, but articles that I already have on my watchlist that are then protected don't appear, at least sometimes (until I edit them again). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:18, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== small favor ==

I permanently blocked someone and it was by mistake. I think I fixed it but I am not sure. Please make sure Bill_M can edit. 00:04, 22 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

: He's not blocked. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 00:06, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

== Please vote for me ==

Please vote for me here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Request_for_Bureaucratship [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:38, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

== Changing User Name ==

I'm wondering how I can change my User Name. Can it be done? If so, how? Please let me know. --[[User:Jtpaladin|Jtpaladin]] 21:47, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
: It would probably be best to just create a new account. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 23:10, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Any bureaucrat can handle a name change for you. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 02:09, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== My contributions ==

I think there's something wrong with my contributions, all edits prior to today seem to have vanished [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Aschl%D0%B0fly link]. Would you be able to look into it for me? Thank you and God bless. [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:17, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
: No there isn't. Look back in the recent changes for the creation of a new 'User:Aschlafly'. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]
:: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Log/newusers Here]. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

So is it possible to ban the fake ASchlafly and the fake Conservative before they do more damage to the site and to the reputations of the real things?--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 13:25, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:Sure, as long as the person doing it know what they are doing and pays attention. Oh................well...........it would normally be possible but after all SYSOP promotion here has little to do with understanding what the heck you are doing. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:28, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:: I don't know. No mods seem to be currently active. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

==thank you==

thank you for fixing my talk page. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 10:34, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

: you're welcome [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 11:31, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== Edit to wombat ==

Please see the talk page and explain your reversion. Thanks. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:16, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

== Image libs ==

Are we using GD or ImageMagick? --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:33, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

==Merge==

Thanks for this merge. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&curid=6394&diff=155595&oldid=155117]
What other maintenance tasks can we do together? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:04, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

: It seems that there are a '''lot''' of templates that are not being user and/or are worthless. Going through those would be good. Thanks for the help! [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 12:07, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::I deleted 4 unused templates. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:17, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Could you also remove them from [[help:templates]] please? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:38, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== MediaWiki stuff ==

I have two suggestions:

# You really should install [http://mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Interwiki_linking interwiki links] to Wikipedia, it would make life easier.
# [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:%24wgExtraNamespaces Extra namespaces], i.e. "Debate:" would also be helpful. Currently, all debate pages reside in the Project namespace, which, to a techie like myself, is physically painful :).

--[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 20:23, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Scopes Trial

2007-05-11T19:22:27Z

Linus M.: /* The Trial */ rmv'd bogus claim, and excessive POV.

The '''Scopes Trial''' of 1925 was engineered as a challenge to the Tennessee Butler Act that prohibited the teaching of evolution in publically funded schools and universities. The willing defendant, John Scopes, was convicted of violating the Butler act, though the conviction was later overturned on a technicality. The Scopes trial was made infamous in 1955 with the play ''Inherit the Wind'', and the 1960 Hollywood motion picture with the same title; both works took great artistic license.

== Publicity Conspiracy ==
The Scopes trial began as a conspiracy among town leaders at a drugstore in Dayton, Tennessee, in response to a newspaper advertisement placed by the American Civil Liberties Union ([[ACLU]]) offering to provide legal services to anyone willing to be prosecuted under the Butler Act.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2006}}, {{hnb|Linder|2002}}. See also {{hnb|Coulter|2006}}</ref> Town leaders agreed that a trial would provide publicity to the town,<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2006}}</ref> whose population had dwindled to 1,800.<ref>{{hnb|Linder|2002}}</ref> The town leaders found a willing defendent in John Scopes, a gym teacher and football coach who also substituted (sometimes as a biology teacher), though Scopes could not recall ever teaching evolution.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2006}}. See also {{hnb|Coulter|2006}}</ref> John Scopes told the town leaders, "If you can prove that I've taught evolution and that I can qualify as a defendant, then I'll be willing to stand trial."

== Grand Jury ==
Racing other Tennessee towns, Judge John T. Raulston accelerated the convening of the grand jury and "...all but instructed the grand jury to indict Scopes, despite the meager evidence against him and the widely reported stories questioning whether the willing defendant had ever taught evolution in the classroom."<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2006|p=108}}</ref> He was indicted on May 25, after three students testified against Scopes at the Grand Jury, at Scopes' behest.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2006|p=89, 107}}</ref>

== The Trial ==
The trial in 1925 of [[John Scopes]] for teaching evolution in Tennessee was a defeat of Darwinism. The [[ACLU]] and liberal trial lawyer Clarence Darrow brought the Scopes case in the hopes of winning a public relations and legal victory, but in fact [[William Jennings Bryan]], the evangelical Christian who had been Secretary of State in the Wilson Administration, decisively beat them.

The [[ACLU]] challenged a Tennessee statute, the Butler Act, that imposed a fine for teaching in public school that man descended from more primitive life forms. The statute did not prohibit teaching most aspects of evolution. The textbook at issue in the case taught eugenics, including that man supposedly descended from lower life forms and that some racial groups had evolved to more advanced levels than others.

The textbook also featured the fraudulent [[Piltdown Man]]. At the time, Darwinists claimed that this and eugenics were indisputable science to be taught to students.

Bryan quoted for the court how Darrow had previously claimed that murder defendants Leopold and Loeb were driven to crime by what they were taught, which was Nietzche's atheistic philosophy. Bryan quoted Darrow as saying that "Is there any blame attached because somebody took Nietzsche's philosophy seriously and fashioned his life on it? ... The university would be more to blame than he is. ... Your honor, it is hardly fair to hang a 19-year-old boy for the philosophy that was taught him at the university."

Bryan was an extraordinary speaker, recognized to be among the best in American history. Darrow wanted to prevent Bryan from making a persuasive closing argument to the jury, and Darrow searched for another way to try to score points for his side.

So Darrow stunned the court by requesting to cross-examine Bryan, in the hope that Bryan, like many attorneys, would be a poor witness. Darrow's attempt was unprecedented, because trial attorneys almost never take the witness stand in their own cases. Bryan agreed only on the condition that he could cross-examine Darrow. Based on that agreement, Bryan took the witness stand.

A witness in a trial is always at a disadvantage on cross-examination, because he can only answer questions that are posed by a hostile adversary. On cross-examination, Attorneys are allowed to ask leading(yes or no) questions to force the desired response, unlike on direct examination. Attorneys are particularly vulnerable, because their knowledge of the law and tendency to speak in legalese hinder their performance.

Darrow undoubtedly thought that he could turn Bryan into the proverbial buffoon that liberals wanted. The transcript can be translated in a variety of fashions, largely dependent on the preconceptions of the translator, allowing one to see Darrow's attempts as either a success or failure. Here is a sample of the transcript:<ref>http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/day7.htm</ref>

Bryan--These gentlemen have not had much chance--they did not come here to try this case. They came here to try revealed religion. I am here to defend it and they can ask me any question they please.

Judge--All right. (Applause in audience.) …

Bryan--Those [the audience] are the people whom you insult.

Darrow--You insult every man of science and learning in the world because he does believe in your fool religion. ....

Darrow: Wait until you get to me [N.B. this apparently refers to Darrow's agreement to be a witness]. Do you know anything about how many people there were in Egypt 3,500 years ago, or how many people there were in China 5,000 years ago?

Bryan --No.

Darrow--Have you ever tried to find out?

Bryan--No, sir. You are the first man I ever heard of who has been in interested in it. (Laughter)

Darrow--Mr. Bryan, am I the first man you ever heard of who has been interested in the age of human societies and primitive man?

Bryan--You are the first man I ever heard speak of the number of people at those different periods.

Darrow--Where have you lived all your life?

Bryan--Not near you. (Laughter and applause).

Darrow tried again and again to trap Bryan, but struck out each time. A later exchange ended, once again, with the audience laughing:

Darrow--I will read it to you from the Bible: "And the Lord God said unto the serpent, because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life." Do you think that is why the serpent is compelled to crawl upon its belly?

Bryan--I believe that.

Darrow--Have you any idea how the snake went before that time?

Bryan--No, sir.

Darrow--Do you know whether he walked on his tail or not?

Bryan--No, sir. I have no way to know. (Laughter in audience).

The next day, it was Darrow's turn to be cross-examined. But Darrow stunned the public by giving up rather than upholding his end of the bargain. Darrow took the unprecedented step of asking the jury for a guilty verdict against his client, the defendant teacher John Scopes.<ref>http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/day8.htm</ref>

After 8 days of trial, the jury gave Darrow exactly what he requested, after 9 minutes of deliberation. Scopes was found guilty on July 21 and ordered to pay a fine of $100 US, which was eliminated on a technicality on appeal.

== The movie and play ==
The play ''Inherit the Wind'', and the adapted movie, were fictional accounts of the Scopes Trial.<ref>http://www.themonkeytrial.com/</ref> Several modifications were made; characters names were changed, and many crucial facts were changed. The authors have said that the play was really an attempt to mock Senator Joseph McCarthy, and to equate anti-communism with anti-intellectualism.<ref>http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2005/07/08/07</ref> The movie featured the popular Spencer Tracy as Clarence Darrow, and even garnered a few Academy Award nominations.

The movie features an angry mob trying to lynch a jailed teacher; in fact, the ACLU ran advertisements with offers to pay expenses for a teacher to volunteer for the case, and Scopes was never jailed and never paid even a fine.

The movie version heaped mockery on any argument that teaching evolution could be socially harmful.

The movie portrayed the character based on Bryan as a complete buffoon. Bryan's death was also portrayed as happening in the courthouse, when in fact he was an elderly man suffering from diabetes who died peacefully in his sleep.

American history books often describe this case as a catalyst for evolution supporters.<ref>The Enduring Vision, Fifth Edition, Chapter 23: The 1920s: Coping with Change, Paul S. Boyer, University of Wisconsin, Madison; Clifford E. Clark, Jr., Carleton College; et al. (a commonly used American history textbook for Advanced Placement US History classes).</ref>

== Aftermath ==
Bryan, a 65-year-old diabetic lacking in modern treatments, died peacefully in his sleep five days after the conclusion of the Scopes trial. Bryan's victory in the Scopes trial was a fitting end to a principled, illustrious career.<ref> http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/ea/side/bryan.html</ref> Scopes never had to pay the fine - the judge had set the amount but Tennessee law at the time prohibited judges from setting fines over $50.

