|
|
| Line 7: |
Line 7: |
| | __NEWSECTIONLINK__ | | __NEWSECTIONLINK__ |
| | | | |
| − | == No more stubs ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | *[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:ShortPages&limit=500&offset=0 Here] you can see a list of short articles. Please try to expand them.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 10:26, 13 February 2015 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Affirming the "username policy" ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[Conservapedia:Community Portal#Make the username policy more clear|I raised this concern]] two months ago, but no user has shown any willingness to comment on this blatant issue, so I will reiterate it once again below. Users have been blocked on nearly a daily basis for having "spam-like formulas" to their username when a Conservapedia username policy is nonexistent. The only advice that the website provides on account creation is a mere suggestion that a username should contain a first name and last initial; nothing is said about having numbers in usernames, or using pseudo identifiers. While there are obvious times when users should be blocked, especially in cases where usernames are blatantly offensive, there are quite a number of users that get blocked that are possibly good-faith editors, like [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Robbyrain65 Robbyrain65], who was simply blocked for violation of the nonexistent username policy, or [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Marci18 Marci18], who was only blocked-by-association because they had a seemingly similar username to 'Natashia36', who apparently [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Natashia36 did nothing]. In addition, it is only ironic when one of our best users, Conservative, which is obviously neither a first or last name, blocks [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/ProgressiveBrit ProgressiveBrit] and tells them to 'pick a more respectable username'. It only produces an appearance of hypocrisy when some of the site's best editors, including Karajou, Conservative, TheAmericanRedoubt, and Aschlafly himself, violate this nonexistent username policy used to block other editors, many of which have not even made a single edit. There should be something tangible on this website that points out what exactly is expected of a username.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | -- [[User:DanielJackson|DanielJackson]] 20:04, 13 February 2015 (EST)
| |
| − | :Two points: 1) The Username policy is not changing unless you convince owner of the website of the benefit of doing this and address any objections he may have. You can contact the owner of the website at: [[User talk:Aschlafly]] 2) Sometimes users are banned due to IPs associated with commercial spammers without any reason being given as a block reason. I know I have done this. If we had a more explicit username policy, it would give me more incentive to give block reasons. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:45, 13 February 2015 (EST)
| |
| − | ::I see what you are saying, but the problem I have with your first point is that, unless I'm mistaken there ''is no username policy''. [[User:DanielJackson|DanielJackson]] 20:52, 13 February 2015 (EST)
| |
| − | :::Well, you are correct in that there is no precisely stated policy. Perhaps this is intentional, to prevent people from seeing exactly how close to a violation they can go. But some of the more responsible sysops have lately been giving a block reason in an informal way -- "spam-like formula to user name". Perhaps some of the other sysops could start following that practice. For example, VargasMilan gave that reason in some blocks at 22:42 and 23:13 on Feb. 19. The users involved were "Tights07twig" and "Moatnoodle1". Other users blocked around that time were "Lakiesha32" and "Rachel21". It's not hard to see the formula-like construction -- nonsense words with digits. Why spammers do it that way is a mystery to me. So I think it would be fair to say that, official username policy or not, people desiring to do serious editing would do well not to create such ridiculous names. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 10:54, 21 February 2015 (EST)
| |
| − | ::::Hmmm. Just after I posted the above, "Roadbarge4" came along. Countdown in 3, 2, 1, .... [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 10:59, 21 February 2015 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Ken Ammi account? ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Did Ken Ammi of True Free Thinker join Conservapedia or is [[User:Kenammi]] who joined February 16th/17th an impostor? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 13:58, 17 February 2015 (EST)
| |
| − | :Not an imposter. Please see: [[Conservapedia:Atheism Project - News Updates]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:07, 17 February 2015 (EST)
| |
| − | ::Imposter or not, he deserves a welcome. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 10:56, 21 February 2015 (EST)
| |
| − | :::The kenammi account account is not going to be used. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:22, 23 February 2015 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Sloppy presentation of block reasons ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | A recent vandal spree (by user "Drunkard"; it was quite hideous) was brought to an end with a block, as expected. Followed by lots of reverts, of course. But the given block reason was "Silly and/or foul username. Account may be recreated as a first name and last initial". Now the user name was clearly silly and/or foul, and the block was done with account creation disabled. But doesn't the menu for blocking list "vandalism" as a possible reason? If not, it should. And if so, people should make an effort to use the block reason menu properly. There's been a lot of sloppiness in this regard lately. (Though "lack of machismo" hasn't been used for quite a while :-)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | We recently had a user (Burke39) blocked for 2 months for "inserting false information". Some of his edits were later reverted by the blocking sysop, some were left alone, and some were praised on that sysop's own talk page. This raises the question: What were the false edits? There's too much stuff for me to track down. But, since he may come back in 2 months, he's going to want to know. Could someone leave a note on his talk page explaining just what it is that he must not do when he comes back? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 19:45, 15 March 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :I blocked Burke39 and corrected his edits mainly in a group. You can browse my contributions and can usually tell by the description. He also did some odd removals. I am not completely sure that the block doesn't need to be increased somewhat. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 19:52, 15 March 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::OK. I'm not defending him at all, mind you. I'm not going to browse his contributions for the details; I'll completely take your word for it. I'm sure that if I did look around, I'd figure it out. I guess all I wanted was some quick note pointing to the "smoking gun". So he doesn't have to look around and try to figure it out, possibly figuring it out wrong.
| |
| − | ::If you're not sure the block doesn't need to be increased, you shouldn't. ''This isn't aimed at you; it's a general comment.'' There are two types of unsavory characters: people who need to be slapped, and people who need to be permabanned. The latter are clear, of course, and he isn't in that class. But slapping someone with a long but finite block just makes them angry and hostile when they come back. CP is basically treating them like children with these "timeouts". It would be better to treat them like adults who need to be told when they are doing something wrong. Assuming they are adults, they will presumably "get it". If not, well, then you drop the axe.
| |
| − | ::The preceding paragraph wasn't something I was planning to write; it's just something I've noticed over the last year or so. You gave me a perfect lead in for it. Thank you for understanding. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 20:06, 15 March 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Categories, again ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | What is the reasoning behind putting [[Hertz]], [[Ampere's law]], and many other articles into the categories [[:Category:Amateur Radio]], [[:Category : Solar Energy]], [[:Category : Wind Energy]] or [[:Category : Hydroelectric Energy]]? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:43, 23 March 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :I noticed the same thing. Looking just at some of the pages that I have been working on lately (AC, DC, current, voltage, etc), there is simply no reason to put these into categories like "wind energy". If one were going to be that exhaustive, one would have to put them into such categories as: wind energy, solar energy, nuclear energy, fossil-fuel energy, hydroelectric energy, geothermal energy, power distribution, piezoelectricity, conductors, insulators, semiconductors, electrostatics, electrodynamics, electromagnetism, electromagnetic radiation, Maxwell's equations, plasma, magnetars, pulsars, coronal mass ejections, vacuum tubes, diodes, transistors, integrated circuits, bipolar transistors, field-effect transistors, Schottky diodes, Zener diodes, computers, laptop computers, deskside computers, mainframe computers, supercomputers, motors, generators, transformers, telephones, radio, television, cell phones, smart phones, etc, etc, etc. I could go on for hours.
| |
| − | :All of the things listed above relate to physics or technology in some way. A few categories in those fields are all that are needed. For example, wind energy can be in a few categories like power distribution and electricity. From there one can get to electronics, electrical engineering, and so on, and, if one wants to go into great detail, to related topics like Maxwell's equations, electronics, physics, and the definition of the volt. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 14:10, 23 March 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::It's the same reasoning that links Leonard Bernstein with electrical wire. It seems they're both conductors. Actually, I think "reasoning" is not the appropriate word. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:42, 25 March 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :::I think I've cleaned that up a bit. Though I left a lot of redlinks. Maybe one of our more prolific writers who is interested in music (yes, Cons, that's you) would like to write articles for these people. Or Alan, of course. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 01:24, 26 March 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | ::::Redlinks gone. Sorry. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 02:09, 26 March 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::::Cons is on record on one of my articles' talk pages decrying articles under 600 words. Perhaps he should do it. TAR however, seems to get away with one-liners regularly. The various protocols don't seem to apply to our free-stater - I reckon he could write a line each on all of them, each complete with 20 see-alsos and any number of categories... within the hour. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 02:04, 26 March 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | :::::Maybe an article on bestiality and string quartets? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 02:09, 26 March 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | :What, foursomes? It's the trumpeters' doubletonguing I have trouble with.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 02:47, 26 March 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==While we're on the subject==
| |
| − | Cons, seeing as we have got you salivating over music, may I tell you that I have just been out to move our car from the front of the house to its bed for the night and ran slap bang into Renee Fleming singing Marietta's aria from Korngold's "The Dead City" on the car radio. Here t'is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1IzUbFMDGc Lotte Lehmann is my first memory of it - the duet with Richard Tauber recorded in the 1920s, which will be somewhere on YouTube no doubt. {Korngold later fled to America where he composed the soundtracks to various Errol Flynn movies among others and wrote one of the great romantic violin concertos. {Stick with me, babe, and learn.) [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 04:04, 26 March 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | :Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:23, 26 March 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == April Fool's joke ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | What Israeli coin is worth fifty cents? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 22:02, 1 April 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :Answer: The [[Haifa]] dollar. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 18:45, 2 April 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::At least it makes cents. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:27, 2 April 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == SamHB ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I think SamHB is sick. He wants to do battle with ''me'' instead of misinformation, like you would expect a ''scientist'' to do. Why don't we join forces, Sam, and fight distortions in what is understood together? Don't be like [[Stephen Hawking]] who says today's physics is too advanced to be subjected to any kind of accounting. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 22:54, 12 April 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :OK, VM. I'll take you at your word that you want to collaborate rather than fight. I won't make the long message that I threatened (on the other page) to make about "relativity, science, personal insults, sycophancy, "mall cop" behavior, etc. etc. etc." It would be a waste of my time to write, and of your time to read. Though we do need to discuss the subject matter. I believe you are badly mistaken in your edit comment (23:45, 11 April) "Why not? It would make it easier for scientists to indoctrinate students to their worldview." But if you no longer hold to that, that's fine with me. We can move on.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :I accept your apology for saying what you said [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=1110820&oldid=1110819 here], and for saying, just above, that I am "sick". I will withdraw my "sycophancy" / "spider sense" comment about physics being "subjected to any kind of accounting". I don't know what you were talking about there.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :But about relativity, and your edit of 23:45, 11 April, you removed several things of mine, most importantly the statement that scientists do not choose theories knowing that they are wrong, just because the mathematics is easier. The idea that the Newcomb-Hall hypothesis was "disfavored by mathematicians due to its inelegance in integrating" is just all wrong. It's been in the article for years, and I decided it was time for it to go. (If you're not familiar with the Newcomb-Hall hypothesis, please do your homework. It's been written about extensively, mostly by me, for years. The earliest reference I can find is just 56 days after your account was created.) Now there's another problem that I removed and you put back in---that "one of the other explanations" (beside relativity or Newcomb-Hall) involved "factoring in the pull of the other planets". No. The correction from the other planets was already taken into account, before relativity or Newcomb-Hall. That correction is much larger than the "anomalous precession" that is in dispute. I believe the gravitational perturbations are something like 5500 seconds, vs. 43 seconds for the "anomalous" precession. Everyone agrees on the gravitational perturbations.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :Now here's the deal: The straight Newtonian calculation is indeed simple. It can be (and was!) solved by Isaac Newton. That's the "elegance in integrating". The gravitational perturbation stuff was messy, but Newton, Lagrange, and Gauss could deal with it. Both relativity and Newcomb-Hall are messy. They can be solved numerically, but not, as far as I know, in closed form. I won't do the relativity stuff; you can look it up. But I did work out the Newcomb-Hall equation earlier today. It is
| |
| − | :<math>\frac{d^2 r}{d\theta^2} + r = \frac{G M r^\delta}{L^2}</math>
| |
| − | :where <math>\delta\,</math> is the Newcomb-Hall correction. Something like .000000157.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :When <math>\delta\, = 0</math> this reduces to the classic equation (the one that made Isaac Newton famous) for a planet without precession.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :But Newcomb-Hall doesn't work! The correction given above makes Mercury behave correctly, but is wrong for the moon and the other planets. In fact, because of the wrong prediction for the moon, Newcomb-Hall was dropped almost immediately, around the beginning of the 20th century.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :The real problem I have with your edit is the claim that the "simple", "elegant" differential equation (straight Newtonian) is favored over Newcomb-Hall because it is easy. This would be a case of adopting a theory that one knows to be wrong. Sort of like the old joke about searching for your keys under the lamp-post because the light is better there, even though it isn't where you dropped them.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :Anyone advocating the "elegance in integrating" idea must be taking the position that the '''anomalous precession simply does not occur''', even though it has been known, and accurately measured, for over 150 years.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :So I have no idea what "worldview" you are referring to when you say "It would make it easier for scientists to indoctrinate students to their worldview." What worldview is that? One that says that anomalous precession does not occur? Can you name one scientist, textbook, or teacher (beyond junior high school, of course) that holds to such a worldview and tries to indoctrinate students to it?
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 03:05, 16 April 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::If your justification for the edit was that scientists are above reproach, as was stated in the edit summary, that in itself was grounds for me for rejection of the edit, as alternate explanations are available. I didn't sustain the rejection, however, because I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt that you had further reasons.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::But I can't help noticing you are contradicting what Andy said: namely that the calculation of the procession and the factors that supposedly "everybody agrees on" haven't been updated since the 1980s? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 07:30, 16 April 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :::I assume the edit, and edit summary, you are referring to was the one to the relativity page, with comment "Scientists don't choose wrong theories over right ones just because the math is easier." By no stretch of the imagination can that be construed to mean that scientists are above reproach. Also, I explained in great detail, above on this page, what the "alternate explanations" were that were given in the existing article. Do you have yet more alternate explanations?
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :::"give you the benefit of the doubt that you had further reasons." --- no, I have no further reasons, beyond what I stated above. Were they not sufficient?
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :::"grounds for me for rejection" and "didn't sustain the rejection" --- you make it sound like an executive vs. legislative issue, where you veto something, and I decide whether to try to override the veto or let it stand, and you can unilaterally "sustain" it if you still disagree. That's not the way Conservapedia works. We collaborate. Sometimes we argue. Respectfully, or course. We try not to use words like "rejection".
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :::"I can't help noticing you are contradicting what Andy said" --- Yes. I am. This is a complicated issue, but it was an open-and-shut case. Or, as Andy likes to put it "two plus two equals four". I need to give you a long explanation of why I sometimes feel justified in reverting Andy. It's a long story. No time for it now; gotta run. But, basically, we trust each other. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 12:56, 17 April 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :::Sorry to leave these questions hanging. I'll be back in a few hours. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 12:58, 17 April 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :::I'm back. Here's the deal on relativity. I recognize that this is Andy's wiki, and that his position stands, even though I totally disagree. If I chose to, I could make edits designed to make him look stupid. But I don't. I want CP's stance on relativity to be expressed as clearly as possible. As such, I collaborate with Andy on making the [[Theory of relativity]], [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], and [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]] articles to be the best that they can be. They are flagship articles. To be the best it can be, the relativity article should not list the gravitational effects of other planets as one of the hypotheses that was put forth to try to explain the anomalous precession, because it's just not true. The gravitational effects were the first thing that was tried. It was the '''anomalous''' precession that was left over that caused the problem. Also, the idea that scientists rejected Newcomb-Hall simply because the equation was harder is just wrong. If you want the simple equation, you have to go with plain Newtonian (the delta=0 case above) which means that you posit that the anomalous precession is zero. Which it isn't. Hence my "Scientists don't choose wrong theories over right ones just because the math is easier." edit comment. I believe Andy's current stance on the situation is that neither Newcomb-Hall nor relativity explains the anomalous precession correctly, so the true cause of the precession is unknown. A completely wrong position, but at least stated in an understandable way.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :::Now, a little more on the subject, that might help you to understand my "I recommend that you not get into a battle over relativity, unless you have really done your homework, which you haven't." comment. The comment was indeed brusque and rude. But I've been deeply involved in this stuff for most of my 8 year tenure here. I believe that there are only 3 active people who know their way around the CP relativity articles in depth: Andy, me, and AugustO. (There have been others in the past, like KSorenson and JacobB, but they're long gone.) When I see someone appear to parrot Andy's position, it gets my spider-sense tingling. I am incredulous that someone else could hold the same view. If you do hold the same view, you should try to explain it in your own words.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :::'''Andy does not need you to defend or protect him.''' He has been taking on all comers for years, and doing a good job of it. And '''that''' is what I meant by "doing your homework".
