SamHB

Conservapedia's server experienced a serious storm of sporadic server outages.  Cons weighed in with the advice "get a faster browser", and was totally shot down by knowledgeable people—AugustO, Bringreaganback, MelH, and myself.  I explained in great detail why Cons's theories were incorrect.  Cons thrashed around for a bit, and then cited an article in [https://askleo.com/whats_an_internal_server_error_and_how_do_i_fix_it/ the "askleo" web site].  He attempted to make that web site seem authoritative by citing its Alexa rank of about 25,000.  This isn't necessary; any technically literate person can look at the web site and see for himself that Leo knows what he is talking about.  Alexa ranks don't make a site more authoritative.  And that's a good thing, because Conservapedia's rank is about 105,000.  (By the way, ritionalwaki's rank is about 23,000, a little better than askleo.)

Conservapedia's server experienced a serious storm of sporadic server outages.  Cons weighed in with the advice "get a faster browser", and was totally shot down by knowledgeable people—AugustO, Bringreaganback, MelH, and myself.  I explained in great detail why Cons's theories were incorrect.  Cons thrashed around for a bit, and then cited an article in [https://askleo.com/whats_an_internal_server_error_and_how_do_i_fix_it/ the "askleo" web site].  He attempted to make that web site seem authoritative by citing its Alexa rank of about 25,000.  This isn't necessary; any technically literate person can look at the web site and see for himself that Leo knows what he is talking about.  Alexa ranks don't make a site more authoritative.  And that's a good thing, because Conservapedia's rank is about 105,000.  (By the way, ritionalwaki's rank is about 23,000, a little better than askleo.)

Leo says that he is very familiar with the error.  In the article, he ''repeatedly'' says that it's a server error, not affected by anything the user might do.  Finally, in the "some straws to grasp at" section, he mentions some things that a user might do, <big>'''including trying a different (not faster; different) browser.'''</big> But he makes clear that those are very far-fetched scenarios.

Leo says that he is very familiar with the error.  In the article, he ''repeatedly'' says that it's a server error, not affected by anything the user might do.  Finally, in the "some straws to grasp at" section, he mentions some things that a user might do, including trying a different (not faster; different) browser.  But he makes clear that those are very far-fetched scenarios.

So, no, Cons.  There is no need for me to apologize.

So, no, Cons.  There is no need for me to apologize.

Oh, Cons!  Bad, naughty Cons!  You left a note for me, and then vaped it.  (You did the same on VargasMilan's talk page, telling him that you had sent him an email.)  In fact, you've been doing an enormous amount of vaping lately.  One might wonder whether this is because you are starting to be embarrassed about how many tiny edits it takes for you to say something.  As I believe I told you elsewhere, the fix for that is to compose what you want to say in an editor, think about it, polish it into the form you want, and ''then'' upload it.  I believe you said at about the same time that you were going to vape ("oversight") things more, in order to keep the Recent Changes log from getting so cluttered.  Well, I'm sure you've noticed that, with the new wiki software, acts of vaping are even ''more'' visible than they were before.  It just makes the problem ''worse''.  I'd suggest that you go back to just editing the way you used to.  The bean-counters over at ritionalwaki will continue doing their thing, of course.

Oh, Cons!  Bad, naughty Cons!  You left a note for me, and then vaped it.  (You did the same on VargasMilan's talk page, telling him that you had sent him an email.)  In fact, you've been doing an enormous amount of vaping lately.  One might wonder whether this is because you are starting to be embarrassed about how many tiny edits it takes for you to say something.  As I believe I told you elsewhere, the fix for that is to compose what you want to say in an editor, think about it, polish it into the form you want, and ''then'' upload it.  I believe you said at about the same time that you were going to vape ("oversight") things more, in order to keep the Recent Changes log from getting so cluttered.  Well, I'm sure you've noticed that, with the new wiki software, acts of vaping are even ''more'' visible than they were before.  It just makes the problem ''worse''.  I'd suggest that you go back to just editing the way you used to.  The bean-counters over at ritionalwaki will continue doing their thing, of course.

By the way, you shouldn't ever revert, much less vape, things on talk pages, '''especially'' users' talk pages.  Talk pages should simply be archived.  And I think that vaping another user's talk page is particularly rude.  I wouldn't be surprised if VargasMilan was offended by what you did.  (Actually, I would be surprised, since his notions of proper behavior seem to be different from mine.)

By the way, you shouldn't ever revert, much less vape, things on talk pages, ''especially'' users' talk pages.  Talk pages should simply be archived.  And I think that vaping another user's talk page is particularly rude.  I wouldn't be surprised if VargasMilan was offended by what you did.  (Actually, I would be surprised, since his notions of proper behavior seem to be different from mine.)

Now, getting to the issue at hand, you told me about a user called "User: Math".  Complete with the space after the colon that you so charmingly like to put into these things.  You apparently thought I would be interested in what such a person had to say, presumably because you know that I am interested in mathematics.  A quick check (removing the space, of course) showed that there is no such user at Conservapedia.  You gave a web URL.  I went there, and, sure enough, there is a user called "Math".  So I looked around at his profile and contributions.  I found [http://forum.bible-discussion.com/entry.php?1620-Does-God-Exist-Atheism-vs-Theism-vs-Agnosticism this] and [http://forum.bible-discussion.com/member.php?9587-Math&s=932a57f409ec5e0414ca90f01b6e6fc0 this (his profile)] and [http://forum.bible-discussion.com/entry.php?1148-Homosexuality-and-the-Bible this].  When I got to the last one, I thought "Aha!  I understand it now!  '''This''' is why Cons is interested in this guy.  Homosexuality and the Bible."

Now, getting to the issue at hand, you told me about a user called "User: Math".  Complete with the space after the colon that you so charmingly like to put into these things.  You apparently thought I would be interested in what such a person had to say, presumably because you know that I am interested in mathematics.  A quick check (removing the space, of course) showed that there is no such user at Conservapedia.  You gave a web URL.  I went there, and, sure enough, there is a user called "Math".  So I looked around at his profile and contributions.  I found [http://forum.bible-discussion.com/entry.php?1620-Does-God-Exist-Atheism-vs-Theism-vs-Agnosticism this] and [http://forum.bible-discussion.com/member.php?9587-Math&s=932a57f409ec5e0414ca90f01b6e6fc0 this (his profile)] and [http://forum.bible-discussion.com/entry.php?1148-Homosexuality-and-the-Bible this].  When I got to the last one, I thought "Aha!  I understand it now!  '''This''' is why Cons is interested in this guy.  Homosexuality and the Bible."