The law challenged by the [[ACLU]] in the Scopes Trial remained in effect for over 50 more years. In 1967, Tennessee repealed the Butler Act, and in 1968, the Supreme Court ruled in ''Epperson v. Arkansas'', 393 U.S. 97, that such bans on teaching are unconstitutional if they are primarily religious in intent.

Tennessee continued to downplay evolution in its schools until 2005.<ref>http://www.edexcellence.net/institute/publication/publication.cfm?id=352&pubsubid=1169#1169</ref>

==References==
<references/>
==Sources==
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Coulter
| Given = Ann
| Year = 2006
| Title = Godless: The Church of Liberalism
| Publisher = Crown Forum.
| ID = ISBN 978-1400054206
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Larson
| Given = Edward J.
| Year = 2006
| Title = Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial And America's Continuing Debate over Science And Religion
| Publisher = Basic Books
| ID = ISBN 978-0465075102
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Linder
| Given = Douglas
| Year = 2002
| Title = The Scopes Trial: An Introduction
| Publisher = University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law
| URL = http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/evolut.htm
}} Retreived on 05-11-2007

Talk:Wombat

2007-05-11T17:03:06Z

Linus M.: I would think…

Once again, it would be helpful to have actual evidence to back up the creationist ideas here. Evidence does not mean quoting an opinion from creationist books, but actual physical, observable evidence. Thanks. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:51, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

It's interesting to note that Reference 4 does not in any way support the assertion that it is supposed to be verifying - that there was a land bridge between Australia and Europe. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 05:52, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:Thanks for pointing that out. I've provided a different reference. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:45, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

==Evolution of the wombat==

If anyone has proof that the wombat evolved, please present it. Merely saying that some scientists "asserts" or "speculates" something tells our readers nothing.

I've heard speculation that the earth is hollow and we're all walking around on the inner surface of a sphere, with gravity pulling us outward. But without a theoretical explanation (which is [[falsifiable]]), I would dismiss such a notion as [[pseudoscience]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:08, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

: Ed, so under that logic why did you leave in the creationist section? Heck, we should remove any mention of origins related issues from all articles. I'm not going to do that since I appreciate the point of a WP:POINT sort of guideline even if we dont have one here. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:13, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::Joshua, I appreciate your respect of the golden rule ("do as you would be done by"). In general, you can follow Wikipedia rules here, and "using disruption to make a point" is pretty much frowned upon here (as there). I'm glad you stopped your disruption after only one article.

::Perhaps you'd like to explain why you feel the creationist section should be deleted. That is the usual "wiki" thing to do: explain one's intent or rationale, rather than engaging in an [[edit war]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:22, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Ed, I have to ask, Did you question the falsifiability of the theory of evolution? Also I do see where Josh is going with this. What proof is there for the creationist's claims that trumps the proof over the evolutionist claims?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:27, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::: The reasoning was (as Tim seems to have understood) was that if you consider the evolution section to be too speculative than a fortiori so is the creationist section. (Incidentally, it appears that CP agrees with me. See his recent edits restoring both). (I'll ignore your unfounded implication that I was "disruptive") [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:29, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
== Mitochondrial and fossil evidence ==

JoshuaZ has inserted the line, "''This hypothesis is supported by [[mitochrondria|mitochondrial]] genetic evidence as well as fossil evidence''". Not having access to his source, could he or someone please explain how the evidence support this? Thanks in anticipation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:25, 7 May 2007 (EDT) (P.S. I hadn't see the section above when I posted this.)

: The mitochondrial DNA divergence matches the expected phylogentic tree (actually, the ref shows slightly more, since there has been some controversy about certain details of the major marsupial evolution and the ref supports one version over another, what's known as the Marsupionta hypothesis). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:29, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I was hoping for a little bit more detail than that (but not too much). Specifically, one of the things that anti-creationists so often overlook is that if ''both'' creation and evolution make similar predictions, then the evolutionary prediction being fulfilled does not support evolution over creation. Can you explain how the evidence supports the evolutionary view ''over'' the creationary view? If not, I don't think that bit should be in there. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:37, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Well that paper and others give times of divergence based on the molecular evidence and neutral mutation rate that are close to the standard times from the fossil record. For example, the genetic evidence given in the paper gives a divergence time of around 70 million years between the Australian marsupials and the South American marsupials. This is consistent with that derived from the fossil record, which is generally put at between 60 and 90 million years or so(those numbers may be slightly, off I haven't look at some of this material in a while, but they are roughly correct). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:51, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

==This little animal!!==
This little animal is getting far to much attention... I mean like come on. People don't argue whether it it has evolved or not, if you can find the link then thats great. Joshua stop being so combative. Ed you always take a beating and I am glad you are stiking to your "guns". 2 or 3 of you work on this, or peacefully discuss this. Thats all folks.--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 11:30, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

== I would think… ==

that a rear-facing pouch is inconclusive at best. Here's a hypothetical evolutionary sequence:

<ol>
<li>Wombat is born with a mutation causing the pouch to face backwards</li>

Now, at least one of at least two scenarios can occur:

<li>Wombat is now able to dig w/o killing young, thus conferring an advantage</li>

or

<li>Wombat's young have a greater incidence of survival, thus also conferring a benefit.
 
Hypothetically, we could also imagine a scenario where the wombat's young better survived because predators were acclimated to forward-facing pouches. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 13:03, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Illegal immigration

2007-05-11T16:29:57Z

Linus M.: Undo revision 155589 by Special:Contributions/CPWebmaster (User talk:CPWebmaster), I think it is POV'd; however, I don't want an EW.

{{stub}}

Illegal immigration is when people without legal permission from a country cross the border and proceed to dwell there.

==Illegal immigration in the United States==
Illegal immigration is often thought of as having become a major problem in the United States, because the number of Mexicans and other foreign born citizens living in the U.S. is growing. Illegal immigrants do not pay taxes and use many services, such as health care and schools. However, many illegals are afraid to use free services, such as domestic violence shelters, out of fear of deportation. Many illegals cannot speak English. Some people defend the immigrants, saying that they are simply coming to find work or to escape political oppression, and that they come illegally as legal channels are not open to them.<ref>http://www.immigration-usa.com/george_weissinger.html immigration Usa</ref><ref>www.uscis.gov Immigration and Naturalization Services</ref><ref>www.dhs.gov Department of Homeland Security</ref>

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:Politics]]

Illegal immigration

2007-05-11T15:55:17Z

Linus M.: CLeanup, NPOV

Wombat

2007-05-10T21:15:14Z

Linus M.: NPOV - don't worry, nothing major

[[Image:Wombat-pic.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Wombat]]

== Scientific Classification ==

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Infraclass: Marsupialia
Order: Diprotodontia
Suborder: Vombatiformes
Family: Vombatidae

== Description ==

'''Wombats''' are stocky, tailless, ursiform [[marsupial | marsupials]] of the [[Linnaean taxonomy | Linnaean taxonomic]] family ''Vombatidae''. They are nocturnal, walk on four short legs, like to burrow, and are herbivorous.

The common wombat (''Vombatus ursinus'') reaches about three feet in length and produces distinctive cubical scat<ref name="triggs">[http://dannyreviews.com/h/Wombat.html Review: ''The Wombat: Common Wombats in Australia'' by Barbara Triggs]</ref>. There are also two or three (depending on classification) rare species of hairy-nosed wombats of the genus ''Lasiorhinus''<ref>[http://www.wombania.com/wombats/hairy-nosed-wombat.htm Wombat Information Center: Hairy Nosed Wombat]</ref>.

One of the distinctive features of wombats is that their pouch opens towards the rear of the animal, unlike most other marsupials. This avoids the problem of the pouch filling with dirt whilst the animal is burrowing.

==Origins==

===Creationist hypothesis===

According to [[creationists]], representatives of the separately created wombat [[baraminology|archaebaramin]] were among those animals that migrated from the [[Middle East]] to [[Australia]] as part of the [[Post-Diluvian Diasporas]]. There is debate whether this migration happened over land<ref name="ca1">[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c006.html "How did animals get from the Ark to isolated places, such as Australia?"], ChristianAnswers.net.</ref> -- as Australia was still for a time almost connected to Europe by land bridges similar to the one that connected Asia to America<ref>Batten, Don, et. al., 207, ''The Creation Answers Book'', [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter17.pdf Chapter 17]</ref> -- or if they [[rafting (ecology) | rafted]] on mats of vegetation torn up by the receding flood waters.<ref name="ca1"/>
Creation researchers suggest that the wombat-specific design of its rear-opening pouch provides strong evidence for the wombat's special creation and against the evolutionists' Diprotodontian theory of wombat/kangaroo common ancestry<ref>[http://www.icr.org/article/677/ "Watches and Wombats"], by Ken Ham, Institute for Creation Research</ref>.

===Evolutionary hypothesis===

Individuals who advocate the [[theory of evolution]] speculate that modern wombats evolved from Diprotodontians (the supposed common ancestors of wombats and [[kangaroo | kangaroos]]) about 55-65 million years ago and that they are closely related to the [[koala]]<ref name="triggs"/>. This hypothesis is supported by [[mitochondria]]l genetic evidence as well as fossil evidence.<ref>Janke A et al. "Phylogenetic analysis of 18S rRNA and the mitochondrial genomes of the wombat, Vombatus ursinus, and the spiny anteater, Tachyglossus aculeatus: increased support for the Marsupionta hypothesis." (2002) Journal of molecular evolution 54:71-80. </ref>

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Marsupials]]
[[Category:Australia]]

User talk:CPWebmaster

2007-05-10T19:33:41Z

Linus M.: Image libs

Talk:Getting Web Traffic to Conservapedia - Article Creation/Improvement Drive

2007-05-09T03:31:01Z

Linus M.: Response

You guys do realize this won't work, don't you? --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 17:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:You do realize that saying something won't work is utterly useless, don't you? We need to hear ''why'' it won't work. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:11, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:I agree--to make this encyclopedia "trustworthy" is one thing, but to assume people aren't coming ''yet'' seems disingenuous. It won't work because the site is not "trustworthy" because it was meant to be designed with a flaw--the bias. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:13, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Well here is my 2 cents. I think the biggest problem facing Conservapedia right now is that a majority of the editors only care about highly controversial political/social topics. The good thing about Wikipedia is it is a good starting point for all sorts of topics. Regardless of bias, people are going to visit Wikipedia more often when they want general information on something, and people will come here to read the discussion pages and political bickering between people. For example, I know all about the conservative/creationist viewpoints on evolution now, but all I can find out about a rabbit is that it is a small mammal. Wikipedia currently provides a great starting place for a wider variety of information than here. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 17:18, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

VERY well-said. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:22, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

My reasons are:

#No one in their right mind would come to CP for any secular or semi-secular information relevant to Life, the Universe, and Everything.
#People actually have to ''link'' here to drive up the PageRank; what is more, they must link to a specific page. Show me five example of links that are not making fun of CP, and maybe I'll think there's hope.
#Wikipedia is always going to be better than CP, sorry.
#You alienate good WP editors by attacking WP at every chance. I am quite loyal to Wikipedia, and find these attacks very unappealing.

