Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia:Community Portal"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(RfC: I’m voting no to this)
Line 1,349: Line 1,349:
I don't think its a bad idea, but is Rob calling for this or is Andy calling for it?  It is said that this would clean up Andy's talk page, but I don't see Andy saying that.  Do we have enough regular editors to necessitate an Arbitration committee?  As noted above by another user, it can get messy over at Wikipedia.  What is the problem being solved with this, is there a rash of users being banned who are legitimate users? (not trolls or deviants of some kind) [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 22:53, 2 February 2021 (EST)
I don't think its a bad idea, but is Rob calling for this or is Andy calling for it?  It is said that this would clean up Andy's talk page, but I don't see Andy saying that.  Do we have enough regular editors to necessitate an Arbitration committee?  As noted above by another user, it can get messy over at Wikipedia.  What is the problem being solved with this, is there a rash of users being banned who are legitimate users? (not trolls or deviants of some kind) [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 22:53, 2 February 2021 (EST)
*What the heck is this, an “HCM” on Conservapedia? I vote <b>NO!</b> to this, simply because one of the founding principles of our wiki is that it is to be a meritocracy, not a mobocracy like Wikipedia or the Rat-Tard nest. With all due respect, RobS was just recently banned from the Rat-Tard nest, and appears to miss it enough to want to institute a page like their “chicken coop” here. This is not the first of his Ratdiculous suggestions; I recall he once wanted to have a “vandal bin” like they have. The Ratdiculous way of doing things has failed over there, causing the Rats to adopt policies more like Wikipedia’s and even our’s, so why in the world would we want to bring that here? [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] ([[User talk:DMorris|talk]]) 11:55, 3 February 2021 (EST)

Revision as of 16:55, February 3, 2021

(this page redirects from CP:COMPORT)
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.


Cool article

I found a cool article about atheism in the National Post. You might not like it at first, but read past the first couple of paragraphs.--Abcqwe (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2017 (EDT)


Error in the Move log. I dont have delete powers so I cant fix it. RobSTrump now is fighting back against the coup plotters 17:17, 12 May 2017 (EDT)

Overly long articles

From what I understand, the typical Conservapedia article should be accessible to a secondary school student or at least a freshman in university. Some articles, such as Alger Hiss, Elvis Presley, and Barack Hussein Obama, are some of the longest articles on this site. They rival the overly verbose entries on Wikipedia, in my opinion. Should these and other overly long articles be trimmed and extraneous content possibly be moved to more subpages? Just a thought. --Anglican (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2017 (EDT)

I'm personally against it. I'm glad that these articles are detailed. For me, it's fine just as long as they are well-organized. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
These articles aren't exactly accessible to the target audience, and overly complex I think. Basic biographies should really be the emphasis most of the articles on here are shorter and more digestible than WP and aren't weighed down with non-essential information. I personally like articles that resemble the old school paper encyclopedias of my youth than WP's excessively long articles. Encyclopedia entries are meant to be starting points for research. --Anglican (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
If you really think these articles should be split up, I recommend asking the editors most occupied with them. The Alger Hiss article is predominantly edited by User:FOIA. Maybe ask RobS or Andy regarding Obama. The editors most familiar with the articles will probably give you the best answer. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
Some articles can be split up, if done carefully with a summary of the forked article remaining in the main article. It is best if the expert on the topic do the splitting up because they are best at summarizing what is most important. Thanks, JDano (talk) 08:12, 30 May 2017 (EDT)
In the print encyclopedias I recall, there was a Micropedia and a Macropedia, short and long articles. An article about George Ade, Hoosier playwright and fable writer, would only need to be a brief paragraph. An article called "Rocks and Minerals," meanwhile, would detail every type, the various classifications, chemical compositions, and means of formation, though both would be really an outline to the sum of human knowledge on the subject. In the area of biographies, length was variant - short biographies for Jeppe Aekjaer and Abbas I, a longer biography for Alvar Aalto, and a massive Macropedia biography for Isaac Newton or William Shakespeare. As we specialize in politics, it would make sense to have such articles for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump.--Nathan (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2017 (EDT)
That was the later Encyclopedia Britanica. The earlier EBs when I was a child were like the World Book encyclopedia with all of the articles (long and short) in an alphabetical list. My parents bought both. As a child, I would pick up a volume and start reading articles in alphabetical order sometimes. Unfortunately, Wikipedia killed off the market for printed encyclopedias (and for professionally written encyclopedias.) There is no viable market for printed encyclopedias today. People would hand down their printed encyclopedias and dictionaries from generation to generation, because they did not think that the world was changing quickly. However, none of the country names and maps of Africa that I learned as of 1960 were around by 1970. After 9/11 all of the stuff that was of little consequence became of vital importance to the American public. People had to know about Osama bin Laden, but less so about Isaac Newton or William Shakespeare. So, the pace of change killed off the printed encyclopedia. JDano (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2017 (EDT)

Religion in America

After reading a number of CP articles, I realize that we accidentally present an inaccurate or outdated view of religion in America. Religion in America has changed since we were growing up. 1) The traditional churches have declined in attendance. To attract new members some churches have offered new ministries: weight loss, financial counseling, youth, etc. 2) Some churches are offering foreign language services or sublet to a separate foreign language congregation (such as Korean, Filipino, etc.) 3) More people are getting their sermons via television, radio or the internet. 4) Military chaplains and chapels are important for worship by the military and their families. 5) Wealthy people have private chapels on their weekend estates for privacy and security. 6) College based ministries must compete for student time and attention. 7) Historic downtown congregations have had to respond to migration to the suburbs, and small congregations face competition from mega-church congregations. Religion continues to be an important social force in America -- it is not as much of a melting pot as it was decades ago. Does anyone want to work on an article or additions to related articles? Perhaps AlanE or AugustO can tell us if similar changes are happening in other countries. JDano (talk) 08:12, 30 May 2017 (EDT)

My feedback

Michael Brown wrote:

"Several decades ago, church statistician and demographer David Barrett began to report the surprising news that around the world, the most rapidly growing faith was Spirit-empowered Christianity, marked by clear gospel preaching, belief in the literal truth of the Scriptures, and the reality of God’s presence. (The data were compiled in the prestigious “World Christian Encyclopedia,” published by Oxford University Press.)...

This is confirmed in the new Pew Forum report, which showed that evangelical Protestant churches in America grew by 2 million from 2007 to 2014 whereas the so-called mainline (liberal) Protestant churches declined by 5 million, meaning that evangelical Protestants now make up the largest religious group in the nation. (Although this is not part of the Pew Forum survey, my surmise is that the evangelical churches that are most Bible-based and make the most serious, grace-empowered demands on their congregants are, generally speaking, the ones that are growing rather than declining.[1]

I hope the helps. Conservative (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2017 (EDT)

Is this article appropriate to cite?

I and JDano have been in a major dispute on the Donald Trump achievements article over what is probably a silly and absurd issue: whether this article is appropriate to cite. JDano believes that we should not cite it because adding it to this article would somehow increase the chances of people who practice FGM of being ruled not guilty and having the practice legalized -- something which I frankly think is completely absurd and ridiculous. But JDano will not give up in his attempts to delete the source, and I am fully convinced that it is appropriate, so I an bringing it here. Is this article appropriate or inappropriate to cite? Thanks. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2017 (EDT)

There are two Brettbart articles. The first one was a straight news story about three people being arrested for performing female genital mutilation on two Minnesota girls in a clinic outside of Detroit. The second article, the one at issue, is an ax-griding piece that has the following points:
  • Trump Has a New Policy - there is nothing to show that the policy changed in April from the "old" Trump policy or the policy under the Obama administration.
  • There is "a national campaign" to eradicate FGM. This was an action brought by the US Attorney in Michigan, not some newly-announced task force.
  • That one media critic is complaining that there is not enough MSM coverage of this "new national campaign" - perhaps because it does not exist.
  • That the critic says that is due to "political correctness" and "fear of offending Muslims" - but it could be due to the fact that the government is not bringing religion into this and does not want to set up the defense counsel with a "religious defense" to the criminal charges. This is speculation.
  • That a few MSM media stories have followed the government' lead in the bringing religion into this.
  • The story then conclude with an attack on the MSM as "conspicuously silent on this case and their silence is deafening" and "aiding and abetting violence against women out of a politically correct fueled fear of offending Muslims." On the whole, this is an advocacy piece trying to bootstrap a failure of the MSM to play up the religion angle so as to explain why they did not report on the dramatic launch of a "new national campaign" when there apparently is no such campaign.
I think the article is very misleading, and plays into the hands of those who would assert that this prosecution is anti-Muslim motivated. We don't need to cite it. We have now fixed the Donald Trump achievements article to just focus on the individual prosecution. I have been trying to take any mention of religion out of the article bullet as well, because neither the statute nor the indictment mentions religion. Thanks, JDano (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
I think it is an appropriate article to cite. Conservative (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
For the record, I linked the article that is in dispute, and both Andy and Conservative have seen the article. They know which article we are referring to, and they think it's fine. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
Nobody's asserting that the prosecution is motivated by "Islamophobia," and the article certainly does not say that. It is noting that this practice is one that is promoted by the leaders of sects of Islam. It is also noting MSM bias in covering the story. The MSM cannot admit that certain sects of Islam promote this practice. We know the religon and even the sect (the Dawoodi Bohra sect) of those who committed the crimes. They are crimes nonetheless. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
The article does not advance the bullet in the article. It is focusing on Islam, but we all agree that so far, this case has nothing to do with Islam. Let's wait until the Defense raises it. The "Trump Administration achievement" has nothing to do with Islam, just as the bullets in Obamagate timeline have nothing to do with "Russian conspiracy." JDano (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
I am involved with several projects right now so I unfortunately don't have time to investigate this issue further and mediate this issue. However, I do have a message for 1990sguy and JDano: Please consider the possibility of a compromise position. Perhaps, there is some middle ground position that you two could settle on. Again, my regrets for not being able to investigate this issue further. Conservative (talk) 03:05, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
@Conservative: JDano got about 80% of what he wanted: we originally cited only the Breitbart source, but now other sources are cited as well. I removed mentions of "Islamic" from the Donald Trump achievements article (even though those prosecuted clearly are Muslim and that FGM is mainly Islamic). I changed other wording after JDano criticized it. I have been extremely patient, and I have been very considerate. It is time for JDano to accept a middle ground position, which I think is how it is now, which actually would be 80% JDano's version. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:18, 15 June 2017 (EDT)

The matter was easier to research than I expected.

