Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia:Community Portal"

Revision as of 12:16, December 7, 2014

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.

Singapore stands up to the homosexual agenda

See here and here. A-mei is a well-known singer in Taiwan, China, and other Chinese-speaking countries. PeterKa 10:21, 12 July 2014 (EDT)

Pornographic information and profanity on Wikipedia

On Wikipedia's article about the World Cup match between Brazil and Germany in which Brazil lost 1 to 7, Wikipedia contained the following quote under their Society section: "Meanwhile, pornographic website Pornhub had to ask its users to stop uploading video footage of the game to the website, after several videos with titles such as "Young Brazilians get f*cked by entire German Soccer Team" were uploaded.[66]" The link to the page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_vs_Germany_(2014_FIFA_World_Cup)#Society I protested that Wikipedia is in theory an encyclopedia and thus this sort of profanity and content ought to be removed, especially when you consider the fact that children might see this kind of content. After trying to edit it out, I was banned for an "edit war." It would be appreciated if we could publicize this content and get it removed.

Restoring User Pages

I wonder if you [I was referring to User:Conservative in the original context] would be be so kind as to restore the following user and user-talk pages. Most of these people were long-time respected sysops and administrators, as I'm sure you, being a long-time respected sysop and administrator yourself, well know. Many of our important articles were written by these people. Current users may want to know something about the people that went before them and built Conservapedia. We should show some respect for our history and our founding fathers/mothers.

• User:Jallen
• User:Tash
• User:Foxtrot
• User:Ymmotrojam
• User:DeanS
• User:TimS
• User:DanH
• User:Deborah
• User:BethanyS
• User:WilliamBeason

SamHB 23:33, 10 October 2014 (EDT)

Your suggestion is a reasonable one. I was not in favor of deleting user pages. But once deleted, I don't think it would be time well spent to restore the pages. Time moves on, and time could be better spent by improving substantive entries.--Andy Schlafly 00:37, 11 October 2014 (EDT)

I can see that all the active users are pretty busy, and are probably disinclined to do this. So how about letting me do it? I'm willing to restore those pages myself. You would have to give me the appropriate temporary rights, which might be "undelete" rights, or maybe full administrator rights, I don't know how this works.

I'm sure you know, from our many communications, both public and private, that I can be trusted not to harm Conservapedia in any way. During any period in which I have extra rights, I will refrain from annoying, harassing, irritating, teasing, insulting, or otherwise getting under the skin of any other user. I will not react to any taunts. I will not abuse the rights in any way. (Though if my rights include blocking, and I see any vandals come to town, I will of course take action.)

You didn't want the pages deleted? We can fix that. What say you? SamHB 12:48, 12 October 2014 (EDT)

There's an extremely troubling aspect to all this. You say you weren't in favor of deleting the pages, and yet, here, Cons says that the owner of the web site was in favor of the deletion. Was Cons lying? Also, here, Cons seems to indicate that he was in communication with you on the subject of giving JoeyJ deletion powers. These powers are not taken lightly. In fact, JoeyJ is the only non-admin who has them. So it looks as though you gave JoeyJ the deletion powers knowing full well that he would use those powers to delete user pages. What is going on? SamHB 00:05, 14 October 2014 (EDT)

Gayer than thou: Kenya and Pakistan

These two countries have the most Google searches for gay porn.[1]

Islam

The main page right item "Losses in Midterms for Candidates Who Supported Islamists" is very troubling and can be viewed as religious prejudice. First, the only Muslim member of Congress was re-elected. Second, the Tea Party website cited by the item makes questionable claims as to whether the candidates discuss there really supported "Islamists". Finally, there is a big difference between the set of people who claim Islam as their religion and the set of people who would be described as anti-American Islamic extremists. Failing to follow such a distinction makes the item misleading and unworthy of Conservapedia. Thanks, Wschact 16:07, 13 November 2014 (EST)

You wrote: "makes questionable claims as to whether the candidates discuss there really supported "Islamists"". Why are the claims questionable? Conservative 18:56, 13 November 2014 (EST)

The one thing (if not others) that Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, Maryland Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown, former Senator Scott Brown and former Florida Governor Charlie Crist have in common is that they all love the United States and oppose anti-American Islamic extremists. There is ample evidence to show this and the cited item does not do a convincing job of demonstrating the contrary. There are reasons why people did not vote for them (e.g., raised my taxes, carpetbagger from MA, or flipped flopped between the Republican and Democratic party), but being pro-Islamic extremist/pro-terrorist was not a factor. Thanks, Wschact 20:50, 13 November 2014 (EST)

