View source for Community Portal/Archive 2



== On proper grammar, or, did you know that most of the population of Texas is homosexual? ==

I have chided Cons repeatedly on proper punctuation, particularly regarding subordinate clauses and compound sentences.  For a sample, see [[User_talk:SamHB#Re:_Aburke]].

Well, it turns out that the same errors can show up in unexpected places, like the Texas Republican party’s official platform.  It has:
{{cquote|Homosexuality is a chosen behavior that is contrary to the fundamental unchanging truths that has been ordained by God in the Bible, recognized by our nations founders, and shared by the majority of Texans.}}

See [https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/majority-of-texas-gay_us_573e88bfe4b0613b5129e31d this].

Watch those commas!!!!  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 11:57, 20 May 2016 (EDT)
:Wow. And shouldn't it be "have been ordained" rather than "has been ordained"?  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith| Pat Nixon for President]]</sup> 13:12, 20 May 2016 (EDT)
::Yes. [[User:Keepscases|Keepscases]] ([[User talk:Keepscases|talk]]) 22:34, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

== States and Governors ==

I mentioned this earlier, but nothing happened - here are the U.S. states with red-linked governors:
{|
!state
!governor
!ann
|-
|[[Alaska]]||  [[Bill Walker]] || 
|-
|[[Arizona]]||  [[Doug Ducey]] || 
|-
|[[Arkansas]]||  [[Asa Hutchinson]] || 
|-
|[[Hawaii]]||  [[David Ige]] || 
|-
|[[Illinois]]||  [[Bruce Rauner]] || 
|-
|[[Maryland]]||  [[Larry Hogan]] || Thank you, [[User:DavidB4]]!
|-
|[[Montana]]||  [[Steve Bullock]] || 
|-
|[[Nebraska]]||  [[Pete Ricketts]] || 
|-
|[[New Hampshire]]||  [[Maggie Hassan]] || 
|-
|[[North Carolina]]||  [[Pat McCrory]] || 
|-
|[[Pennsylvania]]|| [[Tom Wolf]] || 
|-
|[[Rhode Island]]||  [[Gina Raimondo]] || 
|-
|[[Washington]]||  [[Jay Inslee]]
|}

It seems that [[Doug Ducey]] even isn't any longer governor of Arizona! The overall look of the articles on the smaller states is quite abysmal - and often outdated. As I am not American, I do not feel up to editing these articles in detail, but I have to ask: If they  cannot use Conservapedia even to check who the governor of an U.S. state is, what will high-school pupils think of it? They have to rely on Wikipedia to get up-dated information!

It would be nice to have articles on the governors, too, just to check their political priorities. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 05:11, 24 May 2016 (EDT)

:I know a fair amount about political concepts, people I can have a hand in electing, and other well-known political figures.  However, I know little about--if you'll pardon the expression--lesser politicians, who have little significance to me.  Therefore, I'm sorry to say that I know almost nothing about these governors.  However, I've done a little on a couple of them.  I may do more, but all I can do is research then write based on what I find.  It could be hopelessly inaccurate, but I have no way of knowing.  For this reason, I'm trying not to add too much detail, since I don't want to make fa lse statements.  If anyone else knows anything about them, please add to or revise what I've written! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 11:01, 24 May 2016 (EDT)

::Well spoken, David. Speak of what you know; not of what some website wants you to believe. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] ([[User talk:AlanE|talk]]) 02:57, 26 May 2016 (EDT)
== One column footnoting vs. two column footnoting and mobile devices ==

For this article [[Operation Compass]] I added footnoting code at the bottom of the article for the new editor. 

If you look at the article, you will see that the footnoting is one column footnoting and not two column footnoting. 

I think I recall reading that one column footnoting is better for mobile device readers, but I am not sure.  Do you know if this is the case or not? 

Also, if you look at my edit which is [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Operation_Compass&diff=1224027&oldid=1224024 HERE], you will see that my column width is colwidth=30em .  I think this might be better for mobile devices as well, but I am not sure. 

If I am right about these two matters, I think Conservapedia's manual of style should be updated. Also, we might want to clean up our most high traffic articles so one column format is used.  

Does anyone know about these matters? I ask because a lot of people are using mobile devices now. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 03:11, 5 June 2016 (EDT)

:I don't know, but I have a testing platform I might be able to use tomorrow, if no one else knows either.  It would have sense that single columns would be better, but the Wiki software comes with a mobile mode, so this might counteract columns.  I'll try to get back to you on this. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 23:26, 5 June 2016 (EDT)
::I'll do some real-world testing tomorrow, but if you click the "Mobile View" link in CP's footer ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Operation_Compass&mobileaction=toggle_view_mobile here's the direct link]), you can see that columns are removed completely.  Therefore, it seems that it shouldn't matter what we do for columns. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 00:38, 6 June 2016 (EDT)
:::A big problem with 2 column footnotes is that if there are a small number of footnotes, it will break them up with only one or two words in the second column.  It does not have code to put the column break between two different footnotes. Thank you DavidB for cleaning this up. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 04:39, 6 June 2016 (EDT)
::::I'm not very good at designing templates for Wikis, but I wonder if someone could fix that.  Anyway, I did a little testing and all the mobile platforms I tried did load the wiki's mobile view, with the single column of references.  I even tried the [[Atheism]] article, with its three columns and had the same result, even if it was painfully slow due to the size of the page.  It looks like we can do columns for computers only without worrying about mobile viewing.  If you have anything else you want me to check, though, let me know! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 08:39, 6 June 2016 (EDT)
OK. Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:32, 6 June 2016 (EDT)

== Is Trump the new Zachary Taylor? ==

That's what this article argues: "[https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/history-campaign-politics-zachary-taylor-killed-whigs-political-party-213935 How an outsider president killed a party]." Taylor, elected president in 1848, was the ultimate outsider candidate, even more so than Trump. He had no political experience whatsoever, and he proudly boasted that he had never even voted. When he was nominated by the Whig Party, he was known only as the commander who defeated the Mexicans at Buena Vista. But I can't agree with the article's headline. Taylor was not the guy responsible for the downfall of the Whigs. That would be Millard Fillmore, Taylor's vice president. If Taylor was the non-ideological celebrity candidate of 1848, Fillmore was a true believer, a Whig version of Ted Cruz. Whig ideology called for the president to defer to Congress. Taylor died in office after a year. When Fillmore succeed, the long-frustrated "ultra Whigs" finally got their day in the sun. It was a disaster. Although personally opposed to slavery, Fillmore deferred to Congress as a good Whig. This meant strictly enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. It was a combination of views made him hugely unpopular, both in the North and in the South. The party collapsed in 1852. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 02:50, 10 June 2016 (EDT)

== They're at it again ==

Is there anyone around who can block these people?  There still creating accounts.  Maybe we should add "1.888.811.4532" to the spam filter.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 22:22, 11 September 2016 (EDT)

:Blocked--finally.  You're right, they keep using text from the same crawls of Amazon and Quickbooks.  It should be easy to add temporary entries to the spam filter. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup><small>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</small></sup> 23:14, 11 September 2016 (EDT)

::They're still at it. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 10:48, 13 September 2016 (EDT)

== Is the server clock messed up? ==

The clock seems to be a few hours fast.  According to what it says, I'm going to try to repair the E=mc^2 article at about 04:30.  It is now 00:46 EDT.  Or have you switched to UTC?  I thought CP was on EST/EDT.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:47, 1 October 2016 (EDT)

Never mind.  It's back on EDT now.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:59, 1 October 2016 (EDT)
==Fair use images==
What is our policy on fair use of copyrighted or trademark-protected images?  Please take a look at: [[File:Pajamas Media logo.gif]]. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 06:29, 9 November 2016 (EST)