Obama commissioned a study on FGM in 2014 and a fairly mainstream press outlet, The Hill, wondered if he was serious about the the issue.[2] A politician saying he is commissioning a study is often like a husband telling a wife "we'll so" or a sales prospect saying "I'll think about". In short, it is often a ploy to do nothing. Obama does not have a good record on FGM or equal pay for equal work in terms of White House employees.[3]

Trump quickly took action on this issue which shows at least some commitment. So it is a new policy rather than Obama's do nothing FGM policy for 8 years which obtained zero convictions.

So I vote for 1990sguys' decision and oppose JDano. Conservative (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2017 (EDT)


I did not want to do this, and I waited 24 hours and 1-2 dozen reversions, but I was forced to block JDano for three days for poor editing in Donald Trump achievements.

He added irrelevant information with a liberal POV, he blindly reverted edits that I made that had nothing to do with our disputes that he had no apparent problem with, and in his latest edit, he duplicated information to create a new "education" section without deleting the duplicate information that was listed in the "government size" section.

We had a serious dispute over whether to cite a single Breitbart article, and he continued edit warring even though I asked him to keep the status quo until we resolved the dispute. He was the only editor to oppose citing the article, and I still made many changes to satisfy him.

JDano's behavior has been very irritating, and he has been almost impossible to work with. Please judge the edits on Donald Trump achievements for yourselves (the "education" section he added are just copied-and-pasted info from other portions of the article). I gave him a three-day block for him to cool off. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:54, 15 June 2017 (EDT)

JDano's objections to Richard Dawkins' health have been adequately answered at Talk:Richard Dawkins' health. Yet, I do not expect him to acknowledge this matter.
On top of this, Dawkins is clearly acting hypocritical when it comes to his views on experts/consensus/science when it comes to the application of medical science/medical advice to his health. His doctors are clearly giving him sound advice and he is clearly acting foolishly and ignoring their advice. And the proof is in the pudding. Namely, Dawkins ignored and continues to ignore their sound medical advice and continues to go back to the "controversy trough" again and again even after his stroke.
I thought JDano had some reasonable objections to the Obama's religion article, but I thought his picture choice of Obama standing in front of a glorious looking cross like he was some kind of devout Christian preacher was over the top. Do I like the present Obama's religion article? I am not a fan of it. That is why I provided the counterexamples to Obama being a Muslim.
Many conservatives are reactive and overly defensive. When liberals invariably and reflexively yell racist/misogynist, etc. regardless of the merit of their charges, conservatives often cower like kicked puppies. I like the fact that Sean Hannity took on a liberal via threat of a slander suit in order to stop her nonsense. I wish more conservatives were like Hannity.
Sun Tzu said a strong defense makes one invincible, but an attack brings victory. At some point, Hitler/other unsavory characters and harmful ideologies have to be challenged. The one thing I like about Trump is that he is willing to go on the attack. For years, conservatives largely ignored liberal indoctrination in public schools. What did Trump do? He picked Betty Devos as his Secretary of Education to promote school choice. Trump pushed for a wall on the Mexican border. Trump has "NY attitude" like assertiveness and boldness. He is the George Patton of American politics. That is why people voted for him. Does Trump go too far sometimes? Yes, he does. Attacking Carly Fiorina's looks in terms of her face was crass and foolish for example.
Maybe JDano is being overly reactive. At the same time, I do believe in accuracy in both content and sources. I wish I had time to investigate this matter and mediate it, but I don't. I will say that as long as the Breitbart article has no inaccuracy in it, I have no problems with it. Conservative (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
Conservative, JDano's dispute with me over the Breitbart reference was not the only problem.
JDano also wanted to add other information that I did not think was appropriate. Some of the information was irrelevant (it should have been added in other articles) or had a liberal POV, some of the information was unsourced (everything should be sourced so we can verify it as true). I explained my edits, but he reverted them.
Although I made several edits in the meantime that were completely unrelated to what we were disputing, JDano reverted those edits as well.
When trying to add changes, JDano also said he created a new section on Trump's achievements on education. This seems good, but he just copied and pasted information that already existed in the article, and he did not delete the duplicates. I seemed like a ploy for him to continue reverting.
It's also not just the past 24 hours. I have had disputes with him in the past where he repeated the same behaviors, constantly reverting without discussing, adding irrevevant content with a liberal pov, and removing unrelated changes I had done in the meantime.
Overall, his behavior was too disruptive and was doing CP more harm than good. I had to temporarily block him. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2017 (EDT)

1990sguy, I revised my commentary/decision on this issue. I took your side. See my post above.Conservative (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2017 (EDT)

Still having a hard time wrapping my head around the dispute here. Is it (a) Brietbart is not credible if it's not backed up by MSM reporting, or (b) the Brietbart article is irrelevent to the text in mainspace? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 18:39, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
The funniest thing about this is that 1990sguy has actually removed his own factually incorrect editorialising about Islam and FGM from the Conservapedia text, but still insists on retaining a reference which engages in exactly the same kind of editorialising, only turned all the way up to 11 and with a dirty great fireworks and laser show to boot.
JDano has probably done himself an injury with all the facepalming he must've been doing last night. He deserves a medal, not a 3 day block. JohnZ (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2017 (EDT)

Today was a separate problem from yesterday. I wanted to add content about Title IX and the appointment of Adam Kissel to head up these Dept. of Education reforms. I realized that although Education policy is a very important area of Trump policy changes, and is of high interest to Conservapedia readers, there was no section for it on the page. So, I started to move education bullets from other sections and to add the Kissel bullet, but every time I would hit "save", 1990sguy would create an "edit conflict" Rather than loose the text, I saved it so that I could go back and fix the conflicts, but 1990sguy blocked me before I could complete the work as intended. The plan was to move the bullets not duplicate them. I think we need more group effort and less "individual ownership" of pages. Also, less name-calling. I am a life-long conservative, and Lindsay Graham is a life-long conservative, who is a good-guy. If he offers concise, good-natured advice to President Trump to stop tweeting, it is very newsworthy and worth including in a discussion of the Trump Twitter account. I am here to build a well-researched reliable encyclopedia, not to see how much I can build a false narrative to advance my own political agenda. I expect everyone else to be here for the same reason. So: 1) Let's give each other some space - make sure the first editor is done before you start to rewrite his contribution. 2) Look at multiple sources - if only one source has the story and everyone else has the opposite, consider that the outlier may have the facts wrong or has miscommunicate to you. 3) If you don't understand what you are trying to write, ask for help. If your understanding is not clear, what you write will only confuse other Conservapedia readers. JDano (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2017 (EDT)

Just the facts, ma'am

Ok, so we have established the dispute is over inclusion of a Brietbart citation. Now, can you answer my inquiry over why Brietbart is inappropriate for the language in text, without going into extraneous discussion on unrelated matters. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 22:31, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
Correct. Setting aside the interwoven "edit conflict" confusion of today, we are back to the Brietbart article with a headline "Establishment Media Hides Trump’s New Policy to Stop ‘Genital Mutilation’ of American Girls". I described my concerns here. The revised bullet has nothing to do with Islam or any "Trump's New Policy to Stop FGM", rather it discusses just the Michigan prosecution, which is notable because it is the first prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §118. So, the Breitbart article is not relevant to the bullet in question. JDano (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
Ok. So it's not really a 'new policy', it is the first time prosecutions have been brought under a 20 year old federal law. The Trump White House and sympathetic media charge the mainstream media is covering this fact up, which is both pro-woman, pro-child, and even designed to protect Muslims. What's wrong with that? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:39, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
Perhaps I am missing a source. The White House (Sean Spicer) is not commenting. The main stream media is not covering up "a new policy" because the policy and law have been the same for years. How can Brietbart beat up on the mainstream media if there has been no announcement of a "new policy?" What is new was the FBI was able to prove that two girls were transported across state lines for FGM, so they arrested the doctors and got medical help for the girls. Prior actions have been focusing on international "FGM tourism" at border crossings. State Dept. Fact Sheet Intrastate FGM cases are in the hands of local and state police. JDano (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
So there are two issues, correct me if I'm wrong. One, enforcement of a law to protect young girls, which is an achievement; secondly, the debate over identifying victims and perpetrators of these crimes as Muslims. Is this a fair synopsis? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:12, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
No. The second issue is whether there was a "new" policy or a policy change. There is a long tradition in the media of not identifying young victims of sexual crimes. Neither the government nor almost all of the media have said anything about the girls (names, hometown, nor religious sect.) The Breitbart article is misinterpreting the MSM's absence of detail as "fear of offending Muslims." The problem that I had with the original bullet was the claim that during the Obama Administration and the Trump Administration (Jan. 20 to mid-April) there was a policy of non-enforcement of 18 U.S.C. § 118. I can't find any evidence of that. It is easier to catch international "FGM tourism" at the border than to catch mothers driving daughters across state-lines for a domestic FGM trip. So, the achievement was the first domestic criminal prosecution. (Please watch this brief interview if you think it is a "Muslim issue": https://youtu.be/sb_YPFrWty0 .)JDano (talk) 05:22, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
Ok, fair enough. So your argument is that while the Trump Justice Department's first enforcement of federal anti-FGM is a recognizable achievement, the Brietbart article is irrelevent to that accomplishment. Should any reference be made to the fact that both perpatrators and victims were Muslim in this achievement? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 10:14, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
As an experienced encyclopedia editor on several wikis, I value your input on this. To me, the fact that no mention was made in the charging documents and that I don't want to give defense counsel any ammo leads me to say "no". Wikipedia would call that "synthesis". JDano (talk) 10:19, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
Would it be a valid citation to outline the facts of the case, without mentioning 'Muslim' or 'Islam' in the text? Secondly, in an article entitled 'Donald Trump achievements', why wouldn't the Trump administration aggressively enforcing federal law to protect little Muslim girls be an achievement? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 10:47, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
Answer #1: The first Brietbart article would be better than the second one that 1990sguy wants in the footnote. There are many other clearer sources including the DOJ press release, and 1990sguy and I have reached agreement on the text of the bullet and all references except the second Brietbart article, which I feel is nonsense. Answer #2: The US attorney would argue that religion was not relevant to the arrest and prosecution. FGM is not limited to one religious group, and the health-related statute focuses upon a specific action rather than upon the motives of the accused. Hypotheically, if DOJ was trying to prosecute a religious group for their beliefs, that move would be subject to the same court challenges as now apply to the "travel ban." 1990sguy chose to have this debate on my talk page rather than on this page. JDano (talk) 11:28, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
Well, my simple point is, the Trump administration protecting Muslims is a worthy accomplishment, which is the point the first Brietbart article - and no other source - makes. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:48, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