Your response wasn't helpful in terms of indicating why the material in the article was questionable. For example, why isn't the material on Crist in the article accurate?Conservative 21:36, 13 November 2014 (EST)

In addition, in terms of analyzing voting decisions it can be done at a corporate/segment/individual level. And in some geographic areas, the Islam issue is more of a hot potato due to larger than average Muslim/Jewish populations within the larger population in question (In Dearborn, Michigan where there is a large Muslim population for example, some Muslims stoned some Christians), the mix of liberal/conservative/nationalistic/religious composition of the populace, etc. Another example: Florida has a lot of pro-Israel/Jewish voters so the Islam issue could be more of a hot potato issue within a segment of the Florida population. Furthermore, the rise of ISIS makes the Islam issue be more of a political hot potato issue. Conservative 00:34, 14 November 2014 (EST)

The main page right item, "America's National Cathedral to Host First Muslim Prayer." is another objectionable note on the same theme. The Tea Party webpage referenced by the item seems to approve of the move noting that it is an important step in Protestant-Muslim relations. My concerns are that the National Cathedral in Washington DC, should not be called "America's National Cathedral" because it is really a house of worship for just one denomination. (For example, there is a beautiful cathedral for the Roman Catholics, and very nice large churches in DC for the Methodists, Christian Scientists, Mormons, and Greek Orthodox faiths.) I think that it is nice that different religions get together and encourage each other to learn more about their religions. This whole thing is part of a trend in Main Page Right to make it sound as though there is something alarming going on with Islam in America. Perhaps our time would be better spent uploading photos of these churches and adding to the substantive articles of CP instead of the drum beat of Islam-related MPR items. Thanks, Wschact 21:07, 15 November 2014 (EST)

Franklin Graham didn't think it was nice. He said it was “sad to see a church open its doors to worship of anything other than the One True God of the Bible.”

And Ann Coulter noted that in this last election, "Republicans swept everything from U.S. senator to substitute-part-time-dog catcher." So maybe it would be best if you started dancing to the beat of the conservative drum, because conservativism is obviously what American people have demanded of their leaders. VargasMilan 11:03, 16 November 2014 (EST)

Evidently Franklin Graham doesn't realize that Christians and Muslims worship the same god, so that seems like more of an argument for improving his and others' reading comprehension. RedG 13:55, 16 November 2014 (EST)

Maybe he's read about some contradictions you haven't. You aren't even aware that Christians don't worship a "god", but rather the supreme God, maker of all things.VargasMilan 14:09, 16 November 2014 (EST)

Yes, and Muslims worship the same deity. The meaning of "god" is "something that is worshiped", and the word a corruption of the pagan word "gaut", which was some deity or another (it's not entirely clear what) of the Germanic tribes. It is therefore entirely correct to refer to the Abrahamic god is just that, a god. RedG 19:04, 16 November 2014 (EST)

Perhaps in your fantasies you are being responsive and recounting correct and well-reasoned information. The reality is very different. VargasMilan 09:46, 17 November 2014 (EST)

Are you disputing the etymology of the word "god", or its use in the English language? RedG 16:26, 17 November 2014 (EST)

@RedG: I'm really sorry that you have been abused so badly at Conservapedia. I'm particularly bothered at the "internet psychiatry" of characterizing your writing as "your fantasies", and that "reality" is different. I want you to know that there are quite a number of decent and well-intentioned people here. You should ignore the abusers, and feel welcome to make contributions. We particularly need people who are knowledgeable in matters of science. If you can contribute in this area, dig in! SamHB 22:22, 20 November 2014 (EST)

Dear VargasMilan, if you can accept the notion that Methodists and Baptists worship the same "supreme God" then you can accept the notion that Muslims and Catholics can also worship that same "supreme God." (You know, the one described in the Old Testament.) Similarly, the big house of worship built by the Catholics in Washington DC deserves just as much respect as the one built by the Methodists or the one built by the Mormons or any other denomination. There is no establishment of religion in the United States, and the government treats all religions equally. So just because one denomination's church (which is a very impressive building in an impressive location) is called the "National Cathedral" does not make it any more "official" than any of the other large houses of worship in Washington DC. (By the way, its official name is "Cathedral Church of Saint Peter and Saint Paul in the City and Diocese of Washington", and not "National Cathedral".) Wschact 15:46, 20 November 2014 (EST)