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :::Do I hold myself to be above reproach or scrutiny? Of course not. And I object to the implication that I do. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:19, 17 April 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Conservapedia Politics Project ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Does anyone or any Conservapedians want to launch a [[Conservapedia: Politics Project]] which would be featured on the main page?
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The project would focus on creating/expanding Conservapedia's articles on liberal/moderate/conservative leaders/politicians and political organizations. In addition, political movements could be covered as well.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The project page would have three sections in terms of articles that need to be created or expanded: a conservative section, a moderate section and a liberal/leftist section. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:48, 18 May 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :I am interested this, but would spend more time building conservative entries than liberal ones!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:50, 18 May 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::OK. I created a project page entitled: [[Conservapedia:Encyclopedia of Conservatism]].
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::Once the page is ready, an announcement can be made on the main page. And if you want to appear on radio, etc. to promote it, that could be helpful.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:54, 19 May 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == to: RobS, do you wish to edit CP again? ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | RobS,
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Would you like to be an editor at Conservapedia again? If so, let me know. I would be more than happy to discuss the matter with other Conservapedians.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I know Andy liked your political content that you created at Conservapedia (articles on communism, etc.) and I believe your politics are closer to the right than the leftist politics favored at the current wiki you edit at.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Next, although I was formerly miffed at you messing around with my User page and User talk page, I really don't hold any animosity towards you. Life is too short to hold grudges. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:18, 19 May 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | :Gentlemen, RobS does not have to "crawl back". He created a lot of excellent content about communism and other political subjects. I should have extended this invitation much earlier.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :I don't think RobS and I would lock horns again either. The User: Conservative account is going to be focused mainly on creating more atheism content and making some main page edits. For the foreseeable future, except for communicating with VargasMilan2 about footnoting articles, I don't plan on communicating with other editors at this wiki due to other projects I am involved in.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :Lastly, I've mellowed. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:23, 23 May 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | ::"RobSmith Created some of Conservapedia's most acclaimed articles, and was a tireless vandal fighter and researcher on the Socialist and Communist agendas." - Quote from the [[Conservapedia]] article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:41, 23 May 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | :::RobS, last night I watched video series by William S. Lind on cultural Marxism/political correctness in the Western World ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyFCNj52DeA William S. Lind on the Origins of Political Correctness, Part 1] and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtAWywfcL7c William S. Lind on the Origins of Political Correctness, Part 2]). It's primary focus was on the Frankfurt School.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :::The need for more of your material at CP is definitely there. Political correctness/Marxism may wane in the West just be a political fad and it would be better if it happened sooner rather than later.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :::RobS, CP's article on [[Cultural Marxism]] is merely 3 paragraphs long. If only CP had an expert on Marxism to expand it. "RobSmith Created some of Conservapedia's most acclaimed articles, and was a tireless vandal fighter and researcher on the Socialist and Communist agendas." - Quote from the [[Conservapedia]] article.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:32, 24 May 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | Another thing I wanted to mention. Subsequent to Obama coming to power and after some additional exposure to conservative thought though conservatives such as [[David Horowitz]] and others, I began to appreciate your work more as far as leftist infiltration into the [[Western World]] and the world at large. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:42, 24 May 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :Come on, Cons! I never thought the day would come when '''''I''''' reprimand '''''you''''' (or anyone else) for engaging in (what's the phrase the admins use?) "talk, talk, talk" instead of making substantive edits. But that's what you are doing! Why don't you just lift RobS's block and be done with it? He can make his own decision about what he wants to do. And he's well aware of what's going on—even if he isn't watching this, the folks over at ritionalwaki are watching it and discussing it, and he is part of the discussion.
| |
| − | :So, avoid a 90/10 block. Create more articles. There doesn't seem to be an article on "atheism and maple syrup" yet. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 01:27, 25 May 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | ::I forget about the block. Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:22, 25 May 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | SamHB, the editors of the User: Conservative account have an article writing plan that it is implementing as evidenced by the recently published [[Atheism and intolerance]] article. See: [[Conservapedia:Atheism Project|Conservapedia Atheism Project]].
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Also, I couldn't find any website called "Ritionalwaki". Is there a Wikipedia article on the website or does it fail to meet Wikipedia's notability standards? :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:10, 25 May 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | === To: RobS/OscarO ===
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Thanks for creating the new Obama content.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I unblocked RobSmith and I can request that Andy give OscarO picture upload rights.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Second, work with me. Create more content and I will work on getting RobSmith Admin rights in order to edit the main page. The same goes for the picture upload rights for OscarO.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | In the meantime, I will be working on some matters that will increase the odds that RobSmith will have admin rights in 2016 or sooner.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:23, 27 May 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | ::I featured the article: [[Riots during the Obama Administration]] on the main page. If you haven't done so already, I would add Soros related content to Ferguson section. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:50, 27 May 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | :::I wrote some message to you at: [[User talk:OscarO]]. 19:12, 27 May 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===New entry===
| |
| − | How come my new entry, [[Qutbism]], doesn't show up on Recent Changes? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:17, 28 May 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | :It looks like it was merely a lag or something else happened. Anyways, there doesn't seem to be a problem with this. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:13, 29 May 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | ::I saw it there yesterday (my time). Yes ...there t'is...at 04.43 just before Andy's four edits on Maths and the Bible. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:38, 29 May 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | :::I've never had this happen, and assumed it was just a case of Rob not refreshing his browser. After any edit, I always go to a new tab and select a fresh copy (it's on my toolbar) of "recent changes". And it always shows up. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:12, 29 May 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == The American Redoubt ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt]] has edited Conservapedia two months ago for the last time. Will he be back? What happens to the plethora of red links in the meantime? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 06:38, 29 May 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | :Last I heard, he was tackling a project and intended to return. I would give him some more months to return. I have no way of contacting him at this point. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:37, 29 May 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | ::Perhaps you could post his latest communication to you, with email addresses and personal information redacted of course. Then we could all get an idea of just what his intentions are, and the site wouldn't have to stay in a state of redlinks and other undesirable stuff, due to the threat that this absentee might return. If we improve the site, and he doesn't like what we've done, he can come back and argue his case. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:21, 29 May 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | :::TAR said in February that after he finished a project, he would return to Conservapedia. He also said that it was hard to say when he would finish that project. I am not at liberty to say anything about the project. And since I have no way of contacting TAR, I have no way of finding out when TAR wishes to return to Conservapedia. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:20, 30 May 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | ::::It would have been nice if you could have given us some authentic-looking, albeit redacted, communication.
| |
| − | ::::So this person is on some kind of secret mission, and is holding Conservapedia hostage with all those ridiculous links, and other formatting foolishness, while he's on that mission? No thanks. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:39, 30 May 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | :::::[Comment vaped by Cons, 01:34, 30 May 2015]
| |
| − | ::::Your reply above, that you vaped, is about what I had expected, though I didn't predict the "icewater in Hell" comment. By the way, Andy prefers that you capitalize "Hell". [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 02:20, 30 May 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | I now have a way to contact TAR. I found some contact information. I will contact TAR this week (perhaps as early as tomorrow). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:00, 1 June 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | :I left a message with TAR. I will try back later in the day. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:59, 1 June 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | ::I got in contact with TAR and he is going to start editing Conservapedia again probably sometime in September of 2015.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:18, 1 June 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | :::It's good to know that, like Clark Kent's uncanny and mysterious ability to contact Superman, you have a secret way to contact TAR. It certainly improves everyone's image of him as a normal person, the kind of person that Conservapedia's editors want to collaborate with. By the way, will he come back early from his secret project, a project which you are "not at liberty to say anything about", if ISIS rejects him? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 21:08, 7 June 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | ::::Ladies and gentlemen, behold this architechtonic example of...Science...at its fullest. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 21:44, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Request for (temporary) Night Editing Priviledges ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | In the coming weeks, starting on 12 June and ending 02 July, my working schedule will be such that I will only be able to sign on to Conservapedia from 9 pm-9 am. I want to continue editing the articles in the Astronomy section, as well as beginning a category and creating articles for orbital mechanics and orbit types. If required, I can make agreements to ensure good faith since I haven't been a member for very long.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[User:IHop|IHop]] 15:31, 9 June 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Template:Cquote listed in Speedy deletion candidates category?? ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I don't know what it's doing there (the template hasn't been edited since 2012, so it doesn't and shouldn't have the category invoked by the typical double-bracket code), but if it gets deleted it will mess up a lot of pages. See [[:Category:Speedy deletion candidates]]. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 20:00, 10 June 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | :I don't know how to fix this. I would leave a message on Andy's talk page about this matter.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :Also, if you want, you could leave a message on the talk pages of active CP admins to insure the template is not deleted. I say this because the quote template is protected and only admins can delete protected pages. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:29, 10 June 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::Okay, I left the messages. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 21:17, 10 June 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | :::With a suggestion from AugustO, I fixed the problem. Problem solved. See: http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Template:Cquote_problem [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:58, 11 June 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Anonymous threats against me ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Cons has just warned me on my [[User talk:SamHB#regarding content creation|talk page]] that he has received email communications from someone threatening to block my account because I have not been creating enough content, and I need to create substantially more. Aside from the fact that blocking an account is probably not a good way to get more content creation, I believe that I am one of the more active contributors at present. By my count, since late March I made contributions to nearly 90 ''different'' non-talk non-Community-Portal pages.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Can anyone shed some light on this? If you want to contact me privately, I'm at sam4557@gmail.com.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | On a subject that may or may not be related, I see a comment a little higher on this page, characterizing an edit I made as an "architechtonic example of...Science...at its fullest". It had absolutely nothing to do with science. I was simply ridiculing TAR's apparent wish to be treated as a superhero with a secret identity. Also, [[Talk:Parrot#No_Credit_Where_Credit_is_Not_Due]] has a complaint that "SamHB embraces the pseudoscience that leavens science too tightly to be trusted". Anyone who believes that I embrace pseudoscience, or that I "leaven science too tightly to be trusted" (huh?) is urged to explain this belief in detail.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 02:16, 12 June 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == How to Archive? ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I'd like to archive (part of) my user page and talk page, and I'd like to do it the "right way", preserving edit timestamps and such. Is it possible to do that? I can't find anything in any of the help pages explaining this. Can someone help me? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:08, 21 June 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | :I'd help you but now I gotta do nine mainspace edits just for thinkling about. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:32, 28 June 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | ::Thanks, but I've looked around, and it seems that the kind of accurate archiving, preserving edit histories, isn't done here at CP. Maybe the mediawiki extension isn't installed. So I'm just going to do it the brute-force way. For talk pages, edits have time stamps anyway, and for my user page, well, it's my castle. :-) [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:36, 28 June 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == What's next, SCOTUS? ==
| |
| − | I wake up this morning to learn that something too disgusting to even allude to is now legal in fifty states. Thanks, Supreme Court! So what's next? According to [http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/ Andrew Sullivan's victory gloat], "the pursuit of happiness promised in the Declaration of Independence has no meaning if it does not include the right to marry the person you love." In other words, married pedophile couples. Gayopia is just around the corner! Either that, or the Lord will strike back with a [[AIDS | dreadful disease of some kind]]. Of course, the Romans [http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/1367/gay_marriagenothing_new_under_the_sun.aspx were there first]. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 18:13, 28 June 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Block of Burke39 ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I see that [[User:Burke39]]'s recent 2-month block has just expired. Apparently it was for something he wrote about ephebophilia, or pedophilia, or thelarche, or something; I don't know; I haven't looked at the edits. In any case, after the block expired, he made trivial changes to his signature on earlier edits, and was immediately blocked again. The new block reason said "still obsessed with aberant sex entries. See: 'Talk:Pedophilia'" He may or may not be obsessed, but he did not make any nontrivial edits.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The idea that, after being released from incarceration, one can be incarcerated again for the same offense, is the way the justice system of the Communist Soviet Union worked. It suggests that Burke39 is simply going to be blocked for a week, every week. This doesn't seem right.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 16:37, 12 July 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | :Being on the left, I am sure you know how the Communist Soviet Union worked. I am also sure you understand that leftist agitators often made unreasonable demands/accusations which you are doing now.
| |
| − | ::As playful ad-hominems go, I'd give that about a 6. I'd give it a 7, but the Soviet Union dissolved over 25 years ago. You can do better. I'd give you a nice zinger in reply, but I can't think of one just now. Sorry. Leftist agitators? Nice. Unreasonable demands? Well, I don't think Conservapedia should be emulating the Soviet justice system. In fact, we have this concept in the United States justice system commonly called "double jeopardy". It's generally frowned upon; in fact, in our legal system, it's forbidden. Being on the left, I am sure you know how that concept works.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :Burke39 was told to lay off the sexual aberrancy topics. VargasMilan and I don't have a lot of confidence in his edits in these topic areas. There are lot of topics outside of sexual aberrancy where he can create articles. How about he create a [[Clock]] entry or a [[Model train]] entry or a [[The Trouble with Atheism]] entry? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:57, 12 July 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | ::But getting back to the topic at hand, writing about clocks sounds fascinating. I'm surprised (seriously!) that CP doesn't have an article on this topic. I'm going to contact him and see if he's enthusiastic about writing such an article. Not sure about atheism and clocks, though. We will leave that to you, OK?
| |
| − | ::But you will have to unblock him, right?