:I am not aware of a specific, written code to follow regarding this on CP.  In general, I think most people here try to avoid copyrighted images.  However, some use them as WP does (any image, anytime, anywhere can be uses under Fair Use, it seems is their policy), and no one here seems to object.  Personal, I try to avoid copyrights except when the copyright is help by an organization friendly to CP.  Answers In Genesis I have no problem with, because it is my assumption that I probably have the legal right, but in any case I expect they appreciate friendly publicity.  I could always be wrong, though...<br />
:Trademark laws are a little less restrictive, and since we are not selling a product under their trademark, it is my understanding that it is usually acceptable to use these images.  However, if they are also copyrighted, I usually will not.  Even in court, Fair Use is a pain, because it is ambiguous, but I'd advise that you err on the side of caution.   I could be mistaken, but it seems to me that for the most part, each person does what they think is right. (Perhaps like "...every man did that which was right in his own eyes." -Judges 21:25?)<br />
:I'll stop rambling in just a moment, but a pseudo-legal definition I've heard is "Spontaneous usage of a portion of a work for a purpose which generates no profit for the user, nor takes profit from the owner."  Other definitions I've heard almost always also include some element of spontaneity, such as a teacher sees an article online, prints off a page or two of it, and hands it out to the class for study in class. I don't know where to draw the line, though.  As you probably know better than I, WP seems to assume that anything is fine to use, since it is for education purposes and does not directly generate revenue for them (though nice articles tend to lead to more donations).  It may be alright to use this policy since they get away with it, but I personally prefer not to risk it for the most part.  Perhaps an admin here knows more on the topic. I know I've spoken to Jpatt about copyright issues before, so you could always try asking him directly, if you don't get a satisfactory answer here. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup><small>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</small></sup> 13:31, 19 November 2016 (EST)

::This is the guidelines for images here:[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style/Images] [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 13:45, 19 November 2016 (EST)

== Hillary's Downfall ==

The original (and still hysterically funny) version is [http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/d0a842c3d2/hillarys-downfall-from-jamesadomian?_cc=__d___&_ccid=083fa30c-ba08-42dd-808c-3f889f16dab6 here]. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYyMF7IZ9Dw This version] is updated for 2016. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 00:33, 18 November 2016 (EST)

== Browser search engine: Conservapedia ==

It seems that most browsers have Wikipedia listed as one of the available search engines.  It occurs to me that some might find the same useful for CP.  What do you all think?  I've stared [[User:DavidB4/search conservapedia|a page]] to show what I'm thinking.  Can I get some input? <br />
One important factor is that I don't think this can be easily set up for Internet Explorer.  Also, Firefox is being a problem, but I may be able to assemble an XML file that works. Is something like this worth publishing? (see: [[User:DavidB4/search conservapedia]]) --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup><small>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</small></sup> 01:36, 23 November 2016 (EST)

== Math conundrum ==
This meme started in Japan and is confounding people across the Internet:
:<big><big>x=9-3÷⅓+1</big></big> [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 04:45, 27 November 2016 (EST)
::Are you suggesting that if a high school student read CP, he could not find what he needs to answer this correctly? [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 03:10, 29 December 2016 (EST)
==Was Hitler a Catholic?==
The article [[Liberal myths]] says "They claim Hitler was a Catholic."  The article [[Christian In Name Only]] says "Despite being raised Roman Catholic and claiming that Jesus was his inspiration, Hitler was only using Christianity to gain favor with the German people. His true beliefs were based off of his social darwinistic views."  It also includes "The Catholic Church" as all being XINO.  What are we trying to communicate here?  That liberals are wrong in claiming that Hitler was a Catholic in name only, or that because Hitler was raised a Catholic, even if Hitler had remained a faithful practitioner of Catholicism, he would still be just a XINO?  Or that liberals claim that Hitler was true to the teaching and spirit of the Catholic Church in his every thought and deed?  Or is it a liberal myth that the complexity of Christianity can be reduced to a short list of XINOs? Please help! [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 03:10, 29 December 2016 (EST)

:My beliefs may differ from CPs, but as I understand it, Hitler claimed to be a catholic to win favor.  He was not (he was actually very involved in the occult) but even if he had been, it would have been questionable whether he was a Christian or not.  His actions proved he was not a Christian or a catholic, however, so I suppose you could say he was two-fold Christian in name only. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup><small>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</small></sup> 09:32, 29 December 2016 (EST)

::Many secular liberals like to claim that Hitler was a Christian or a Roman Catholic in order to blame Christianity for the Holocaust, as well as every other evil in the world. That's all it is. Hitler clearly opposed Christianity,[http://answers.org/apologetics/hitquote.html][https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/racism/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust/] believed in evolution, [https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/racism/hitler-and-evolution/] and tried to modify Protestantism in Germany into a XINO organization that adhered to Nazi beliefs.[https://answersingenesis.org/sanctity-of-life/the-results-of-evolution/] (I also read somewhere that Hitler wished that Islam were the dominant religion in Europe because it was "stronger" and he thus could use it better). I think what the article is saying is that Hitler, like the R.C.C., claimed to be Christian, but in reality had beliefs far from biblical Christianity. His denomination does not appear to really matter. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 12:15, 29 December 2016 (EST)
:::Historians have generally viewed the Pope and the Roman Catholic hierarchy as being complicit in spreading anti-Semitism and being supportive of the Holocaust.  However, the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church have changed a lot since 1939, particularly for blaming the Jews for Christ's death.  I believe that it is probably a mistake to list the entire Roman Catholic Church as XINO, and the terse "They claim Hitler was a Catholic." is too condensed to help the reader.  There are many ways to criticize liberals, and this one is probably so weak that most people would not list it.  If the Roman Catholic Church is XINO, what about the Mormons? [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 13:00, 29 December 2016 (EST)
::::I (and probably the person who added the R.C.C.) believe the R.C.C. is XINO because of theological reasons rather than promoting politically left-wing ideology (even though I could name some R.C. clergy who would be better characterized as leftist activists). On issues such as the way to salvation (the most important one), the R.C.C. follows doctrine that the Bible not only does not support, but also speaks against. Same with the Mormons. That is why the R.C.C. is listed here.
::::Also, because so many Roman Catholics edit CP, I should make myself clear that I have nothing against Catholics or Mormons, and I think many of them are great people. I say what I say not to bash them but to point out that many of their doctrines are false and unbiblical. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 13:16, 29 December 2016 (EST)
:::::I also enjoy working with Catholics and Mormons.  I find religion to be very deep and textured.  At this point in my life, when I look back at all of the decisions and judgments that I have made, I no longer can tell where religion ends and my personal ethics takes over -- everything was baked together.  I think that wikis or general encyclopedias are not suited for religious teaching or debate.  So, I cringe when I read the stuff on  [[Liberal myths]] and [[Christian In Name Only]].  It is like trying to publish a book called "Religion for Dummies." [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 14:00, 29 December 2016 (EST)
::::::Yes, it can be a problem when people with very different theological beliefs (despite the same political and cultural views) edit articles like that. I do think, however, that both Roman Catholics and Protestants have no problem with the material on "Liberal myths." I could be wrong, but the XINO article seems to have been quite stable over the years, which is quite remarkable, considering the disagreements of our editors. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 15:37, 29 December 2016 (EST)
:::::::Hitler was from Austria. At that time, everyone in Austria was Catholic. So he was Catholic in the sense that he didn't publicaly break with the faith. ''Hitler's Table Talk'' records what he said in private dinner conversations. He's real views was Nietzschean and social Darwinist, according to the book. He thought Christianity is for weaklings, and so forth. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 22:31, 29 December 2016 (EST)
::::::::New book says [https://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Religion-Twisted-Beliefs-Drove/dp/1621575004 Hitler was a ''pantheist''.] That puts him in bed witbh Carl Sagan, Albert Einstein, and Steven Hawking. Which makes sense. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''#NeverHillary'']]</sup> 01:23, 30 December 2016 (EST)
:Hitler already made clear that he did not adhere to Catholicism at all, nor in point of fact, had he ever practiced the faith. He left the Catholic Church a long time prior to becoming Fuhrer, and UNLIKE Protestants, we Catholics don't adhere to the "Once Saved, Always Saved" ideology. Any "claims" to being Christian, Catholic or Protestant was typical cynical politics being displayed, no different than when Barack Obama or the Clintons claimed they were Christians, or Josef Stalin helming the Russian Orthodox Church during World War II. So far as the R.C.C. being XINO, are you seriously telling me that the Roman Catholic Church, which BTW had direct ties to Saint Peter, the first Pope (which is even directly alluded to with the passage of "Upon this rock you would find my Church"), is Christian in Name Only? They had direct ties to the founding of Christianity in the form of Saint Peter and Saint Paul. If you're going to call us XINOs, you might as well call THEM that as well, and I don't think people would take kindly towards anyone implying that Saints are XINOs. Them and the Eastern Orthodox, I should add. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 13:37, 3 May 2017 (EDT)
::Not all Protestants believe that once God, by His grace alone and not by our works, saves us, that we're always saved. It's part of the whole Arminian/Calvinist dispute. I agree with the Calvinists, who believe that someone who God has chosen to elect unto salvation will always be elected. It's theology, not ideology. See [https://www.gotquestions.org/once-saved-always-saved.html this article], which further explains my position.
::Regarding apostolic succession, the short answer is that along the way in history (around 500-1200 AD) unbiblical teachings started penetrating the church, and its leadership accepted those views. Theologically, they did not believe the same things as the apostles. It was the Reformers who, when they read Scripture (''all independenly from each other:'' Peter Waldo, John Wycliff, Jan Hus, Luther, Zwingli, etc.), who again taught what the apostles received. But make no mistake: the gospel was being proclimed throughout the Middle Ages (Waldo, etc.). Articles that better explain my position: [https://www.gotquestions.org/origin-Catholic-church.html][https://www.gotquestions.org/apostolic-succession.html]
::But I agree with you regarding Hitler. Like other politicians, he would try to associate himself publically with a Christian denomination, in this case, the R.C.C. In public, he tried to persuade his audience he was a Christan, but he also appeased his atheistic friends by criticizing Christianity. His plan was to replace Christianity with his own pagan Nazi religion once he won the war. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 15:56, 3 May 2017 (EDT)

== Conservatism sells: The growth of followers of conservatives on Twitter ==

See [[Top conservatives on Twitter]] for current number of followers of top Twitter users considered to be conservative.  Of those Twitter posters whose accounts on that page are still in existence, none lost in their total number of followers over the whole year of 2016. 