Your user name looks like Andy's, but you behave far differently. You talk like somebody who's not aware of his surroundings. Some religions lead to disaster. Some to persistent agitation incompatable with the peace that is the prerequisite for prosperous living. VargasMilan 20:10, 20 November 2014 (EST)

@VargasMilan: Is this a joke? Are you trying to imply that Wschact is a sockpuppet of Andy? Are you implying that Andy practices sockpuppetry on his own wiki? The similarities between the names are an "a" and an "sch". Their editing content is worlds apart. And I can assure you that I have had email discussions with both of them, and they are most definitely not the same person. I don't know what to make of the "not aware of his surreoundings" business. SamHB 22:22, 20 November 2014 (EST)

Yes, some actions in the name of religion lead to disaster. Do read what Catholics did to any number of people (Jews, Muslims, people perceived to be witches or otherwise worshiping other deities) during the Black Death, you won't find any such occurrences in Georgian or Armenian Christendom, the Muslim world, India, China... people have done monstrously atrocious things in the name of pretty much every religion that's ever existed, looking at the most extreme examples generally isn't the best way to determine what the typical adherent believes and does. RedG 22:40, 21 November 2014 (EST)

God delusion

I finished reading the Prof. Dawkin's book. I have to admit that it has shaken my religious foundations... I sometimes wonder whether that has made me an Agnostic now. It has made me question a lot of my upbringing. I was a good catholic girl. I wonder what my mom will say --Maria O'Connor 12:44, 15 November 2014 (EST)

Richard Dawkins did not research or fact check his book very well and it has a number of errors in it as can be seen in this PDF version of The Irrational Atheist.

Second, how strong were your foundations before you read the book? How did you build your foundation?

In the physical life, if you are flabby, don't get enough sleep, etc., it provides an opportunity for disease to enter. The same is true in a person's spiritual life. How familiar are you with the classic defenses of the existence of God? How familiar are you with the various evidences for Christianity? See: Evidence for Christianity Did you ever repent of your sins and dedicate your life to following Jesus Christ? How often were you reading your Bible? How often were you praying? What are the most serious arguments against agnosticism? What are the most serious arguments against atheism. See: Rebuttals to atheist arguments.

Also, Jesus promises that those who repented of their sins and accept Jesus as their Savior and Lord will have communion with Him and will receive the Holy Spirit who will guide them. Did you ever know God or were you just engaging in religious rituals? Conservative 20:07, 16 November 2014 (EST)

Richard Dawkins has had his day, says Ravi Zacharias - Christianity Today, November 15, 2014 Conservative 04:04, 17 November 2014 (EST)

@Maria O'Connor: I'm really sorry that you have been abused so badly at Conservapedia. I want you to know that there are quite a number of decent and well-intentioned people here. You should ignore the abusers, and feel welcome to make contributions. We particularly need people who are knowledgeable in matters of science. If you can contribute in this area, dig in! SamHB 22:22, 20 November 2014 (EST)

Sam, you can contribute constructively to Conservapedia, or you can pick fights on the Main Page talk page. You cannot do both. VargasMilan 17:16, 21 November 2014 (EST)

Of course Sam can contribute constructively to Conservapedia whilst disagreeing with certain other editors. He's been doing it for years..... and more strength to his arm. There are not enough Sams these days. AlanE 19:36, 21 November 2014 (EST)

Popular articles at Conservapedia

The current view count is led by:

I suggest that we pare back the list on the left column to just these or at most to the top 25 articles. A present the list seems to be the favorite articles of a few administrators rather than a list representing the page views of our readers. This creates a mis-impression of our reader's interests. Thanks, Wschact 12:37, 27 November 2014 (EST)

Rounding out the top 25 would be:

It is very strange that some of our top 25 articles are missing from the list, and there are a number of articles on the list that are not in our top 25. Could someone with editing rights on main page left please fix this? Thanks, Wschact 12:49, 27 November 2014 (EST)

Interesting suggestion, but insight is obviously not a popularity contest. The list of most-visited pages is already automatically compiled and readily available. The most noteworthy popular pages should be a different list.--Andy Schlafly 13:58, 27 November 2014 (EST)

Some of the articles view counts such as Homosexuality and Parasites are the result of clickbots. There are no good reasons to have the enemies of Conservapedia dictate which articles are featured on the main page due to their view counts listed at the bottom of their pages. Furthermore, some of the articles have underestimates of their view counts due to the articles being temporarily deleted. For example, the evolution and Richard Dawkins articles are underestimated by about 500,000 page views if memory serves. Conservative 15:59, 28 November 2014 (EST)

You're right. Insight is not a popularity contest. But the header above the list says "Popular articles at Conservapedia". So that title succumbs to the "popularity contest" mentality. I would suggest that the title be changed to something like "Our Most Insightful Articles", or "Conservapedia's Best Articles" or "Flagship Articles" or something like that. There also ought to be a way for people to see, for better or worse, which articles are popular in terms of page views. As Andy says above, this is accessible under Special:PopularPages. Perhaps there ought to be a note telling people where to find it. Perhaps, after the "Most Insightful Articles" list, there should be a note along the lines of "You can see our most popular articles here. Then we can get the best of both worlds.