policy vs law

JDano states, "the policy and law have been the same for years". I bring this up here because understanding the difference can be valuable to us on multiple levels. What is the difference between policy and law?. I disagree with JDano's assertion: while the law outlaws FMG, the policy of three past administrations has been not to enforce the law. Similiarly, while sanctuary cities are illegal, and Dream Act is not law, the policy of past administrations has been to not enforce immigration law and treat the Dream Act as if it were law. Or the ABM missile Treaty with Russia, while the ABM treaty is binding law, the policy of the Bush & Obama administrations have been to ignore it and allow international tensions to escalate. Or Operation Fast and Furious. While the law required enforcement of illegal weapons sales, the policy allowed the government itself to facilitate illegal weapons sales. These issues will be revisted soon in the Supreme Court were the law entrusts national security to the president, the courts have denied the president's policy of enforcing the law in regard to the travel ban. So we can use all these illustrations to understand the difference. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 10:47, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

You can judge each President's administration by the totality of their actions. The bill was signed into law by President Clinton on Sept. 30, 1996. President Obama signed an amendment to the law to outlaw "FGM tourism" abroad in 2013. One of the things that custom and border patrol staff look out for is young girls traveling abroad for FGM. There is also continuous US support of anti-FGM actions via the United Nations. I realize that law and policy can differ. For example, President Lincoln made a deal with the Mormons to not prosecute bigamy laws in exchange for their not siding with the Confederacy in the Civil War. Everything I have found indicates that the DOJ policies inherited from the Obama Administration were to enforce 18 U.S.C. § 116. If we can find something credible to the contrary, it would be quite a scoop for Conservapedia. JDano (talk) 11:02, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
FMG tourism would be virtually impossible to enforce without a confession of intent from the adult escort, or perhaps on return if the facts can be documented. Are there any known cases of prosecution? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:22, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
I can look for sources, but it would be administrative action and not a criminal case in an Article III court. Only the travel and the adult escort would be targeted, since the person performing the procedure would be in the other country. JDano (talk) 12:46, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

JDano, Lindsey Graham is one of the most liberal Republicans.[4] He belongs to the "surrender Republicans" rather than someone like Newt Gingrich who forced Bill Clinton to have a balanced budget.
The GOP base is sick of surrender GOP members and that is why Trump far surpassed Graham in the 2016 GOP presidential primary. We're tired of GOP members who are terrified to have their uniforms soiled by the press/liberals calling them names. We want Donald "blood and guts" Trump.
Please don't bother me on a talk page page again if you want to fly the white flag rather than take the opposition to task for hypocritical/inconsistent behavior. You are not willing to concede reasonable points and impose time wasting opposition to others.
You were so busy to appease liberals with that ridiculous picture of Obama that you couldn't see the obvious truth: Obama is not a Christian. The Apostle Paul's views never "evolved" on homosexuality. Obama may not be a Muslim, but he is certainly not a Christian. Conservative (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
As far as clarification, I am not saying Trump or any other politician should go out of his way to create unnecessary conflict, but they shouldn't be afraid of conflict either. Conservative (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
You have totally lost me. What does Lindsey Graham have to do with female genital mutilation, a specific Brietbart citation, and the blocking of a constructive editor? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:42, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
Man if you lost nobs then that's like, some next-level obfuscation. Kudos, Conservative. Vive Liberté! 00:03, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
I'm really struggling to see what Sun Tzu, Lindsey Graham, and the Apostle Paul have to do with settling a dispute between users on female genital mutilation. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:14, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
Conservative was referring to this edit and previous edits done by JDano. He made other problematic edits before I blocked him. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

History of FGM in the United States

The history of FGM is more complex than I originally thought. My first inclination to not get involved in this matter unless I gave it the due diligence it may require turned out to be correct.

I hope these resources help resolve matters. I do think that JDano and 1990sguy should be able to work this matter out. Conservative (talk) 07:27, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

Dear Conservative, thank you for sharing your research. The first paper is a bit out-of-date. Since then, Congress amended the law to address FGM tourism, and more states have enacted laws. I have hesitated to greatly expand the FGM article because I want to keep it family-friendly. I believe that 1990sguy and I reached agreement on the FGM bullet, except for whether to include the Brietbart article. JDano (talk) 09:40, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
If you are a member of an Islamic sect that practices FGM, you will be offended by the US, the UN, and the EU outlawing the practice. So, you will not be surprised by news coverage of an arrest whether or not the mainstream media discusses the religion of the family or the doctor. If you are a non-Muslim whose family practiced FGM, you may feel uncomfortable every time FGM is in the news, but that does not dictate how we cover the subject. If you are a criminal defense lawyer, your only real option is to argue the statute is unconstitutional under the First Amendment and that this is more a question of free exercise of religion than of protecting the health of the girls. (You could also argue under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment because cutting girls is illegal when cutting boys is not.) Quite a difficult area to navigate. JDano (talk) 10:16, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
Without getting too far off course, and changing this to a sociological phenomenon, the practice among Muslims (and others) is mostly motivated by tribal custom, i.e. preparing a female for barter or trade in a marriage contract who will not dishonor the the family or tribe she originated from, thus violating the marriage contract that binds certain tribal alliances together. An unfaithful wife can cause wars, such as Helen of Troy, or serious internal breaches like Tristan and Isolde. At root of FGM is treating women as property. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:37, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

My response to JDano's other edits that I reverted

It seems we have solved the Breitbart source (finally! :) ). JDano made several other edits that I reverted because I thought they were not constructive. First, however, let me say thank you for not trying to re-add them after I reverted (and blocked) you. I don't think I did a good job of explaining my position, which I strongly hold.

One of these edits was adding the paragraph of Lindsey Graham. I am not opposed to having opposing viewpoints, but what makes Graham's single viewpoint so notable compared to other people? He is one of 100 Senators, 1 of 535 Congressmen, and 1 of over 7 billion people in the world. What makes his view so notable? If you want to add an opposing view of Trump's Twitter activity, please find a good source (preferably NOT from the MSM, or at least a fair MSM source) that speaks generally of opposition from conservatives and other people, rather than the opinion of a single RINO Senator. Anyone can say anything about everything. Let's not cherry pick quotes, please.

You also added a sentence saying that "The Trump Administration continues to offer spousal benefits to federal workers in same-sex marriages." However, there's no source. The intro paragraph of the article specifically tells you to add sources. Once again, anyone can say anything about everything. We need to be certain this fact you added is accurate. I am not opposed to adding that sentence, but there MUST be a source.

In your edit, you removed an unrelated edit I made in the meantime. You had no dispute with the edit, but you still reverted it. It was the single Breitbart reference I added (not the same Breitbart article -- a different article on a different topic). JDano, your edit was sloppy, and you need to avoid doing this in the future.

I did not like your wording of the Qatar failure because funding nations is more complicated that you made it seem. If the U.S. did not fund Qatar, a nation that does fund terrorists, Qatar might be driven to align itself with Iran. That would not be good. I simplified the wording.

Your typo in the Trump official portrait at the top did not help at all.

Thank you for improving the "education" section above. It was a lot better than you first made it in the edit I linked above. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:25, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

Also, JDano's edit summary in that edit was very misleading because it stated "new section" when in fact he did more than create a new section (namely revert all my edits). Edit summaries must not be misleading. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
And by the way, I know that I do not own the article. I was reverting what I believed (justifiably) to be simply bad edits (bad for various reasons which I explained above). I support having other people add constructive edits to the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:32, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
Since going with Windows 10, my computer crashes frequently, particularly upon times of inactivity. So, I have to save less than the complete set of changes. When you save edits while I am editing, when I save, I get a "edit conflict dialog box" which does not allow me to see your edit summaries, but requires me to locate my edit within the entire source code of the page. Because the page is so long, I copy and paste the entire contents of my source window over the entire article source and hope to work out any lost content by looking at the page history. I was getting three or four edit conflict dialog boxes per save yesterday. So, you need to edit a different section of the page, or give the other editor a chance to finish up before you edit the same section. I assume that a editor will go back and check for spelling or other mistakes and do not edit there for at least 5 min after the initial save. Thanks, JDano (talk) 11:40, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
Edit conflict ;)
JDano, if you want, I can try to help you diagnose the crashing problem. That does sound problematic! If you are letting the PC idle, it could even just be autostandby. Windows Vista and 7 had that kind of issue where it would crash when starting to standby or recovering from it. I dont know if the 8/8.1/10 core has the same issue or not. If you are constantly editing, them a bit more troubleshooting will be needed.
If you edit one section at a time and then save rather than moving around, it may cause more conflicts, but would also make it easier to recover from one. If both of you edit one paragraph or small section, it would be less destructive to reload the page and paste in that edited section only. --David B (TALK) 12:00, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
JDano, you may make the edits in the way you do for a reason, but it is very problematic because only you know why you edit the way you do. For the rest of us, for all we are able to see, you are being sloppy. I understand now, but please change your editing behaviors in the future. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
Isn't this just a question of "assume good faith"? If a known editor is starting to do something, wait 5 to 10 minutes before jumping in, rather than creating a lot of edit conflicts. I had the educational source windows open and was going to put the section as it is now, but never got a chance. I still do not understand how one of my cut-and-pastes accidentally butchered to top of the article, but I managed to fix it quickly. On Wikipedia, the edit conflict window is based on just the section open to editing, why does the edit conflict window expand the "conflict zone" to the entire article? JDano (talk) 12:32, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
I'm still not seeing where Lindsey Graham fits in this discussion on female genital mutilation. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:14, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
I'm talking about another problematic edit JDano made in this section. I'm not talking about FGM here. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
As a part-time JAG officer in the Air Force reserves, Lindsay Graham gets into more legal issues than you can imagine. JDano (talk) 12:37, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
Lindsey Graham was in on the Operation Zero Footprint coverup, which means he's likely in on the Russian hacking scam, as well. How does Lindsey Graham relate to any Donald Trump achievement? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:48, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
IOW, Lindsey Graham is complicit in Obama war crimes. The only way he can rehabilitate himself is by voting right in the Senate. Other than that, nobody should care or pay attention to what he thinks about Donald Trump or Donald Trump's accomplishments. We got plenty of dirt on Lindsey Graham, even going back to his inept mishandling of Bill Clinton's impeachment case. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:08, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