I'll write more when I have time. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 23:31, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Getting Web Traffic to Conservapedia - Article Creation/Improvement Drive

2007-05-08T21:09:29Z

Linus M.: New page: You guys do realize this won't work, don't you? --~~~~

You guys do realize this won't work, don't you? --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 17:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Koala

2007-05-08T21:03:20Z

Linus M.: /* Origins */ The sad thing is, it actually looked like something creationists would say, towards the beginning

[[Image:Koala-cub.jpg|right|250px|thumb|A koala with her cub.]]

The '''Koala''' ''(Phascolarctos cinereus'') is an arboreal (tree-dwelling) [[herbivore|herbivorous]] animal native to [[Australia]], feeding exclusively on the leaves of the [[Eucalyptus]] tree, and the only known member of the family Phascolarctidae. This animal sleeps about 20 hours a day so it is rarely awake at all. It is not in fact a real bear at all, but rather a [[marsupial]], which means it raises its young in a pouch on its belly.

The Koala is found all along the eastern coast of Australia from near Adelaide to the southern part of Cape York Peninsula, and as far from the coast as there is enough rainfall to support suitable forests. The Koalas of South Australia were largely exterminated during the early part of the 20th century, but the state has since been repopulated with Victorian stock. The Koala is not found in [[Tasmania]] or [[Western Australia]].

[[Category:Marsupials]]
[[Category:Australia]]

Conservapedia:Userboxes/Uncategorized

2007-05-08T18:24:57Z

Linus M.: /* Uncategorized */ Fixed it.

===Uncategorized===

{| class="wikitable"
|-
|{{UB|Galactic Empire}}
|-
|{{UB|Touchy}}
|-
|{{UB|Interest}}
|-
|{{UB|Mark Levin}}
|-
|{{UB|Geek}}
|-
|{{UB|admires|example}}
|-
|{{UB|alter ego|example}}
|-
|{{UB|noracists}}
|-
|{{UB|nobias}}
|-
|{{UB|Maia|(name of Valar)}}
|-
|{{UB|Irish Dancer}}
|-
|{{UB|Horse Lover}}
|-
|{{UB|Numenorian}}
|-
|{{UB|faveband|band}}
|-
|{{UB|Wikipedian}}
|-
|{{UB|MIMS}}
|-
|{{UB|pubschool}}
|-
|{{UB|tiny flags}}
|-
|{{UB|elephants}}
|-
|{{UB|Life begins|age}}
|-
|{{UB|G}}
|-
|{{UB|lies and stats}}
|-
|{{UB|noBush}}
|-
|{{UB|Socrates}}
|-
|{{UB|Earth}}
|-
|{{UB|Romans disco}}
|-
|{{UB|Nodak}}
|-
|{{UB|PhD awesome}}
|-
|{{UB|gay rights}}
|-
|{{UB|cows tasty}}
|-
|{{UB|lose weight}}
|-
|{{UB|environment}}
|-
|{{UB|Geek Code|x.y|Geek Code block|help=Parameter 1 defines the Geek Code version being presented, and parameter 2 defines your actual geek code.}}
|-
|{{UB|caffeine}}
|-
|{{UB|binary}}
|-
|{{UB|talk self}}
|-
|{{UB|Goonie}}
|}

User talk:Geo.plrd

2007-05-08T03:16:57Z

Linus M.: /* :Image:Christian flag.svg */ Thanks.

{|class="table"
<center><big>Geo.plrd</big> 
Archives
 
[[User_talk:Geo.plrd/Archive1|1]] [[User_talk:Geo.plrd/Archive2|2]] [[User_talk:Geo.plrd/Archive3|3]] [[User:Geo.plrd/Archive4|4]] [[User_talk:Geo.plrd/Archive5|Geo.plrd/Archive5]]
</center>

|<center>Current messages</center>

== Not me ==

I didn't lock my talk page. How could I. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] [[Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship#Support_2|Vote Horace for sysop]] 20:55, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
:I'd appreciate it if you would unlock it. I hadn't noticed. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] [[Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship#Support_2|Vote Horace for sysop]] 20:56, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

== Get well..... ==

Thanks, Geoffrey! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:50, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Parole ==

Thanks. Could you do me a favor and unblock [[User:Hacker]]? Consider it a name change in the grand tradition of Conservapedia :). --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:53, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

*Hacker will not be unblocked. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 16:00, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::Please inform me why not, TK? --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 16:25, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Sweet, thanks for the note Geo. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:40, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

I've already explained about the term "[[hacker]]". You're thinking of [[security cracker|cracker]]. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 21:11, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

<blockquote>
The "joke"
Well, I have one. *ahem* "What is wrong with six loud-mouthed ultraconservatives going over a cliff in a gas-guzzling SUV?…" Oh, wait, I'm on parole. Never mind. --Liπus the Turbohacker(contact me) 22:00, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Not funny --CPAdmin1 22:10, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
</blockquote>

The above is from Flippin's talk page. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:09, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

== [[:Image:Christian flag.svg]] ==

Can you do me a favor and delete this until I get a chance to redraw it? Thanks. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:36, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks. I think the SVG wasn't being parsed correctly, I'll attempt to rectify it. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 23:16, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Geo.plrd

2007-05-08T02:36:30Z

Linus M.: :Image:Christian flag.svg

{{User ill|a few days.}}
{|class="table"
<center><big>Geo.plrd</big> 
Archives
 
[[User_talk:Geo.plrd/Archive1|1]] [[User_talk:Geo.plrd/Archive2|2]] [[User_talk:Geo.plrd/Archive3|3]] [[User:Geo.plrd/Archive4|4]]
</center>

|<center>Current messages</center>

== I just voted for you too ==

I just voted for you too. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:17, 22 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

== usual crowd ==

A lot of the usual crowd has or will be blocked from Conservapedia via the 90/10 rule. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:22, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

== Not me ==

I didn't lock my talk page. How could I. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] [[Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship#Support_2|Vote Horace for sysop]] 20:55, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
:I'd appreciate it if you would unlock it. I hadn't noticed. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] [[Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship#Support_2|Vote Horace for sysop]] 20:56, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

== Get well..... ==

Thanks, Geoffrey! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:50, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Parole ==

Thanks. Could you do me a favor and unblock [[User:Hacker]]? Consider it a name change in the grand tradition of Conservapedia :). --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:53, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

*Hacker will not be unblocked. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 16:00, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::Please inform me why not, TK? --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 16:25, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Sweet, thanks for the note Geo. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:40, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

I've already explained about the term "[[hacker]]". You're thinking of [[security cracker|cracker]]. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 21:11, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

<blockquote>
The "joke"
Well, I have one. *ahem* "What is wrong with six loud-mouthed ultraconservatives going over a cliff in a gas-guzzling SUV?…" Oh, wait, I'm on parole. Never mind. --Liπus the Turbohacker(contact me) 22:00, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Not funny --CPAdmin1 22:10, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
</blockquote>

The above is from Flippin's talk page. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:09, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

== [[:Image:Christian flag.svg]] ==

Can you do me a favor and delete this until I get a chance to redraw it? Thanks. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:36, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Abuse

2007-05-07T02:39:19Z

Linus M.: /* Current Alerts */ RSchlafly

'''This is where you can report abuse of editing privileges. Please make notes short and concise. Unsigned posts will be removed.'''
__TOC__
Sysops, please move notes down to 'old alerts' once the incident is closed.

Archives:
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive1|1]]
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive2|2]]
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive3|3]]
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive4|4]]

Other links:
*[[Conservapedia:Abuse|Abuse Reporting]]
*[[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse|Administrative Abuse]]
*[[Conservapedia:Articles for Deletion|Articles for Deletion]]
*[[:Category:Speedy deletion candidates|Articles for Speedy Deletion]]
*[[User:CPanel|Conservapedia Panel]]

==Current Alerts==
* Please investigate [[User:RSchlafly]]'s edits to [[Geocentric theory]]. They are simply cutting out well-justified and relevant material, and there is no rationale given for the decision. This is tantamount to vandalism. [[User:OfficerDibble]]
:* I second that. [[User:RSchlafly]] hs been deleting and reverting a lot of my stuff and instead of debating the changes on the talk page he made statments like "Your beliefs are ridiculous". He has now protected the page so I can't make any changes.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 13:22, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I oppose this alert, at the risk of POV-pushing, geocentrism is risible IMO. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:39, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|YouGuysSuck}}, replaced Theory of Relativity with insults.
:Blocked infinitely Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Commodore Morgan}}, replacing user talk pages with "Icewedge has pwned Bronzefinger", in my case. [[User:Bronzefinger|Bronzefinger]] 13:04, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:Blocked infinitely Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Muschifresser}}, user name needs explanation. No apparent justification for blocking, but "Fresser" means "to eat like an animal," and "Muschi" is, uh, blocked by Google's Safe Search filtering. I'm about to leave a note on his Talk page. watch for his reply. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:50, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Swordofdestiny}} using specious reasoning to defend a troublemaker. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:11, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Blocked by ed poor Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Boris Johnson, MP}} obscenity [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 15:45, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|The Black Angel of Death}} [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 15:40, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Czolgolz}} - Karajou says he lied about sources. [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Ed_Poor#Zugstein] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:21, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:User made a mistake Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Tennis Sweatshirt}} I think he might be icewedge and he also posted "This place is pretty worthless so I would leave Tennis Sweatshirt 12:29, 29 April 2007 (EDT)." So I am not sure if you can trust any of his edits as being of any worth. --'''[[User:AdrianP|Adrian]][[User talk:AdrianP|P]] 20:03, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Pokeisthemon}} mostly hunch, but I'm sure it's a sock of Icewedge. Should be watched closely, if not pre-emptively blocked. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 21:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:Inconclusive on checkuser Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 16:20, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::Cool. My apologies to Poke. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 22:33, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|JoshuaZ}} Misleading edit summary + removed valid information from [[Noah]] article. Last 3 edits are questionable. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:11, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
** I reviewed his unproductive edits and a short block is appropriate. Please proceed as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:59, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:Fred]] -- questionable edits intended to embarass CP. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Censorship&diff=prev&oldid=46203][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Separation_of_church_and_state&diff=prev&oldid=41507] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:46, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|GeorgeJ.W.}} keeps to add seemingly parodic, biased nonsense to articles, often attacking free software for being "communist". --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 19:50, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
: Silly edits by GeorgeJ.W., I agree. Not quite enough to block him, but he's getting there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
::They're parodic, Andy, not silly, unless he's an utterly ignorant moron. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 07:47, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|Scorpion}}, vote fraud via sockpuppets. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 21:53, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|Hacker}} Review of Hacker's edits: slightly less than 500 edits, of which only about 6 are new entries and only about 10 are substantive edits of existing entries. One of the new entries was "Geek". Unless this improves quickly, I propose blocking this account because this violates the 90/10 rule.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::That seems disingenuous. Yes, he has only a few new pages, but he has made a number of templates. And, maybe I read the "total" incorrectly, but it said 307 edits? At the risk of sounding tautological, this user is quite useful, IMHO. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 10:52, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