I would also suggest that any listing of our "most insightful articles" be pruned more carefully than the present list. One interloper that comes to mind is the Humor about atheism and evolution page. It is absurd, and gives all of us a bad name. It has pictures of a pony, a bear, and a "flying kitty". That may have been funny once, but it has long outlived its humor value. Furthermore, it is locked. A page that is locked can't possibly be considered "the best of the public"! Now some pages are admittedly vandalism magnets, but I think people are overreacting. SamHB 23:45, 28 November 2014 (EST)

SamHB, what are your thoughts related to the social science data contained in this article: Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity. Conservative 01:05, 29 November 2014 (EST)

Subject Matter Experts

I recently had to deal with a case of someone making an edit to a chemistry article (with a note that he has a chemistry degree, which of course we can't verify, but it very well may be true) that was reverted. It's true that his use of "subjective" and "objective" could give the wrong impression to non-experts, and I have cleaned it up. But it just needed to be cleaned up. (The cleanup that someone did afterwards was ridiculous.) This person was blocked, apparently just because of that edit. This should not have happened. Quite a number of good contributors, and potential good contributors—we'll never know—have been reverted and blocked because the people with blocking powers did not know how to evaluate the edits. Now Conservapedia often has people come here and make stupid/parody/vandalism edits. But it is monitored constantly by the sysops. It is not necessary for people to be trigger-happy. Except of course for clear vandalism. I would suggest a page, probably in the Conservapedia namespace rather than "mainspace", listing subject matter experts who can make expert analyses of these things. The list should be publicized to all sysops. Contributors can volunteer as experts in various subjects. And sysops could hold off on reverting questionable edits until an expert opinion is rendered. SamHB 23:45, 28 November 2014 (EST)

Best Troll Detection of the Public

You have no proof that the person who was blocked was merely a Subject Matter Expert and not a troll as well. This ought to be dealt with by the Best Troll Detection of the Public. Trolling techniques include emphasizing words (when the logic of argument doesn't require it) to trample over anticipated reasonable opposition to one's argument with raw emotion as well as arguing about things on the Main Page talk page that don't appear on the Main Page. VargasMilan 10:55, 29 November 2014 (EST)

I can assure you that, in my 7 years here, I have developed a good sense for the kinds of vandals, trolls, parodists, sycophants, "mall cops", and other unsavory personalities that we have. I also notice other fascinating types of people, like those who complain about posting to this page not on the topic of improving the main page content while making quite a few such postings themselves (though, in fairness, they also make on-topic postings, which I rarely do), people who did not realize that they had been given blocking powers until I told them, and people who use spectacularly recondite sentences while attacking other contributors. You see, I've been around for a while.

On the matter of making posts to this page that are not directly on the topic of improving the content of the main page, I'm sure you know that, for several years, this page has been used for a discussion of CP in general, and that everyone, including Andy and the other admins, is OK with that. A more natural place for such discussion might have been a general discussion page such as Conservapedia:Desk, but, as you can see, it has rarely been used of late. There is actually a (an?) historical reason, from a few years back, for this. I won't bore everyone with the details, but you can email me if you are interested.

Regarding my "subject matter experts" comment above, I wasn't asking for people who are good at detecting trolls. We already have plenty of people (including myself) who are good at this, and plenty of people (including you) who are good at dealing with them. We probably already have the "Best Troll Detection of the Public". I was requesting "subject matter experts", which we don't really have very many of, or don't know who they are on various topics, and requesting that subject matter expertise be used in deciding whether to revert an edit.

In the case of the molar mass edit, I was well aware that this person might be a troll—his use of the recondite (there's that word again) terms "subjective" and "objective" in a description of quantitative chemical analysis was a bit suspicious—these are quasi-philosophical terms that might be considered provocative on a wiki like this. But he also knew what molar mass means. His change was a vast improvement over the "fuel quantity" phrase. The article just needed to have the "subjective" and "objective" words taken out, which I have done. The person did know his subject matter. There was no urgency in reverting his edit.