Can someone edit this template so the useful links are readable?

Useful links


Hello, Community Portal, and welcome to Conservapedia!

We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.

At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page. Any questions--ask!

Thanks for reading, Community Portal!

Can someone edit this template so the useful links are readable?

The blue links on a dark red background is hard to read.

Also, some people have started to edit Conservapedia and then quickly gave up because they didn't know how to edit a wiki. I noted about 3 people who did this. There are probably many more who quit but didn't say anything. I added a link entitled "How to edit a wiki". But I believe there are various versions of the welcome template so my link is not on all welcome template versions. For example, the welcome template that JPatt uses didn't incorporate my "How to edit a wiki" link.

Does the newest version of the Wikimedia software allow for WYSIWYG editing? In other words "What you see is what you get".

The newest version of the Wikimedia software does not have the counter at the bottom of the pages. I understand why Andy Schlafly likes the counters at the bottom. I like the counters too. I guess there might be an extension to add the counters to the newest version of Wikimedia. But after all is said and done, having WYSIWYG editing could greatly increase the participation rate at this wiki and lower the rate of people falling out because they don't know how to edit a wiki. Conservative (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2017 (EDT)

Here is the welcome to Wikipedia and it is much better and legible

Some cookies to welcome you! Face-smile.svg
Welcome to Wikipedia, Conservative! I am This lousy T-shirt and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions check out Wikipedia:Questions, or feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. Again, welcome!

I think Conservapedia needs a better greeting. Conservative (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2017 (EDT)

Donald Trump's tweets

We have had a lot of discussion about how to cover Donald Trump's twitter account on the main space pages. So, I have started a page Debate:Should President Trump stop tweeting? and invite interested editors to comment there. Thanks, JDano (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2017 (EDT)

Request for Conservative or another admin

You recently deleted the article entitled "Donald Trump's breaking of promises." I am OK with this action, but would you (or another admin) please copy-and-paste the article's content onto User:1990'sguy/Sandbox? There may be some content in the article worth saving. Thanks. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2017 (EDT)

I restored it to your Sandbox, but noticed that it quotes anti-Trump gasbags like Jason Chaffetz as though they are some kind of authority. The guy cannot even fulfill his own obligation to compete his 2-year term for his constituents.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2017 (EDT)
Thank you, Andy. Restoring the content has nothing to do with whether the content is accurate or good. I just want it to see if any of it is salvageable. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2017 (EDT)


As anyone who is logged in knows, there is a major vandalism wave going on (based on the topics being vandalized, it seems to have originated from the recent dust-up about "fake news", not that it matters.) The only assistant I can see currently aware of this seems to be Pokeria1. He has block powers. But I have attempted to alert him to this. He can't possibly be unaware of what is going on, since he has reverted my warnings on his talk page.

Can someone put a stop to this? Here is what I put (several times, getting blasted each time) on his talk page:


What the Hell are you doing????? You have block rights!


SamHB (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

For the record, I DID respond to your post in the limited amount of time I could before that 2000'sguy person undid the revision, and I even attempted to ask how long I should block him. However, I also made it very clear that I'm extremely reluctant to do it because I fear ultimately being corrupted by that power (I've already witnessed plenty of admins on the forums and other wikis blocking people for the sheer heck of it, or even threatening people to keep them in line, and I want to go out of my way to avoid being like them). Pokeria1 (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

OK, I see it now. In the heat of battle, I did not. My answer to the "how long?" question is:
  • Correct answer: Infinite. That kind of stuff is infinite.
  • Acceptable answer: 1 day. That's enough for admins to notice what happened and take it from there.
  • Crazy answer: However long it takes for me to come over and beat you up. Non-violently, of course.  :-)
Your position on not letting power corrupt you is very similar to mine. See the discussion among Ed Poor, DavidB4, and myself on Ed's talk page. Blocking people for the heck of it, and threatening people, happens elsewhere, and it used to happen here. I think we have improved.
SamHB (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

If you see something, say something

More precisely: If you see blatant vandalism taking place, and you have block powers, block the perpetrator.

I believe most active users are "assistants", meaning they have the power, and authority, to block vandals. Yesterday there was a huge vandal attack, in which 65 acts of vandalism were committed in about 40 minutes. I saw that an assistant was logged in, and attempted to alert him on his talk page. The vandal reverted that, and I kept trying. The user saw the vandalism to his talk page and reverted it. He even reverted my warning. I sent private mail to Andy. Finally Ed Poor did the deed.

Assistants have the power to block vandals. Use it. That's what it's for. Don't just let vandalism sprees go on. SamHB (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

I think there are more vandal attacks because liberals are getting desperate. They are losing power and do not like it. They are like cornered rats right now. The engaging in violent tactics, violent demonstrations, etc. Conservative (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
It even happened here this morning, but the two perps (who, based on very similar user names, is most likely the same kid using multiple accounts) got cut off at the pass quickly. If I'd been on line yesterday when said vandalism happened, I would've stopped it right there and then, but no editor with blocking power can be on site 24/7. Best thing to do is pay attention to the Recent changes section and watch what happens. Northwest (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
I noticed that incredible spree after the fact--yikes! Sam, I was offline, but that doesn't mean I can't help. I've provided a link on my talk page to send my a text message for a reason too--that's what it's there for. I may not be available, but I would be happy to deal with the issue if I am. Just because I'm not editing doesn't mean I can help for a moment. :) --David B (TALK) 20:03, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
This is similar to when I kept on reverting the several accounts of this "James Wilson" fellow a few weeks ago. It took forever to block him, and he was able to get a lot of pages, including repeatedly vandalizing the Taylor Swift article and creating frivolous entries. There seems to be plenty enough "assistants" on here, so such long sprees shouldn't be happening so often. --Anglican (talk) 22:25, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

Political Directory

We have a project that started last February, but still needs teamwork to complete. This project accidentally drifted to Archive2, but still has work to be done.

A few years ago, some editors copied a lot of political directory information into CP. For example, the state articles list all of the Senators and Congressmen and the infobox has the Senators' telephone numbers. Much of this has changed in the 2014 and 2016 elections. In some cases, like Elizabeth Warren, the junior senator has become the senior senator of the state. I have corrected Ohio, but do not want to fix all of this by myself. Can we organize a work list and cross off each state as it is updated? Please let me know if you want to help. JDano (talk) 09:22, 15 February 2017 (EST)

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

Sources: http://www.house.gov/representatives/ and https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?OrderBy=state&Sort=ASC When you have finished with a state, cross the state name out using <s>State</s>.

Many thanks to Pokeria1, AMorrow, and DavidB4 for their help on this project. JDano (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2017 (EST)

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

Clean sweep response to Muslim protestors

I saw this on a woman's Twitter page. She responded to four themes that make up quite a lot of common Muslim protest arguments in such a way as to maximize the exposure of their contradictions. Those who call for more Muslim immigration should be confronted with these short arguments and why they think they don't apply seriously to these all-too-typical Muslim sentiments:

You call me intolerant because I won't tolerate a religion of intolerance [Muslim activist's sign "Islam will dominate the world"].
You call me hate-filled because I'm against hate preachers [Muslim activist's sign: "Behead those who insult Islam"].
You call me extreme because I don't want extremists in my country [Two men dressed in all black except hole for eyes: "God Bless Hitler" in bold red capital letters].
You call me a supremacist because I won't submit to invaders who believe their law & culture is supreme to ours [Muslims with black parade banner: "Shariah for the UK"].
I only need to call you one word...Traitor.