{| class="wikitable sortable"  style="font-size:98%; margin:left;"
|+ Promoters of conservatism with large gains of followers on Twitter, 2016 (top 20 each category)
|+ 
!Twitter poster
!Increase<br>in followers<br>2016
!Percent<br>increase<br>in followers
|-
|align="left"|Pres.-Elect [[Donald J. Trump]]
|align="right"|+13,053,000
|align="right"|+237%
|-
|align="left"|Dr. [[Ben Carson]]
|align="right"|+1,475,000
|align="right"|+136%
|-
|align="left"|[[Michelle Malkin]]
|align="right"|+943,000
|align="right"|+105%
|-
|align="left"|[[Sean Hannity]]
|align="right"|+697,000
|align="right"|+56%
|-
|align="left"|[[Laura Ingraham]]
|align="right"|+550,000
|align="right"|+89%
|-
|align="left"|[[Ann Coulter]]
|align="right"|+463,000
|align="right"|+63%
|-
|align="left"|Judge [[Jeanine Pirro]]
|align="right"|+292,000
|align="right"|+222%
|-
|align="left"|[[Franklin Graham]]
|align="right"|+277,000
|align="right"|+59%
|-
|align="left"|[[Sarah Palin]]
|align="right"|+226,000
|align="right"|+20%
|-
|align="left"|[[Tucker Carlson]]
|align="right"|+224,000
|align="right"|+89%
|-
|align="left"|[[Steven Crowder]]
|align="right"|+180,000
|align="right"|+122%
|-
|align="left"|[[Dinesh D'Souza]]
|align="right"|+166,000
|align="right"|+69%
|-
|align="left"|[[Mark Levin]]
|align="right"|+157,000
|align="right"|+30%
|-
|align="left"|[[James O'Keefe]]
|align="right"|+147,000
|align="right"|+198%
|-
|align="left"|[[Katie Pavlich]]
|align="right"|+145,000
|align="right"|+70%
|-
|align="left"|[[Allen West]]
|align="right"|+137,000
|align="right"|+29%
|-
|align="left"|Dr. [[Charles Krauthammer]]
|align="right"|+121,000
|align="right"|+20%
|-
|align="left"|[[Monica Crowley]]
|align="right"|+114,000
|align="right"|+42%
|-
|align="left"|[[Linda Suhler]], Ph. D.
|align="right"|+90,000
|align="right"|+48%
|-
|align="left"|Gov. [[Greg Abbott]]
|align="right"|+65,000
|align="right"|+40%
|-
|align="left"|[[John Nolte]]
|align="right"|+46,000
|align="right"|+74%
|-
|align="left"|[[Dennis Prager]]
|align="right"|+28,000
|align="right"|+50%
|-
|align="left"|[[Hugh Hewitt]]
|align="right"|+42,000
|align="right"|+47%
|-
|align="left"|[[Nikki Haley]]
|align="right"|+57,000
|align="right"|+47%
|-
|align="left"|Sen. [[Tim Scott]]
|align="right"|+51,000
|align="right"|+45%
|-
|}

[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 01:15, 9 January 2017 (EST)
:A better example of conservatism actually selling is Milo's book deal with Simon & Schuster.[https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/1/3/14119080/milo-yiannopoulos-book-deal-simon-schuster-dangerous-boycott] Historically, the only conservatives the "big five" book publishers dealt with were those with bankable personalities, i.e. people who had a built-in audiences due to regular appearances on Fox News or whatever. Only Regnery would publish books by lesser-known conservatives. Liberals think Al Franken is a great comedian because he wrote ''Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot''. Why can't they see the humor in “[https://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/07/05/fat-shaming-is-good-science/ Science Proves It: Fat-Shaming Works]”? [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 23:09, 4 January 2017 (EST)

== Alexa rank ==

User:Conservative was "crowing" about how Conservapedia in April of last year had reached 100,000 on the Alexa world rank.  As of today [http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/conservapedia.com], it's reached a global ranking of 55,877.

Is this a new record?  Does the increase reflect only a seasonal factor or impressive growth?  Do you suppose people around the world want to know more about conservatism now that conservatives have outvoted the opposition to help elect their preference to be the next President?  [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 03:18, 9 January 2017 (EST)
:We're sorely lacking in new content. All that new traffic to read many articles which are outdated and have not been maintained. I don't know... [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''#NeverHillary'']]</sup> 07:42, 9 January 2017 (EST)

::The graph makes it look like a record. As a site grows, the number does usually drop, so this seems to be a good sign.  RobS has a point, though--we have a lot of outdated content, so at the very least we need to spiff it up so we don't loose traffic.
::On a side note, I am suspicious of the 7.5% of traffic from China.  Firstly, we don't have any significant Chinese content, secondly the "great firewall of china" probably blocks citizens form accessing CP, and thirdly China is notorious for their cyber attacks as of late. Oh well... --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup><small>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</small></sup> 09:47, 9 January 2017 (EST)

:::I should note that we are still growing internationally, but we are starting to shrink in the U.S. (after a long period of growth and reaching what likely was a record high, of course). In mid-December, we were at 12,535 in the U.S., but now we are at 16,553. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 10:37, 9 January 2017 (EST)
::::Forty percent of our traffic is from search engines. Nine percent of the search engine traffic goes to the [[Poe's law]] article. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 12:50, 9 January 2017 (EST)
:::::@DavidB, so what do you think? Putin is routing traffic through Chinese servers to influence French and German elections? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''#NeverHillary'']]</sup> 10:34, 10 January 2017 (EST)
::::::@RobS  Don't say that too loud, or the MSM will start screaming it!  It sounds just like something they would say.  I assume your comment was in jest but text doesn't carry inflection, so just to be clear, no I don't think that!  I'm not sure what to think about that traffic--it seems odd, and I'm not sure how to explain it. It could be genuine, but I'd sooner suspect something synthetic...Chinese hacking????  --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup><small>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</small></sup> 11:06, 10 January 2017 (EST)
:::::::Either hacking or the Chinese are interested in American politics because of the election. I sure hope its not the first one! --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 11:09, 10 January 2017 (EST)

::::::::I hope so too.  The website is still here, so that's a good sign at least.  (Although realistically, they usually gather information rather than destroy it.) --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup><small>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</small></sup> 11:16, 10 January 2017 (EST)
:::::::::Whoever it is, their culling for ideas. CP has become pivotal in the global struggle against [[globalization]] and the [[New World Order]]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''#NeverHillary'']]</sup> 12:25, 10 January 2017 (EST)
Given the number of web pages that Conservapedia has, I doubt that 9% of Conservapedia's search engine traffic comes from the Poe's law article. Alexa is wrong about this matter. I largely wrote the Poe's Law article and my guess is that only a very small percentage of Conservapedia's search engine traffic comes from this article. If you look at the total page views of Conservapedia and then look at the view counter for the Poe's law article, you will probably come to the same conclusion that I have made. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:39, 3 May 2017 (EDT)

== Unlock Template:Infobox person? ==

Could I get someone to unlock the [[:Template:Infobox person]] page?  It should have some more elements, and perhaps be merged with [[:Template:Infobox person2]].  Thanks! --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup><small>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</small></sup> 11:24, 12 January 2017 (EST)
==New templates to mark direction of changes==
I have added five new templates, which I hope will gain widespread adoption. These templates show icons to indicate increase or decrease, such as ranking in a list or company profit.