| |
| − | ::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 11:00, 15 July 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :His block will expire at 13:23 on Sunday. I've been in extensive email conversation with him. He says that he doesn't really know anything interesting or useful to say about clocks or model trains. I agree with him; articles should be written by people are are at enthusiastic about the topic. (By the way, where did you come up with those two topics? He doesn't remember ever expressing an interest in them.)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :What he wants to write about are topics related to Freemasonry, Judaism, and antisemitism. From our email exchanges, I think he will do very well in these areas.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:56, 17 July 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Trump==
| |
| − | [http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421045/donald-trump-fraud?utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=referral This article] does a good job of taking Trump apart. The man is a fake, through and through. He supported an immigration amnesty in 2012, abortion in 1999, and was a "good friend" of Hillary as recently as 2008. Boasting about how rich you are rarely goes over well. Too many people find Trump's personality grating for him to be a plausible candidate in the general election.[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html] [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 23:41, 13 July 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :Too many people find Hillary an acceptable candidate. The GOP needs more Trumps do to its spineless modern day leaders. Plus, he seems to have a receptive following at the moment. I for one like when non-politicians take on the political elites. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:37, 14 July 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | ::I think it'll all fall apart in the debates. All he has is nonsense talking points. Is Huckbee running? I always found him pretty sharp. [[User:JohnSelway|JohnSelway]] 00:40, 14 July 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | :Trump can be a liberal or a conservative as the mood strikes him; It's just acting. His general election poll numbers are far worse than those of any other major candidate. He is already very well known, so that's not likely to change. In short, a vote for Trump is effectively a vote for Hillary. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 09:54, 14 July 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::Nobody can defeat the Clinton Machine (2008). Reagan has no shot at winning. (1980). Your opinion is duly noted but evidence to the contrary exists.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:39, 14 July 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | :::Ah yes, I see a casino/strip club owner, four-time bankruptee, and WWE Hall of Fame inductee riding to our nation's rescue, together with both his ex-wives. When Hillary's opposition researchers are through with him, they'll realize he is clean as a whistle. But seriously, Trump's negatives are off the charts, and most Republican primary voters responded they would '''never''' vote for him. "He has a well-deserved and, I would say, an impressive 59 percent," as Krauthammer put it.[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/06/05/your-next-president-donald-trump-basically-tweets-like-a-12-year-old/] [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 22:25, 14 July 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | :::: We get it, you don't like Trump. You forgot to mention Trump is a birther. Krauthammer worked for Mondale, not exactly a trusted conservative source. Trump was immediately dismissed when he entered the race. Trump was trashed by the left and right media for three solid weeks. Would you have predicted 1st place when he entered? Now there is still 18 months before the election. I wouldn't worry so much about one candidate. Instead of the conservative circle firing squad, focus on tearing down the woman who voted for the Iraq war, then turned against, supported traditional marriage, then turned against, supported border enforcement and turned against, supported the Confederate flag and turned against.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:46, 14 July 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Obama and appeasement==
| |
| − | With the nuclear deal with Iran, there's a lot of talk of Obama and appeasement. But this analogy makes sense only if you assume the deal will fail. Chamberlain believed that Sudetenland was Hitler's "last territorial demand in Europe" and that Munich brought "peace in our time." He had worthy objectives. One could wish him well and hope for a positive outcome. But a successful Iranian nuclear deal would make the U.S. Iran's ally against Israel. Getting the U.S. to switch sides in the global struggle between democracy and totalitarianism is the point. Chamberlain expected Hitler to keep his end of the bargain, but Obama seems little concerned as to whether or not the Iranians follow any of the agreed restrictions on their nuclear program. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 11:47, 15 July 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :This deal is all about Obama, Obama's legacy, his giant ego. Does it have to work? Nah, just like Obamacare doesn't work. It matters not, only that he gets the credit. He was angered by Major Garrett's question on the release of American hostages. How dare he insult his great achievement. He is diligently working on their release from Iranian prison as he goes to vacation at Martha's Vineyard. In Obama we trust. Errr, not so much.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:00, 15 July 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::In a way, it's better for Obama if a Republican wins in 2016. If the deal collapses on the Hilebeast's watch, he could be blamed. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 12:14, 16 July 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | :::Hillary is about as inspiring as wet toast. She is even worse than Romney on the inspiring scale. I am not sure she can win, but if she does, her administration will no doubt be corrupt and I doubt she would be an inspiring leader.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :::With someone like Barack Obama winning two terms, with so many candidates running and with Hillary's scandals deepening in their unseemly revelations, it is extremely hard to predict who will be the next president of the United States. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:05, 16 July 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | ::::I'll predict: Scott Walker. He's way ahead in Iowa.[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_caucus-3194.html] The only other plausible candidates are Jeb Bush and Hillary -- and we need to be optimistic. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 22:31, 16 July 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | ::::::I'll throw my hat in the prediction ring! I'd say for the Republican ticket it'll be Bush/Rubio (that would really pull the Hispanic vote, which the Republicans desperately need). The big Dem strategy for the future is flip Texas imho, but I don't see a way to do that this time. So probably Clinton/Webb since he's really no threat to her, and that might help them in Virginia and maybe with the military crowd. I seriously doubt the RNC will let Trump run, and if he runs independent the Republicans are sunk. I think this is actually pretty likely too. So I'm guessing a three party ticket featuring Trump/Whoever (I really thought it would be Fiorina to cement the business platform, and that way they wouldn't be left out of the "diversity race," but they've been having words lately so I don't know...), Bush/Rubio (no questions about Florida this time), and Clinton/Webb (maybe O'Malley if Jimbo gets too feisty at the debates). That almost certainly means another Clinton presidency. I guess everybody gets two turns in America...<small>unsigned edit by [[User:RNozickFan]]</small>
| |
| − | :::::::If Romney had won 71 percent of the Hispanic vote, he still would have lost. If he'd gotten just 4 percent more of the white vote, he would have won. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 00:42, 20 August 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | ::::::::That's a good point. I wonder if that spread still makes sense if you only take battleground states into account. In any case I think the GOP is chasing the Hispanic vote as more of a long-term investment. The current population spread in this country has a relatively limited shelf-life.
| |
| − | :::::::::See [http://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2015/09/10/two-out-of-three-hispanics-oppose-immigration-increase/ "Two out of three Hispanics oppose immigration increase"] from yesterday at Breitbart. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 05:24, 11 September 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | :::::I wonder how much Trump is willing to spend to advance his campaign. It could be Walker's Koch brothers funding vs. Trump's campaign dollars. Hillary and Jeb Bush can probably raise a lot of money too. Perhaps, to a lessor degree, Cruz and Rubio will be able to generate campaign cash (but they are young and can raise name awareness for next time).[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:50, 17 July 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | I just thought. A lot of Trump's money is tied up in commercial real estate and businesses. So there is the liquidity issue. So Trump could potentially try to raise money for his campaign. I wonder how easy it is for a billionaire to raise money for a presidential campaign? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:58, 17 July 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | :You could be right. I read that he has 302 million in liquid wealth, and I think he's spent close to 2 million. So he could conceivably go awhile, and he's said he's willing to spend up to a billion (which would obviously mean liquidating some assets). I think he really would too.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :Yes, there are doubts about how much Trump would really spend on a political campaign. The very rich can also be very frugal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 00:35, 20 August 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | ::Definitely so. Most millionaires live in what we might think of as "middle class" neighborhoods. Nice houses, nice cars, etc. but not extravagant by any stretch. I've seen Trumps house, cars, and jet and I'm not convinced that fits him. Although this is definitely more of a business type decision so he could be really prudent with his funds.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Hillary's poll numbers collapse==
| |
| − | As you can [http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/07/hillarys-poll-numbers-in-free-fall.php see here]. Of course, as long as she is unopposed she can still win the nomination. Is it Biden time? '''P.S.''' I loved this comment: "The 31 percent who say they think she is honest are lying." [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 09:45, 17 July 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Trump is right==
| |
| − | Ann Coulter weights in with [http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2015-07-22.html#read_more a magnificent article] on rape, immigration, and media denialism. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 20:22, 27 July 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Obama's latest outrage==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | If comparing the Republican Congressional Caucus to Iranian mobs chanting “death to America” isn’t Obama’s scummiest move yet, it’s got be in the top ten.[http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/08/unreal-how-utterly-offensive-barack-obama-compares-republican-caucus-to-iranian-hardliners-video/] First of all, the “point” he was making about the Iranian government is moronic. No, Mr. President, totalitarian governments do not have hardline and moderate factions. They have dictators, and the dictator makes the decisions. Orwell explained how this works in ''1984''. The mobs are doing their “two minutes hate.” They are not an expression of factional rivalry. The regime needs enemies to survive, which is why these deals never work. Obama knows nothing about how the Iranian government works and cares less. Making the Republican/Iranian hardliner comparison is something he has been jonesing to do for months. Yes, nuclear war and the lives of millions are in the balance. But at least we have a chief executive who understands the need to focus on what’s important: Firing cheap shots at the Republicans. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 09:04, 6 August 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==The Jefferson-Jackson Dinners==
| |
| − | The Democrats are dropping the Jefferson-Jackson dinners they’ve held since 1945, to be replaced by dinners honoring Truman and "Leadership Blue."[http://article.wn.com/view/2015/07/24/out_jeffersonjackson_dinners_in_harry_truman_and_8216leaders_s/] These dinners are closely connected the ideology of President Roosevelt. When FDR was elected in 1932, the Democrats didn’t have much in the way of a discernable ideology. One of our finest conservative presidents, Grover Cleveland, was a Democrat. In fact, the party had run a conservative for president as recently as 1924. Al Smith's liberal campaign in 1928 had ended in disaster; FDR was not anxious to follow his example. The New Deal originated as a set of ''ad hoc'' emergency measures. When they seemed to work, FDR came up with the ideology of “liberalism” to justify them. Writers were commissioned to explain the new ideology to the American people. In fact, America had always been a liberal nation, or so these writers claimed. Why even Jefferson and Jackson were liberals! This is the origin of the Jefferson-Jackson iconography and the rationale for these dinners. This argument is strictly political, not a serious historical point of view. Jefferson’s signature policy was minimal federal government. Jackson was a gold bug who's administration focused much energy on opposing paper money. (Roosevelt took us off the gold standard.) Modern historians consider Jackson to be the founder of the Democratic Party, not Jefferson. Nowadays, Jackson gets a lot of criticism for his treatment of Indians and for his economic policies. [http://www.thepublicprofessor.com/worst-president-ever/ This blog] makes a good case that he was our worst president ever.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Ending these dinners is a symbolic burial for FDR-style liberalism. Obama embodies the 1960s radicalism of the New Left. Would FDR, Truman, or JFK even recognize the Church of Gay Marriage and Abortion as their party? [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 07:02, 16 August 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :After Thomas Jefferson got elected, on March 4, 1805, he proposed amending the Constitution to allow the federal government to place any surplus revenue it collected in an annual fund to "be applied ''in time of peace'' to rivers, canals, roads, arts, manufactures, education, and other great objects within each State." He repeated this proposal on December 2, 1806. Jefferson's proposals as President did not bear out his earlier stated philosophy of minimal government. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 07:48, 16 August 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | ::I think you are misinterpreting this proposal. If no action was taken, any surplus would have been deposited into the Bank of the United States and made available for loans. Jefferson was still opposed to the bank at this time. [http://files.libertyfund.org/pll/quotes/38.html Here] is some context for the quote. It's all boasting about how he made the federal government smaller, less intrusive, and sounder financially. Of course, it's true that Jefferson was a man of many contradictions. After the federal government defaulted in November 1814 (a major event in American history that Obama claims never happened), Jefferson turned around on a lot of things. In fact, he basically adopted the Federalist agenda that he had spend so many years condemning. As President Madison (1809-1817) and other top [[Republicans (Jeffersonian) | Republicans]] were his followers, Jefferson ran the country for quite some time after he officially retired in 1809. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 14:23, 16 August 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | ::''[http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/10/08/potentially-game-changing-oil-reserves-discovered-in-israel/ National Review]'' has an article on this subject. Pull quote: "Don’t find yourself in the position, ten years from now, of having to say, 'First they came for Andrew Jackson, and I did not speak out, because I didn’t like him.'" [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 23:55, 10 October 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Is this a satire site? ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ''The unsigned edits to this section were made by [[User:RNozickFan]]''
| |
| − |
| |
| − | No offense meant, at all, but I would like to know before posting. Of course, if it is, a truly skilled satirist would never let on! Just checking in with the community!
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :This is a serious, informative site. I look forward to your substantive edits.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 15:12, 18 August 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::What a civil and encouraging response from the big man! Thank you sir. However, upon further review of the site, I get the impression that this represents a conservative Christian viewpoint, whereas my own conservativism is a bit more secular libertarian. So perhaps my edits would not be appreciated here. In any case, I appreciate the civility and further encourage your free speech!
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :::Liberals edit this site too. I'd like to learn from your edits and I'm sure others would also. The truth results from the marketplace of ideas, which is what Conservapedia welcomes. Please try some edits and the talk pages are open for any discussion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 16:42, 18 August 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | ::::Ah yes! The marketplace of ideas! This was effectively Thomas More's argument for free speech (a good 300 years before the framing of the Constitution! What insight!), and I think you and I might be able to agree on this point. However, this only works if that marketplace remains unregulated! As some users have regulatory power (banning, blocking, etc) the marketplace flows according to those hands that exert force. Additionally, I've combed through the talk pages and seen many instances of users being accused of covert liberalism, sabotage, and a host of unflattering phrases. Again, this is all allowed in the marketplace of ideas but is not reflective of a site that welcomes dissent (the most important kind of free speech!). Perhaps I could test the waters a bit, but I'll be quick to refer to this very conversation if that marketplace starts to feel the touch of the not-quite-invisible hand!
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :::::The goal is the truth, and edits in furtherance of that goal are respected. Some liberals don't really want to say or hear the truth, so there are minimal rules to keep the marketplace from being thrown into chaos or overrun by bullies. But our rules permit robust intellectual editing and discussion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 19:02, 18 August 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::::::Well isn't the value of truth that it rings out through the nonsense? Isn't the marketplace supposed to handle that? I would certainly change "liberals" to "people" in that statement, just to catch everybody who deserves it. Sorry to be such a contrarian! As a professional philosopher (more an academic really, but that isn't very romantic) I often catch a debate when only a conversation was thrown.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :::::::This is a lot of edits without a single substantive one. How about doing a substantive edit and discussing that, rather than merely debating in the abstract?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:09, 18 August 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | ::::::::A rather strict definition of "substantive." Isn't all pursuit of the truth substantive? Are we not educating each other through discussion? As I said, I'll consider the kinds of contributions you're talking about, and continue to look out for this "marketplace of ideas" so well-regarded here.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Alleged Parody ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Andy, I have rarely visited this site recently and after an exhaustive look at recent changes[http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:RecentChanges|RecentChanges], I am surprised that you and the other admins have missed so much...