VargasMilan (talk) 01:24, 14 July 2017 (EDT)

Recent issue(s)

So, with at least a few articles in the past, including the articles on Kate Upton and earlier Taylor Swift, I am unsure about what direction the site should be taking regarding the topic of women wearing less than modest clothing. Should it be mentioned in the articles, and if so, how should it be done? The Upton situation seems to have at least two Senior Administrators and two Junior Administrators involved, and I think we should talk about how to address the issue, given that this is a conservative-minded encyclopedia and that social conservatism has been a key component of conservatism in the US. --Anglican (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2017 (EDT)

The trend of women wearing less modest clothes is a relatively recent development, and it is associated with feminism. I think things like this should be mentioned only if the person in question claims to be religious or traditional. This is just my take, however. We'll see what everyone else has to say. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2017 (EDT)
Your take does make sense, and a claim to be a Christian may imply something of the sort, as User:RonaldB pointed out. Since it has come up in at least a few articles it is something that really should be addressed. We should be able to do it in an encyclopedic tone, without sounding too preachy. One of the earlier revisions of the Upton article did come off rather preachy. --Anglican (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2017 (EDT)
Yes, regardless of what we do, we should stick to an encyclopedic tone. I don't think we will have to mention these things on articles of people who clearly are secular liberals (unless that they do is blatantly outrageous, like what Miley Cyrus did a while back). --1990'sguy (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2017 (EDT)
I stepped in as far as the Kate Upton article because there was a dispute happening and there were nude photographs that she had taken. Plus, she lied about the issue shortly before the cloud website had a data breach which caused her pictures to become public.
You have to draw the line somewhere and I drew the line at nude. Conservative (talk)

When I was in high school, I volunteered to help in the school library. We had a periodical collection, and students would have to request a specific magazine issue, and then the student assistant would go into the back room, pull the issue and have the student sign it out. The most requested magazines were Car and Driver followed by the National Geographic issues which photos of native African women. We can discuss these subjects with an encyclopedic tone and without including examples. In contrast, Wikipedia works extensively to collect as many nude photos as possible and is not family friendly. We don't want Conservapedia to appeal to the crowd that reads National Geographic for just those few special photos. JDano (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2017 (EDT)

It sounds like everyone basically agrees on this anyway, but I'll chime in. I agree that we should keep such content to a minimum. If such information can be used to prove hypocrisy, then it might be worth carefully mentioning. However, in general, that's just a part of the secular world now. Let's keep it out of here, unless perhaps if it is beneficial to prove a different point. --David B (TALK) 21:04, 14 July 2017 (EDT)

I'm thinking that there's an agreement about how to handle this particular issue from now on. Although, I still regret my rash judgment and current inability to correct it at this time. --Anglican (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2017 (EDT)

Sam Chui's Little Theorem

I wasn't able to find anything on the internet related to Sam Chui's Little Theorem. And there are no citations in the article. Conservative (talk) 07:01, 19 August 2017 (EDT)

Appears to be a private gag between half a dozen 14-year olds from math camp. No encyclopaedic value, no educational value and, frankly, unfunny to boot. They have had their few days of glory, now burn it with fire. NeilWalker (talk) 07:57, 19 August 2017 (EDT)
I deleted the article.Conservative (talk) 08:12, 19 August 2017 (EDT)


I see that someone today blocked User:GinnyS for violating the 90%/10% rule. Just so that the record is clear, since she created her account, GinnyS had 49 talk page edits and 22 article page edits leading to a 69%/31% ratio, which is seems to meet the rule's requirements. While today's exchange was intemperate, we do want users to feel free to raise concerns to ensure that what is posted matches the sources provided. Thanks, JDano (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2017 (EDT)

"Ginny" was a man.Conservative (talk)

Block flood

Apologies for the block flood--I got the process derailed onto the wrong account (main rather than bot). I will try to be more careful in the future. --David B (TALK) 00:07, 8 September 2017 (EDT)

Conservative of the Year 2017

I created the article where we list the nominations for Conservative of the Year 2017. Feel free to add solid conservatives to the list who deserve mention. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:18, 8 November 2017 (EST)

New essay, need contributors

I have created a new essay: http://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:Virtue:_Christian_vs_secular

I would welcome contributions from other CP users. Shobson20 (talk) 11:28, 28 December 2017 (EST)

Conservatism sells: The growth of followers of conservatives on Twitter

See Essay:Top conservatives on Twitter for current number of followers of top Twitter users considered to be conservative. Of those Twitter posters whose accounts on that page are still active, none lost in their total number of followers over the whole year of 2017.

Promoters of conservatism with large gains of followers on Twitter, 2016-7 (top 20 each category)
Twitter poster Increase
% in-
% in-
Dec. 17 2018
% in-
Pres. (or-Elect) Donald J. Trump +13,053,000 +237% +26,905,000 +145% +10,520,000 +23%
Dr. Ben Carson +1,475,000 +136% 0 +0% 91,000 +3%
Michelle Malkin +943,000 +105% +328,000 +18% -26,000 -1%
Sean Hannity +697,000 +56% +1,266,000 +65% +643,000 +20%
Laura Ingraham +550,000 +89% +819,000 +73% +575,000 +30%
Ann Coulter +463,000 +63% +632,000 +53% +279,000 +15%
Judge Jeanine Pirro +292,000 +222% +479,500 +113% +387,000 +43%
Franklin Graham +277,000 +59% +565,000 +76% +489,000 +37%
Sarah Palin +226,000 +20% +139,000 +10% +16,000 +1%
Tucker Carlson +224,000 +89% +943,000 +198% +930,000 +65%
Steven Crowder +180,000 +122% +177,000 +54% +151,000 +30%
Dinesh D'Souza +166,000 +69% +313,000 +77% +362,000 +50%
Mark Levin +157,000 +30% +346,000 +50% +398,000 +39%
James O'Keefe +147,000 +198% +136,000 +62% +125,000 +35%
Katie Pavlich +145,000 +70% +111,900 +32% +131,000 +28%
Allen West +137,000 +29% +132,000 +22% +15,000 +2%
Dr. Charles Krauthammer +121,000 +20% +135,000 +18%
Monica Crowley +114,000 +42% +84,000 +22% +51,000 +11%
Linda Suhler, Ph. D. +90,000 +48% +73,000 +26% +24,800 +7%
Gov. Greg Abbott +65,000 +40% +129,300 +57% +40,300 +11%
John Nolte +46,000 +74% +41,800 +38% +8,900 +6%
Dennis Prager +28,000 +50% +51,300 +60% +47,100 +35%
Hugh Hewitt +42,000 +47% +29,100 +22% +10,500 +7%
Nikki Haley +57,000 +47% +746,000 +417% +725,000 +78%
Sen. Tim Scott +51,000 +45% +177,200 +108% +39,000 +11%
Kellyanne Conway +1,376,000 +232% +532,000 +27%
Sher. David Clarke +540,000 +123% -36,000 -4%
Dan Scavino, Jr. +196,000 +74% +41,000 +9%
Bill Mitchell +143,500 +85% +89,000 +29%
Wayne Dupree +136,100 +91% +23,500 +8%
Larry Kudlow +76,700 +73% +53,800 +30%
Kayleigh McEnany +39,100 +57% +34,000 +31%
Sarah Sanders +1,206,000 +43%
Candace Owens +634,000 + +192% +
Charlie Kirk +564,000 +208%
Diamond and Silk +473,000 +99%
Sebastian Gorka +175,000 + +36% +
John Bolton +168,000 +65%
Chuck Woolery +158,000 +47%
Alana Mastrangelo +67,400 +85%
Liz Wheeler +102,000 +72%
Sean Davis +52,600 +62%
Rep. Mark Meadows +100,000 + +51% +
Charles V. Payne +99,300 +49%
Tim Young +58,700 +43%
Dylan Wheeler +100,200 +41%
Buck Sexton +47,300 +38%

VargasMilan (talk) 03:40, 1 January 2018 (EST)

I just had a big mystery solved. Monica Crowley was originally named as one of Trump's top advisors (see Jared Kushner page. She backed out at the last minute. I always wondered what dirt the FBI had on her, But it's something different. Victor Pinchuk hired her as his DC lobbyist. [6] She's probably making 3 or 4 times more as his attorney than she would on the National Security Council (Adam Waldman is being paid $40,000 a month). Pinchuk gave $29 million to the Clintons, and is behind Alexandra Chalupa, Olga Bielkova, and bunch of sources for the Steele dossier.
So there are two observations here about corrupt DC politics: One, given a choice, does a person go for temporary power and influence (NSC staff) or greed (big cash)? Secondly, this explains why Trump has had some difficultly in getting an retain staff (in addition to the illegal FISA surveillance on Trump staffers and appointees), qualified people are simply targeted, paid off, and outbid on government pay scales by Trump opponents. I'm sure she's not the first or only one. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 00:55, 12 November 2019 (EST)

Twitter reactions on the news

I try to produce web pages at Conservapedia that are useful, or even seem like they may be useful but at the time can't put my finger on what they may be useful for.

This is one of those times when a use has become uncovered. Several news events involving the top Twitterers took place this month, and now we can see its effect on their followers.

Brittany Pettibone was detained three days and then turned away from the United Kingdom for loving Great Britain when it was populated by the British. Her Twitter followers rose from 110,000 followers on March 2, 2018 to 133,000 on March 23, 2018 (+ 21%).

Steven Crowder was suspended from Twitter seven days for uploading a comic video, and meanwhile Louis Farrakhan's Twitter account uploaded many videos with anti-Jewish remarks and was left alone. Crowder's Twitter followers rose from 549,000 followers on March 2 to 583,000 on March 23, 2018 (+ 6%).

Not to leave out events about other Twitter users, Paul Nehlen, a competitor in Paul Ryan's Congressional race was removed from Twitter over a certain picture he had posted. Eventually you stop pursuing Twitter's rationales for removal of conservatives and just assume they are false.

And John Bolton, who was recently added by President Trump to his National Security team, had his Twitter followers rise from 264,000 on March 2 to 290,000 on March 23 (+ 10%). VargasMilan (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2018 (EDT)

Specifically regarding Bolton, he now has nearly 306,000 followers as of the time I'm writing this. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2018 (EDT)
The month is not yet over and The Broward-County/Democrat-Party-disregard-of-gun-laws diversion circus swept in Laura Ingraham this month to attack her for making a random remark about it in passing: Her Twitter followers rose from 2,111,000 on March 2 to 2,177,000 on March 31 (+ 3%). VargasMilan (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2018 (EDT)

Conservative commentators Diamond and Silk caught Facebook shadow-banning their account and after months of inquiry received a reply April 5, 2018 regarding their Facebook page, "your content and your brand has been determined unsafe to the community."