* {{Increase}}: {{tl|Increase}}, to show an increase or going up in rankings
* {{Decrease}}: {{tl|Decrease}}, to show a decrease or going down in rankings
* {{Steady}}: {{tl|Steady}} = to show no change

An optional first argument alters the tooltip comment. For example, <nowiki>{{Decrease|-5%}} </nowiki>produces -5%.

In cases where a symbol is needed to represent an increase that is "bad" or a decrease that is "good", such as a rise or fall in road accident fatalities, the following should be used:

* {{IncreaseNegative}}:{{tl|IncreaseNegative}}, to show an increase which is actually bad.
* {{DecreasePositive}}: {{tl|DecreasePositive}}, to show a decrease which is actually good.
Please let me know if you have any questions or suggestions. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 08:13, 27 January 2017 (EST)
==Political directory==
A few years ago, some editors copied a lot of political directory information into CP.  For example, the state articles list all of the Senators and Congressmen and the infobox has the Senators' telephone numbers.  Much of this has changed in the 2014 and 2016 elections. In some cases, like [[Elizabeth Warren]], the junior senator has become the senior senator of the state.  I have corrected [[Ohio]], but do not want to fix all of this by myself.  Can we organize a work list and cross off each state as it is updated?  Please let me know if you want to help. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 09:22, 15 February 2017 (EST)

:I can't say I'm thrilled at the idea, but I can try to chip in a little, as time permits. That's a very good idea, and I'm glad you noticed--I'm just not sure how much time I can contribute. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 11:03, 15 February 2017 (EST)
::In my state even the official state website hasn't been updated in more than two years (it still lists an officer sitting in jail as Secretary of State). I'm sure the lazy government bureaucrats blame Republican budget cuts who took over the legislature in 2014. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|CIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win?]]</sup> 21:33, 15 February 2017 (EST)
:::This project is focusing on 1) list of US Congressmen and Senators and 2) Senators in infobox. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 00:27, 16 February 2017 (EST)

Sources: http://www.house.gov/representatives/ and https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?OrderBy=state&Sort=ASC  When you have finished with a state, cross the state name out using <nowiki><s>State</s></nowiki>.
{| class="wikitable"
|
* <b>[[Alabama]]:&nbsp;Dec. 14, 1819</b>
* <s>[[Alaska]]:&nbsp;Jan. 3, 1959</s>
* <s>[[Arizona]]:&nbsp;Feb. 14, 1912</s>
* <s>[[Arkansas]]:&nbsp;Jun. 15, 1836</s>
* <s>[[California]]:&nbsp;Sep. 9, 1850</s>
* <s>[[Colorado]]:&nbsp;Aug. 1, 1876</s>
* <s>[[Connecticut]]:&nbsp;Jan. 9, 1788</s>
* <b>[[Delaware]]:&nbsp;Dec. 7, 1787</b>
* <s>[[Florida]]:&nbsp;Mar. 3, 1845</s>
* <s>[[Georgia]]:&nbsp;Jan. 2, 1788</s>
* <s>[[Hawaii]]:&nbsp;Aug. 21, 1959</s>
* <s>[[Idaho]]:&nbsp;Jul. 3, 1890</s>
* <b>[[Illinois]]:&nbsp;Dec. 3, 1818</b>
* <s>[[Indiana]]:&nbsp;Dec. 11, 1816</s>
* <s>[[Iowa]]:&nbsp;Dec. 28, 1846</s>
* <s>[[Kansas]]:&nbsp;Jan. 29, 1861</s>
* <b>[[Kentucky]]:&nbsp;Jun. 1, 1792</b>
* <s>[[Louisiana]]:&nbsp;Apr. 30, 1812</s>
* <s>[[Maine]]:&nbsp;Mar. 15, 1820</s>
* <b>[[Maryland]]:&nbsp;Apr. 28, 1788</b>
* <s>[[Massachusetts]]:&nbsp;Feb. 6, 1788</s>
* <s>[[Michigan]]:&nbsp;Jan. 26, 1837</s>
* <s>[[Minnesota]]:&nbsp;May 11, 1858</s>
* <s>[[Mississippi]]:&nbsp;Dec. 10, 1817</s>
* <b>[[Missouri]]:&nbsp;Aug. 10, 1821</b>
|
* <s>[[Montana]]:&nbsp;Nov. 8, 1889</s>
* <s>[[Nebraska]]:&nbsp;Mar. 1, 1867</s>
* <s>[[Nevada]]:&nbsp;Oct. 31, 1864</s>
* <s>[[New Hampshire]]:&nbsp;Jun. 21, 1788</s>
* <s>[[New Jersey]]:&nbsp;Dec. 18, 1787</s>
* <s>[[New Mexico]]:&nbsp;Jan. 6, 1912 </s>
* <s>[[New York]]:&nbsp;Jul. 26, 1788</s>
* <b>[[North Carolina]]:&nbsp;Nov. 21, 1789</b>
* <s>[[North Dakota]]:&nbsp;Nov. 2, 1889</s>
* <b>[[Ohio]]:&nbsp;Mar. 1, 1803</b>
* <s>[[Oklahoma]]:&nbsp;Nov. 16, 1907</s>
* <s>[[Oregon]]:&nbsp;Feb. 14, 1859</s>
* <s>[[Pennsylvania]]:&nbsp;Dec. 12, 1787</s>
* <s>[[Rhode Island]]:&nbsp;May 29, 1790</s>
* <s>[[South Carolina]]:&nbsp;May 23, 1788</s>
* <s>[[South Dakota]]:&nbsp;Nov. 2, 1889</s>
* <s>[[Tennessee]]:&nbsp;Jun. 1, 1796</s>
* <b>[[Texas]]:&nbsp;Dec. 29, 1845</b>
* <s>[[Utah]]:&nbsp;Jan. 4, 1896</s>
* <b>[[Vermont]]:&nbsp;Mar. 4, 1791</b>
* <b>[[Virginia]]:&nbsp;Jun. 25, 1788</b>
* <s>[[Washington]]:&nbsp;Nov. 11, 1889</s>
* <b>[[West Virginia]]:&nbsp;Jun. 20, 1863</b>
* <b>[[Wisconsin]]:&nbsp;May 29, 1848</b>
* <s>[[Wyoming]]:&nbsp;Jul. 10, 1890</s>
|}
Many thanks to Pokeria1, AMorrow, and DavidB4 for their help on this project. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 13:44, 16 February 2017 (EST)

'''Since we finished the federal officers faster than I expected, I am proposing a Phase II, where we go back and check the names of the state-wide officers''' listed in each of the above articles.  After you have checked an article please change <nowiki><s>state</s> to <b>state</b></nowiki>.  Many thanks! [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 10:59, 17 February 2017 (EST)

:I recommend adding the phrase "As of 2017" to the "Elected officials" sections of each state. With this, we will know the exact date when these officials were all in power, and we will hopefully be more compelled to update the list later. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 00:01, 18 February 2017 (EST)
::That may work unless there is a mid-year vacancy.  I am troubled that some of these pages were not updated for 4 or more years.  I am also looking for references to folks that made recent moves, for example we have a new Alabama Attorney General, because the old one joined the Senate to fill Jeff Session's seat. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 02:56, 18 February 2017 (EST)

== Conservapedia IRC channel ==

Our [[Internet Relay Chat]] article claims that we have channel on freenode.  However, it has not been used for quite some time (last used April 6th, 2008 at 17:52:59, to be exact).  Has the channel been moved, or does CP no longer have IRC?  If it exists, I'd like to join it.  If not, someone should delete that statement from the IRC article. Thanks! --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 16:48, 16 February 2017 (EST)
:I don't think the IRC channel is active anymore. 