===Dealt with===
*{{user|CaptainCAVEMAN}} ought to be blocked. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked.
*{{user|Pussyfooter}} check out edits to [[Pudding]] [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:31, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|JeffersonDarcy}} He put "this user doesn't have a problem with calling a person a faggot" on my user page. He also deleted my post putting his name on the current alerts. --[[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 14:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked for 1 week. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:43, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Auld Nick}} User name means Satan ("Old Nick"). Uploaded picture of a man in a skirt and frilly blouse, mislabeled as "traditional attire". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:23, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*:- Ed, a kilt (pleated male skirt) and (on formal occasions) dress shirt with ruffles ''is'' traditional Scottish dress. [[User:Unthank|Unthank]] 07:26, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#You are both on probation. Let's see your writing plans. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*Terreista and LambChop -blocked, socks of each other --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Alfa Papa}} causing havoc. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 17:18, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:It's a sock of Icewedge. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 19:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::'''Blocked''' by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:39, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Aydindrill}} Causing havoc. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 22:09, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
**'''Blocked''' by Aschlafly as a sock of icewedge. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 12:47, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[User:Staple]] -- vandalism and other questionable content. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:24, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
** Feel free to make my one-month block permanent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:59, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
** Staple has many counterproductive edits, and potentially offensive ones by labeling users with categories. I lengthened his block to 1 month. I don't know anything about a "swastika" but feel free to make his block permanent if that is what it sounds like.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
***He had a swastika on his userpage[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
****The [[:Category:Liberal Users]] he created as a subcat of [[:Category:Communists]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Liberal_Users]; he & I were the only [[:Category:Conservative Users]] in that cat after he put a swastika on his User page.[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Staple&diff=prev&oldid=132099] At a minimum this is incivility and trolling, and has little to do with his own use of his User page. A permanent block is warranted. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 02:04, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
** Swastika alone justifies it. Good block.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:33, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[user:MontyZuma]], for instances of minor vandalism, and the creation of a profane page which involved moving an article into and changing the content. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:27, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:I'm going to unblock him; this particular article he wrote is actually a dish, as I just found out. My apologies. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:31, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Wikipedia

2007-05-07T02:34:32Z

Linus M.: /* GFDL */ Oversight?

{{unprotected|15:34, 25 March 2007|Ed Poor}}

==Sources==
If you follow the link to Cecil DeMille's wikipedia entry you'll notice that the trivia section is gone ... you should be careful to use references that are constantly being updated as they might not always prove your point.
Another case of being careful what you quote: here's an article saying 51% believe god created humans, 30% say humans evolved w/ God's help and 15% say we evolved w/o God. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml
Polls aren't generally scientific and as shown by the edits to this entry you can find all sorts of different percentages for who believes what. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:04, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

"The wikipedia entry accuses Conservapedia of having its own bias..."
How ridiculous. How would a place called "Conservapedia" POSSIBLY have any sort of "bias"?
(What's the wiki tag for 'sarcasm'?) --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 16:22, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

The poll cited for belief by the US public in evolution needs to be updated. It's almost a decade old. Harris has one from 2005. [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581] --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 18:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Is there a more credible source for that 9% poll link?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 01:57, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

The last two bracketed sentences in the first section should be removed as they are not consistent with a formal encyclopaedia entry. If there is not a consensus on this point, at the very least the spelling should be corrected. Also, it seems that as of 12 March 2007, Wikipedia has an article on Conservapedia which makes the second part of this article obsolete. [[User:treeman]] 12:22, 11 March 2007

== "Controversy" ==

This page was unlocked to add ''facts'', not ''alleged bias''. There is an entire article about the alleged bias, it doesn't go in here. The "controversy" section is about bias. Additionally, parts of it apply only to the English Wikipedia, NOTHING is sourced, and the source I consulted right now suggests that the whole "Americans are majority" bit is wrong. Unless there is something incredibly important I'm missing here (say so!), I'll delete the section in a few minutes. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm for deleteing it right now. Anything that can be written here can also be written on the bias article that already exists.[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: To appease those who insist wikipedia is biased, maybe we should include a link to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] in a "see also" section. Otherwise content like this will just keep reapearing and being deleted. [[User:MikeA|MikeA]] 16:14, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Done, and the link had already been added by the time I got there. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:22, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::There does not seem to be an article on wikiality.com, as a big proponent of truthiness, and gut thinking, I would consider adding this to the UNBIASED conservapedia.

=="A large percentage" of homosexuals==
C'mon. How many? Out of how many?

Wikipedia has [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics 3,834,720 registered user accounts, of which 1,147 (or 0.03%) have administrative privileges], by the way.

And what does it mean to be a "supporter of homosexuality?" Is a company that says it does not discriminate against gays "supporting" homosexuality, for example? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:" and given by example are [[Sodom]] and Gommorah, who having gone after strange flesh, suffered the vengence of eternal fire. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Please, ''please'' do not use the story of Sodom and Gommorah as anti-homosexual support, since the story had nothing to do with that. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:''Touch not mine annointed, and do my prophets no harm''. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Have you ever read the story, Dave? The story '''does''' in fact have to do with homosexuality. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 13:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I have, extensively. The story is not about homosexuality, but about hospitality. When the mob is described in the KJV, they are "both old and young, all the people from every quarter." The original Hebrew is ''anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom,'' or ''the people of the city, the people of Sodom''. Which means women and children were present, not a homosexual mob.

::::Further, remember that Lot offered the mob his daughters in exchange. If the men of Sodom were homosexuals, he would have known this and not offered up his daughters to them. He'd have offered up his son-in-law's, which he had the right to do under the customs of the time.

::::But most tellingly are the words of Ezekiel - (Ezek. 16:49-50) "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." Nowhere does it mention homosexuality.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So, does that mean that a company that says it does not discriminate against gays "supports" homosexuality? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Homosexuality scares me, are any of you guys homosexuals? --[[User:Lenigrad|Leningrad]] Eight Past One, 11 April 2007CE (GMT)

::::Yeah, we don't want any of those guys on Conservapedia. On Wikipedia they even have a category full of gay users: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_Wikipedians] --[[User:USAisDoubleplusgood|USAisDoubleplusgood]] 21:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==What's wrong with using actual numbers?==
I said that

:Of approximately 3 million Wikipedia editors, about 250 of them [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Gay_Wikipedians] have posted on their user pages statements that they identify themselves as "gay."

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]], I've given the basis for both of these numbers. If you have better sources for the actual numbers, please cite and use them. If not, don't fall back on weasel words like "some" or "a large percentage." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:41, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Bias against homosexuality ==
This article seems to have a very strong bias against homosexuality. The section about "Wikipedia and Homosexuality" is longer than the rest of the article. Furthermore, can anybody tell me why the homosexuality of "Essjay" it is of relevance to this article? --[[User:QuestionMark|QuestionMark]] 13:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::It isn't. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:I assume it's the attempt to make Wikipedia look as bad as possible without repeating things from the Bias list. It should also be noted that most of these things most likely only refer to en.wikipedia, but that's not exactly new (see Bias article again) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:50, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Check the history and the edit comments. It appears that I am a "liberal gay rights activist" because I wanted a source citation for what critics, specifically, talk about Wikipedia as having a "gay cabal," and because I prefer to say "250 Wikipedia editors" rather than "some" or "a large percentage" identify themselves as gay on their user pages. (Incidentally, just for the record... when I checked I counted 226, which I rounded ''up,'' and 3,834,720, which I rounded ''down.'') [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Please don't revert multiple times ==
:This is directed at user [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] Would you please discuss such enormous changes before simply reverting to your pov? [[User:Menkatron|Menkatron]] 14:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::I like your changes. Too many plants here from Wikipedia. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 14:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Like conservipedia" ==

"Like Conservapedia, it is a wiki that is written and edited by its users."

Since Conservipedia is pretty much a rip of Wikipedia, is it in any way honest to use wording that would lead one to believe that conservipedia is a more established wiki than wikipedia? [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 14:54, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==RightWolf2, please back up your statements==
Being Conservapedia doesn't mean that any opinion can be stated just because it's conservative.

With regard to:
:Conservative critics of Wikipedia have commented the site appears to be dominated and misused by the homosexual movement as a propaganda vehicle for promoting homosexuality.
well, fine, but please cite a source so that any reader can judge for themselves what they think about these "critics," and see whether you've summarized their views fairly.

With regard to:
:The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community
I personally have no idea how one would even ''begin'' to go about finding such a thing. Please give a basis for this statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd leave him be, this article is hilarious! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 16:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:RightWolf2, you gave http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ as a citation to back up the statement that "The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community." However, that link goes to a page that contains neither the word "homosexual" nor the word "gay." Please provide a '''specific''' link to the page supporting the statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::This may be the cite he was refering to. http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==OK, it is pretty funny==
RightWolf2, your latest edit gives the impression that you are counting "Heterosexual Wikipedians," "Male Wikipedians" and "Female Wikipedians" as homosexuals. (The cited source is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_sexuality]). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
its not funny

==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.