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Although I strongly disagree with much of the ideology of this encyclopaedia, I believe in free speech and freedom of religion for those who feel the need for it. In fact, I'm impressed that you personally granted me so much privileges after I professed my own views. I think you deserve a conduit for your particular brand of conservative Christianity - unfettered, uncensored and most importantly '''honest'''.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Andy, to be blunt, there's a lot of parody on your site and it's increasing. In some cases it's downright embarrassing. I don't think you should trust many of the users that have become active in the last couple of years - especially those you have promoted to have special rights. Take a ''careful'' look at their edits.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I'm quite happy to remain a member of this community - in spite of the harassment I've encountered from users such as 'conservative' [[http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Conservative]]] - it's no big deal. In fact, I'm quite fond of him/her/them.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Be vigilant. [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] ([[User talk:EJamesW|talk]]) 18:39, 23 August 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :This site is open to the public. Allowing [[free speech]] means allowing people to say what they want. Often that results in [[best of the public]], but sometimes it does not. If you have a specific edit in mind, then I'd be happy to look at it. But this site is not going to change its openness and I'm not going to worry about what others say.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 19:49, 23 August 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | EJamesW, you repeatedly badgered User: Conservative concerning motives and made one or more snide comments about the content produced by the account (for example, you wrote: "I can't see any of of articles being taken seriously outside the extremist/fundamentalist christian community"[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:EJamesW] ), but you admitted that the content by the User: Conservative account on atheism is detailed, well-cited and you can't find any errors in it (See: [[Essay: A British atheist on Conservapedia's atheism articles]]). Instead of claiming harassment, perhaps you should consider not harassing!
| |
| − |
| |
| − | By the way, don't think that User:Conservativedom did not notice that you went into your intellectual bunny hole when confronted about this matter. It was definitely noticed! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:54, 23 August 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :Cons, give it a rest. We're trying to have an adult conversation here. If you really must continue your "have you ever once shown that an iota of the material posted on atheism by the User: Conservative account is an [sic] error?" nonsense, please go back to EJW's talk page. I'm sure he will see it and deal with it appropriately. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 01:50, 24 August 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::EJW, I share your concern, but I have a somewhat different take on the subject. It isn't so much a matter of direct parody (though there is a good bit of that), as material that brings ridicule and disrepute upon Conservapedia.
| |
| − | ::*There's a lot of ignorant editing, ''with no one qualified to check the edits''. Several months ago I [[Conservapedia:Community_Portal#Subject_Matter_Experts|issued a plea]] for identifiable "subject matter experts" who could check things. It got nowhere. Now ignorant editing can be expected on an open wiki, and I support the openness. But it can be corrected by knowledgeable people. My attempts to do this are often thwarted by sysops who would rather throw their weight around, because they have the power to do so, than engage in constructive dialog. Some sysops even seem to enjoy stalking, hounding, and bullying me for no discernible reason. On some occasions I have put templates on articles that needed attention (either deleting or rewriting) and had them simply removed.
| |
| − | ::*There's a huge amount of incredibly silly editing, that can't help but bring the site into disrepute among all intelligent people. I refer, of course, to the flying kitty / black cat / atheism and lollipops / 20XX is going to be the worst year for XYZ / is XYZ smarter than a bear / operation flying fortress material. No one is going to take seriously any web site that has this stuff. It is a much worse problem than the occasional vandal.
| |
| − | ::*There's also material that I disagree with, but I accept that such material is going to exist on this site. So, for example, I immediately stop reading any evolution-related matter as soon as I see a biblical reference. It offends me to see Christianity invoked in the name of scientific ignorance. But that's just me.
| |
| − | ::*There's also the subject that I am perhaps most closely associated with—relativity. It doesn't bother me in the least. I like having all the world's relativity denial in one place.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::It sounds as though you find all this to be frustrating. I do too. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 23:43, 23 August 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :::[[Best of the public]] means allowing the public to speak freely, and over time the wheat separates from the chaff. It's not a difficult concept and [[liberals]] should embrace it more than they do. Pejorative (and silly) terms such as "relativity denial" are no substitute for intellectual debate. I could just as easily call some people "[[Bible]] deniers," especially when they cling to anti-Bible theories despite a mountain of counterexamples against the atheistic theories.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 00:14, 24 August 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::::I admit that "relativity denial" is a loaded phrase. But I'm not using it or anything else as a substitute for intellectual debate. I'm quite enjoying our intellectual debates on relativity and E=mc^2. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 01:50, 24 August 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | :::::Einstein spent many years working on a "Grand Unified Theory" to replace relativity -- he was the greatest "relativity denier" of them all. Now there are quantum computers that operate on the basis of "ghostly action at a distance." This is a phenomenon that is not possible under relativity, and it is also something Einstein himself argued was a fallacy. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 23:33, 27 August 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Malicious and destructive edits and blocks ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :::''If this is deleted, it will be sent to Andy by email. So he will see it no matter what.''
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Andy recently wrote on my talk page, in response to my going on "sabbatical" for the length of EJamesW's block,
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :Sam, this is devastating news about your Sabbatical! Will you be able to make an exception if more evidence is published contrary to the Theory of Relativity? I hope so.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :More seriously, many of your edits are appreciated. And thanks for you patience, too.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:32, 28 August 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Since then there have been a number of incidents of malicious and destructive behavior by a "sysop", that is, what is described in the [[Conservapedia:Guidelines]] as an "assistant".
| |
| − |
| |
| − | To quote from the Guidelines:
| |
| − | ::The block function has been devolved to select users who have shown an ability to be trusted. Many of the current Administrators started as one of these Assistants and this status can be considered a way to evaluate users for promotion. '''As "emergency Sysops", the authority of these users is limited to warning users of policy violations and blocking for blatant vandalism and harassment requiring an immediate response.'''
| |
| − |
| |
| − | This incidents have been:
| |
| − | *A block of me (rescinded shortly thereafter) for 44 days, for "trolling". I assume the choice of the number 44 was in honor of Presidant Obama.
| |
| − | *The block of SaulJ, for 5 months, for "trolling". His actual crime seems to have been making edits to the main talk page that sysops found annoying. Remember, ''If you replied to something, it can't have been "last-wordism" or "talk-talk-talk" in violation of 90/10.''
| |
| − | *The block of MarkLilly, for 2 years, for "Inserting nonsense/gibberish into pages".
| |
| − | After blocking MarkLilly, this person reverted many or all of his edits. ''This was absolutely destructive. If this isn't trolling, I don't know what is.'' MarkLilly had made a number of improvements to articles on science. Reverting them was destructive to the content of Conservapedia. It was vandalism plain and simple.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Considering only the scientific edits (the field with which I am most familiar):
| |
| − | *[[Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis]]—created. It's basically a stub, but it's better than nothing.
| |
| − | *[[Boson]]—Added the discovery of the Higgs at the LHC in 2012, and noted that the "Z" weak boson is often written with a superscript zero. Reverted, with comment "Mass deletion of troll". It really is written that way, and the Higgs really was dicovered.
| |
| − | *[[Gluon]]—Added information about spin and color charge. Reverted, with comment "Mass deletion of troll". These particles really do have spin and color charge.
| |
| − | *[[Pauli exclusion principle]]—Added information about fermion wave function asymmetry. Reverted, with comment "Mass deletion of troll". Their wave functions really are antisymmetric.
| |
| − | *[[Hormone]]—Added information about Thymulin. Reverted, with comment "Mass deletion of troll".
| |
| − | *[[Large Hadron Collider]]—Added information about Higgs discovery. Reverted, with comment "Mass reversion of troll". The Higgs really was discovered, at the LHC.
| |
| − | *[[Automated Teller Machine]]—created. It's basically a stub, but it's better than nothing. Marked for deletion with comment "stub originated by troll".
| |
| − | *[[Schizophrenia]]—Added information about treatment. Reverted, with comment "Mass reversion of troll".
| |
| − | *[[Muon]]—Added information about discoverer. Reverted, with comment "Mass reversion of troll". Muons really were discovered by Carl Anderson.
| |
| − | *[[Navier-Stokes equations]]—Added information about incompressible flow. Reverted, with comment "Mass reversion of troll"
| |
| − | I know a fair amount about some of the above topics, and the edits were correct.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | This person has been "stalking" me for quite some time now. Details on request, but I'm sure you know all about it. Lately his stalking has spilled over onto Ritionalwaki, where he created an account and made further accusations against me. He's been blocked, of course.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | If Andy cares about scientific topics, and about my contributions to same, he needs to stop "assistants" from making ridiculous judgments about "trolling" and issuing ridiculous blocks. I can't contribute to scientific articles (relativity or otherwise) in the presence of this kind of behavior.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Let me repeat from the Guidelines:
| |
| − | ::The block function has been devolved to select users who have shown an ability to be trusted. Many of the current Administrators started as one of these Assistants and this status can be considered a way to evaluate users for promotion. '''As "emergency Sysops", the authority of these users is limited to warning users of policy violations and blocking for blatant vandalism and harassment requiring an immediate response.'''
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Note that these "assistants" are being "evaluated for promotion", that is, the status is probationary. I submit that the evaluation period should be considered ended for this person, and he should be considered to have failed.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 01:48, 17 September 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :I never read that section of the Guidelines because I didn't realize I ''was'' an Administrator. But surely you have better things to do on your Sabbatical than shaming the productive? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 04:54, 17 September 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Federal spending under control??==
| |
| − | Due to some accounting gimmicks, why yes it seems like it is. Because some spending was delayed until there's a vote on the federal debt ceiling in the near future, the U.S. will seem to have only accrued $340 billion in debt, while the GDP is expected to grow (over last year) by roughly $700 billion this fiscal year (which ends September 30th). And Obama proposed a $500 billion deficit ''next'' year, so the annual debt could be less than annual growth again next year too.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Now the kicker response to this fact is going to be, "But from the amount of debt Obama and Congress accrued during the first six years of his administration, at this rate it will take ''n'' more years of the same to reduce the debt-to-GDP proportion to what it was at the beginning." I know now what this number is roughly (based on August figures). It might be a good exercise to go to [[National debt of the United States]] and learn what that number is yourself, in case you happen to hear someone say on September 30 or afterwards that federal spending is back under control or "not as bad as it seems". [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 07:14, 20 September 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Nixon responsible for sabotaging the Paris Peace Talks during the 1968 campaign? ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | This is a recent accusation by a reporter from the mainstream media named Ray Locker. But given the mainstream media's track record with strange theories, I, for one, remain skeptical. His book comes out in October. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 00:33, 26 September 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | :The South Vietnamese people saw the Paris talks as a sell out. Pulling out was hugely popular, a way to sock it to bloodthirsty commies and overbearing Americans at the same time. Rhee had done the same thing to Ike in Korea. I find it hard to believe that a peace treaty was a serious possibility in 1968. The North Vietnamese were not prepared to recognize the legitimacy of Thieu's government until much later. In any case, I assume the war itself would have continued, treaty or no treaty. Johnson was hoping that he could stage a stunt that would help Humphrey win the election. If Nixon sent someone to explain this all to Thieu, I fail to see what the objection might be. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 06:02, 27 September 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | :I looked this up in ''Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War'', a standard library reference. It says Chennault recommended that Thieu "object to the last-minute halt of the bombing of North Vietnam and stall on the Paris peace talk." Johnson knew all about it because he had Ambassador Bui Diem's phone bugged. This was just a few days before the 1968 election, so I think it is safe to assume that the supposed breakthrough in the peace talks was so much pre-election politiking by Johnson. Nothing about the current accusations is new. As Ann Coulter says, "liberal lies never die." [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 21:59, 17 October 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Vatican coup?==
| |
| − | How is it possible that two conservative popes could be followed by a liberal? [http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/09/the-mystery-of-pope-francis-was-there-a-vatican-coup.php This post] doesn't have the answer, but it does give you some context. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 20:30, 28 September 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | :The Vatican felt they needed to shore up South/Latin America where evangelicalism/pentecostalism is growing fast in many countries. A European Catholic would be a bad choice since Catholicism is on the decline there. So that leaves Asia or Latin/South America or Africa or North America (which is influenced by Latin/South America due to immigration). Ultimately, fear of loss in Latin/South America was stronger than hope of gain in Africa.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :Lastly, although there are some more conservative (free market) economies in Latin/South America, most of the countries tilt to the left. And African countries are very often conservative on social issues. In addition, Europe tends to tilt the left and the European cardinals have a lot of votes. Hence, Catholicism wound up with a liberal pope. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 21:23, 28 September 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | ::If somebody thought a liberal pope would help the Catholic Church with American liberals, they need to think again[http://www.salon.com/2015/09/30/the_cool_pope_honeymoon_is_over_meeting_with_kim_davis_could_be_a_tipping_point_for_american_progressives/] Climate change, climate shmange. What do liberals care about the fate of the Earth? They want gay marriage, gay marriage, and more gay marriage! Colbert told Cruz that Reagan couldn't be nominated by today's Republicans. Let me tell you something, Colbert. The godly gay marriage hating Obama of 2008 couldn't be nominated by today's Democrats.[http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/09/so_is_barack_obama_a_muslim_or_what.html] [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 03:21, 2 October 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Food for thought ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Any GOP candidate for president who wants to increase immigration—i.e., all of them except Trump—ought to be required to first pass this simple test: Be successfully elected governor of California on a platform of tax cuts and social conservatism. ''Ann Coulter'', Sept. 30. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 03:12, 1 October 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :Coulter is not giving as much credit to Trump since she said that, saying now that Cruz and Carson have come around to Trump's resolute approach to immigration, but she is apparently still tolerating Trump's often less than conservative positions for now as his supporter out of gratitude for him catalyzing the resolve of so many Republicans. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 12:40, 9 October 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == More evidence of Obama's treason ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Chamberlain was a dupe who had no idea Hitler was about to occupy Prague. Even as Obama was reassuring Congress that Russia would help enforce the Iran deal, he almost certainly knew Putin was planning a game-changing offensive in Syria.[http://nypost.com/2015/10/03/syria-is-obamas-watergate/] [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 19:18, 4 October 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Hello! New User Here! ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Hi, I'm Charles Trenton. I'm new to Conservapedia, and I just joined. Where could I find the rules and guides to Conservapedia? Thanks!
| |
| − | --[[User:CharlesTrenton|CharlesTrenton]] ([[User talk:CharlesTrenton|talk]]) 18:34, 6 October 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | {{Useful links}}
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Oil under the Golan Heights? ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | This could be huge.[http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/165503#.VhnPVI2hMQ0][http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/10/08/potentially-game-changing-oil-reserves-discovered-in-israel/] [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 23:00, 10 October 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == The left is taking a political beating. If only atheists didn't so closely ally themselves with the left!!!! ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The New Statesman reported in 2015:
| |
| − |
| |
| − | "Across 39 countries in Europe that we analysed parties of the right are in government in 26 of them. Add in the Anglosphere – Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States – and right-wing parties control the legislature in 30 of the 43 countries. This is four more than before the crash....
| |
| − |
| |
| − | In the UK research shows that the “millennial generation” has moved to the right of its parents in its attitudes to the economy and the state and its confidence in the welfare state."[http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/observations/2015/10/why-are-right-wing-parties-thriving-across-europe]
| |
| − |
| |
| − | If only atheists didn't so closely ally themselves with the left!!!! See: [[Secular left]]
| |
| − |
| |
| − | And the trends don't look good for atheism in the 21st century. See: [[Desecularization]]
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 2015 is the WORST year in the history of atheism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 02:20, 11 October 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == We've gotta get this picture ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Shirtless, horseriding Putin vs bicycle ridding Obama: [http://www.redstate.com/uploads/2015/09/01-007d-620x506.jpg]
| |
| − | :Putin agrees with Western conservatives are some issues (homosexuality, etc.), but he is an autocrat (a popular one in Russia) who disagrees with much of the freedoms in the Bill of Rights and political freedom principles in other Western democracies. He also lies and he previously worked for the KGB.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :Obama is a wimp and the contrast with Putin helps show this, but I am not a big fan of promoting Putin.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :I think Putin is gaining too much traction at this point due to Obama dragging down the strength of the USA (economy, poor foreign relations in many cases, his scandals, lack of working with the Republicans where he could do that, needless stoking of racial division despite his previous claims he would help promote racial harmony, etc.).