:I could be wrong, but I think IRC channels make your computer very susceptible to malware attacks. I think a weekly or biweekly Skype conference chat would be better for those who are interested. Skype is a very secular network. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:02, 9 April 2017 (EDT)
::Thanks for the response!  I've responded on [[User_talk:DavidB4#Conservapedia_IRC_channel|my talk page]] --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 11:49, 10 April 2017 (EDT)

== Uncategorized images ==

All the images on the page [[Railway track]] are uncategorized. Could they please be added to a category, such as [[:Category:Rail transport]].  I cannot add them myself because they are protected. [[User:Desmonduk|Desmonduk]] ([[User talk:Desmonduk|talk]]) 11:29, 23 February 2017 (EST)

:That's a good idea.  I've been pushing for a image categorizing project for a while, but the problem is that only full admins can unprotect images.  That would be a massive undertaking, and they have other more time-sensitive things to work on.  Therefore, this just doesn't get done.  The site software automatically generates a list of images which as not categorized here: [[Special:UncategorizedFiles]].  If you can make progress with this, that would be great.  However, you will need a full administrator to do it.  [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3AListUsers&username=&group=sysop&editsOnly=1&creationSort=1&limit=100 Here] is a list of registered admins, but most of them seem inactive now.  Jpatt, Karajou, Aschlafly, Conservative, TerryH, and Ed Poor are the only once I can remember seeing contribute in the recent past.  You could ask them, but you may have the same luck as me. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 12:17, 23 February 2017 (EST)

::Thank you. [[User:Desmonduk|Desmonduk]] ([[User talk:Desmonduk|talk]]) 18:06, 23 February 2017 (EST)

:::I have created an index to the Uncategorized images at [[Uncategorized files]]. [[User:Desmonduk|Desmonduk]] ([[User talk:Desmonduk|talk]]) 08:44, 25 February 2017 (EST)
::::Wow. What a task. Thanks for doing that. We should post reminders wherever neccessary, and Andy should emphasize before granting upload priveleges, to please add a category when uploading, rather than leaving the burden to somebody else later. Too many editors with upload privileges are in the habit of uploading in haste and creating massive redundancy and confusion for the whole project later. 

::::Is there a program or extension that would stop an upload until a category is added? Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|CIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win?]]</sup> 14:19, 25 February 2017 (EST)

:::::Thanks, Desmonduk!
:::::The  greater problem now is not that the images were uploaded this way, but that they were locked, so only an admin can unlock and edit them.  I must dig for sometimes 10-15 minutes before I can find an unprotected uncategorized file which I can deal with.  It's a terrible waste of time. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 15:52, 25 February 2017 (EST)

::::::You are welcome. I am enjoying editing Conservapedia because I don't get the abuse I used to get on Wikipedia. [[User:Desmonduk|Desmonduk]] ([[User talk:Desmonduk|talk]]) 18:24, 26 February 2017 (EST)

==Attorney General [[Jeff Sessions]]==

Attorney General Jeff Sessions is no longer a conservative tweeter.  Is it because he is no longer a conservative?  By no means—rather it is because he is no longer a tweeter.  Sessions deleted his account very recently, with all likelihood because of his preparation for, and because of his changed priorities in, carrying out his weighty new responsibilities.  I will keep an eye out for his Twitter presence in case he returns and hope the Conservapedia community will do so as well. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 19:57, 3 March 2017 (EST)

== User:ChristopherW ==

I am a little concerned about the blocking of User:ChristopherW - see [[Special:Contributions/ChristopherW]].  It is not clear to me what he has done wrong. [[User:Desmonduk|Desmonduk]] ([[User talk:Desmonduk|talk]]) 20:13, 23 March 2017 (EDT)
:As far as ChristoherW's edit to the microevolution article  which was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Microevolution&diff=prev&oldid=1324198 "They are, needless to say, wrong."], would a print encyclopedia say something that is needless to say? No, they would not. It was obviously snarky trolling. There were other signs of snarky trolling as well. 

:I do realize that he made some useful edits. That is what the smarter parodist/trolls do. 

:Conservapedia has had a handful of parodists who have uncloaked themselves and indicated that were parodists after contributing more than a perfunctory amount of content. In each and every case, I told fellow admins my suspicions and I was right 100% of the time. Their parody type material (or other unsuitable material) was quickly deleted as they went along. In some cases I put them to work as I knew they were smart enough to create quality articles. I got User: Rodweathers to create the  [[Atheism and beliefs]] article and User: Bible Sherman to create the [[Soviet atheism]] article.

:Unfortunately, User:ChristopherW was either unable or unwilling to create quality articles. His article on a Koran topic was a horrible article. 

:After all is said and done, I will not unblock him.  The costs outweigh the benefits. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])

::Noted, thank you. [[User:Desmonduk|Desmonduk]] ([[User talk:Desmonduk|talk]]) 18:57, 24 March 2017 (EDT)
:::Thanks. I improved the [[microevolution]] article. I added the necessary additional material which supposedly was unnecessary to say. :)   My guess is that User: ChristopherW was probably ignorant on the topic of microevolution vs. macroevolution and if he got in a public debate with a creationist he would very likely lose (see: [[Creation vs. evolution debates|Creation scientists tend to win debates with evolutionists]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:15, 24 March 2017 (EDT)

== Vaccination ==

I am thinking of creating an article: [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Vaccination]].  Wikipedia is fanatically pro-vaccination.  This is very apparent in the Wikipedia article Vaxxed [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaxxed]. It is allegedly about the film "Vaxxed" but is actually a potentially libelous character assassination of Dr Andrew Wakefield.  My own view is that parents should be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not to have their children vaccinated. Is this in line with Conservapedia policy? [[User:Desmonduk|Desmonduk]] ([[User talk:Desmonduk|talk]]) 08:55, 27 March 2017 (EDT)

:As long as you stick to the facts and cite you sources, as always, I don't see a problem.  Vaccination is something liberals like to push, often using the "herd mentality" (if you don't do this, others will suffer, and by doing this, you help everyone).  There are definitely some reasons not to take vaccinations, so an article like this makes sense.  I haven't read WP's article, but probably they are ignoring the inconvenient truths of how destructive and ineffective vaccines can be, as they tend to do on other topics as well. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 11:11, 27 March 2017 (EDT)

::Thank you. [[User:Desmonduk|Desmonduk]] ([[User talk:Desmonduk|talk]]) 11:21, 27 March 2017 (EDT)

:::One tip: when citing the Wikipedia articles as evidence, please be sure to use the permanent links, as the article content can change. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 15:35, 27 March 2017 (EDT)

::::Thank you. I have created the article at [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Vaccination]]. [[User:Desmonduk|Desmonduk]] ([[User talk:Desmonduk|talk]]) 15:14, 29 March 2017 (EDT)

==Changing a username==
I tried to find out how to change my User Name but was unsuccessful. Can anyone help me? <small>-Unsigned comment by [[User:BertSchlossberg]]</small>
:I could be wrong, but I don't think the wiki software permits username changes.  Other than creating a new account and switching to that, I don't think there is a way.  However, if anyone here would know, [[User:Aschlafly]] probably would; you could ask him directly. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 23:43, 29 March 2017 (EDT)
::Changes in user names are allowed by the wiki software, but an admin has to rename the account.  Your contribution history and watch list moves over to the renamed account. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 08:18, 30 May 2017 (EDT)

== Deplorable state of science ==

A while back I was shocked to learn that when an investigator performing a trial of a sample of scientific journal articles whose scientific procedures supported a conclusion, half the studies' conclusions could not be reproduced when the procedures were repeated.

I noted that reproducibility is an essential element of scientific knowledge, and that those journal articles that didn't share that quality, didn't deserve to be called science, a word that originally meant "highly established knowledge".  Instead, the most it deserved to be called was empirical opinion.

Now I have become horrified to learn that ''more than 99% of scientific studies in journals did not follow the scientific method!''<ref>Bokhari, Allum (March 31, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/radio/2017/03/31/j-scott-armstrong-no-one-asks-researchers-scientific-method "J Scott Armstrong on Breitbart News Daily: 'No one asks' researchers to follow scientific method"]. Interview with Dr. J. Scott Armstrong and Dr. Kesten Green.  Breitbart/Radio website.</ref> I at least thought that the studies described above at least ''pretended'' to follow the scientific method and not that the now-so-called scientific community had abandoned the scientific method wholesale!

Fortunately a big player in scientific journals, Public Library of Science One (PLOS) is trying to turn this around, but we ought to expect this library will face the same time difficulties they would face if they were to attempt to turn a large ship around. 

They have revived the definition of the scientific method and reduced the method to eight minimum responsibilities:

#Test multiple reasonable hypotheses
#Provide useful findings
#Fully disclose methods, data, and other relevant information
#Conduct a comprehensive review of prior knowledge
#Use valid and comparable data
#Use valid and simple methods
#Provide any experimental evidence
#Reach conclusions consistent with the evidence

The author of the article, Allum Bokhari, reported that one of the scientists, J. Scott Armstrong noted that "the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) violates all eight of his checklist for following the scientific method. 'If you don't believe me, you can go and look at their work and you can use that checklist.'"