The two women replied: "So our questions to Facebook (Mark Zuckerberg) are:

  • 1. What is unsafe about two Blk-women supporting the @POTUS @realDonaldTrump?
  • 2. Our FB page has been created since December 2014, when exactly did the content and the brand become unsafe to the community?
  • 3. When you say "community" are you referring to the Millions who liked and followed our page?
  • 4. What content on our page was in violation?
  • 5. If our content and brand was so unsafe to the community, why is the option for us to boost our content and spend money with FB to enhance our brand page still available? Maybe FB should give us a refund since FB censored our reach.
  • 6. Lastly, didn't FB violate their own policy when FB stopped sending notifications to the Millions of people who liked and followed our brand page?

"This is deliberate bias censorship and discrimination. These tactics are unacceptable and we want answers!"

On March 2, Diamond and Silk had 584,000 followers on Twitter. On April 8, their readership had grown to 621,000 (+ 6%) VargasMilan (talk) 03:00, 8 April 2018 (EDT)

The House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee on April 11, 2018 interviewed Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg in the halls of Congress, and some of the members of Congress actually held up a poster-sized photograph of Diamond and Silk and asked him if he recognized them or knew about the removal of their account from Facebook. Zuckerberg tried to change the subject to a more general question, but eventually replied that the removal was an error.

Diamond and Silks' followers on Twitter rose from 584,000 on March 2 by 84,000 to 668,000 on April 18 (+ 14%). VargasMilan (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2018 (EDT)

Someone or more than one person is targeting top conservatives on Twitter

Wayne Dupree is now claiming that he has noticed shadow-banning on his Twitter account. That makes seven top conservatives on Twitter members being targeted in an attempt to marginalize them: Brittany Pettibone, Steven Crowder, Paul Nehlen, Laura Ingraham, Diamond and Silk, Wayne Dupree and Feisty☀️FL [FL = Floridian] (@Feisty_FL).

Laura Ingraham was able to get some publicity and conservative support regarding the boycott staged against her advertisers regarding her having showed skepticism against the attempt to add new gun-restriction laws to those laws that are already not being implemented. Her followers on Twitter rose from 2,111,000 on March 2 to 2,239,000 on April 18, a rise of 128,000 (+ 6%). VargasMilan (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2018 (EDT)

April Fool's joke

The Titanic: built by experts. Ark: built by best of the public. VargasMilan (talk) 09:05, 28 March 2018 (EDT)

How would you guys convince an athiest about God?

Purely hypothetical, but I’m curious so see all the different tactics. GoodWeather (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2018 (EDT)

The problem with your question is that it assumes atheists need to be convinced about the existence of God. God's existence is already obvious to everyone (see Romans 1:18-23, Psalm 14:1). The problem with atheists is not that they're unconvinced of God, it's that they reject God and His Word outright. Also, I can't convince anyone to submit God -- that's something God in His grace (alone) does to those He chooses to show mercy. If it weren't for God's opening up of the eyes of believers, none of us would submit to Him (see Romans 8:7-8, for example). --1990'sguy (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2018 (EDT)
The "tactic" against you, "GoodWeather" is to boot you off the site, along with your many socks, for trolling, harassment, and outright lying. Karajou (talk) 01:48, 16 May 2018 (EDT)
Another atheist who received atheist indoctrination in a poorly run public school. The telltale sign is that he cannot spell the word atheist correctly.Conservative (talk) 01:56, 16 May 2018 (EDT)
It's a pity that Chawcer, who had geneyus, was so unedicated as well. He's the wuss speller I know of. VargasMilan (talk) 10:31, 26 May 2018 (EDT)
1990sguy nails it. If you're a sceptic, you're already decieved (see 2 Tim 2:26). IMHO, one should begin by desiring to free their mind from Satanic enslavement, and that would put you on the path of the knowledge of God. It's not always a straight line from disbelief to belief. You need a desire to free yourself from deception to start. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:29, 26 May 2018 (EDT)

Twitter prune

I read in passing that Twitter was going to start pruning non-responsive accounts soon. I read the same thing about two months ago, and yet I didn't notice any difference in the follower count of conservatives that couldn't be explained by summer vacations.

But if so, this may mark the first time in about three years that conservatives will see a real downward "trend" (actually a one-time brief decrease). Who knows which accounts will be affected, how long it will take for them to recover from these corrections, and whether these removals will be administered fairly. VargasMilan (talk) 04:22, 13 July 2018 (EDT)

So far the purged accounts among conservatives with the largest number of followers have been mostly chicken feed:
Donald Trump: -0.04%
Sean Hannity: -2.0%
Sarah Sanders: -0.1%
Ben and Candy Carson: -3.4%
Laura Ingraham: -0.3%
Kellyanne Conway: -0.04%
Michelle Malkin: -1.7%
Tucker Carlson: -0.4%
Ann Coulter: -0.9%
Franklin Graham: -0.15%
Sarah Palin: -3.9%
I read in articles about the inflation of Twitter accounts that journalists reporting on it expected some political figures with a large popularity to have 40 or 50 percent inactive or fake followers. This brief survey shows this is not the case with conservative figures with large popularity.
I think the reason for the faint exception in Ben and Candy Carson's and Sarah Palin's case, is that they had been inactive for a long period of time, so the people who subscribed to their accounts were going to wait until those conservatives posted "in person" rather than by their staffs, and when their feeds weren't being written by their staffs either, the zero newsfeed made their accounts easy to maintain (that is, not taking up any space) nor allowing any opportunity for those Twitter figures to say things with which these followers might disagree and cause them to unsubscribe.
On the other hand, I also think these pruned subscribers possibly heard about these popular conservatives' Twitter accounts and made an impulse decision to subscribe to them due to their popularity, but weren't necessarily very committed to Twitter as a whole. Hence they left to do other things, but still holding out hope for the popular figures to come back (I am willing to bet that Rush Limbaugh is among these), they never deleted their account, but only monitored it sporadically.
Now you know that these things are going on, don't be discouraged from politics or feel you have to keep silent if you notice it happening elsewhere or hear complaints of your fellow conservatives or sneers by liberals about decreasing follower counts. You're welcome. VargasMilan (talk) 03:38, 14 July 2018 (EDT)

Shadowban evidence

There is an online shadowban detector that I found today. To catch Twitter in the act before they find out about it and possibly change their search algorithms (they have done this for a different tool), I entered all 100 names on my Top Conservatives on Twitter list because I believe that time may be of the essence.

Nick Short 139,500 followers
Brittany Pettibone 137,800 followers
Mark Pantano 119,500 followers
RockPrincess 104,400
Jim Hoft 101,900 followers
Jack Burton 71,500 followers
Feisty☀️FL 18,920 followers

These are "quality" shadowbanned. I guess because they don't have enough liberal "quality". VargasMilan (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2018 (EDT)

Twitter spoke out yesterday about accusations of shadowbanning:
"ACTUALLY what we do doesn't TECHNICALLY qualify as "shadowbanning." We just make certain users harder to see based on our totally opaque, uncontestable, unilaterally-determined definition of 'relevance.'"
I was just pulling your leg; that was a satire written by Jack Burton above. He actually may not even know that he himself is shadowbanned. VargasMilan (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2018 (EDT)
BTW FYI, I checked, and the Conservapedia Twitter account (@Jay_pe) is not shadowbanned. VargasMilan (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2018 (EDT)


I'm glad we managed to get HTTPS set up! I know it's a bit of a nuisance, but it is a good idea! It seems the PayPal plugin is still using HTTP, but this is still better than before! --David B (TALK) 17:28, 5 August 2018 (EDT)

It does seem that the favicon on the home page is not loading correctly, also. It seems to work elsewhere just fine. --David B (TALK) 17:52, 5 August 2018 (EDT)
For the record, the favicon doesn't show up at all on Chrome (and I don't think it ever has). This might be something that should be fixed. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2018 (EDT)
Scratch that--it's working now. I don't know if the issue got fixed, or it was a temporary glitch. --David B (TALK) 18:02, 5 August 2018 (EDT)
That's odd... I use Firefox, Opera, Vivaldi, and a number of other browsers but not chrome. I'd never noticed. --David B (TALK) 18:04, 5 August 2018 (EDT)
I see what you mean. I tried it in a chrome install, and couldn't see it either. Do we need to add it as a Base64 Encoded Image or some other such nonsense to get it to work? --David B (TALK) 18:08, 5 August 2018 (EDT)
I really should stop edit flooding here, but one more thing. Someone else with a similar problem said the following:
Instead of using the filename favicon.ico for my icon, I renamed it to something else, ie myIcon.ico. Then I just used [this]:
<link rel="shortcut icon" href="myIcon.ico" type="image/x-icon" />
The full discussion I'm talking about is found here. --David B (TALK) 18:13, 5 August 2018 (EDT)

requested article: Trumponomics

Article request: Trumponomics. It would be a nice complementary article to our Obamunism article. Conservative (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2018 (EDT)

HTTP -->HTTPS URL update project

The Web is changing a great deal. One of these changes is the shift from the HyperText Transfer Protocol to HyperText Transfer Protocol Secure (which we have recently done in part here at CP as well). While HTTPS is not perfect (and it will continue to be less than ideal at least until/unless we get DNSSEC) this is a good move, as it provides some security and privacy using TLS.

The problem for us is that we now have a great deal of links which still refer to the old protocol. 1990'sguy pointed out this issue and suggested that I use my bot to update our links. I don't have the ability to automatically test URLs for TLS support, so I'm making a list of URLs to be updated. If there are any websites linked to anywhere on CP which have upgraded to HTTPS but are still linked to under HTTP, please add them to the list. I will then attempt to verify that they are using sufficiently complete HTTPS configurations, and then do my best to apply the change to all CP articles and perhaps some other pages as well.