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :And with the price of oil at this time, Putin should be politically losing strength in much of the world, but he seems to be gaining strength in the Middle East, Asia, etc. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:43, 11 October 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Colin Powell "trolls Republicans" ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | If you were seriously worried about global warming, income inequality, gun control, or whatever the liberal cause du jour is, wouldn't you want Republican cooperation on these issues? What kind of person thinks that the highest praise he can bestow on a political figure is that he "trolls Republicans"? A Salon editor, that's who.[http://www.salon.com/2015/10/01/colin_powell_admits_hes_trolling_the_gop_i_continue_to_be_a_republican_because_it_annoys_them/] [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 19:09, 11 October 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == TheAmericanRedoubt/TAR ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | TheAmericanRedoubt (TAR) hasn't made an edit since March 24, 2015. If he hasn't started editing by March 24, 2016, the red links may never be filled in by him. People have good intentions, but sometimes external events intervene or sometimes their priorities change.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I say give him until March 24, 2016 since he did create a lot of content while he was here and the approximate 5 months chunk of time will go by fast.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Also, I don't think category tags are a big deal since about 1% of people ever click on them for a given page. I do realize a category tag battle did ensue during the time of TAR's editing. So if people want to edit some of his category tags in order to make the category tags more hierarchical, I have no problems with that. I think it is the links within the articles that get the bulk of clicks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 14:29, 21 October 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :You wrote:
| |
| − | {{cquote|I got in contact with User:TheAmericanRedoubt and he is going to start editing Conservapedia again probably sometime in September of 2015. |||Conservative 01:22, 2 June 2015 (EDT) }}
| |
| − | :Aren't you in contact any longer? What's the matter with him? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 08:21, 28 October 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | ::Last time I communicated with him he was in the midst of a project and wasn't sure when he would be finished. That was months ago. I may be wrong about this matter, but generally speaking, it seems when people are not active at a wiki for 6 months months or longer, they don't return. My guess is that this may apply to all types of volunteers and not just wiki editors.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 09:39, 28 October 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | I think the cell phone number I have for TAR is completely different as there is a completely different greeting. His email address is expired. So I believe I have no way to contact TAR. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 13:19, 28 October 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Benghazi ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | After all the investigation, the basic questions about Benghazi are still unanswered.[http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/10/22/benghazi-my-questions-for-hillary-clinton.html] Why was the ambassador at this notoriously insecure facility on the anniversary on 9/11, when an anniversary attack was widely expected? The attack went on for seven hours, and the White House was warned the attack was imminent a hour in advance. So much time to respond, but no military response. The attack used heavy weapons, so it was immediately obvious that it was planned by a terrorist group in advance.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Who came up with the "spontaneous reaction to a video" story? ''Was it the same person or persons who decided to stick to that explanation and have UN ambassador Susan Rice repeat the same lie on national television and six times in the president’s speech at the United Nations–even, most chillingly of all, have Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeat it to Tyrone Woods’ parents over the coffin of their dead son at Andrews Air Force Base, saying she would “make sure the person who made the film is arrested.”''[http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/13/three-key-questions-on-benghazi-scandal.html] Judging from the "clock boy" story, Obama likes nothing better than a good Islamist hoax. Someone appearently concocted the video story well in advance. Was the administration so attached to this story that they sacrificed an ambassador so they could have the opportunity to use it? [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 22:25, 24 October 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | :It seems that Hillary reversed herself at the recent hearing and testified that she never blamed the attack on the notorious "Innocence of Muslims" video.[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/hillary-clinton/11951682/Hillary-Clintons-big-Benghazi-lie.html] Good grief! How does this woman keep up with her own lies? [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 20:13, 25 October 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | ::Are you sure? Why would she deny blaming the attack on the video when she is recorded doing so at a public event? I read that not only did she blame the video, but that the origin of that story was traced back to Hillary Clinton. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 07:54, 26 October 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | :::“I said ''some'' have sought to justify the attack because of the video. I used those words deliberately, not to ascribe a motive to every attacker but as a warning to those across the region that there was no justification for further attacks." ([http://featuredyoutube.com/clinton-claims-she-didnt-blame-benghazi-attack-on-a-youtube-video/ video] and [http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/10/hillarys_worst_crime_was_against_the_filmmaker.html write up]) This is such a Clintonian answer, a gem of the genre. Some people said some things, and those things may or may not have been partially true. But as for Hillary, she was just commenting on the remarkable things these other people were saying and doing. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 16:59, 26 October 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | ::::I read she was the only reason the video was publicized as associated with the attack in the first place, so it would follow if ''some'' justified the attack after the publicization, it would be of necessity caused by her. Nobody would "ascribe" that "motive" to ''any'' attacker if not for her actions. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 17:24, 26 October 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | :::::According to her memoirs, she came up with the idea all by her little old self, using her womanly "common sense": “[The video] was unquestionably inciting the region and triggering protests all over, so it would have been strange not to consider, as days of protests unfolded, that it might have had the same effect here, too. That's just common sense."[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/11/fact-check-what-hillary-left-out-benghazi-chapter/] Why do we need the NSA when we have Hillary's common sense? [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 19:11, 26 October 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − | :::::Lest anyone think that Benghazi lies are a victimless crime: Nakoula, the guy who uploaded the video, was indeed sent back to prison, just as Hillary promised.[http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/10/hillarys_worst_crime_was_against_the_filmmaker.html] [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 20:08, 26 October 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Hillary and the FBI ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | James Comey, the director of the FBI for the last two years, is a Republican and quite the straight shooter, according [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/30/us/politics/jamess-b-comey-fbi-director-says-focus-on-brutality-brings-less-police-enforcement.html?_r=1 this article]. Assuming he continues helm the bureau, it's not likely the FBI will cut Hillary any slack as far as the email investigation goes. Comey disagrees with Obama on incarceration, so there is some question as to whether he can stay in the administration. All the same, I'd say its time for Hillary to be lawyering up rather than preparing to move into the West Wing. Biden's announcement that he is not running sounded almost like he was running. Perhaps he was planning to announce, but Obama asked him to hold off at the last minute. We may not have heard the last of him. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 06:13, 1 November 2015 (EST)
| |
| − | :While we're on HillaryWatch, get a load of the cover of this new book. It's hysterical: ''[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CSrg_p_UwAAp8OS.jpg My Turn: Hillary Clinton Targets the Presidency]''. At this point, a few careless emails are all that stands in the way of the rise to power of Muslim Brotherhood agent Huma Abedin. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 18:33, 1 November 2015 (EST)
| |
| − | ::You seem to be following the Muslim Brotherhood. Did you see [http://www.teapartycrusaders.com/obama/ted-cruz-just-made-an-enormous-move-against-the-muslim-brotherhood-that-could-impact-obama/ this] coming (currently a link on main page right)? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 00:44, 7 November 2015 (EST)
| |
| − | :::That's a great move on Cruz's part. There have certainly been plenty of twists in this race. A few days ago, we were wondering whether Trump or Bush would be the better (or less awful) nominee. Now they are both toast and Cruz is the man to beat. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 05:53, 7 November 2015 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Secular humanism ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Conservapedia's article calls secular humanism a form of philosophical skepticism. Strangely, the most prominent secular humanists I see appear in the media and on the internet would be better described as "confidence anarchists" (see [[Confidence game]]) and hardly philosophical at all. Take the crudest stereotype you can imagine of the black spherical bomb-wielding anarchist of the early 1900s, dress them up in modern apparel with the untruth as their new weapon of sabotage and watch them betray every "human" institution that makes civilized life possible in the course of their labored effort to force others to taste the gall that welled up in them after the just consequences of their failed sinful grab at importance was visited upon their own persons. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 14:35, 5 November 2015 (EST)
| |
| − | :Vargasmillan, my guess is that you mainly see representatives of the [[New Atheism]] school of atheists in the media or atheists who launch legal fights about church-state issues.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :About the only time the secular humanists get press is when it comes to atheist churches stories. The father of secular humanism was the academic Paul Kurtz and often academics don't seek press attention. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 15:06, 5 November 2015 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::Virtually the only intended "progress" I see that is championed by today's "progressive" elites is in the direction set down by secular "humanism" and actually rooted in the motivations and pursued by the methods I described. Don't tell me left wing politics in the U.S. and other developed countries isn't led by (often disguised) secular humanists. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 16:22, 5 November 2015 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Paris massacre tweets ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | *ISIS attacks Paris hours after @BarackObama claims he has "contained" them, just like he "defeated" al Qaeda and "ended the war" in Iraq. — [[Liz Cheney]]
| |
| − | *Reminder: FBI and DHS say they have no way to vet for terrorism and ISIS has said they will send "refugee" fighters (President Obama @POTUS We're also increasing the number of Syrian and other refugees we admit to the U.S. to 100,000 per year for the next two years. [September 28]) — Katie Pavlich
| |
| − | *Moronic and suicidal. FBI/DHS don't have a vetting system, ISIS already declared they'll send "refugee" fighters (Rolling Stone @RollingStone After the attacks in Paris, we shouldn't close our doors to refugees fleeing extremism – we should open them.) — Katie Pavlich
| |
| − | *No, the ISIS terrorist who claimed refugee status to get to Paris didn't "slip in," he walked right in and got a free ride without vetting — Katie Pavlich
| |
| − | *President Obama, Please tell us, if ISIS is now contained, what's it look like when they're on the loose? — Dennis Michael Lynch
| |
| − | *Obama watched ISIS grow, Armed Them, Champions Gun Control and Refugee Invasion. It's Planned. #WakeUpAmerica — Phil
| |
| − | *This is coming here. Simply a matter of time. And we are completely bereft of leadership. #tcot — James Woods
| |
| − | *The moment when Salon finally passed The Onion. Only difference is The Onion knows it's a parody site (Salon: Do the Paris attacks mean it's time to accept more refugees in Europe?) — James Woods
| |
| − | *We are living the horror. The centre of France was struck by an exceptional barbarity. It was an escalation of Islamist terrorism and the sixth time this year that Islamists have attacked our country." — Marine le Pen, Front National leader
| |
| − | *Will the blithering idiot who said, just before the Paris attacks, that ISIS is "contained," at least admit that he is a blithering idiot? — [[Dinesh D'Souza]]
| |
| − | *New video shows French jets departing for #ISIS strongholds — CNN
| |
| − | *In one week ISIS took down a passenger plane, and hit Paris. "Contained." "JV" — John Nolte
| |
| − | *French police who died storming #Bataclan tonight cut from same cloth as NYPD & FDNY who headed to burning towers on 9/11. God rest them. — Toby Harnden
| |
| − | *Turkey foiled Istanbul terror plot on same day as Paris attacks — Agence France-Presse
| |
| − | *Devout Muslims CHEER Paris Slaughter on Social Media: Muslim Islamic State supporters on social media cheered... — [[Pamela Geller]]
| |
| − | *Paris Suicide Bombers WERE RESCUED OFF Sinking Migrant Boat: They were rescued and their response? To kill [their saviors in the cause of Allah. That’s jihad.] — [[Pamela Geller]]
| |
| − | *WSJ EXCLUSIVE: Suicide bomber at Paris soccer stadium had a ticket, was turned away by security before detonating.
| |
| − | *Obama: "An attack on all of humanity and the universal values we share." No, it's an attack on non-Islamic humanity and Non-Islamic values. — [[Ben Shapiro]]
| |
| − | *The Middle Eastern refugee situation and the rise of ISIS can be laid at Hillary's feet more than any Western politician other than Obama. — [[Ben Shapiro]]
| |
| − | *@HillaryClinton: ‘We Should Increase the Number of Refugees’ #DemDebate — National Review
| |
| − | *When will President Obama issue the words RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM? He can't say it, and unless he will, the problem will not be solved! — [[Donald Trump]]
| |
| − | *Iraq warned US-led coalition countries of imminent assault before Paris attacks. — AP Newsbreak
| |
| − | *We are told NOT 2 judge ALL Muslims by actions of a few lunatics.& encouraged 2judge ALL Gun Owners by the actions of few loons! #DemDebate — Janie Johnson
| |
| − | * #PARIS: #Terrorists shot people in #wheelchairs in back of theater — Drudge Report
| |
| − | *Obama moves to 'increase and accelerate' admission of Syrian refugees... #Paris — [[Matt Drudge]]
| |
| − | *FBI Has 1,000 Active ISIS Probes Inside USA... #Paris — [[Matt Drudge]]
| |
| − | *Muslims on track to exceed Jewish population in USA... #Paris — [[Matt Drudge]]
| |
| − | *The attacks in France are despicable. The world must unite to condemn & end all acts of terrorism. Our prayers remain with France. — [[Greg Abbott|Gov. Greg Abbott]] of Texas
| |
| − | *First time a state of emergency declared in France since Algerian War. — Michael C. Moynihan
| |
| − | *We Need Zero Tolerance For #OpenBorders Zero Tolerance For Unvetted #Muslim Refugees — Marti Fox
| |
| − | *"Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society" I'm not gonna lay down and die for your tolerance. (Mark Ruffalo @MarkRuffalo Don't allow this horrific act allow you to be drawn into the loss of your humanity or tolerance. That is the intended outcome. #ParisAttacks) — Steph
| |
| − | *Has America finally and fully awakened to the consequence of accepting 100s of thousands of refugees? #ParisAttacks #PrayForParis — @ChristiChat
| |
| − | *Israel stands with France in war against terrorism. I send condolences to the families of the murdered & wish the injured a speedy recovery. — [[Benjamin Netanyahu]]
| |
| − | *October 11, 2015 @realDonaldTrump warns Syrian refugees could be ISIS 'Trojan horse' in USA & elsewhere. #Trump2016 — Daniel Scavino, Jr.
| |
| − | *These Islamic radicals know who their enemies are, and have for decades. It is we—or at least some of our leaders—who have forgotten who is under attack. — Former U.S. Representative to the U. N. [[John Bolton]]
| |
| − | [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 05:59, 16 November 2015 (EST)
| |
| − | *It's not just the big attacks that make the international news. There are smaller incidents all the time. France has been under siege since the Charlie Hebdo attack in January. If the best he can do is twenty bombs on an ISIS training camp, Hollande may want to pull out the prayer rugs and start figuring out which direction Mecca is. The latest ISIS video says Washington is next.[http://pamelageller.com/2015/11/watch-isis-threatens-washington-d-c-attack-in-new-video.html/] Obama has released five more Gitmo terrorists since the Paris attacks. If anything, the Hildabeast is even more pro-Muslim. So France can't expect any help from the U.S. If you think of Charles Martel at Poitiers or Napoleon in Egypt, this is a sad end to a long and honorable crusading tradition. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 19:58, 16 November 2015 (EST)
| |
| − | ::Agreed Peter. Until ground forces are sent in to flush them out, they remain alive to plot again. Air power alone stopped Serbia. That was a fluke, yet that is the strategy for ISIS.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] ([[User talk:Jpatt|talk]]) 20:29, 16 November 2015 (EST)
| |
| − | :::If [http://www.therebel.media/ezra_levant_in_paris_the_saddest_thing_i_ve_seen_so_far this] or [http://www.steynonline.com/7298/imagine-there-no-imagination this] are any indication, France has no stomach for a fight. We can only hope sheer inertia can keep the country going until the U.S once again has a president willing fight for Western Civilization. In the meantime, [http://www.meforum.org/5630/what-france-can-learn-from-israel#print this article] has some good advice for the French. With Belgium riddled with ISIS safe havens, the dream of a Europe with open borders will have to wait. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 03:04, 17 November 2015 (EST)
| |
| − | ::::At his press conference, Obama made it official that U.S. policy is not to defeat ISIS or even to retaliate for the massacre in Paris. Instead, we'll "stay the course" and "contain" them, whatever that means.[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/11/16/walid_phares_explains_obama_s_strategy] It was apparently too much even for the White House press corp, normally a base constituency for Obama. They had to ask the question three times before they could accept that this was Obama's for-real answer. Retaliating wouldn't even require U.S. boots on the ground since the Jordanian army is willing to do the dirty work. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 08:51, 17 November 2015 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == While you were enjoying the holidays... ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The ink was hardly dry on the final estimates of the U.S. economic statistics for Fiscal Year 2015 ending September 30, when we are given to learn the [[National debt of the United States|United States federal debt]]/GDP ratio jumped 4% from 101.8% to 105.7% in the three short months afterwards (Oct. 1 to Dec. 31). The Greek Debt Crisis of 2010 was precipitated when Greek debt reached 115% of GDP.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | This increase in the ratio was due to the elimination of the debt ceiling and an increase in debt of about $800 billion (which is a higher rate of new debt in proportion to GDP in three months than for the entire fiscal year 2005 or 2006 at the height of the Iraq War) and a large slowdown in GDP growth just recently being indicated by a large stock market correction.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | In those three months, whatever the results of any tax increases put into law for current spending, the U.S. Government has committed itself to ''four percent of the size of today's entire U.S. economy'' over and above that amount.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | If you are preparing a budget with a competitor for resources, you would probably be willing to haggle over spending on various items in the range of one-half to one percent. If there were a built-in increase of four percent on your competitor's side, the haggling would become something of a farce. If you successfully argue for a one percent advantage, your competitor can loudly complain of his cut (while netting three percent) and win sympathy, because the four percent, through sleight of hand, isn't part of the competitive process and happened "at some other time".