[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 06:25, 2 April 2017 (EDT)

===References===
{{reflist}}

== Conservapedia's insights ==

Over the years, Andrew Schlafly came up with some insights about the Bible, which are now aggregated at [[Best Conservapedia insights about the Bible]]. These are introduced as
{{cquote|Conservapedia has produced a growing list of insights about the Bible:}}
Though ''Conservapedia'' and ''Andrew Schlafly'' are often one and the same, I think at this place it should be made clear that these are Andrew Schlafly's ''personal'' insights, which - as far as I can see - are not shared with many editors. Therefore, I propose the introduction:
{{cquote|On Conservapedia, Andrew Schlafly has produced a growing list of personal insights about the Bible:}}
I don't want to get into an edit war about this, so I ask for guidance.
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 07:39, 2 April 2017 (EDT)
:They're personal insights, but Andy shares the insights with others using something called ''language''.  [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 00:20, 4 April 2017 (EDT)
::Thanks, VargasMilan.  I say "Conservapedia's insights" because they developed on Conservapedia with the assistance of others, including even August!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 00:43, 4 April 2017 (EDT)
:::President Obama shared his insights with us using language, too. That doesn't make them "American Insights". Is here engaged conservapedian but Andrew Schlafly - perhaps one of the sysops - who supports these insights? I may have helped to erase some embarrassing obvious ''basic'' errors in the translations,  but I cannot follow most of Andrew Schlafly's conclusions. Anyone?--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 11:52, 4 April 2017 (EDT)
::::Anyone? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 12:48, 5 April 2017 (EDT)

:::::I specifically agree with # 1, 2, and 7.  Given what I know, I somewhat disagree with 4, 6, and 8.  I don't know enough to agree or disagree with any certainty on the other points, and given my lack of significant multilingual skills, I could be wrong.
:::::To #4 I say: In English, this may seem like a small change, but a switch from possessive to adjective seems significant.  I doubt every bible translator would have been mistaken on this.

:::::To #6: That seems rather like a stretch.  The general meaning of actions over words is there, but I very much doubt the manuscripts had the equivalent of "liberal claptrap" on them.

::::: #8: With all of the checking and rechecking, it is difficult for portion to simply be inserted.  Sure, scribal notes have been integrated, but that's different.  Her sin was punishable by death, but it seems that Jesus was trying to use her as an example to show the radical change he was teaching.  He was not in any way condoning adultery, but he was demonstrating that even the most grievous sin can be forgiven.  Those who thought themselves righteous were shown to be in a worse place than her, because she was (presumably) repentant, while they were clearly not repentant of their sins. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 13:33, 5 April 2017 (EDT)

::::::I also question #5.  It's true that Jesus sometimes spoke about himself in the third person, but if he was risen from the dead, would he really need to explain the history of himself in third person? He could just open their eyes and show them, rather than going to the work of explaining it.  I don't know--no one does, but this sound questionable to me. Besides, on the road to Amadeus, it says he "talked with them" and answered questions.  Hebrews is a one-sided speech or letter, not a conversation.  I know people took much longer durations in conversation to speak before giving others their turn to speak, but this is a non-stop message. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 13:42, 5 April 2017 (EDT)

:::::::DavidB4, I really appreciate your feedback about this.  Starting with #8, that was fully vetted here on Conservapedia in [[Essay:Adulteress Story]].  The crime was not punishable by stoning at the time, and there are numerous other historical flaws to the story.  Virtually all scholars agree the story is a fabrication inserted later into the [[Bible]].  Most versions acknowledge this with a footnote.  Yet [[liberal]]s are more likely to cite this story than any other - which is another reason to be skeptical about its authenticity.  Thanks for your interest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 20:48, 5 April 2017 (EDT)

Personally, I have no great problem with the general statement on the Bible - like #1, #2, #7. But the moment, Andrew Schlafly addresses a specific verse, problems arise. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 18:44, 5 April 2017 (EDT)

:Mr. Schlafly, I appreciate the info.  I'll do some more study on the matter when I get the chance.  I think this is the first time I've heard it challenged, so it is somewhat surprising to hear that so many people question it.  I'll do some reading on the matter when I find the time. What I don't quite understand is, why do liberal like to cite it?  Because it implies sin is okay?  Because it suggests Jesus is not offended by transgression?  Thanks! --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 22:34, 5 April 2017 (EDT)
::Also, regarding adultery not being punishable by death, am I mistaken, or was that the penalty under levitical law? Even though the Romans were the only ones who could ''legally'' pronounce the death sentence, it could be claimed that the Jews were so engaged that they were going to do it anyway.  Of course, I have no idea if this is actually the case, but it is a possible explanation. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 00:48, 6 April 2017 (EDT)

:::It's all explained in the entry [[Essay:Adulteress Story]].  Adultery was punishable by death, but not by stoning.  Liberals love the story because says sinners cannot punish anyone, and certainly never the [[death penalty]].  Also, the story says no one even has to ask for forgiveness!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 01:11, 6 April 2017 (EDT)

Andy, you write: "The adulteress story is a phony insertion by liberals" Who were these phony time-travelling  liberals who inserted the story before the 4th century? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 02:55, 6 April 2017 (EDT)

:Yeah, and besides, considering that even the Douay-Rheims bible (the oldest version of the bible known to man) includes the passage, it's unlikely that it was just inserted in, and more likely than not was genuine. Now, I do agree that I don't like it when Liberals abuse that passage, but that doesn't mean we should reject it as a forgery. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 07:49, 6 April 2017 (EDT)

== Please check fake news article ==

I and JDano have differing opinions of how the article [[Fake News]] should be organized and what information it should include and where. I request that other editors give their opinion. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 16:45, 5 April 2017 (EDT)

== STOP!  Stop Balkanizing the categories! ==

There seems to be an intense push to reorganize categories, apparently to put all categories in a "tree" structure, and to arrange that a given article is in only one category, that being the lowest appropriate category in the tree.  Much of the recent work in this area is being done my new and hard-working contributors, but much of it is wrong.  '''Don't do this.'''

While there are are topics for which the "bottom-of-the-tree-only" doctrine may be correct, there are topics for which it is most emphatically not.  I particularly refer to physics and chemistry.

Here's the scenario:  We are trying to make this place an encyclopedia that school-age students will come to for trustworthy information.  (Well, many of us are.  Others are just filling up the place with pages about what countries have problems with bestiality, what demographic changes are taking place in various countries relating to evangelical Christianity, and how the traffic on Richard Dawkins' web site is doing.  I don't care what categories pages like that are in.)  But suppose I'm a junior high school student wanting to read about interesting topics in physics.  The place to look is the category.  One effectively goes "shopping" there, sort of like a shopping mall.  One looks for things that might be interesting.  "Oh, look.  Articles on protons, neutrons, and electrons.  Let's take a look."  "Oh, look.  Lagrangian dynamics.  I've always wanted to know how that stuff works."  Or I'm in the Chemistry category and see that I can read about Nitric acid.

But we don't have the big shopping lists.  We have huge trees of categories and subcategories.  I have to go clicking through the tree.  This is ridiculous.  If I'm looking at the Physics category, the only way I will get to protons is to see the Subatomic Physics category, click on it, then see the Subatomic Particles category and click on it.  How am I supposed to know that?  And how am I supposed to have the patience to go through all that?

Similarly, in the Chemistry category, I can't see Nitric acid except by clicking on the Acid–base chemistry category and then the Acids category.
And to get to the Electromagnetic wave article from the Physics category, I first have to click on the Electromagnetism category.  No.  Electromagnetic waves, and Maxwell's equations, are fundamental topics in physics.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 18:57, 7 April 2017 (EDT)

:Agreed.  TAR caused the oposite problem, so I'm reluctant to say it, but there is such a thing as too few categories as well. It's okay to have several "leaf" categories, if applicable, or to have a few categories from different "branches". I haven't been closely watching the recategorization efforts lately, but you're right.
:This is probably a bad time to bring it up, but I have noticed a few crossovers where there shouldn't be, still.  For example, I ran a recursive category check on Technology, and got some strange results.  Genocide, Genrikh Yagoda, George Davis, Mental illness, National Park, and even Plant were a few of the pages which showed up under the category "Technology."  Perhaps rather than pulling pages out of categories, we should focus on cleaning up the categories themselves, which keeping in mind that multiple categories are sometimes okay. 
: P.S. You made me go look up Balkanize. :) --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 19:47, 7 April 2017 (EDT)
::There is always a happy medium.  Unlike WP, we grow articles at a very slow rate, so few categories at this point may be better.  I suggest that when we hit 100 articles in a category, it might be time to adjust it into subcategories. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 02:30, 8 April 2017 (EDT)
:::My apologies about that - I mistook the {{Large category}} template for a call for help.  The categories were somewhat difficult to form, anyways.--[[User:Abcqwe|Abcqwe]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 09:26, 8 April 2017 (EDT)
::::I think Abcqwe has done good work. Some of these categories are quite large, and they should be split up. Of course, not too many sub-categories should be made, but I think it is easier to find articles if one doesn't have to look in a single cateogry with thousands of articles. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 11:06, 8 April 2017 (EDT)
:::::I would also like to add my apologies. Like Abcqwe, I saw the large category template so decided i could help by moving things but now i see that it wasn't the best idea. I shall refrain from recategorising pages.
:::::On a side note, would it be useful to briefly describe each sub category page on the sub category page or the main physics page? [[User:FredericBernard|FredericBernard]] ([[User talk:FredericBernard|talk]]) 11:55, 8 April 2017 (EDT)

First, I totally appreciate the hard work that Abcqwe and FredericBernard ‎have done.  I'm not denying that in the least, and I apologize if I sounded overly critical.  Deciding on a category tree, and creating the categories, is not easy.  (I myself don't know how to do it.)  My only objection was in taking articles ''out'' of the top category, not in putting them into the lower categories.