A suggestion, Vargas: Let's both try to be nice. You do good work when you're not talking about "withering patrician disdain". We can both do better than fight with each other.

Maybe I should have spent the day shopping instead of this :-) SamHB 00:02, 1 December 2014 (EST)

I will not disregard Andy's express instructions at the top of the page! VargasMilan 16:12, 2 December 2014 (EST)

Fair enough. I will try to abide by that policy also. SamHB 17:11, 6 December 2014 (EST)

I would be interested to hear what Andy thinks of the "subject matter expert" approach. Wikipedia generally hates experts and does everything to drive them away as editors. Many of the early CP articles were written by home-schooled students. We then had Ed Poor spending years curating a large number of articles. A few other editors undertook work in particular areaa of expertise such as AlanE and BHathorn. I suspect that Andy has his own lists of experts in the back of his mind, if not written down. The problem is that everyone believes that they are an expert while management may not agree with that assessment. So, we have to see whether this proposal is compatible with the "best of the public" concept. Thanks for raising it. Wschact 07:16, 7 December 2014 (EST)

Thousands of Europeans Take to the Streets to Drive Out Islam

Tell me, is it now Conservapedia policy to support soccer hooligans just because they are anti Islam? Because there is no doubt these people are criminal scum who have made many more people than Muslims victims, including many 100s of deaths. After spending a week condemning rioting in the USA you support it in Europe. Can someone with some understanding please remove this article.--Tomqua 15:52, 1 December 2014 (EST)

Why is their "no doubt"? Please provide evidence of these 100s people killed by these individuals.

Second, reporting on an event is not necessarily in support of an event. For example, if the front page reports on ISIS attacking the Iraqi Kurds, that doesn't mean that Conservapedia is in favor of ISIS attacking the Kurds.

Third, my guess is that these soccer hooligans are not conservative, devout Christian Europeans, but non-religious, liberal Europeans. It is the secular left that is known for their unruly mobs. So if these mobs are made up of violent individuals as you claim, they are probably non-religious leftists. Conservative 16:41, 1 December 2014 (EST)

[2][3]. That is over 100 I can come up with without even thinking. Being involved in soccer hooliganism is a crime, in every nation on the planet so there is "no doubt".--Tomqua 16:46, 1 December 2014 (EST)

You said these specific hooligans caused hundreds of deaths. We both know that this was a claim that you did not support. You should not have made it.

Next, Vox Day predicts that the Muslims will be driven out of Europe. This may happens due to worsening economic conditions and culture clash, but I tend to agree with Eric Kaufmann who said:

"Ethnicity and race may succumb to liberal modernity, but committed religious populations cannot be assimilated to liberal secularism fast enough to compensate for their demographic advantage in a world of plunging fertility and growing migration. In the end, it is a battle between religious fertility on the one hand, and, on the other, religious decline through the 'assimilation' of religious offspring into secularism. This paper argues that the weakness of secularism and a widening secular-religious fertility gap points toward a religious victory...

The principle of tolerating and 'celebrating' diversity is a corollary of postmodern relativism which opens up space for antimodern religious 'diversities' to take root. If they are demographically-powerful religious movements like Islamism or evangelical Chrisianity, they will exploit this weakness to progressively erode the hegemony of western secular humanism....

In the Europe of tomorrow, immigration and religious fertility will increase the proportion of committed Muslims and Christians, many from the developing world. It may seem fanciful to imagine a moral conservatism uniting white and nonwhite Christians as well as Muslims against 'secular humanists'. However, a version of this process has occurred in the United States, and it can be argued that the cocktail of cultural relativism, secular exhaustion and demographic change is even more potent in Europe than America. The division between native ethnic groups and immigrant groups is currently more important in Europe, but as the Muslim and religious Christian minorities grow, they will become as important for conservative politicians as the religious Hispanics of America whom the Republicans have so assiduously courted. At some point, it will make more electoral sense for European conservatives to appeal to a trans-ethnic coalition of moral conservatives than it will to stress anti-immigrant themes and ethno-nationalism. The liberal-left will find it extremely difficult to craft a defense of secularism given its investment in cultural relativism, the exhaustion of its secular religions, and its laissez-faire attitude to demographic change.

Standing back from the fray, we can think of demography as the achilles heel of liberalism."[4]

Kaufmann also said:

"I argue that 97% of the world's population growth is taking place in the developing world, where 95% of people are religious.