: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. [[User:Knight|Knight]]

== Dpbsmith ==

This page is very interesting.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dpbsmith Wikipedia Page for this user]

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 17:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:This editors comments in this article are also interesting. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia Conservapedia] [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 17:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:In response to the change from editor to user, I support using the term "editor." If I look up something on wikipedia, I use it. If I edit something on wikipedia, while I am using, more specifically, I'm editing it. But that's just my two cents. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, I decided the most accurate language is "people who have registered Wikipedia user accounts." I just changed it to "Of the people who have registered Wikipedia user accounts, 226 (as of 14th March 2007) users have chosen to place a marker on their user page identifying them as homosexual." Before anyone jumps on top of me, notice that I removed the percentage calculation, which I think is silly, and put the total number of such accounts into the footnote. Here's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=36275&oldid=36173 the diff] in case anybody gets confused about who changed what. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:48, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::::How about, "226 have outed themselves". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:57, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Instead of "have chosen to place a marker on their user page identifying them as homosexual?" Sounds like an improvement to me. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Meanwhile... with regard to the statement that
:::"The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community based upon materials posted to Wikipedia Watch,"
::I still would like to know where this material is posted, since the linked page does not contain it. Or should the statement read something like this:
:::"The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community, according to comments made in IRC chat groups on the Wikipedia Watch website"
::::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Nice, I like the change in language. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Mandatory Banning of Homosexual Wikipedia Editors ==

I would propose a mandatory ban of any Wikipedia editors who edit this site and have placed themselves in the homosexual category as these editors are inconsistent with Conservapedia's goals. Allowing them to edit here will bring this project under God's righteous wrath and doom it to failure. I will start a page on suspected homosexual editors infiltrating this site from Wikipedia. They should be banned on sight.

They should be identified and purged, along with all of their edits.

''put away the unrighteous from among thee, for neither liars, nor murderers not fornicators, nor adulterers, nor sodomites shall inherit the kingdom of God, for without are dogs (homosexuals).''

-- from the bible

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 19:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
: Is this one of those liberal parodies that is occasionally pointed to? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:22, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Maybe we can put pink triangles on their user page while we're at it...God forbid someone out of the mainstream have a POV...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I think these are good ideas. It is nice ot have a place on the web not beng infiltrated by the homos**ual agenda.--[[User:Raytrotter|Raytrotter]] 19:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Ugh...please try to recognize sarcasm...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::If I recall correctly, there have been serious requests to forbid non-conservative editors from editing article content. It gets kinda hard to distinguish parody and serious cases after a while. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::This is either a good work of sarcasm, or a bad idea. This is Conservapedia. Not anti-gayapedia. While mainstream conservative ideology condemns homosexuality, there are conservative homosexuals. If their edits fit in the commandments and are good edits, why should their sexuality matter? Censorship based on sexuality will just lead to other censorship. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 20:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

And several homosexuals I know consider themselves Christian Conservatives. The basis for editing is following [[The Conservapedia Commandments]]. I would hate to see the point of a Wiki abolished just to exclude a certain group of people. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I have edited the page, sorry if I have overstepped the mark on my first hour on sysopts, but this comment on Homosexuals in Wikipedia is propganda if nothing else. B
[[User_Talk:Republican|Republican]]

:No worries. I can certainly understand not wanting to offend anyone at Wikipedia, particularly the homosexuals too much. I certainly hope not all of this sites articles are given the same treatment. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 03:03, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Ooops! Hatered against minorities is comming up? .... Paiting triangles to the talk page of people who are different? .... Hmmm... that reminds me to somewhat? Whom was it again who got a star sticked to the chest about 70 year ago? And who were this men doing that? Where they good or evil? Oh, now I remember: It was the Jews. The nazis were putting the Jew-Stars on their Chests. Is Conservapedia going to be a Nazipedia? If so, please tell so. Because then I will have to fullfill my duty as a good son of good and have the website reported to the national authorities. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 08:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Encyclopedic Content & Gossip ==

I'm struggling with [[User: Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]'s definition of these terms when he insists on keeping [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=64686&oldid=64582 this text] in the article. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 10:02, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:Fully agreed. I tried to at least lessen the unencyclopedic gossip in the next edit, but in my eyes, the part I left in is not really needed. The cited article doesn't say who said those things or how many people argued against it. It could've been some random troll or vandal who made those statements. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 10:33, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::Another protection used to prevent actual debate.-'''[[user:AmesG|Ames]][[user talk:AmesG|G]]''' 11:43, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes, I begin to feel a slight resignation. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Oh, JOY. I got the article locked. Good God, this is so incredibly stupid. But fine, whatever. *cough*
{{QuoteBox|Andy, I promise not to touch the Wikipedia article anymore. AT ALL. I would like to apologize for removing the unencyclopedic, wrongly cited, and misrepresented gossip you call "factual material".}}
There. You won. Could you now unlock this thing so people can add more <s>gossip</s> factual information? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Done. But remember to follow [[Conservapedia:Commandments|site policy]] when editing it.

::The various official Conservapedia pages say:
{{QuoteBox|
*We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts.
*Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the National Enquirer.
*We do not allow gossip, just as a real encyclopedia avoids it.
*Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language.
*Everything you post must be true and verifiable.}}
::Now... keeping that in mind, I ask you to consider a few things:
{{QuoteBox|
#"Were Wikipedia editors apologetic? No, Wikipedia editors savaged Seigenthaler ''afterwards'' on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly criticizing the falsehoods about him"
#*Show me how this is not gossip or the style of the National Enquirer.
#*Name a few encyclopedias that follow the "Did they do that? Noooo, they didn't!" form.
#"The Siegenthaler scandal was originally billed as a 'hoax', then 'controversy' and finally downgraded in its stable version to 'incident'."
#*Quick, point to the source.
#"Despite the damage to an innocent person and embarassment to Wikipedia's credibilty as a viable source"
#*Same as (1): Show me an encyclopedia that would write in that style.
#"the Siegenthaler scandal is considered by many internal Administrators as 'the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia'"
#*Check the source. How many people consider this "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia"? How many of those are admins? Note how the guy who started that talk section (and thus coined the phrase) does NOT appear to be an admin.
#*When you have the number of admins that say this statement (or at least agree with the general motion), compare it to the total number of admins. Would you call the resulting ratio "many admins"?
#"catapulting the slander factory"
#*Check the source. Tell me where it says "slander factory". I was unable to find the term in the cited source AND the article the source discusses.
#*Assuming that the term is Andy's own brainchild, explain to me how it's encyclopedic and not gossip.
#"from the top 50 to the top 10 most visited websites"
#*Quick, point to the source.
#[quoted news article snippet]
#*The newspaper article apparently quotes TWO editors. Which ones? Were they admins? Well-established editors? Random trolls? What was the reaction to those statements?
#*The "typical comment" bit is the opinion of the journalist and is not proven or sourced in the quote or the article here. Slight clash with the opinion/fact rule and the first point I quoted in the box above, isn't it?}}
::This is why I removed the two last paragraphs in my first try. In my second try, I left in the news quote and rephrased the intro sentence for it so it doesn't sound like the National Enquirer. I ask '''you''' now who stuck to the site rules and who did not.
::But like I said: I won't touch the article anymore. And assuming that you actually took a few minutes to look into the points I mentioned, you would understand why I'm '''extremely''' bitter right now. Your "remember the rules" bit is only adding insult to injury.
::But thanks for the unlock. :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:14, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Larry Sanger ==

It's embarassing to note that Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger is called ''Larry Sangers'' right in the first sentence -- can someone please correct this? It seriously damanges the credibility of the entry. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:46, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
: No it doesn't. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 11:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::I don't know about you, but when I see factual errors and typos in the very first line of an encyclopedia entry, I am skeptical of what follows -- how much care has been taken, I wonder to myself .... [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I think what James is saying is that the entry has little credibility any way. At least, that's how I interpreted it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:55, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Ah -- well, if that's the case, then I agree [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:56, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Thank you, yes, I'm always concise :) Sorry if it was rather terse. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 11:59, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Er, he's not exactly a co-founder. There's a bit of controversy about that. And I'm a big fan of his. Better to say that [[Larry Sanger]] has been called a "co-founder" but that Jimbo says Sanger was not one. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:32, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, it's a nice, clear polar disagreement. Sanger, or rather Citizendium's [http://www.citizendium.org/faq.html FAQ page], calls him "Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:55, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Unprotected. Fixed Sanger's last name.

:Not sure if I was correct to move 'pornographic' to a note. It's a borderline thing. I wouldn't let a 12-year-old boy see his portal, so I'm inclined to call it port - but then again, I'm of the "if it makes you sin pluck it out" school of thought. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:41, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

If Sanger and Jimbo disagree, then we should say that they do. Is Sanger still making an issue of it? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:02, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Here's the chat logs when Wales first brought it up. [http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo_Found_Out][http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo_Fired_Up] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:12, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==article==
Wasn't this article re-created to put information about wikipedia, not have it be a list of "problems". And wouldn't some of this be considered gossip under the Conservapedia Commandments? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:10, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:Yeah. So? *shrugs helplessly* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:42, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::It's probably okay to begin by listing problems. After all, Conservapedia is a conservative wiki-response to Wikipedi's liberal bias and all around chaotic nature.

::But, yes, this a chance for us all to write an objective article on Wikipedia. We needn't apply NPOV here, I assume. And since I'm user #188 at Wikipedia, I have a treasure trove of memories working with it for 5 1/2 years.

::I climbed up from the bottom, to Developer, Admin, and "first elected bureaucrat" - then slipped down the same ladder to "on probation for tendentious edits". I co-sponsored the first ever North American meeting of Wikipedians with Jimbo in Boston, used to run the mailing list, etc. *yawn* Been there, done that, got the tee-shirt.

::But what is the world's 30th most popular website doing for us all now? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::We get that you're bitter (or that you simply like to brag), but Andy stated that we don't need two articles about Wikipedia's shortcomings and errors. That's why the first instance of this article was vaped and got redirected to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]. This was once supposed to be a factual article about Wikipedia, not what [[Theory of evolution]] is to the actual theory of evolution - a piece that exists only to point out that it's BAD BAD BAD. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::::This article is not unlike History of Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia] though perhaps we could cover the blocking of the Third grade class incident, which they don't. It's all part of the sum of human knowledge. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::If this is part of the sum of human knowledge, I think the equation needs a "re-right". [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 19:16, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia breaks GFDL? ==

Could somebody with more experience shed some light here? Right now, this sounds quite unlikely to me, especially when you keep in mind the fact that articles are not completely removed (undelete feature, anybody). Also, what happened to the rule about not citing wikis?