A dictionary is an enormous book.  But it's alphabetized, so you can find things rapidly.  And if you just like to browse (perhaps you're a Scrabble player) you can do that too.  If you have a dictionary of physics, it's all there, from acceleration to Z-boson.  Scroll through the pages with their alphabetized sections, and look at whatever suits your fancy.

I think the "Large category" flag is appropriate for many topics, but is inappropriate for some things, like physics, chemistry, and mathematics.  Some categories just list an unwieldy number of very similar things. So, a category of birds, or Civil War battles, very well might benefit from being split up.  But the items in physics are very disparate.  You might be able to figure out, from the battle of Antietam, that the battle of Bull Run is in there too.  But you'd never guess, from [[angular momentum]], that [[Maxwell's equations]] is in there too, if you have to search blindly through all the other categories.

All these other categories are great.  But please leave things in the main physics category if you think they ought to appear in an "Encyclopedeia of Physics".

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 12:09, 8 April 2017 (EDT)

:But SamHB, what worth is it when editors do not move pages into subcategories and then the existing categories end up having hundreds or even thousands of articles? I personally think having some subcategories is more navigatable. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 12:19, 8 April 2017 (EDT)

::I assume that, by "move into subcategories" you mean list the subcategory in the list at the bottom of the article, ''and remove the higher category''.  I'm simply arguing for keeping both, for topics like physics, chemistry, and mathematics.  The subcategories are still navigable, if that's the way you like to have the stuff presented.  The subcategories are always listed at the top of the category page.  You can click on those and explore the tree.  My point is that, if you want to see the article on Maxwell's equations, you might not know how to navigate down the tree.  But it will be there, under "M".  You may have to scroll down a bit, but you will see it.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 12:29, 8 April 2017 (EDT)

:::The problem with that, is that it is basically what TAR was doing.  A page on a Glock would be in in the categories Weapons, Firearms, Survivalism, Glocks, Technology, Equipment, Firearms Glossary, and many more.  Since it is a Glock, perhaps the "Glocks" category would be right.  However, all of those categores do to some extent apply.  It's just that everywhere you go, you find the page "glock."  If we only do one or two leaf categories and a root category, it would be better.  However, it still could get messy. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 14:36, 8 April 2017 (EDT)

::::Okay, just an update:  I went back through my "contributions" list to see all the chemistry things and physics things I changed and changed the categories back.  I think that's the most recats I've done in one hour.  Next I think I'll say something on the template.  Sorry for the 100-cat mistake.--Nathan--[[User:Abcqwe|Abcqwe]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 08:46, 9 April 2017 (EDT)
:::::Where is the link posted that is the Portal to Categories? Giving that link higher visibility somewhere will help the page designer as well as the student. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''CIA v Trump updated score'':CIA 3, Trump 2]]</sup>`

== Internet Relay Chat ==

After some discussion (on [[User_talk:DavidB4#Conservapedia_IRC_channel|my talk page]] and [[User_talk:Aschlafly#IRC|Andy's]]) it has been decided that we start an [[Internet Relay Chat]] channel for Conservapedia, since our old one has been dead since 2009.  It is now registered and somewhat set up.  I don't know who here uses IRC or is interested in doing so, but everyone is welcome, and anyone with block privileges on Conservapedia can also get block privileges on the new IRC channel.  Everyone is welcome to come and chat, or simply "hang out." This can be a great place to collaborate, ask and answer questions, and just chat. If nothing else, visitors to Conservapedia can potentially be sent there to discuss any questions they may have.  Of course, this depends on how many people choose to use it in the first place.<br />

The IRC channel is: '''#conservapedia @irc.accessIRC.net''' <br />
The web client can be used (quite easily!) [https://kiwiirc.com/client?settings=7c7240c62a5d4861a8ad0ba697929f39 here]<br />
I am also making a page detailing the use of the chat channel called [[Conservapedia:Using IRC]]<br />
Let me know if you have any questions, suggestions, or need anything else, also! --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 17:07, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

== Template:Infobox Television ==

I'd like to start including the [[Template:Infobox Television|television infobox template]] in editing some TV shows, but as it looks right now (I tried including it in a show I was editing and the infobox didn't look that good as it is now), it may need fixing up to make it look similar to the [[Template:Infobox Film|movie infobox]]. Since I can't do it myself due to the page being locked, would someone else with extended editing privileges be able to fix the TV infobox? [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 16:49, 15 April 2017 (EDT)

== Let's avoid infinite blocking ==

I have noticed that some of the blockers do infinite blocks. This can cause problems down the block potentially.  

The average person moves about every 7 years I heard. And most vandals are younger than the average person's age so they probably move more frequently (college students, etc.).  Plus, a lot of vandals are loser/drifters probably so they may move even more frequently. 

I block for about 5 years. I don't see why people have to block longer. 

Any input from blockers would be welcome. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:47, 22 April 2017 (EDT)
:That makes sense for IPs, but not accounts. Most of the accounts that we block need to stay blocked forever, whereas the IP addresses used to create those accounts should not be blocked forever. IP addresses are a different animal, because even static IP addresses eventually get reassigned. The indefinite blocks of bad accounts are common practice on wikis, except wikis run by liberal morons. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] ([[User talk:DMorris|talk]]) 18:53, 22 April 2017 (EDT)
::When you block accounts, sometimes does it also block the IPs? I seem to recall having to unblock an IP after after someone blocked the persons account even after the account was unblocked. Or was their just overlap and someone may have blocked that IP since the user account was blocked? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:04, 22 April 2017 (EDT)
:::Although I see your point regarding some users needing to be permanently banned, speaking as someone who had to fairly recently endure an infinite block on one of the wikis, it also comes at the risk of the mods coming across as people who view themselves as above the law and blocking anyone for even giving criticism for some decisions being made by them (namely, citing how a Complete Monster trope is downright broken and especially protesting the removal of one character due to their actions not being "heinous enough" to qualify despite a lot of those character's actions truly qualifying as heinous.). Had a huge amount of distrust of mods to be honest, due to actually encountering several mods and admins on forums who banned me for "flaming" despite the fact that I was reacting to them flaming, and their not being banned simply because they were a mod (in fact, I distrust them to such an extent that I outright refuse to accept modship or adminship precisely BECAUSE I fear turning out like them), and, not to imply any of you are like that, but the less mods like that and the less opportunities for mods to act like that, the better. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 13:24, 23 April 2017 (EDT)

== Potential policy: Conservapedia topic bans/main page talk bans ==

Looking for feedback on this potential policy: [[Conservapedia:Topic bans]].

I thought this policy might make it easier to manage the website and prevent overly broad bans. 

Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 20:51, 5 May 2017 (EDT)

:I think that if an editor is clearly not making constructive edits here, they should be blocked. How would we enforce such a ban, and under what circumstances would such a ban be implemented rather than a full block? In my opinion, it might be harder to manage CP with this policy, because we would have to watch more editors much more closely. On the bright side, we could use this topic ban on our good-faith liberal editors. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 21:07, 5 May 2017 (EDT)
::I created this new policy based on feedback from Andy Schlafly via email. I also added a sentence at the end of the policy due to feedback from 1990sguy. 