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The taxpayer arguing for lower taxes is like you in the example: he or she might get a publicized one percent of GDP tax cut out of the budget while four percent of GDP over the budget has already been spent. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 19:01, 8 January 2016 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Trump and his protesters ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/10/the-silently-protesting-muslim-woman-at-the-trump-rally-wasn-t-alone.html This article] takes a look at a group of professional protesters that go to Trump rallies to try to shut them down. Apparently, Trump said something or other about Muslims that made these people upset. In other words, the protests are an attempt to impose religious censorship. Or at least this article, obviously written by a sympathetic journalist, doesn't argue that they are about anything more noble than that. The protesters have the nerve to compare themselves to Rosa Parks. Uh, excuse me, but wasn't Parks protesting segregation rather than free speech? There are many Muslim countries in the world where criticism of Islam is banned. If your delicate ears cannot withstand such criticism, may I suggest moving to one of them? [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 05:06, 11 January 2016 (EST)
| |
| − | *I see that the protester scum are being hailed by John Kasich[http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/kasich-trump-muslim-protester/2016/01/09/id/708858/] as well by the Huma-affiliated CAIR.[http://bsccomment.com/2016/01/11/cair-urges-trump-to-apologise-to-muslim-protester-ejected.html] Kasich is a literal sellout. He was a conservative governor of Ohio, but then he took the money of Clinton pal Ron Burkle to run as a liberal Republican.[http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-ron-burkle-clintons-20160107-story.html] In other words, he is this year’s Jon Huntsman. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 22:49, 12 January 2016 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Trump as a nominee==
| |
| − | Nate Silver crunches the numbers and finds that [http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-is-really-unpopular-with-general-election-voters/ Donald Trump Is Really Unpopular With General Election Voters]. Trump's net favorability is -25 percent, easily the worst in American politics. That compares to -8 for Hillary, -7 for Cruz, and +3 for Sanders. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 22:39, 18 January 2016 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :That's only because the Republican nominating voters are split between Trump and not-Trump. Once Trump becomes the nominee, the rest of the Republicans will climb onto the Trump bandwagon and give him a favorable rating. After that, Trump will run ads in the general election that will help erase Hillary's five-point lead and with his loyal band of election-workers hopefully march on to victory. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 00:00, 19 January 2016 (EST)
| |
| − | ::[http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/articles/2016-01-14/donald-trump-donated-to-democrats-until-2008?int=a01109 ''U.S. News'' has a chart of Trump's political donations]. Charlie Rangel is the No. 1 recipient, Hillary No. 2, and McCain No. 3. Most of this is about getting support from people can help him with his development projects. But I see nothing in this chart that suggests Trump is a conservative. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 02:13, 19 January 2016 (EST)
| |
| − | :::Ann Coulter said she personally begged three Presidential candidates to take up the issue of immigration. While Trump called her unsolicited and asked for an advance copy of her immigration book. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 02:59, 19 January 2016 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Donald Trump as the next president of the United States ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I realize that Wall Street and the Democratic Party favor Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders and there is a lot of corruption in the Obama administration, but Hillary may be indicted in about 60 days according to a former federal prosecutor.[http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/01/07/former-federal-prosecutor-predicts-hillary-clinton-may-be-indicted-in-next-60-days-heres-why/] If justice proves to be ultimately impartial, then Hillary could be indicted and convicted just like General Petraeus was over his email security breeches.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | It does appear as if the FBI will have a large body of evidence against Hillary in relation to her email scandal and possibly the corruption related to the Clinton Foundation. I don't know if Obama wants to jeopardize how historians view his presidency by letting Hillary off the hook.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I don't think that Sanders is electable as I don't think he could withstand a concerted opposition to his candidacy. Both Hillary and Sanders have essentially been playing softball in respect to each others candidacies.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The Republicans could waltz into the White House in the upcoming election. Donald Trump might be the next president of the United States. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:14, 19 January 2016 (EST)
| |
| − | :It looks like the Democrats have may have to choose between Bernie as a nominee or Hillary making a videotaped acceptance speech from her cell. There has been a series of articles published recently that argue that blacks are in Hillary's corner no matter what.[http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/run-2016/2016/01/17/yes-hillary-clinton-is-still-the-inevitable-democratic-nominee] That would imply that she could lose both Iowa and New Hampshire and then stage a comeback in South Carolina and other southern states. What did Hillary ever do for black people anyway? Back in the 1960s, blacks were crazy for Robert Kennedy -- who knows why?
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :Black enthusiasm powered the Bill Clinton and Obama victories -- and it's not there for Bernie. To extend the Vietnam-era analogy, he is today's McGovern, an idol of white liberals that other demographics just don't get. Another reason Bernie won't do nearly as well as current polling suggests is that he has literally nothing to say about terrorism, currently the No. 1 concern of general election voters. When he was asked about San Bernardino, he quickly changed the subject to income inequality. Of course, he could turn this around with a little tough talk, as both Bill Clinton and Obama did. But a big part of Bernie's appeal thus far has been that he is seen as too "principled" for that sort of thing. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 19:10, 19 January 2016 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::In September SurveyUSA took a poll and found head to head against Hillary, Trump would receive 25% of the black vote. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 22:33, 19 January 2016 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == A Trump-Cruz race? ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The campaign buzz for the last couple of days has been that the Great Winnowing is finally in progress, and that the Republican field will soon be narrowed to Trump vs Cruz. This is of course inevitable and predictable, but also seems a little early given that no one has actually caste any votes yet. [https://soopermexican.com/2016/01/14/wsj-poll-shows-trump-losing-to-ted-cruz-as-candidates-drop-out/ This poll] shows Cruz beating Trump by 8 points in a two-man race. Of course, it is possible Trump will bring people to the polls who don't ordinarily vote. Faced with the choice of Cruz or Trump, the establishment is going with Trump.[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/19/gop-establishment-leaning-toward-trump-over-cruz.html] It seems that they consistently prefer the candidate who is less threatening to the Democrats. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 21:20, 19 January 2016 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :Trump's immigration law enforcement and border security efforts would prevent other states from turning into California, so the Democrats shouldn't feel too copacetic about that. And Cruz may not even ''be'' in the race, which will encourage Rubio, Carson and Bush to neither drop out nor endorse Cruz. The spread between Cruz and Trump should depend a lot on endorsements, as Andy predicted, and Palin's endorsement of Trump today certainly didn't help Cruz. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 01:29, 20 January 2016 (EST)
| |
| − | ::I meant that Cruz is more threatening to the Democrats because he is more electable, for the reasons Nate Silver outlined in the article I linked to above. Over at ''National Review'', they have "[http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429952/ted-cruz-donald-trump-gop-establishment-prefers-trump What’s Driving the Establishment’s Preference for Trump over Cruz?]" They don't really answer the question though. Jeb Bush was the establishment's favorite until recently. As far as Democrats and independents go, the Bush name is poison. So whatever motivates the establishment to back a particular candidate, it's not electability. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 02:09, 20 January 2016 (EST)
| |
| − | :::A lot of Republicans will acquiesce if Trump becomes the nominee. And Trump and the RNC have barely begun to challenge Hillary. ''Nobody's'' challenged Sanders. And if Trump articulates his vision well in the debates his numbers are bound to improve. Plus the swing voters who don't consume conservative media will be hearing the arguments against Hillary for the first time, and there are a lot of negatives that can be said about her. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 06:12, 20 January 2016 (EST)
| |
| − | ::::There were other articles about the "establishment" backing Trump, but Rush Limbaugh suggested today it could be reverse psychology, in that the voters are supposed to be angry at the "establishment", and its association with Trump will cause him to lose votes. If so, Limbaugh predicts they won't be able to maintain their support and will have to abandon Trump at some point. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 01:08, 21 January 2016 (EST)
| |
| − | *As far as endorsements go, Trump is in last place.[http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/] If endorsements mattered, the nomination would be Bush vs. Rubio. And neither of them can compare to the monster number of endorsements Hillary has. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 21:31, 23 January 2016 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Cruz on the campaign trail ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | On the campaign trail in New Hampshire, ''The Washington Post'' is "terrified" of what an awesome vote-getting machine Cruz is: "[https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-makes-ted-cruz-truly-dangerous/2016/01/19/5f20dbee-bed8-11e5-bcda-62a36b394160_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b What makes Ted Cruz truly dangerous]." Sample zinger:
| |
| − | *“For the record, Tom Brady was framed,” he says, to inevitable cheers about the Patriots quarterback. “I’m not willing to pander on much” — laughter — “but on that, Tom Brady was framed, and I have it on good authority that Hillary Clinton was responsible.” More cheers. “Why else do you think she destroyed her emails?” [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 04:37, 21 January 2016 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == TAR ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | He tried (and partly succeeded) in converting Conservapedia into a link - farm. Sysops catered to his wishes and even rewrote commandments, just to please him. Warnings were ignored, critics got banned or intimidated,
| |
| − |
| |
| − | So, it must be allowed to say: I told you so.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ... and we can always expect him back the moment James Wesley Rawles publishes his next novel.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 19:23, 22 January 2016 (EST)
| |
| − | :I have my doubts that TAR's purpose in editing Conservapedia was to create a link farm to the James Wesley Rawles website. How many links to the James Wesley Rawles website did TAR create?
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :TARs main purpose for editing Conservapedia appears to have been to expand the survivalism/gun/gun rights and Ayurvedic medicine entries. A compromise was reached that he did not contribute Ayurvedic medicine material.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :Next, I did tell TAR not to create non-relevant internal links in the "See also" sections and for the category tags. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:32, 22 January 2016 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::Link-farm may be an out-dated phrase - but an article like [[Liberators - A Novel of the Coming Global Collapse]] was certainly written for search engines.... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 19:34, 22 January 2016 (EST)
| |
| − | ::''Next, I did tell TAR not to create non-relevant internal links in the "See also" sections and for the category tags.'' Oh, sorry, I do apologize. How could I have forgotten to mention your courageous acts! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 19:43, 22 January 2016 (EST)
| |
| − | :::Why do you think that the page [[Liberators - A Novel of the Coming Global Collapse]] was certainly written for search engines? What criteria are you using?
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :::The evidence suggests that TAR knew little to nothing about search engines (or internet marketing) and didn't appear to write for them nor care about search engine traffic. I doubt someone who knew about search engine traffic and/or internet marketing would create pages with a lot of red links in them. AlanE is right about pages with a lot of red links being visually unattractive. Faced with pages with a lot of visually unappealing red links on them, many people will bail out of those page more quickly. Do search engines rank pages that users bail out of more quickly more highly? If so, why?
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :::The page [[Liberators - A Novel of the Coming Global Collapse]] has a lot of red links in it and therefore it does not appear to be a slick marketing page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:58, 22 January 2016 (EST)
| |
| − | ::::I removed the excessive red linking on the page [[Liberators - A Novel of the Coming Global Collapse]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 20:45, 22 January 2016 (EST)
| |
| − | :::::AugustO, you don't mean critics got banned or intimidated; you mean critics targeted TAR and in their eagerness to stop him tripped over themselves, became harsher to compensate for that, in doing so crossed the line into abuse and earned warnings or blocks. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 20:12, 22 January 2016 (EST)
| |
| − | AugustO, no Conservapedia commandments were rewritten due to TAR.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Next, a single SYSOP account temporarily abridged a portion of the Conservapedia Manual of Style page to avoid excessive/petty squabbling about "category tags" (sometimes subcategorization can be overdone and be counterproductive as there are too many levels of subcategorization).
| |
| − |
| |
| − | And as a result of the "category tag" war, the section of the Manuel of Style dealing with category tags was improved (a helpful diagram was added and a warning to not add petty/trolling category tags was added). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 20:23, 22 January 2016 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::The Conservapedia article [[Liberators - A Novel of the Coming Global Collapse]] ranks #13 at Google USA for the term "Liberators - A Novel of the Coming Global Collapse". Much higher than I expected given the number of unattractive red links on the page. The book was published by Penguin Books (a major publisher) so perhaps it sold a decent amount of copies.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::Now that I removed all the ugly red links, maybe web visitors will stay on the page longer and it will climb into the Google top 10 search results for the term "Liberators - A Novel of the Coming Global Collapse". AugustO, of course you know what this may mean. More TAR like editors may soon be editing Conservapedia! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 21:13, 22 January 2016 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :::A little off-topic, but "Liberators - A Novel of the Coming Global Collapse" is now #11 for me, anyway. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 12:06, 8 February 2016 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Another Trump video ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [https://youtu.be/rcUCLwWCihE This video] lets Trump makes the case against Trump. Here are clips of him identifying himself as Democrat, as well as "pro-choice" on partial birth abortion. He also calls for the impeachment of George Bush and praises Hillary. All Cruz has to do is run this thing in Iowa and he's got the nomination clinched. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 22:32, 22 January 2016 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :Water under the bridge. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 22:59, 22 January 2016 (EST)
| |
| − | ::Here's what Trump thinks of you: "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot someone and I wouldn't lose any voters."[https://vine.co/v/iiBTWtmM7dW] [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 03:54, 24 January 2016 (EST)
| |
| − | ::Trump let the mask slip again, this time in Pella, Iowa: "When I'm president, I'm a different person. I can be the most politically correct person you've ever seen."[http://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/25/trump-when-im-president-im-a-different-person/] [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 03:50, 27 January 2016 (EST)
| |
| − | :::First you use a processed video edit to misquote Trump, joining hundreds of media hacks in doing so; then you quote Trump in order to misinterpret what he's saying. You're really making a terrific case for Cruz. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 05:25, 27 January 2016 (EST)
| |
| − | ::::My interpretation is that, "The most politically correct person you've ever seen" is inside Trump screaming to get out. We will see a lot more of him when and if Trump clinches the nomination. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 04:40, 29 January 2016 (EST)
| |
| − | :::::Yeah, right. This is Trump's idea of political correctness: "I refuse to call Megyn Kelly a bimbo, because that would not be politically correct. Instead I will only call her a lightweight reporter!" (January 27, 6:44 am EST, 3 hours after your post). [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 05:04, 29 January 2016 (EST)
| |
| − | ::::::He is learning to sound more presidential all the time. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 05:18, 29 January 2016 (EST)
| |
| − | :::::Coulter: "I assume he's using Kelly as a cat's paw for an attack against the entire Rupert Murdoch enterprise, which is implacably pro-open borders, pro-amnesty and, consequently, anti-Trump." Trump was responding to a post he retweeted where someone called Kelly a bimbo and showed pictures of Kelly making come-hither looks to the camera in a glossy magazine she posed in, apparently while a journalist. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 06:44, 29 January 2016 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Hillary's feminism ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I was skeptical of Trump's strategy of treating Bill's affairs as "fair game." But it seems to be working.[http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/01/21/how-hillary-clinton-lost-her-feminist-base-and-her-credibility.html] It is biologically unnatural to expect a woman to show sisterhood to her romantic rivals. It certainly wasn't something we expected back in the 1990s. But modern feminism has apparently conditioned young women to think otherwise. In 2008, it always hurt Hillary when Bill showed up. But that wasn't because of feminism. It was because parents took one look at Bill and thought, "OMG! If Hillary is elected, Bill will be back in the White House. Then the kiddies will be asking us about all the disgusting things he was in the news for!" [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 08:29, 24 January 2016 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == How the establishment can stage a comeback ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | To the establishment, the choice between Cruz and Trump is like choosing between death by shooting and death by poisoning.[http://www.algemeiner.com/2016/01/24/lindsey-graham-choice-between-cruz-trump-like-opting-for-shooting-or-poison/] As for Marco Rubio, he is not much better.[http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-arent-republican-leaders-rallying-behind-marco-rubio/] So how can establishment-favorite Bush stage a comeback? Here is an idea for an ad: "I come from a humble upbringing. I was raised the son of a president. We had it tough back then. In those days they only had the 20-car motorcade, not the 40-car one they've got today..."[http://www.steynonline.com/7418/the-stupid-party-gets-stupider] Jeb could go on to compare Bush 41's vacations to Obama's, etc. It would be hysterical. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 19:50, 24 January 2016 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == What happens if Hillary is indicted? ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Answer: She can keep running for president. The Dems won't mind a bit! The trail is being blazed by Kathleen Kane, Pennsylvania Democratic and indicted attorney general. In the latest poll, Kane is ahead of her nearest primary challenger 31-18.[http://www.redstate.com/2016/01/27/kathleen-kane-poll-democrats-pennsylvania/] [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 21:21, 27 January 2016 (EST)
| |
| − | :While Obama decides whether or not to indict Hillary, Hillary talks about what a "great" Supreme Court justice he would be.[http://www.inquisitr.com/2743941/obama-supreme-court/] Hey, that doesn't sound corrupt at all, does it? The only previous president appointed to the Supreme Court was Taft in 1921. That was not by Taft's immediate successor but eight years after he left office. Taft had been a solicitor general and an appeals court judge before becoming president. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 15:10, 28 January 2016 (EST)
| |
| − | ::Here's a great tweet from David Frum: "Sanders closing Iowa argument: “Imagine a better world!” Clinton closing argument: “We’re highly confident no indictments are forthcoming." I take it Obama responded favorably to Hillary's Supreme Court trial balloon. All the leaks are presumably from someone in the FBI who isn't happy with this decision. Wouldn't it be great if a Republican gets sworn in and Hillary has to flee to Russia like Snowden? [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 05:16, 31 January 2016 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Image copyright? ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I've made several screenshots and gotten them uploaded to CP, and did not claim copyright on them. This might be more legally difficult with a screenshot, since it is of another organization's (possibly copyrighted) software, but at least with actual photos, would it be helpful or at least not harmful if I claim copyright and offer free use only to CP? After all, any marketing specialist would tell you that your business or website needs things which are exlusive to it self. If everything is uploaded for Public Domain, we loose exclusivity of those files.