Oh, and by the way, the entire section right now was copy-pasted from the Wikitruth article. Just pointing out that Conservapedia apparently breaks the GFDL in a section about Wikipedia breaking the GFDL. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:45, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
== Whining? ==

Conservapedia was created by conservatives whining about Wikipedia's 'liberal bias' (in about .002 percent of Wikipedia's articles). And about 99 percent of this article is gossip, which Conservapedia is supposed to avoid, and 1 percent unbiased factual information (the first sentence and last sentence of the first paragraph). I mean, you could at least have a 'History of Wikipedia' section to make it look like a real article. [[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 22:03, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:"The dispute is notable as an attack on the Wikipedia policy of editorial oversight as being too lax and unmonitored. Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism." <---- I don't read whining in that tone. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 22:24, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::What was wrong with [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=79145 this edit]? It cited sources, identified ''when'' potentially rapid-changing pages were accessed so that page history could be checked to see what they said at the time, and they can be rechecked in a few months time, and included the full text of a quote which could otherwise be taken out of context. I may not be around for a few days to see the answer to this. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 11:24, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:''Andy's response is copied from [[user talk:Aschlafly/Archive12#Wikipedia_article]].'' --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Scott, I apologize for not responding sooner. I was in a car for over ten hours yesterday, and the limited time I had on the computer was spent updated the Main Page, adding some entries, and responding on this page and the Bias in Wikipedia talk page. I did not see your comments on the Wikipedia talk page, and I apologize.

: I also regret that the rollback feature on Wiki does not allow comment to explain why. So let me elaborate here and now.

: One of your changes seemed to be incorrect. You changed the name of the company from "Bomis" to "Bomis.com", which I think is wrong. Other changes were unsupported and opinionated, such as saying that "The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica contained 40,000 articles many of which were used to kickstart the project in English, which now has over 1.7 million articles on a much wider range of subjects." That lacked support. Moreover, is copying OK to "kickstart" a project? No, of course not, especially when attribution is not prominently given for such wholesale copying.

: You also added superfluous detail unsuitable for a concise entry. Note that being concise is one of our main goals. Then you praised Wikipedia for making an article about an obscure rock band "much longer." Why would anyone want a longer article about something that is inappropriate in short version? That change was contrary to the point being made, and contrary to one of our goals here.

: I welcome your contributions here. We all do. But please conform to our [[rules]]. Also, while we are all very patient, was it really necessary to launch into an attack on Conservapedia on my personal talk page? Note that on Conservapedia, we respect users' talk pages more than Wikipedia does. Please see [[Differences with Wikipedia]].

: I apologize for my 24-hour delay in responding to your comments on another talk page, and hope you can reconsider your view towards Conservapedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::I accept your apology. If you wish to revert and leave an edit comment, you can edit the older version. Thankyou for now explaining your reasoning, and I wish to defend my edit.

::On further investigation, it appears that the company in question is Bomis, Inc. Sorry - I took the name I changed it to from their logo. However the rollback button is heavyhanded for an edit of that size with one small mistake in it.

::: OK, fine, but please realize that you erroneously changed something that was correct. That is a red flag and can be a valid reason for reverting all the changes if one is in a hurry, as I was.

::: Conservapedia strives to be accurate about these details. We want high quality here, and let's not be casual about factual errors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::The 1.7 million articles was cited. I did in fact find a reference for the 40,000 articles in the 1911 Britannica, but appear to have forgotten to cite it. Try [http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/LoveToKnow_1911:Explanation 1911 Encyclopedia] accessed 3 April 2007 (Access dates are important for all web sites, as the content can change, but there are internet archives that contain some older content).

::: I don't fully understand your response here. You claimed that wholesale copyin of the Encyclopedia Britannic was to "kickstart" the Wikipedia project. That claim needs a citation, and needs to be said in a way that does not justify it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::::If I may chime in here, I was there, and it was not a kickstart. The project had thousands of articles before agreement was reached to supplement the article base with EB 1911. It was not a decision reached lightly, because (1) it was hard to find a copy of it that wasn't copyrighted, (2) the copy that was found had NPOV problems, (3) much information was ninety years out of date.

::::If it's germane to the discussion, I can dig into this and find out exactly when (and how many of) these articles were added to Wikipedia. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I did not "praise" Wikipedia for making the article longer. I corrected the statement that the short form ''is'' a Wikipedia article. It ''was'' a Wikipedia article for a period of about 2 months, ending 4 months ago. I made no judgement on whether the article had any more value now than it had then. If the point is that the coverage of Wikipedia is wider (or simply different) than the coverage of Conservapedia, then the content of the older form of the article should not have been included either, it should simply have been referred to as an example of Wikipedia content unsuitable for Conservapedia. The fact that the scope of coverage of Wikipedia is different than that of Conservapedia should not be a criticism of either.

::: I don't think my version ever said that short form was the entire entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Rhetorical questions, even in footnotes, such as "Did you know that...?" do not appear to be appropriate for Conservapedia, so I modified the language so that the "question" was answered instead.

::: OK, good point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Copying public domain sources is perfectly legal, and in fact Wikipedia ''does'' acknowledge the origin of those articles, many of which have changed since they were copied in.

::: Are you referencing the Encyclopedia Britannica here? Where is Wikipedia candid about so much wholesale copying? I've only seen tiny references at the bottom of individual articles, and I'm not confident that acknowledgment is always there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I apologise if my comments on your talk page went too far. However, I think you will find that I am not alone in many of those thoughts. The idea of an encyclopaedia written with a conservative viewpoint is interesting enough I decided to try to help rather than laugh or vandalise. However I intend to also continue as a Wikipedia editor, and have enjoyed being able to write in both with different points of view. I've also looked at [[Citizendium]] and decided not to attempt to contribute there, even though I contribute to both Wikipedia and Conservapedia under variants of my real name. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I certainly welcome you. Of course Conservapedia has many critics. Anything worthwhile in life is going to spark criticism. But please realize that our rules and style is different, and we think more advantageous, than at Wikipedia. Please contribute as much as you like here, but please keep in mind that this is not Wikipedia. We are concise and factual here, and do not have a liberal bias. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==Quote mining from the TOP==
Wow, even [[User:Aschlafly| The Boss]] gets into it! [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&oldid=78392| This edit] shows a mined quote that weeds out the chaff from the "truth":
===Truth===
'''Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell, Wikipedia instead whines about how "Bozell points to Conservapedia as a ... more authoritative reference" than Wikipedia.'''
===Distortion===
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Bozell| Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism.]
:::::::[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 11:33, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: The end quote is more "truthy" I guess. Ridiculous. This is why creationists don't get into good scientific journals - they can't be trusted.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:42, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ye God. Also, why does an encyclopedic article use phrases like "Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell,Wikipedia instead whines about..."? This is the same sort of thing that is still in the Seigenthaler section (thanks to the Boss, too [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=64218&oldid=64215][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=64220]): "Despite the damage to an innocent person and embarrassment to Wikipedia's credibility as a viable source, the Siegenthaler scandal is considered by many internal Administrators as 'the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia'". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

==Ad hominem attacks==

This irrelevant fact is mentioned in the Wikipedia page:

::Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures.

Am I mistaken, or is that an [[ad hominem]] attack, which is a well-known [[logical fallacy]]? And why did [[Andrew Schlafly]] delete my comment when I pointed it out?

:: No, I don't think that's an ad hominem attack. Wikipedia itself features pornographic images now and this history reflects its ideology. No individual is smeared by this historical description. It is informative to show where Wikipedia is coming from. I doubt Wikipedia's own people would consider that to be an ad hominem attack.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:25, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::It's not an ad hominem attack, because it relates to the policy decision to allow porn. Jimbo could easily have said: no porn. He could have made it stick, at the cost of alienating a significant fraction of his volunteer base. I was heavily involved in these policy discussions from around 2001-2003.

:::Cries of "censorship" dominated these discussions, although in one significant episode Jimbo blocked a user for added a gay porn image to an article. He was showing Wikipedia to a businessman (or other VIP) when lurid and "embarassing" (Jimbo's words) images came on the screen.

:::Wikipedia's articles about sex are not 'family-friendly', in that (1) they show more than parent would like, i.e., are too graphic/explicit; (2) they are anti-religious in that they imply that it doesn't matter whether your 'sex partner' and you are married.

:::Moreover, the entire series on homosexuality carries the implicit (verging on the explicit) message that "it is okay to be homosexual" and "homosexual acts are morally neutral".

:::This is not the same as applying the NPOV policy to morality, and saying that 'these religions say this' and 'other people say that'. The articles give a strong impression that "these conditions, attitudes and acts '''are not wrong'''". That's a big difference between saying that "various groups of people differ on these points but Wikipedia takes no position". They do take a position, and this (A) violates their stated policy and (B) offends religious people such as myself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Ed's right. Let me emphasize that we do not, and will not, smear any individuals. But factual statements about Wikipedia's ideology are informative and appropriate. If Wikipedia does not consider something about its ideology to be an ad hominem attack, why should we?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

OK, so why does everybody who mentions the fact that Andrew Schlafly's brother John is gay get immediately
and permanently banned from Conservapedia? (In fact, when my buddy Rotifer got banned, everybody who uses
computers in our rec room here got banned too!)

You might say it's reasonable to erase all mention of the fact that John Schlafly is gay, because it's
an [[ad hominem]] attack on Andrew Schlafly, or on Conservapedia. But I don't think so. I think when
the mainstream press published information about the fact that John Schlafly had been 'outed', they did
it because they thought it was informative to show where the Schlafly family and the Eagle Forum organization
are coming from. The idea that a gay man (and his family) could continue to advocate anti-gay political
causes strikes many people as hypocritical. It's not an [[ad hominem]] attack. It's important perspective
that some people might not know about the founders of Conservapedia and the Eagle Forum.

I assume this will be my last post. You are welcome to prove me wrong by (1) not removing this comment,
which is based entirely on facts and is intended to provide information about the Schlafly family's point
of view, NOT to smear them, and (2) not banning me from Conservapedia. --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 06:16, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== This article is a travesty ==

From top to bottom:

''Honk If You Love Fred Durst'' is the name of a single not a ''phrases used by obscure rock bands''.
''Henry Liddell's grandfather'' being youngest son of the 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne is perhaps of interest to those interested in genealogy. The fact that his daughter was the child ''Alice in Wonderland'' was written for is not ''arcane'' it is very interesting - a great piece of English literature was originally written for one particular little girl and not general release.

''Cumbersome'' - what is cumbersome about GNU? Is that opinion or fact?

This kind of repeats itself :
:''Many entries were copied from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, a public domain resource. The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica contained 40,000 articles[4] many of which were copied into the English Wikipedia early in the project, which now has over 1.7 million articles.[5]''

Ref. 4. links to an online version of the ''1911 Encyclopedia Britannica'' and ref. 5 links to wikipedia apparently for the number of articles in Wikipedia. None of the references clarify what the ''many'' may actually mean in this context.

''Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures'' ref. 6 is likely this [http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article345103.ece] which has:
:"Wikipedia (wiki wiki means "quick" in Hawaiian) was founded in January 2001 as a sideline to the Numedia encyclopedia being written by experts for an American company, Bomis. Under its chief executive, Jimmy Wales, Bomis ran a search engine that included links to pornographic sites and also for a time sold erotic photographs of women."
''hosting'' isn't mentioned.

The fact that articles is Wikipedia may be false or erronous is no great surprise. Anyone can edit! As the Independent[http://comment.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/article345080.ece] writes ''And now Wikipedia, the web's "open-source encyclopaedia", is in the firing line due to a number of misleading amendments to pages by mischevious contributors. A question mark has arisen over whether visitors to the site can really believe what they read.'' That is equally applicable here.

This article is a travesty. The kettle calling the pot black. Get real people. Do you want to be taken seriously?
[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 10:44, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: This is an open-edit encyclopedia. Isn't that clear? If you think a reference is not adequate, as you imply above, then you're welcome to add a better one. If you think "many" could be improved with a more precise term, then please do so. But please don't inject liberal bias into the entry. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:54, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::The problem isn't that references are ''not adequate'' but simply plain wrong or useless. In order to avoid injecting liberal bias into the entry I would need to know what liberal bias is. The article [[liberal bias]] is of no help what-so-ever. May I safely assume that avoiding liberal bias would be the same as [[NPOV]][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view]?
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 11:07, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

== "40k are copies" ==

"Up to 40,000 of its entries are copies of the public-domain 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica." - I think that's a very strong claim, and backing it up with sources should be extremely tough. The problem is that you changed it from "many of the 40k '''were''' copied" to "up to 40k '''are''' copies". Even ignoring how you twisted the mushy quantifying words (which I'm not a big fan of in the first place) around in your favor, I ask for a precise number of articles that ''still are copies'' of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:06, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Also, it's not supported by the reference, which is just to a site about the 1911 encyclopedia, and neither makes nor proves any allegations of copying.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:09, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I think it was mentioned above that there might be a source of the pre-Andy version - that "many" (How many?) of the 40k were copied into it (with no statement about the ''current'' state of those articles), but the post-Andy version is most likely impossible to prove (because it is most likely wrong by now). Thanks for removing it for the moment. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:14, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Thousands of pages use Wikipedia's {{tl|1911}}, which indicates the article uses content from the 1911 Britannica. A list of such articles (at 5,000 articles listed per page) can be seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:1911&limit=5000&from=0 here]. [[User:Liberty|Liberty]] 12:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the link! Looks like a bit less than 13,000 to me, unless I counted wrong (plus x articles that were potentially untagged, but I somehow doubt that that number is in the dimensions of "27,000"). That's certainly a bunch, but less than the upper border we had so far. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Article length==
:Wikipedia's entries are far more verbose and long-winded than traditionally concise encyclopedias.
I doubt this.

What "traditionally concise encyclopedias" would those be? The 1911 Britannica, (which is the very model of a modern encyclopedia/With information densier and heavier and read-ier) has one article, "Bible," that runs from page 849 to 894, and those are big pages of small type, too. I estimated that article to weigh in at just about one megabyte of text, all by itself. If you displayed it in Conservapedia format onscreen, it would run to about 12,500 lines = a scroll of text about 100 feet long, requiring about 200 "page down" presses to read it all.

And that's not even including "Bible, English," which is a separate article running from page 894 to 905.

In the modern Britannica, the Macropædia, which comprises about 2/3 of the current Britannica, consists entirely of long articles.

Yes, the better Wikipedia articles tend to run longer than those of a single-volume desk encyclopedia like the Columbia Encyclopedia, or a high-school-oriented encyclopedia like World Book. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

==Censorship in Wikipedia==

I just spent a couple of hours trying to place information about Japanese pornography, prostitution and rape in Wikipedia articles. Two articles were immediately censored.

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchangeslinked/User:Ed_Poor/Japan

This is not an isolated incident, and I didn't do it to make a point. I was just editing as usual and came across one of Wikipedia's typical omissions. Someone was trying to obscure the fact that ''hentai'' means Japanese porn, and since I know a little about Japanese culture and language, I began to correct this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:39, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Hentai does not mean "Japanese porn" - that is it's usage as a loanword. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 12:54, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'm talking about the English word ''hentai'', not the Japanese word. I took Japanese for two semesters at Harvard, and I know what a [[loanword]] is. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:26, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::There's a long bilingual discussion of this [http://wakaba.c3.cx/soc/kareha.pl/1121956450/ here], but this is all beside the point.

::What I say was censored was not my additions to [[hentai]] but my additions to [[Geisha]] and [[Mizuage]]. Although a quick peek at related changes there's indicates it may be even worse than I said. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Who do you consider has censored you at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geisha Geisha] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizuage Mizuage]? "Wikipedia" in general, or User:John Smith's in particular? There appears to be relevant dialog on both talk pages which doesn't really fit with the charge of "censorship". I'm also a little uncertain how that shows a liberal bias - I expect you'd get reverted or worse for posting information about [[rape]], [[prostitute]]s and [[pornography]] on Conservapedia, too (all blue links to pages saying "this has been deleted and protected"). --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 10:53, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

== GFDL ==

Look, on Wikipedia, and other MediaWiki sites, "deletion" of articles merely hides them from the public. There is no violation of the GFDL here, this needs to be removed, for the sake of Conservapedia preserving what little credibility it has. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 21:46, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
::no, special sysops can permanently delete articles. This ability was added in order to prevent Wikimedia from being sued for copyright infringement if such infringement are not permanently deleted from the server. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 15:02, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::: You mean oversight? Even that doesn't delete stuff, it just hides it. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:34, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Great Wall

2007-05-07T02:28:12Z

Linus M.: Double redirect

#REDIRECT [[Great Wall of China]]

Internet slang

2007-05-07T02:27:54Z

Linus M.: /* List of Internet slang */ Who the fancy would say "shut the fancy up"?

'''Internet slang''' is slang that Internet users have created and used, often in instant messaging and forum discussions. They are frequently acronyms, designed to save keystrokes in an attempt to speed up communication.

== List of Internet slang ==

'''2:''' to, too, two

'''4:''' for, four

'''AFAICT''' As far as I can tell

'''AFAIK''' As far as I know

'''AFAIR''' As far as I recall/remember

'''AFAIAW''' As far as I am aware

'''AFK:''' Away from keyboard

'''ASL:''' A request for Age, Sex, and Location.

'''ATM:''' At The Moment

'''BBL:''' be back later

'''BBIAB:''' be back in a bit

'''BRB:''' Abbreviation for Be Right Back

'''D00d''' [[L33tsp43k]] spelling of "dude".

'''ffs''' For f___'s sake. Expresses exasperation.

'''GDR''' Grinning, Ducking and Running. Usually typed right after making a groan-inducing joke.

'''GG:''' gotta go, got to go, good game

'''IANAL:''' Sometimes IANALB, "I am not a lawyer (but)" said right before (usually) poor legal advice.

'''IIRC:''' If I remember correctly

'''IM:''' Abbreviation for Instant Messaging.

'''l8r:''' later

'''L33T''' Stands for Elite

'''LOL:''' Laugh Out Loud

'''Newb''' Person is unskilled at whatever task they are trying to preform due to lack of experience

'''Noob''' Person is unskilled at whatever task they are trying to preform due to lack of experience and refuse to acknowledge their difficulty with the task.

'''Pwn:''' Defeat someone, misspelling of "own"

'''Pwnt:''' If someone "pwns" you, you have been pwnt

'''ROTFL:''' Rolling On The Floor Laughing

'''stfu''' Shut the f___ up.

'''U:''' you

'''Ur:''' your, you're, you are

'''WYSIWYG:''' What you see is what you get, also a word processing editor type.

[[category:internet culture]]

Internet slang

2007-05-07T02:26:30Z

Linus M.: /* List of Internet slang */ Yes, I'll censor it, but we shouldn't spread misinfo.

'''Internet slang''' is slang that Internet users have created and used, often in instant messaging and forum discussions. They are frequently acronyms, designed to save keystrokes in an attempt to speed up communication.

== List of Internet slang ==

'''2:''' to, too, two

'''4:''' for, four

'''AFAICT''' As far as I can tell

'''AFAIK''' As far as I know

'''AFAIR''' As far as I recall/remember

'''AFAIAW''' As far as I am aware

'''AFK:''' Away from keyboard

'''ASL:''' A request for Age, Sex, and Location.

'''ATM:''' At The Moment

'''BBL:''' be back later

'''BBIAB:''' be back in a bit

'''BRB:''' Abbreviation for Be Right Back

'''D00d''' [[L33tsp43k]] spelling of "dude".

'''ffs''' For f___'s sake. Expresses exasperation.

'''GDR''' Grinning, Ducking and Running. Usually typed right after making a groan-inducing joke.

'''GG:''' gotta go, got to go, good game

'''IANAL:''' Sometimes IANALB, "I am not a lawyer (but)" said right before (usually) poor legal advice.

'''IIRC:''' If I remember correctly

'''IM:''' Abbreviation for Instant Messaging.

'''l8r:''' later

'''L33T''' Stands for Elite

'''LOL:''' Laugh Out Loud

'''Newb''' Person is unskilled at whatever task they are trying to preform due to lack of experience

'''Noob''' Person is unskilled at whatever task they are trying to preform due to lack of experience and refuse to acknowledge their difficulty with the task.

'''Pwn:''' Defeat someone, misspelling of "own"

'''Pwnt:''' If someone "pwns" you, you have been pwnt

'''ROTFL:''' Rolling On The Floor Laughing

'''stfu''' Shut the fancy up.

'''U:''' you

'''Ur:''' your, you're, you are

'''WYSIWYG:''' What you see is what you get, also a word processing editor type.

[[category:internet culture]]

Liberal bigotry

2007-05-07T02:11:16Z

Linus M.: Removed arrant nonsense

'''Bigotry''' is when somone expresses hatred or aggression towards those who are different.
[[category:psychology]]

Talk:Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia

2007-05-07T02:10:11Z

Linus M.: The 6-times criticism

What I really can't understand is why is there so much focus here on Conservapedia slamming liberals? This website is advertised as conservative - why not focus more on furthering your own arguments and agendas as opposed to ridiculing others? The [[Deceit]] article is a prime example of this. You present that article as if liberals are the only people capable of deceit. How is this socially responsible?