::There were Sysops who wanted to take stricter measures with problem editors, but I thought this more surgical approach would be better. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 21:36, 5 May 2017 (EDT)

:::Would you please add [[:Category:Conservapedia Policy]] to the new policy article? --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 21:34, 5 May 2017 (EDT)

::::OK. I was about to do this anyways. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 21:36, 5 May 2017 (EDT)

:::::Unrelated, would you please move [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sanctuary_Cities&redirect=no Sanctuary Cities] redirect to redirect to [[Sanctuary city]]? Right now it is a double redirect. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 21:36, 5 May 2017 (EDT)
:::::Two more things: would you please add [[:Category:Conservapedia Policy]], ''rather than'' [[:Category:Conservapedia]], as it is more direct? Also, you have not answered my concern that this new policy will actually make CP harder to manage. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 21:43, 5 May 2017 (EDT)

::::::It sounds like something which could in certain cases be useful.  However, I can't see it being regularly used.  My main concern is the same as 1990&#39;sguy's.  How would this be enforced?  If we could get or create a wiki plugin which actually blocked users from editing in pages with certain category tags, this could be a nice thing to have in the toolbox.  However, if this will all be done manually, I would say it is probably not a very practical idea.  One or two users might be manageable, but if we get 20 "topic banned" users, how would we ever keep track of it all, and make sure no one is doing what they shouldn't?
::::::The only way I can see this being somewhat practical without digital support is a "non-controversial" restriction.  People who keep adding a LPoV might be banned from editing anything regarding politics or anything else liberalism has infiltrated.  If they want to write a page on how cars are manufactured, then that's fine.  However, they would not be allowed to change anything on the "evolution" article.--[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 22:10, 5 May 2017 (EDT)
DavidB4, thanks. You gave me an idea on how to better enforce the topic ban. But in most cases, it will probably be the blocker who enforces the topic ban. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:16, 5 May 2017 (EDT)
::So one troll creates 20 sockpuppets and ties the hands of the blocker. We've been thru this before. And all it leads to is the blocker controlling and fighting off his enemy, a fight over a page no nuetral third party wants to go near to contribute to or resolve problems.
::Just keep page protect at an advanced level of scrutiny were user has to earn their rights to engage in discussion. Open up the rest to opening editing.
::What's needed are committees to hand out tasks and assignments to committee members. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''The coup plotters won, for now'']]</sup> 15:22, 6 May 2017 (EDT)

:Conservative, just a reminder, I have two requests, one unrelated to this topic ban. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 22:20, 5 May 2017 (EDT)
If warranted, an admin could tell other admins about a topic ban via email. But in most cases, it would be enforced by the blocker or by other blockers who notice the topic ban on a user's talk page. Also, if needed down the pike, a page called [[Conservapedia: List of users with topic bans]] could be created. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:30, 5 May 2017 (EDT)
::The main purpose of the topic bans is for editor retention purposes.  In certain cases, if topic bans were be used instead of a broader block of editing the entire wiki, the editor would be retained rather than permanently lost or lost for an extended period. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:34, 5 May 2017 (EDT)
:::Also, a blocker can create a resource such as this: [[User:Conservative/My topic bans]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:43, 5 May 2017 (EDT)
::::It's like being a guidance counsellor, you have to help an editor find his/her/their/its niche, and channel their energies into into it. Some editors may excel at content, other's could have organizational skills serving on a committee to regulate proofreading, quality control, template and page design, dispute resolution, disciplinary action, policy development, etc etc etc. To build a community, you gotta lift the 90/10 rule to allow user interaction and collaboration. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''The coup plotters won, for now'']]</sup>`

=== The beauty of the topic ban ===

Here is the beauty of the topic ban: 

A brand new liberal editor joins Conservapedia and begins to posting foolish, liberal tripe on talk pages. 

According to [[Conservapedia:Topic bans]], "If an editor is a new editor and has not built up a reputation of quality edits, the topic ban may be imposed quickly if the low quality of his edit/edits merits it."  Also, "Editors who receive topic bans may incur them due to their article edits and/or their talk page edits."  Also, "For example, such an editor may be asked to refrain from editing political/religious/history articles or various other kinds of articles." Also, "Also, if the matter merely requires an editor to be better educated about a topic, the editor in question may be asked to create an article in draft space. If the draft article is of sufficient quality, it will be moved to Conservapedia article space."  In addition, "In particularly egregious cases, where an editor engages in a clear bad faith edit(s), the editor may be banned from Conservapedia for a specified period of time rather than incur a topic ban."

So a new liberal editor who nearly always post liberal tripe to talk pages, can immediately be given a draft page writing assignment or can be told he can only post to non-ideological articles. Since promotion of the leftist narrative is all-important to hard core leftists, this immediately shuts them down. 

For example, a militant leftist joins Conservapedia. He can immediately be assigned to create a draft article. For example,  [[User: Hardcoreleftist/Soviet historical revisionism]]  or [[User: Hardcoreleftist/Decline of the secular left in the 21st century]]. And if the articles are of good quality, they can be moved to article space. For example, the aforementioned draft articles could be move to [[Soviet historical revisionism]] and [[Decline of the secular left in the 21st century]]. The possibilities are endless!  The left engages in denialism when it comes to radical Islam, so a draft article could be assigned about [[Growth of Islamic terrorism in the 21st century]].

Or if his first post is to a talk page and of low quality, he can be immediately banned.

For the record, I am not against people on the left posting legitimate information in articles or talk pages. I am merely against the willful posting of false/misleading information.

In short, the topic ban is a conservative iron fist in a velvet glove approach to handling dishonest hard core leftist ideologues! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 06:53, 6 May 2017 (EDT)
:You still gotta keep an eye on them if their ''intent'' is to subvert. They figure every one minute trolling is one minute less production of conservative propaganda (their minds are like Hitler, their creative impulses are bent to destroy, not to produce anything lasting). Nothing is to stop them, for example, putting in the 1919 Red Sox roster under 2016 New England Patriots, only proving what deceptive lying little *#@&%es they are - and everything we say about them is true. They are not intelluctual in any sense, they are lost little children, seeking attention by being mischievous.  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''The coup plotters won, for now'']]</sup> 14:46, 6 May 2017 (EDT)
== re: Obsessive, British, atheist troll ==

The British atheist troll is a repeat visitor to Conservapedia who has been coming to Conservapedia for several years. In nearly all cases, I have just enforced the 90/10 rule and reverted his content. He has a distinctive style and invariably when I do a check user, it indicates the editor is from Britain. 

Karajou and I know he is a repetitive British atheist troll because we have check user privileges. Also, he is obsessed with me. Apparently, my atheism content (All of which is factual and well-sourced) gets under his skin. 

Against my better judgment, I decided to taunt him about his country being overrun by evangelical/Muslim immigrants and the fact that social scientists/demographers are predicting a [[desecularization]] of Britain. While taunting a proud, atheist troll was enjoyable, there are certainly more productive endeavors I could have engaged in. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 14:23, 30 July 2017 (EDT)
:In oversighting material, unless it's patently pornographic or something, you should let it hang for a few hours so others can examine in it. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 16:20, 30 July 2017 (EDT)
::I should have reverted/oversighted his talk page post like I normally do. He is  bitter/nonsensical. I have no regrets as far as my subsequent deletion/iversighting. It doesn't make sense to give him the attention that he craves. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 16:28, 30 July 2017 (EDT)
:::Well, that "HMS Atheism is one sturdy ship" bit of nonsense was certainly a bit exciting while it lasted.  (No, I'm not going to restore it; it's really too silly.)  One little nonsensical comment about something on a nonsensical website[http://examiningatheism.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/another-sign-hms-atheism-is-taking-on.html], featuring a picture of a sinking ship (part of Cons's very distinctive style), led to an enormous avalanche of incredible foolishness.
:::@Cons: I see you saw my stuff about the "Oxford comma".  Though I think this section title was fine with no commas.
:::@Cons: We've been through this again and again and again and again!  (Last time it was only up to 3; now it's up to 4.)  You need to use a comma (this has nothing to do with the "Oxford comma") for a nonrestrictive clause.  By writing "my atheism content which is factual and well-sourced", you meant "that atheism content that I write which is factual and well-sourced, in contrast to that atheism content which is not".  There is no such content, :-) so there would seem to be nothing to get under SinjaA's skin.
:::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 16:59, 30 July 2017 (EDT)
::::SamHB, thanks for your input about the comma/grammar. 

::::Also, I sent you a private email. One of the things the email contains is a a very brief humorous story concerning one of my atheist university professors. But it also addresses more serious matters as well. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 00:41, 31 July 2017 (EDT)