On the other hand, the secular West and East Asia has very low fertility and a rapidly aging population... In the coming decades, the developed world's demand for workers to pay its pensions and work in its service sector will soar alongside the booming supply of young people in the third world. Ergo, we can expect significant immigration to the secular West which will import religious revival on the back of ethnic change. In addition, those with religious beliefs tend to have higher birth rates than the secular population, with fundamentalists having far larger families. The epicentre of these trends will be in immigration gateway cities like New York (a third white), Amsterdam (half Dutch), Los Angeles (28% white), and London, 45% white British."[5] Conservative 17:01, 1 December 2014 (EST)

Agreed, as for Mr Day however, is he the same Vox Day that makes A rhetorical case for segregation?"[6]--Tomqua 17:06, 1 December 2014 (EST)

I am not a segregationalist. Second, Europe has a history of intolerance and disharmony and economic instability is just fuel for the fire. Here are some examples: The Spaniards drove out Muslims in their country in the 1400s and also drove out the Jews. Many people fled Europe due to religious discrimination in the past. There is currently white, non-religious population flight out of London in an increasingly ethnic religious population in London. Atheism/agnosticism are secular religions and the economic future of Europe does not look bright. History may repeat itself. Conservative 17:23, 1 December 2014 (EST)

You're right, and the security situation is not bright also. The EU and Russia seem to be on a collision course. The seeds of a European cold war have already been sown.--Tomqua 17:28, 1 December 2014 (EST)

The economic future of Europe looks gloomy and Russia will probably stay about the same as a global power for the foreseeable future.[7] The USA has a lot of problems and 17 trillion and debt, but it has a history of dynamism and bouncing back. The fast growth of Hispanic evangelicals in the USA is a positive thing given the history behind the Protestant work ethic and economic dynamism.[8] [9] In short, I am pessimistic about the economic future of Europe for the foreseeable future and the jury is still out on the future of the USA, but I am hopeful. If Europe is rechristianized due to religious immigration, it could bounce back in the long term. Secular Europe is not sustainable in terms of its demography and economics. Conservative 18:02, 1 December 2014 (EST)

I think I am going to bow out of future main page talk discussions due to demands on my time and my current priorities. Conservative 18:25, 1 December 2014 (EST)

Growing Conservapedia's conservative readership and editor base

Now that Conservapedia's Twitter link on the main page, two things:

1. We could organize our wiki editors to create/expand conservative articles in order to feature them on the Twitter feed.

2. Twitter is popular among conservatives. This book shows people how to attract 200 Twitter fans every single day: http://www.amazon.com/Twitter-Followers-Step---Step-guaranteed-ebook/dp/B00KEX694O/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1417623658&sr=8-3&keywords=twitter+marketing The book is only $1.00 and it should be easy to implement. If it was implemented, the Twitter account would go from 10,000 Twitter fans/followers to 83,000 fans/followers in one year.Conservative 11:30, 3 December 2014 (EST)

Make the username policy more clear

Copied on over from Help talk:How To Create a Conservapedia Account

I think it should be made clear that the username must include your real name, as opposed to recommending your real name; perhaps there could be a help page on Conservapedia's username policy. A few users have been blocked for violating an otherwise nonexistent policy (and also advised to create an account with a real name even though their account creation is disabled for two years). A clear username policy would probably be beneficial for Conservapedia. -- DanielJackson 10:46, 6 December 2014 (EST)

Conservatives "Message Area"

I seem to be unable to edit it, despite wanting to discuss something with him. As such I put out a general request for a way to contact him or for him to unlock his message area. Hopefully I'm not missing something really obvious! Nhodgson 20:18, 6 December 2014 (EST)

You would do well to just ignore him. There's really nothing that you could discuss with him. He is notoriously secretive, seeming to believe that other people go along with his games, and he often locks his own talk page, and the talk pages of his "pet" articles. He seems to expect other people to go along with his fantasy that he might be multiple people. Just ignore him. SamHB 21:37, 6 December 2014 (EST)

If we could talk to him, we might tell him that his reversion of this on purely political grounds was ludicrous and shows a serious failure to observe what is going on. That edit was more than just a minor thing about whether Lincoln was a "classical liberal" or a "post New Deal progressive"—it was blatant and outrageous vandalism, about which most admins are very vigilant. The user ("TheonlySIL", whatever that means) should be blocked permanently. Perhaps some other admin will notice. SamHB 21:48, 6 December 2014 (EST)