| |
| − | I know, CP is not primarily worried about such things, but I'm just wondering. Thanks!--[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 17:54, 5 February 2016 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Missing white voters ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Sean Trende's "[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/08/the_case_of_the_missing_white_voters_116106.html The Case of the Missing White Voters]" has gotten a lot of attention in pundit America recently. IMO, what is says is a lot less original than what people seem to think it says. The post-election commentary in 2012 often noted that Obama was the beneficiary of a "high black turnout." "Missing white votes" is just the flip side of this, the same phenomenon viewed from the other end of the telescope. Republicans often do 2-3 percentage points better in the election than pre-election opinion polls suggest. In 2012, the polls were right on the nose. This is presumably related to that black turnout -- and to the staggering amount of money Obama spent to achieve it. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 05:01, 8 February 2016 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Price of gold going up. Will User:TheAmericanRedoubt's content see a spike in popularity? Vindication for Gerald Celente soon? ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The [https://www.bullionvault.com/gold-price-chart.do price of gold is going up].
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Many other commodities are falling in price which is an indication of a global economic slowdown. There is a debt bubble that has grown to $220 trillion worldwide.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The price of gold going up even in a U.S. election year when the U.S government often tries to pump things up. There is a migrant crisis in Europe and China is seeing economic stability. The price of gold tells me that people don't feel confident that politicians are going to save the day.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Will [[Gerald Celente]] finally be vindicated?[http://usawatchdog.com/war-economic-calamity-coming-2016-predictions-gerald-celente/] Is another Great Depression which is worse than the first one, coming soon? Will many wars break out fairly soon afterwards? Will [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt]]'s content see a spike in popularity?
| |
| − |
| |
| − | As far as the US/global economy, I don't believe the politicians will be able to kick the can down the road past 2040, but we will see.[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/06/prediction-collapse-by-2040.html] In the meantime, remember the 4 Gs: God, gold, guns and a get away plan! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:47, 13 February 2016 (EST)
| |
| | | | |
| | == The "spam filter" == | | == The "spam filter" == |
This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.
Community Portal/Archives
This page contains some material that has been moved from Talk:Main_Page. We are attempting to get general discussion of issues relating to Conservapedia's content and policies on this page, leaving the main talk page for its original purpose of discussing the content of the Main Page.
The "spam filter"
I have successfully created the page Rest mass, and attempted to redirect Invariant mass and Relativistic mass to same. Unfortunately, the spam filter thinks I'm talking about asses, the jawbones of which, as we know, are sturdy and dangerous. So I had to make do with links to "Rest massiveness", hardly a good situation. Could someone please straighten this out?
Oops. I see part of the problem. I created it by doing a search for the term in quotes, the way I often do, and it created the page in quotes. I can't create it normally. Could someone please do as Samson did in Judges 15:16 and slay a thousand such clauses from the spam filter? SamHB (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2016 (EST)
Time passed template?
I see we have an "age" template, to display the years which have passed since a certain date, but do we have any kind of template which shows months, weeks, and days?--David B (talk) 13:43, 9 March 2016 (EST)
I don't think so. Many of these articles have not been edited since 2009. There is a danger if you construct a sentence in terms of time passed, it will become badly out-of-date. It is better to say, "As of August 2009, X was Y." or "In September 2010, Z happened." Do not say, "Four years ago, A happened." JDano (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2016 (EST)
I know, but although I hate to keep comparing CP to WP, WP does it in a helpful way. They say "In September 2010 (X ago) Y was Z." That way, the actual date is prominent but the user doesn't need to count off the days/months/years if they want to know exactly how long ago. Its not hard, but it's one of those convenient things WP has that we do not. --David B (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2016 (EST)
You can use {{age}} on CP: On September 11, 2001 ({{age|2001|9|11}} years ago) the twin towers fell. gives: On September 11, 2001 (25 years ago) the twin towers fell. JDano (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2016 (EST)
- A better technical question is: Does CP support LUA templates? If so, I could write some templates for you that would knock your socks off. JDano (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2016 (EST)
- I have used age sometimes, but that only looks good if it's been at least two years already. Good thought though, thanks. As for LUA, I'm afraid I don't even know what that stands for. In any case, though, I suspect no one is watching the template approval request page anymore. I could be wrong, but I submitted one a while ago and have still gotten nothing. Mayby there's a problem with it, but I'd think someone would say so if that were the case.--David B (talk) 00:21, 10 March 2016 (EST)
A Grand Unified Theory of 2016
As you won’t be surprised to learn, I have a Grand Unified Theory regarding the 2016 race. Briefly, Obama wants a third term, either directly or through Biden. Sometime last summer, he ordered the media to jack up coverage of Trump. Not so long ago, the airwaves were considered a public trust and the networks followed the "equal time" principle. That rule prevented anything like the lopsided coverage we see this year. If Trump is nominated, as looks increasingly likely, the Republicans will have selected the the weakest contender in the field. According to this theory, Hillary will be indicted sometime between the end of the primaries and the opening of the Democratic National Convention. With the help of the supers, Biden will be nominated in place of Hillary. Obama will have overturned the constitution and achieved a coup. PeterKa (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2016 (EST)
The Green Papers
If you want to follow the delegate math in the lead-up to Cleveland, The Green Papers and Ballotpedia are the essential resources. Here is a detail I didn't see covered in the news media: Each state gets three "party leader" delegates. These are the national committeeman, the national committee woman, and the chairman of the jurisdiction's Republican Party. That means 168 delegates (out of 2,472) automatically go to unbound party regulars. PeterKa (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2016 (EDT)
My advise to Trump
With Trump's matchup numbers in free fall, it's unsolicited advise time. Here's my three point program for reviving his fortunes:
- No more statements that suggest Trump is something other than a law-abiding citizen of the republic. No more threats against Ryan, the convention in Cleveland, or the protesters. Let the police and the security folks do their job. Don't make it too easy for the media to blame Trump for violence.
- All Hillary. All the time. Enough with Megan and Heidi! Hillary is a crook who runs a corrupt foundation. She should be in jail for allowing Huma and Blumenthal to have access to our nation's most sensitive secrets. She's also a UFO-believing idiot. Everything this feminist icon has is a result of her marriage to Bill. She has no talent for anything except lying and insulting people -- with Blumenthal providing most of the insults. I almost forgot: The Benghazi episode shows she has no clue as to how to deal with terrorism. From the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to CAIR in the U.S., she's the Islamist's best friend.
- Sue the people who are disrupting the rallies. Soros, Black Lives Matter, and MoveOn all need to see summons. Don't accept blame the blame the various incidents at the rallies, violent and otherwise. PeterKa (talk) 09:13, 27 March 2016 (EDT)
Missing articles
Alaska: Bill Walker — Arizona: Doug Ducey — Arkansas: Asa Hutchinson — Hawaii: David Ige — Illinois: Bruce Rauner — Maryland Larry Hogan — Montana: Steve Bullock — Nebraska: Pete Ricketts — New Hampshire Maggie Hassan — North Carolina: Pat McCrory — Pennsylvania Tom Wolf — Rhode Island: Gina Raimondo — Washington:Jay Inslee
--AugustO (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2016 (EDT)
There are general problems with the office holders of the states - an encylopedia aimed at students should keep track of those. I'm missing basic information on the pages of some states, too, like the number of members sent to the Electoral College, the population, etc- --AugustO (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2016 (EDT)
- You are correct. In addition, there is a lot of interesting content that crosses the Main Page, but is not back up by additions to the relevant articles in our encyclopedia. JDano (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2016 (EDT)
Template Approval
Hi, is anyone checking new templates and approving/denying them? I created a new template and submitted it for review, if not approval. Over a month later, it still has not been commented on, and on the same submission page I see nothing having been approved since 2009. I don't like to nag, but it would be handy if I could start using my template, if it is acceptable. Thanks! --David B (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2016 (EDT)
I got an email: TAR is not going to be an editor anymore and I think his decision is final
I got an email User: TheAmericanRedoubt (TAR) is not going to be an editor anymore and I think his decision is final.
I did agree with TARs views where they agreed with the views that the bulk of conservatives hold. I also believe in preparedness as I think some hard times are coming in about 15-20 years.
At the same, I did mention to TAR not to have web pages with a ton of internal links on them and to not have big "see also" sections. And I agree with AlanE to avoid red links whenever possible. Given the amount of red links that were created by TAR than he will never clean up, I have to give AlanE some credit for being right about the TAR red link situation.
And some category tag clean up will have to be done too. So I have to give AugustO some credit too.
I wish the TAR situation had worked out and tried to assist in matters (suggested some books on writing, etc., gave him wiki page style recommendations, etc.), but it didn't work out.
And I made some promises to some people that I can no longer delay keeping. So unfortunately, I cannot assist in the clean up.
At the time TAR came aboard, there was less editors. So some of the editing formatting issues were overlooked. TAR having pro second amendment views and liberal editors attacking him made working with TAR about his editing formatting issues much more challenging. My time was divided between refereeing editors about their political fights and trying to coach TAR about editing formatting issues. There are more editors now so hopefully this situation will not be repeated in terms of an editor having wiki formatting/stylistic issues that are not more quickly corrected. Conservative (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2016 (EDT)
- I complained about TAR too much. If he wasn't for TAR, I wouldn't have rethought about how the Austrian school of economics have better predicted recessions/depressions and how many of these economists/financial experts are predicting an upcoming economic collapse.
- Yes, his content could have been written/formatted much better. But I think I am looking a gift horse in the mouth. Sometimes a timely messenger comes wearing camel hair and a leather belt instead of wearing a three piece suit. :) Conservative (talk) 02:14, 4 April 2016 (EDT)
We need to put a complete and permanent stop to this
Our attempts to clean up TAR's mess, and start turning this site back into an educational resource for school-age students, has been repeatedly interrupted by TAR coming back, reverting people's work, and blocking people. This most recent case is not the first time he has declared that he is retiring from Conservapedia. People need to have confidence that their work will not be destroyed, in a way that makes repair incredibly difficult, by this person.
Therefore, I respectfully recommend that his block privileges be revoked, so that he can't unblock himself and resume his destructiveness. SamHB (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2016 (EDT)
- TAR said: "Dear Andy, I am resigning from any further participation in CP. Please delete my CP user account and erase my user page and talk page along with its history. Thank you. TheAmericanRedoubt (talk) 05:55, 1 April 2016 (EDT)"
- So I don't think he would have a problem with his blocking privileges being removed and his account being blocked.
- If he returns, which I don't think will happen, he would have to agree to: not create big "see also" sections, avoid using a lot of red internal links, only use highly relevant category tags. use hierarchical form of category tags and use an encyclopedic tone in his editing (avoid using the term "gun grabbing" often, etc. etc.). I think this is a moot point since I don't believe he is ever coming back to be an editor. Conservative (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2016 (EDT)
I complained about TAR too much. If he wasn't for TAR, I wouldn't have rethought about how the Austrian school of economics have better predicted recessions/depressions and how many of these economists/financial experts are predicting an upcoming economic collapse.
Yes, his content could have been written/formatted much better. But I think I am looking a gift horse in the mouth. Sometimes a timely messenger comes wearing camel hair and a leather belt instead of wearing a three piece suit. :) Conservative (talk) 02:14, 4 April 2016 (EDT)
- My recent email from TAR indicated that this retirement from Conservapedia is permanent.
- I would like to tell you more about his future plans, but it was a private email so I cannot. I believe that he is not coming back though. Conservative (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2016 (EDT)
- The rest of us would have an easier time believing this, without taking your word for it about all these mysterious secret emails you have with him, if Andy would simply revoke his block rights. You don't have any problem with that, do you? SamHB (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2016 (EDT)
- This has already cost us more hours that I would like to acknowledge. Can we suspend his powers until he helps with the clean up? JDano (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2016 (EDT)
Getting blocked for "adult content"
Using the internet service provided by a hotel (Sheraton) recently, some Conservapedia pages were blocked for having "adult" (that is, not family-friendly) content. I had not requested any kind of "parental control" setting. The page Liberal denial really caught my attention. It was accessible with one click from the front page. I then looked around, and several other pages were also flagged. All the pages like Bestiality and Sweden were of course flagged, but Liberal denial, and a number of other "ordinary" pages, really surprised me. This web site is rapidly becoming "adult" in nature, and not just in the expected articles by User:Conservative. It's really frustrating to try to write articles about math and science if they, or perhaps the whole web site, is going to be blocked by the parental controls that might be enforced for the intended audience. Would the administration of this web site please tell us what action is planned to remedy this situation? SamHB (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2016 (EDT)
- The Bible mentions bestiality multiple times. Do you want to ban the Bible? Conservative (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2016 (EDT)
- I have zero tolerance for that kind of childish and disingenuous excuse. It's the kind of excuse that I used on my parents to defend my use of foul language. I'm sure most people did the same. But we stopped by the time we reached the age of 10 or so. And you should too. There are things in the Bible that one should not be obsessive about. And no books of the Bible have that word in any of its book titles. Yet Conservapedia is quite obsessed with it: Professor values and bestiality, Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant, Bestiality and various geographic areas, Bestiality and Germany, Atheism and bestiality, Wikipedia on bestiality, Academia and bestiality, Denmark and bestiality, Bestiality and Sweden, Evolutionary belief and bestiality, Netherlands and bestiality, Bestiality and Denmark, Sweden, and evolutionary belief, Bestiality and atheism. It's time for you to stop acting as though the rest of us want to play these childish games. We don't. We haven't since we were 10 years old. These games are causing Conservapedia, a web site that many of us seriously care about, to trigger content-blocking software.