I have never done this before, so it may take a little time and fine-tuning to get it right. Also, it will take time to process these updates on all 46,236+ articles, plus a yet undecided number of other pages. Thank you for your patience and assistance! Let me know if you have any questions or suggestions. --David B (TALK) 00:03, 11 September 2018 (EDT)

And if this all sounds like nonsense, doesn't make sense, or doesn't seem to matter, that's fine. Just let me know if anything catches fire, and other than that, I'll try to stay out of the way and not break anything. --David B (TALK) 00:15, 11 September 2018 (EDT)

Overflow business

Conservapedia has already reached 686,043,027 visits. It was a only a short time ago that I heard this site had reached 600,000,000 visits. Andy deserves a lot of credit and should be proud for having built such a successful conservative website under his helm. Thanks, Andy! VargasMilan (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2018 (EDT)

Conservapedia - Alexa rankings

November 2007 Conservapedia vs. Rush Limbaugh
April 2008
May 2010
2011 and 2012

Hi everyone

I'm new here. Is there anything important I should know before doing stuff? How do I add images to articles? How do I get around CAPTCHA's? Thanks, Edenfaithful (talk) 09:24, 25 December 2018 (EST)

Make substantial edits, show your good faith, obey Conservapedia's rules, and establish a good reputation. Then Andy will promote you to SkipCAPCHA. Shobson20 (talk) 11:54, 25 December 2018 (EST)

Millenials mispronouncing common English words

Some Millenials do so much social media instead of hearing voices on TV and radio (unless it's their peers or near-peers on YouTube) and texting instead of talking to friends, that they mispronounce what were thought to be common English words. I saw one pronounce "thorough" thō’ rō’ instead of thur’-ō. Another had taught her mom to say osurring instead of occuring. It's really jarring when it happens. VargasMilan (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2019 (EST)

Question (VargasMilan's April fool's joke that DavidB4 fell for)

Why is cream more expensive than milk? VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 21:10, 1 April 2019 (EDT)

There is less of it produced. Depending on the cow breed, age, period, diet, and more, raw milk typically consists of about 3.5% – 5% cream, with the rest being what we know as "skim milk" (what is left after the cream is skimmed off the top). Skim milk (which used to be considered almost worthless, and fed to animals or used in lower-quality cooking) is now sold as a health food, as are 1% fat and 2% fat milks. Even "Whole milk" has some cream removed, bringing it down to 3.25% cream. However, there is only so much cream they can take out of the standard milk supply. Cream is needed for a variety of dairy products, such as cheeses, butter, and ice cream, and it is also used as-is in some cases, such as adding to coffee. Basically, it goes back to supply and demand. There is a somewhat limited supply (compared to skim milk), and great deal of demand. Besides, cream is considered the best part, so they know they can charge people more for the best milk product. --DavidB4 (TALK) 23:55, 1 April 2019 (EDT)
Wrong! It's because the cows hate to squat over those little cartons.
Hope everyone had a great April Fool's day, especially DavidB, who fell for my prank. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 15:28, 2 April 2019 (EDT)
I wondered if there was a relation between the date and the odd question...Sorry, I'll try to assume the worst in everyone from now on, rather than taking the time to answer even odd questions. ;) --DavidB4 (TALK) 18:46, 2 April 2019 (EDT)
Uhhh....Thanks, Conservative. I think. --DavidB4 (TALK) 21:41, 2 April 2019 (EDT)
He he! VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 22:57, 2 April 2019 (EDT)

Don't bite the newbie editors via reversions

CP needs research assistants, copy editors, and people to do maintenance and formatting work, not just content contributers. Most wikis have a Don't Bite the Newbies policy. I find this archived discussion useful. If CP doesn't have an official policy, it still is useful for CP Admins to know that reverting newcomers has the effect of limiting CP's user base. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:05, 28 July 2019 (EDT)

Other than people inserting nonsense and/pushing misleading/errant liberal/leftist tripe, I think this was an excellent post. A little politeness and diplomacy goes a long way.Conservative (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2019 (EDT)
Oftentimes, new editors try to change the POV of articles, copy info from Wikipedia, or made other edits which are unencyclopedic (on an encyclopedia). Rob has a good point on treating new editors with respect, but it cannot be at the expense of the quality of CP's articles. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2019 (EDT)
It shouldn't be at the expense of limiting CP's user and contributor base, either. Perhaps 90/10 has a negative impact, sometimes. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:53, 28 July 2019 (EDT)

In the News

Maybe this should be added to In the News: “Kavanaugh accuser's lawyer said allegations could help undermine abortion rulings: 'Part of what motivated Christine'” reports Fox News. (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/christine-blasey-ford-attorney-says-she-came-forward-to-get-asterisk-on-kavanaughs-name-ahead-of-abortion-rulings.amp) - JobsNotMobs

Added topic


I noticed that some image upload requests I made have been up for a few weeks and not handled yet. DavidB4 usually takes care of these, but I'm sure he has a lot on his plate, so I was wondering if maybe another admin with upload privileges could add them in. I think there's one other guy waiting on his requests, too. No rush, just wanted to ask. Thank you! Teakin88 (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2019 (EDT)

Thanks for the heads-up! Unfortunately, there's an apparent backlog at the page, so that's why the requests are taking so long. It's not uncommon for such requests to take so long. I let DavidB4 know about your message. Since your requested images are not from Wikimedia Commons, I, unfortunately, cannot upload them myself because of my lack of expertise regarding licensing (I'm sure they're appropriate to upload, but I'd rather let more knowledgeable editors handle such images). --1990'sguy (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2019 (EDT)
I have been hoping another admin would help, but if not, I'll get there eventually. I have a lot going on IRL for me right now, so I haven't had much time to help out here. Sorry for the wait! --DavidB4 (TALK) 17:28, 5 November 2019 (EST)
Unfortunately, I don't know enough about copyright law to help with the non-commons images. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2019 (EST)

Pages for expansion

Hello! As you can see, I am new here, and have just started editing. May I ask, is there a page for stub articles or articles that need to be expanded? Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Malcolmdavis (talk)

We don't have a page like that. The best thing to do is look for stubs in the topics you're interested in, and expand those.
Very important -- always use reliable sources and encyclopedic wording, and adhere to CP's style guidelines. I have posted some helpful links on your user talk page. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2019 (EST)
While we don't have a managed page like that, the wiki can give you a list of pages with very little contnet. This includes disambiguation pages, index pages, and other stuff so it is a little messy. However, you could try taking a look at Special:ShortPages and see what you find. It' snot a clean list or easy to use, but you can try it if you would like. --DavidB4 (TALK) 21:04, 12 December 2019 (EST)

Top conservative Twitter accounts suspended while everyone is getting ready for the holidays

Two of my Essay:Top conservatives on Twitter list members were suspended this week: Linda Suhler [a PhD] (387,460) and CC (300,300) @ChatbyCC, formerly known as Christie Chat). They have been on my list since August 1, 2015 and January 3, 2017, respectively. Twitter announced that they will be suspending accounts at-will in the future. There is no way the suspensions of these two accounts are not strategic by Twitter to promote liberalism. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 01:06, 20 December 2019 (EST)

Typical. Basically they have built a massive network, where most people are. Now they are quietly de latforming all conservatives, in an attempt to make liberalism look like the norm. Only the conservatives see it happening, so everyone else is oblivious that it is more of a psyops move than a culture shift. --DavidB4 (TALK) 11:54, 20 December 2019 (EST)

How to add an image file to Conservapedia?

Just curious, how do I add an image in the form of a file to Conservapedia so I can use it to add to pages? Also, which types of images am I allowed to "borrow" from the internet? Thanks! - Liberaltears

Conservapedia:Image upload requests. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 19:20, 20 January 2020 (EST)
Thanks! Liberaltears (8:12, 20 January 2020)
As for which images you can use, you should ideally find ones which have been released as Public Domain or under a Creative Commons license. Some good sources are listed below. If you especially want an image wich is not available under one of these conditions, and there is no suitable substitute, it may still be usable under the Fair use doctrine, but it's better not to do this; I can give a second opinion as to whether it might be okay to use an image in this way, but I'm not a lawyer.
--DavidB4 (TALK) 23:31, 20 January 2020 (EST)
Thanks! Liberaltears 1:23, 21 January 2020

Iowa Caucuses

Hello everyone! I just wanted to let it be known; I noticed that some additions had been made to my page on the 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses, and I in turn edited some of that and made more additions myself, mostly revolving around whether the caucus was in fact rigged by the Democrats to deny Sanders a clear victory. Personally, I have no trouble believing that it was, but since it hasn't been definitively proven, I've changed the language a bit to make it more a matter of opinion, while leaving up all the information and sources that show the basis for this opinion, and how likely it is that the results were in fact manipulated. Just wanted to let everyone know about that. -Teakin88

Template permission request

Hello, I'd like to request Conservapedia sysop permission to make a template titled "Template:Republican establishment". --Liberaltears (talk) 11:07, 8 March 2020 (EDT)

I dunno; is this an effort to divide the GOP establishment and Tea Party from Trump Republicans in an election year? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:49, 8 March 2020 (EDT)
No, I'm not trying to promote division, I just thought that it could be a productive addition to Conservapedia to use for specification purposes on many of the pages regarding establishment Republicans and groups such as the NRSC. --Liberaltears (talk) 13:12, 8 March 2020 (EDT)
So do I have permission to create the template or not? --Liberaltears (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2020 (EDT)
I don't quite understand the use case for this template...What will it contain? --DavidB4 (TALK) 15:54, 31 March 2020 (EDT)

Strange occurrence...