It would seem that [[Mockery]] is just as much a part of some Conservatives arsenals as it is the Liberals. As both a Christian and a Conservative, I despise deceit and mockery as being the tools of a weak mind. Opinion is just that but facts are golden. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:29, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Granted, I'm sure you could point out websites where liberals in turn do the same things to conservatives. I am not trying to say conservatives are bad people. I just don't think you advance your point of view very effectively by slinging mud - bolster your own viewpoints instead. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 19:27, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:I agree, this site has a clear agenda to ridicule liberals. Perhaps you should rename this site to www.antiliberalpedia.com--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 19:31, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Even as a sysop, I'm a little uncomfortable with implying that all liberals are deceitful, given that my mother is liberal. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:32, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::Dan, I feel that you are far from alone in your concerns about the direction this site is taking. Your mother's liberalism notwithstanding, the unsourced, extreme and unnecessary criticisms of liberalism do seem to be a case of the lady protesting too much. I suggest that you resign your status until the owner and panel are more clear about what they want this place to '''be'''.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 19:39, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:I'm liberal, and I find it quite amusing, reminiscent of our old friend Richard. As for the second point brought up in this article; for commandment 3 to be enforced, we would have to delete [[Homosexuality]], [[Heterosexuality]], [[Procreation]], [[Fornication]], and [[Bisexuality]]. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:34, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Looks like someone beat you to it to [[Bisexuality]] ; ) [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:36, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:That wasn't me, it was [[User:Ed Poor|Ed]] ;-). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:38, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

And there goes Fornication! Two down, three to go. [[User:Erasmus|Erasmus]] 17:58, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I dunno...seems a whole lot lot of discussion (and articles) that say liberals believe this, and they are stupid for doing so. Let's face it, a lot of times political discussion disolves into personal name calling. In your article you generalize about liberals, but take this into consideration: the liberals on here who don't break commandments, contribute to articles, show intelligence, and help make this a better site probably aren't noticed (or at least singled out as liberals). It's easy to take the lowest common denominator and say it's representative of the whole. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 14:20, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

== Sir... ==

Do you see neither the danger in, nor basic wrong-headedness of, sweeping generalisations re. a particular group's character and "typical" behaviours?

The historical precedents for such modes of talk are unfortunate, to say the least. The Jew, the Negro, the Bourgeoisie.....all have been fastened with a similarly reductionist pin at one time or another. Whilst I'm sure you would wish to join with me in condemning this ignoble tradition, your words have a resonance that does you no credit.

If this site attracts ridicule, then you must ''at least consider the possibility'' that this is because it ''deserves'' it. You have an opportunity here to shape how the wider world perceives your particular branch of Christianity. Unless your intent was to create a general impression of mean-spirited and contrary<ref>''kuhn-'''trair'''-ee'' - perverse; stubbornly opposed or willful. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=contrary</ref> zealotry, then it is one you have singularly failed to grasp.

<references/>

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 13:15, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

----
I put what I've put at another place on CP, with some additions:

Wouldn't it be nice if we started from the assumption that all people are good-natured and mean well, rather than starting from our preconceived notions of what we expect people to act like? After all, there is a political spectrum, there are people who don't consider themselves as "strongly liberal" or "strongly conservative," and who remove themselves from the political system because of the bickering between the extremes on both sides. Furthermore there are anti-abortion anti-gun law folks out there. In the words of Barack Obama: "The pundits, the pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue States: red states for Republicans, blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states. We coach little league in the blue states and, yes, we've got some gay friends in the red states." Not every person neatly fits into one category or another. That we start out with an assumption that person will act or believe because of a label is truly sad (shame on all of us), and worse, if we start with a label on ourselves and create our belief system with no internal introspection, that is far more sad. God or nature wouldn't haven't given us brains if we weren't to use them.

And continuing: This should be required reading for all new contributors here. Let all the newcomers, of whatever political persuation, decide whether they really want to be a part of this project. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 21:40, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

: I can't imagine the content page genuinely offending anyone. But offense or not, behavior can and should be scientifically studied. We have hundreds of journals publishing papers on behavior about every aspect of society. What's wrong with studying liberal behavior? I wouldn't object to a study of conservative behavior, styles of arguing, conduct on a website, etc. In fact, I'd welcome it, because we can all learn from it and improve.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:51, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== The 6-times criticism ==

Well, I would say it's because Wikipedia isn't supposed to be biased. However, I won't start an argument. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:10, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Geo.plrd

2007-05-07T01:11:56Z

Linus M.: Various stuff

Template:Paroled

2007-05-07T01:08:51Z

Linus M.: Period

<div style="width: 70%; margin: 0 15% 1em 15%; text-align: center; background-color: #DEE6ED; padding: 0.5em; border: solid 1px #6699CC;">'''This user is on parole. please notify a [[Special:Listusers&group=sysops|sysop]] if they are violating the terms listed [[Conservapedia:Parole/{{{1}}}|here]].</div><includeonly>[[Category:Paroled Users]]</includeonly>

Template:Lowercase

2007-05-06T20:45:22Z

Linus M.: Fixed redlink

<div id="RealTitleBanner">
:''The correct title of this {{{type|{{{2|article}}}}}} is '''{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{NAMESPACE}}:}}{{{title|{{{1|{{LCFIRST:{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}}}'''. The initial letter is shown capitalized due to technical restrictions.''</div>

Template:Lowercase

2007-05-06T20:44:30Z

Linus M.: New page: <div id="RealTitleBanner"> :''The correct title of this {{{type|{{{2|article}}}}}} is '''{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{NAMESPACE}}:}}{{{title|{{{1|{{LCFIRST:{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}...

User talk:Geo.plrd

2007-05-06T20:25:56Z

Linus M.: /* Parole */ ?

User talk:Geo.plrd

2007-05-06T19:53:06Z

Linus M.: Parole

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-04-11T00:07:49Z

Linus M.: /* Liberal bias */ 3:1/1:2≠6!

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-04-11T00:04:07Z

Linus M.: /* #1 */ Response

Conservapedia talk:Keep Richard Around?

2007-04-10T23:39:57Z

Linus M.: /* '''Keep:''' */ De-sysop

=='''Block:'''==
*I say take his Sysop privileges away and block him. He has proven useless for anything except an "interesting" talking point. I still see no reason why he is even ''that''. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:41, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Richard has proven that he is not here to be constructive. On the contrary, the only thing he intends to do is vandalize and discredit the site. I may be a liberal, but rule-breaking is a strict no-no. I would agree with an immediate and permanent ban. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:58, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

: How am I a liberal. My positions: Strong national defense, low taxes, decrease the size of central government, phase out social security now (because I'm sick of paying it slightly less fast then they can spend it). However I also: Don't think it is the government's business to regulate what two consenting adults do behind closed doors or who they enter a legal contract with, support mexican immigration, don't want the government to decide when where or how my kids pray or don't. I like Adams the best except for those two nasty little laws ;-) because he had strong principals and tried to stick by them (imperfect) and despite his strong religious views supported freedom of religion ("even Mohammedanism"). I don't really care for the war in Iraq but supported Afghanistan (Reagan and Roosevelt are two of my heros who can be summed up with the big stick but don't use it unless you have no choice methodology) but like 70% of Americans agree with me now... I am a centrist with libertarian leanings. That is the best I can be categorized.. Oh and PJ O'Rourke ("we demand nothing and we demand it now!") and Steven Colbert are great :-) You missed the script...simpleton singlesidedism is silly...and hence so are you :-) [[User:Richard|Richard]] 21:08, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

*While you might not think you are a Liberal, you are perhaps a Libertarian, and certainly nothing "wrong" with that. If you had done what you had, posted it only here, or sent it to the Sysop's, Bureaucrats and Andy, you would have had more credibility. You joined a site, and a reading you could have told you all you needed to know about Andy and his family, you knew his positions. But you joined anyway, without force. Then you boasted publicly about it, got a laugh, and preened about how slick you were. Given those "qualifications" I might employ you in some campaign for dirty tricks, but you shouldn't have a position of trust. By the way, I knew Ronald Reagan for over twenty years. He never would have approved such dishonesty, it would have turned his stomach. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 08:47, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
::Conservapedia needed a public slap in the face. Heck, even now, Andy is all smug and pretends that nothing is wrong. This thing should have started a serious debate among sysops (You guys are supposed to be examples for the community, yet what happened last night? Some of the "liberals that should be monitored" were engaging in a constructive discussion about improving the site policies while you and Karajou were whining about him having lied. Not even to mention your utterly pointless protection/block war.) about things like security, reaction and rules. Instead, "you" (read: the sysop collective, and especially Andy) seem to consider the case to be closed (with the exception of your ominous discussion about "certain people" being warned and stuff - may I ask who you guys meant? I hope that the idiot who nominated me for Richard's list is one of them!).
::Right now, your main concern should not be to gloat at a banned user who can't reply. It should be how to handle the fact that several good contributors are leaving the site in disgust. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 09:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Who ''did'' nominate you, anyway? As I recall, it was another sysop. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 09:11, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::::It was CPAdmin1 (formerly known as "Tim", judging by the top of the Talk page). The post on the (now deleted?) list was also signed. I think your sysop powers come with the ability to look into the history (and thus, previous versions) of deleted pages. You could check there. But [[User_talk:CPAdmin1#Thanks|this message]] (check where the "his" links to) should tell the story. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 09:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

=='''Keep:''' ==
I could see de-sysoping him (though personally I wouldn't do that), but he violated no Commandments. All his edits and articles were cited and factual. The fact that The Powers That Be willingly blinded themselves to what he was truly doing b/c he was a professed conservative should be your real concern, not Richard himself.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:44, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh definitely de-sysop! But he did not violate any rules. He exposed the bias of this site in that you wasn't banned for saying crazy things just because he called himself a conservative, but criticism is something we all have to live with.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:46, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Ok then, if that is the case, I suppose you are happy with the Wikipedia Bias page? We will de-Sysop Richard, but will not block him for the time being. I have to get hold of a bureaucrat before I can enforce this decision. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:49, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

What about the wikibias who now?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:51, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Dave up there. The real issues are that sysop status is given to people based on content and that we only want reliable sourcing and research when it comes to things that are not conservative/YECist. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:56, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Keep. The more you read the funnier it gets. :) --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 21:16, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Keep. I do recommend a de-sysop, but please unblock him. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 19:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)