- But thanks for removing the "Being a proponent of liberal Christianity, it wouldn't surprise me if you want to ban the Bible!" ad hominem. SamHB (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2016 (EDT)
- As a practical matter, we want Conservapedia to be widely available to people who are staying at hotels. (This is as important as the people who routinely place Bibles in each hotel room or as Marriott placing a copy of the Book of Mormon in each of its hotel rooms.) Similarly, we want Conservapedia to be available when and where we want to edit. If there was a simple misunderstanding about whether "Liberal denial" is family friendly, perhaps management can contact Sheraton about the operation of its adult material filter. However, it is probably not advisable to go to the mat over whether articles with the B Word in their titles should be accessed from those hotel rooms. JDano (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2016 (EDT)
- There are 27 Conservapedia articles tying bestiality to liberal organizations, ideologies or groups. Conservapedia has over 40,000 articles. So a very small fraction of articles.
- SamHB is just upset because I show that when some people embrace evolutionism/naturalism/liberalism, they also start embracing sheep, dogs and horses!
- That quip, with its witty play on the word "embrace", would be funny coming from a 7-year-old. It isn't funny coming from an adult. In the past I have stated that I find you amusing. No longer. You do not amuse me in the least. You are doing serious damage to a web site that I, and most other people here, care about. This discussion has absolutely nothing to do with liberalism, naturalism, or evolution. And I have zero patience with your repeated efforts to change the subject. Get your mind out of the gutter. SamHB (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2016 (EDT)
- In 2014, a global news channel which broadcasts documentaries about current topics, reported concerning secular Europe: "Bestiality is having a weird renaissance in Europe."[1] The pro-evolution Scientific American on bestiality: "After all, we are animals....".[2]Conservative (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2016 (EDT)
- Different people have different tollerences. For me, antisemitism was the "deal breaker." Perhaps SamHB has a different "deal breaker" so I can understand how he feels. The facts are that we live in a world surrounded by automated systems that pass judgment upon us. "Parental controls" are based on looking for key words, so even "Scientific American" or "National Geographic" will get into trouble at some point. I would hope that (1) Conservapedia has announced standards in its Commandments about being family friendly and enforces them and (2) there are people and/or systems in place to untangle content filters when Conservapedia gets an X rating. JDano (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2016 (EDT)
- Actually, this isn't a "deal breaker" for me personally. I consider the antisemitism to be more serious, just as JDano does. Perhaps because any sensible person will dismiss the bestiality stuff as childish. The point of my posting was that, while the bestiality stuff getting flagged didn't surprise me in the least, the flagging of Liberal denial did surprise me. Unfortunately, I haven't looked through the Liberal denial page to try to figure out what the problem is—the writing style is too chaotic. Perhaps someone else can look at it. SamHB (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2016 (EDT)
Liberals excel in quickly dismissing information which challenges their wicked worldview. Its called denial. If only they were more sensible. Conservative (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2016 (EDT)
We do not allow obscenity, while Wikipedia has many entries unsuitable for children
- I think that all the articles on bestiality are unsuitable for children - whether they are true or not
- Has anyone else encountered similar problems with automatic filters?
- The Bible mentions bestiality, but it doesn't goes on and on and on...
--AugustO (talk) 06:58, 5 April 2016 (EDT)
- AugustO, I know you are from Germany. Conservapedia's "Bestiality and Germany" article ranks #2 at a popular search engine (which begins with a G) for this particular search term. And the article has nearly 8,000 page views.
- On July 1, 2013 the Daily Mail reported that bestiality brothels were spreading quickly through Germany. In addition, there were "even 'erotic zoos' which people can visit to abuse animals ranging from llamas to goats."[3]
- In recent years, several countries with high rates of Darwinism/atheism have experienced problems relating to bestiality (see: Geographic areas where bestiality is posing a notable problem and Atheism and bestiality and evolutionary belief and bestiality).
- Germany has one of the highest rates of belief in evolution in the world.[4] In 2005, it was reported that Germany is one of the most atheistic countries in the world and the website adherents.com reports that 41-49% of Germans are agnostics/atheists/non-believers in God.
- A research survey of 1535 people, conducted by the Australian National University, revealed that belief in evolution is associated with moral permissiveness.[5]
- Thank God a high proportion of Americans are creationists. I would hate to hear reports of bestiality brothels spreading rapidly across America.Conservative (talk) 11:08, 5 April 2016 (EDT)
- I will also add that CP did its part to put public pressure on Germany. Probably due to public embarrassment, Germany did change its laws. And now the article serves as a reminder to Germans and to humanity what can happen when you embrace godlessness/evolutionism.
- To be fair, evolutionism is growing among American youth and there are concerns that America is descending down the slippery slope of depravity due to its legalization of homosexuality. Charisma News reported: "Bestiality Now Making US Headlines, Not Always Illegal"[6] Thankfully, at this point, it is not as bad as it recently got in Germany. Conservative (talk) 11:36, 5 April 2016 (EDT)
(EC)
- I will also add that CP did its part to put public pressure on Germany. Probably due to public embarrassment, Germany did change its laws. And now the article serves as a reminder to Germans and to humanity what can happen when you embrace godlessness/evolutionism.
- To be fair, evolutionism is growing among American youth and there are concerns that America is descending down the slippery slope of depravity due to its legalization of homosexuality. Charisma News reported in 2014: "Bestiality Now Making US Headlines, Not Always Illegal"[7] At this point in the USA, it has not gotten as bad as it recently got in Germany. Also, with a some secular European countries getting embarrassed due to some public incidents and changing their laws, the rise of bestiality within Western Civilization seems to have subsided.Conservative (talk) 11:48, 5 April 2016 (EDT)
- The question is: Is Conservapedia the right venue for your crusade against bestiality in Germany?
- Should home-schooled pupils in America be informed what happens in brothels in Sweden?
- How many pupils are confronted with bestiality for the first time of the life here at Conservapedia? Is this desirable? Child protection software doesn't think so, obviously.
- Who googles "Bestiality and Germany"? The same people who look for swear words in dictionaries. I'm relieved that this aren't that many, as the searches resulted only in less than 10,000 hits.
- --AugustO (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2016 (EDT)
- The crusade is over. The forces of good won. Now CP just has to remain vigilant and remind the world what can happen when you embrace godlessness/evolutionism. So of course, the articles will stay up. Conservative (talk) 11:48, 5 April 2016 (EDT)
AugustO, you wrote: "How many pupils are confronted with bestiality for the first time of the life here at Conservapedia?"
AugustO, how many times do you need to be reminded that the Bible mentions bestiality four times? Are you recommending that young people do not read the Bible?
At this point, I think you are displaying Germanic stubbornness and you are living in denial about the fruits of evolutionism. Remember, a research survey of 1535 people, conducted by the Australian National University, revealed that belief in evolution is associated with moral permissiveness.[8]
And if Germany did not embrace evolutionism, maybe WWI and WWII never would have happened. See: Social effects of the theory of evolution and World War I and Darwinism.
And if a large part of Germany did not embrace godlessness, maybe Germany would not have a sub-replacement level of births (1.38 births per woman in 2012) and would not be flooding Europe with Muslims due to the needs of German businessmen for workers. [9]
Lastly, I do want to add that I am not anti-German. For example, I recognize the benefits that Martin Luther brought to Europe and Western Civilization via the Reformation. Conservative (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2016 (EDT)
U. S. financial condition milestone
As of March 31, 2016 the share of the total United States national debt accrued under Democrat Nancy Pelosi's speakership (2007-2010) of the House of Representatives (27.5%) has been equalled by Republican speakers John Boehner and Paul Ryan (2011-2016). 27.5% of the United States national debt equals 5.3 trillion dollars. Rush Limbaugh asked how Republicans can run on the issue of fiscal conservativism when they are responsible for spending as much as the Democrats. This new milestone certainly doesn't do anything to unsettle the basis of such questions. VargasMilan (talk) 22:36, 7 April 2016 (EDT)
Article request
Could someone please create the article: Christianity statistics
Thanks. Conservative (talk) 07:52, 11 April 2016 (EDT)
- Conservative, I think the Baylor study you cited has thrown this type of statistics gathering into an uproar. A Christian asked, "Do you have a religious preference?" might answer, "No, I'm non-denominational" or "No, I just have a personal relationship with Christ", skewing the results. VargasMilan (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2016 (EDT)
2016 Republican National Convention
I just saw a rerun of some of the 2012 Republican National Convention which led me to believe that this year's convention is going to be a zoo. Delegates of both parties are such ham bones that even when there are little to no debatable issues, especially as far as who will be the candidate, there are various cheering sections all around the convention floor for certain pet issues and state loyalties. I can imagine speakers this year having each and every sentence in their speeches scrutinized by the delegates and responded to with either cheers or boos—and cheers or boos increasing on each successive occasion—to denounce or praise the issue being discussed in hopes of giving either Trump, Cruz or Kasich the edge they need to push them over the top. VargasMilan (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2016 (EDT)
Atheism and cannibalism
Do we really need an article on this? Is this consistent with Conservapedia's vision as an educational resource for high-school-age students, as Andy explained so well here?
I know quite a number of atheists, and, as far as I know, not a single one of them is a cannibal. Perhaps cannibalism among atheists is not such a serious problem in the United States that teenagers really need to be warned about it.
SamHB (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2016 (EDT)
- Speaking on general "religion," what I see is that many "civilized" atheists are more against cannibalism than those who hold some kind of spiritual belief. Why? To an atheist, the body is all there is, but to someone religions, the human body is only a small part of their existence. Therefore, those who are religious see the human body as less valuable than those who are not. This article itself mentions it is "usually ritualistic eating of human flesh by a human being." A ritual implies some (perverse) spiritual belief.Of course, to be more specific, Christianity does not permit cannibalism...obviously.
- I see how this argument is created, but many things Christianity discourages, so do common morals. Murder, adultery (still frowned upon by most), theft, and oh yes, cannibalism. Perhaps this is because of certain parts of God's law still embedded in atheistic cultures, but none the less, many atheists are very strongly against this. --David B (talk) 13:26, 14 April 2016 (EDT)
- DavidB4, thanks for your comment to SamHB.
- SamHB, you did an excellent job of setting up a strawman argument and then knocking it down. My apologies for not mentioning in the article that the atheists you know are not cannibals (as far as you know). Anytime you want to refute the Atheism and cannibalism article, let me know. Conservative (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2016 (EDT)
Yet more on the repeated 500 errors
I know people have said things about this before, but such comments always seem to be ignored or minimalized. Every day or two, I get a "500" (Internal Server) error message. Sometimes the site is unavailable for up to an hour and a half before I can get on again. This is not:
- A network problem - I have seen this on at least four different networks, one of which is a high-end professional network.
- Browser problem - By definition, this is a code the server returns, but I've tried at least 6 different browsers, with at least 3 different core engines
- User problem - believe it or not, I do know what I'm doing
That said, I understand that 500 errors are by definition unknown problems. They are sent when the server knows that something bad happened, but has no idea what and couldn't even retrieve the usual error page to serve. In other words, 500 errors are a pain, especially when they come and go. Perhaps there is really nothing which can be done about this. I will say that I've seen this kind of problem before with lower-price web hosting. In my opinion, this is often the source of a 500 error, but I know there are many others as well. If this is the case, complaining to the service provider or changing providers may be the only way to resolve this.
If this is an issue which everyone else does not really care about, then feel free to ignore this post entirely. However, I thought I would just try to show that this is indeed a problem. I know I would want to know if my public website was going down for one or more hours every couple days. Here are some "proof" images (although I know they could be faked) in case my word isn't enough.
March 4th, 2016 at about 10am
March 8th, 2016 at about 2pm
March 10th, 2016 at about 2pm
March 16th, 2016 at about 6pm
March 18th, 2016 at about 8am
March 30th, 2016 at about 3pm
April 2nd, 2016 at about 10pm
April 5th, 2016 at about 12pm
April 8th, 2016 at about 9am
April 8th, 2016 at about 9am #2 - Three browsers shown when IE worked but no others did. This was the only time I know of when this happened, and is a bit of a discrepancy.
April 11th, 2016 at about 11am
April 14th, 2016 at about 9am
Need I go on? Just to be clear, I am not posting this just to complain, but to try to be helpful. Have a great day! --David B (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2016 (EDT)
Copyright
Many of us have been spending most of the past month trying to clean up after TAR. The fact that so many copyright problems have been left behind indicates that Conservapedia editors may not appreciate the importance of copyright law. The edit box always displays the statement "You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see Conservapedia:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!" Permission means an agreement not only to place the text on Conservapedia, but also to license it to others on the same basis that all other Conservapedia content is licensed. In some cases, TAR just copied and pasted from other websites without attributing the content to them. In other cases, TAR copied large portions of text that a blog had quoted from another source. I would suggest that everyone take the time to read Conservapedia:Copyrights again. I also believe that we need more talk page templates to document when people have received permission to copy material. I assume that getting written permissions would be best, and that they should be stored in some central place, just in case misunderstanding occur in the future. JDano (talk) 08:46, 24 April 2016 (EDT)
- The greatest problem for me is that I don't know if they have the right to copy on not, so I agree--it really would help to have a single place where permission proof is stored. I don't know how that would work, though. --David B (talk) 08:39, 25 April 2016 (EDT)
- We could have a template on the talk page which references the letter sent to Aschlafly. Perhaps the letters in the file could be numbered, and the number inserted in the template parameter. The problem is that TAR copied verbatim from a particular blog that welcomed guest editors or copied from them. Under US copyright law, the copyright belongs to the author. We don't know if the author gave the copyright to the blog owner or licensed it with restrictions. The email from the blog owner to TAR was not clear about what licensing rights he conveyed further. He just said, "You can quote my blog up to 800 words at a time." That does not give Conservapedia the right to further license the reuse of the quote (which we generally do.) There is no need to quote that blog verbatim, and TAR should have written his own definitions when he posted them are separate articles. It is almost as if he was trying to generate 100 one-sentence articles each with a footnote to a particular author (perhaps for the search engines). But we now have 100 copyright headaches.
- If Aschlafly had a scanner, we could post scanned copies of each permission letter somewhere on the internet and put a link in the talk page template. JDano (talk) 02:09, 4 May 2016 (EDT)
Please unlock
Please unlock the Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity page. I need to reinstate (uncomment) item #22, to track the reinstated item #22 in the main counterexamples page. SamHB (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2016 (EDT)
Please don't lock pages (other than templates and other things that can do an inordinate amount of damage.)
I have recently had (and still have) problems with pages being locked. It's easy to see that these acts were performed in response to vandal attacks. But it really isn't a good idea.
- It makes it harder for people to do their work, obviously. We have to request that the page be unlocked. And those requests sometimes go unheeded. See, for example, my request, just above, which has still not been acted upon. The two pages are supposed to stay synchronized with each other; there is a big editor-only-visible comment to that effect at the top of each page, but they are out of sync, and I can't fix this.
- It gives the impression that Conservapedia is not an open-editing "best of the public" web site. It could be taken as evidence that the administrators do not trust the public. Not trusting the public is not a conservative value.
- It is ineffective. We often have vandal attacks, in which someone vandalizes as many pages as possible before they get stopped. The locking is obviously a response to these attacks. But people engaging in mass vandalism will just go on to another page when they see one that is locked. The total number of pages that they vandalize before they are stopped is still the same. The amount of work that sysops (or, in a few cases, I) must do to clean up the mess is the same.
SamHB (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2016 (EDT)