Can someone tell me what just happened? I remember making a page creation on Eugene Scalia just about half an hour ago as well as a few other edits, but it seems that they were somehow reverted/hidden mysteriously and I couldn't find any log details on it. I know that there was a server error or something similar to such just a few minutes ago, but I'm not sure how that would cause a revert of my edits. --Liberaltears (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2020 (EDT)

So sorry! That was a hosting glitch. Please repost those edits - you might still have them in your cache in your browser. Thanks for understanding!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2020 (EDT)
Terry H's MPR post also disappeared. Nothing under Terry's H's contribs for today. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:07, 23 March 2020 (EDT)
My browser is set on private mode, so I can't re-access the information. Would the data be saved elsewhere? --Liberaltears (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2020 (EDT)
Beats me. My computer crashed about the same time. I had the MPR Template open when it did with Terry's post, but when I rebooted it disappeared completely. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 15:56, 23 March 2020 (EDT)
Hopefully the Deep state didn't hack the server and our computers and proceed to bleach bit the data. You get the joke? --Liberaltears (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2020 (EDT)
Could be, could be! Maybe they were reading Conservapedia, got fed up and couldn't take anymore. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 16:41, 23 March 2020 (EDT)
Maybe Hillary's Deep state shilleries got triggered! --Liberaltears (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2020 (EDT)
No. It was the Chinese intelligence service AI that read all the ChiCom flu, Chinese virus, CCP virus, et al redirects created in the last few days. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:08, 23 March 2020 (EDT)
Ah, so that's why...haha!
Liberaltears, it sounds like that data is gone. Sorry! Andy is right--your browser could potentially hold on to recent posts, but only until the browser is closed. If it is still open from then, literally try using the back button dozens of times until you reach the edit page for the article when you made the post. If you have closed your browser since then, though, the private browsing mode would have prompted it to be purged. --DavidB4 (TALK) 17:45, 23 March 2020 (EDT)
You're right, the original data was purged. However, I took the effort and recreated the page on Eugene Scalia. --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 18:07, 23 March 2020 (EDT)

Sorry about that--I know it is a real nuisance to re-write content! The problem should be fixed now--let us know if you have more issues like this. --DavidB4 (TALK) 01:48, 24 March 2020 (EDT)

Alright, thank you DavidB4! --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 11:02, 24 March 2020 (EDT)
And...it still isn't fixed. Sorry, I'm seeing errors again too. We're looking into it. --DavidB4 (TALK) 15:24, 24 March 2020 (EDT)

Just curious, does it occur for any of you that while you're trying to make a significant edit, when you click the "preview" option to just to make sure you didn't make a huge mistake, especially if it's regarding a template, that the loading appears to take forever and that the preview simply doesn't show up? That happened to me while I was creating the page on Kelli Ward, and it was somewhat of a nuisance. --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 17:27, 24 March 2020 (EDT)

I've had that happen before. I typically find that when that happens, if I open another conservapedia page in a new tab, it fails to load. I think when you try to see a preview, it contacts the server. If the server is having a problem, the preview will also fail to work, therefore. If I try just submitting an edit when that is happening, it usually fails too. It seems like loading a preview could be done using client-side scripts (right in your browser), but from experience, I would say it does not. --DavidB4 (TALK) 18:25, 24 March 2020 (EDT)
As far as today went, while I was editing, all Conservapedia pages loaded well most of the time when I open them in a new tab, although the server did seem somewhat slower than usual. However, the "preview" option for editing still doesn't work for all pages whose content is above around 100 bytes. For instance, it works if I'm making a redirect page, but not for content pages.
By the way DavidB4, since you're around, I was wondering when you might finish uploading all the images for this long list. No rush or anything, but I'm largely curious if some of my image requests here and here that aren't covered under a Creative Commons or Public Domain license can be uploaded under the Fair Use license. Thanks! --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 18:46, 24 March 2020 (EDT)
You're right, the preview isn't working at all for me, now.
In regard to the upload requests, I'm trying to get through them a few at a time, but there is a serious backlog, and it looks like I'm the only one working on it right now. I will try to give it more priority, but it is definitely going to take me some time. Thank you for understanding! What I can see by skimming through the list is that you have a lot from WikiMedia Commons and Flickr...that's good! I'll just check each one to make sure they are usable as I go. As for the other sources, I will need to check one-by-one. As examples though, ballotpedia.org and studybreaks.com do not seem to publish a copyright policy, so I must assume that their content is under full copyright. It would be better if we could use a different sources, but if there are no others available, we might be able to use these. --DavidB4 (TALK) 16:06, 31 March 2020 (EDT)
Alright, thank you DavidB4! --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 16:09, 31 March 2020 (EDT)

Improvising Template:Officeholder/senator...

Hello, I'd like to request an administrator to make a following change to Template:Officeholder/senator, since I can't simply edit it due to the template being locked. As far as I know, whenever the template is used in a page, all the information needs to be filled properly for everything to appear in the correct manner. This means that if the information about the state isn't filled in, {{{state}}} will show up, and if the terms aren't filled in, {{{terms}}} will show up, etc. (the only exception is the “|succeeded=”, as “Incumbent (no successor)” shows up if left blank) However, the “|former=(y or n)” is the only exception, as if it's left out, it's automatically assumed that “former=n”, as it's only necessary to imply that a senator has left office. I would like to request replacing this part with a part such that:

  • when using the Template:Officeholder/senator, it would be filled as “|status=(s, j, or f)”
  • if the information is not inputted, “{{{status}}}” would simply show up before “U.S. Senator from {{{state}}}”
  • if “|status=s”, then “Senior” will show up before “U.S. Senator from {{{state}}}”
  • if “|status=j”, then “Junior” will show up before “U.S. Senator from {{{state}}}”
  • if “|status=f”, then “Former” will show up before “U.S. Senator from {{{state}}}”
  • if “|status=(anything filled in except for s, j, or f)”, then “{{{status}}}” will show up before “U.S. Senator from {{{state}}}”

--LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 15:39, 31 March 2020 (EDT)

Oh, that's a problem. Writing/editing templates gives me a headache, but I might be able to fix this. If it is unlocked, would you be able to fix it? --DavidB4 (TALK) 15:47, 31 March 2020 (EDT)
No, unfortunately I wouldn't be able to do it by myself. Having joined this site less than a year ago (see here), I have gained much experience with CP formatting, but I'm not a hard-core expert, especially not with formatting for creating/improvising templates. While I can somewhat comprehend how certain inputs in template source codes correspond to certain functions (as I've done such in analyzing to fix this template), I don't know enough to add in all the necessary information for my proposed improvisation. Since the template was locked anyway, I was hoping that a sysop would be able to do it. --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 16:08, 31 March 2020 (EDT)
Update: I was able to improvise the template. --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 13:21, 3 April 2020 (EDT)

Fixing a mistake using the Infobox officeholder template...

Hello, I just created this page that includes Template:Infobox officeholder, but I don't understand how the formatting works when adding military info. I analyzed the source of the template, but I still don't understand how to fix the error. Can someone figure it out and fix it on the page? I have no idea. Thanks! --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 22:41, 10 April 2020 (EDT)

I went through the same thing on Gen. Mike Flynn's page. It was a nightmare. Here's how I fixed it, if it's any help. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 22:57, 12 April 2020 (EDT)
I just added a "|military=y" in the template in the Donald Bolduc page, but that didn't seem to make a difference. Also, the template used in the Michael T. Flynn page is Template:Officeholder, and the one used in the Donald Bolduc page is Template:Infobox officeholder. --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 23:10, 12 April 2020 (EDT)

Question about files that can be uploaded under Fair use...

Just curious, can Getty images be uploaded to CP under the Fair Use license? Thanks! --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 13:51, 14 April 2020 (EDT)

Probably not. That's why Getty has a watermark. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:02, 14 April 2020 (EDT)
Okay, thank you RobSmith! --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 14:10, 14 April 2020 (EDT)
Agreed, Getty is a company which makes money from the sale of images. This sort of company is not going to appreciate it if we try to make a "Fair Use" claim on them. --DavidB4 (TALK) 14:16, 14 April 2020 (EDT)
Thank you for the further specification, DavidB4! --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 14:25, 14 April 2020 (EDT)

Please look into this

https://www.conservapedia.com/Communications_Act_of_1934 this page is pretty vauge then has a hyper-link to this liberal site https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/LSB10082.pdf which is written by this democrat liberal who works for the ACLU of all places. https://www.aclu.org/news/by/kate-ruane/ so if someone could change this or look into it, thanks.

FAS is a CIA front; I don't know if it should be described as "liberal". Sounds conspiratorial. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:17, 18 April 2020 (EDT)

Changing font colors...

SenatorCollins.jpg Sara Gideon.jpg
Susan Collins
(likely nominee)
Sara Gideon
(likely nominee)

Just curious, how do I make words appear in a dark red or dark blue color? I know how the formatting works, but I'm not sure what keywords to use for dark red and dark blue. Thanks! --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 20:19, 25 April 2020 (EDT)

Dark red I've had problems with so I use brown; for dark blue try boldening.



Dark blue

Not sure if this helps, but it's the best I can do. RobSLive Free or Die 20:47, 25 April 2020 (EDT)

Thanks for the suggestion RobSmith, and here's the thing. So I created this page, and I was initially thinking of using dark red and dark blue for the font colors in the wikitable for Susan Collins and Sara Gideon respectively, thinking that it would contrast with the generic red/blue colors for internal links, but after closely observing the colors after your reply, it turns out that the regular red and blue colors differ from the generic colors for wikified text. However, there is also another problem. For the situation where I'm trying to change the font color, it seems that apparently font color can't be changed in a wikitable, or something else. I used a wikitable as I couldn't figure out a way to put one image directly to the left of another, and it seems that this issue with font color formatting arises.. --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 21:43, 25 April 2020 (EDT)
So are you trying to contrast GOP for red and Dem for blue? Maybe a miniicon like this or somesuch formatting. RobSLive Free or Die 22:02, 25 April 2020 (EDT)
Great suggestion RobSmith; I just tried it and I think it works quite well! --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 22:34, 25 April 2020 (EDT)
If it helps, you can also use a hex color code, like style="color:#000000" to indicate black. With a little trial and error (or a hex color picking tool) you could probably get it pretty close. If you want to match a specific color, you can get that code too. You could take a screenshot of that color, open it in a photo editor which tells you color codes (like gimp), and get the exact code you need. Or, if you use Firefox, open the menu, and select "Web Developer", then "Eyedropper" and move the pointer the color you want the code for. Using the default style, red links seem to be about "#c60000" and blue links seem to be about "#3366bb". I didn't test those though, so slight tweaks may be needed to get it exactly right. --DavidB4 (TALK) 22:12, 25 April 2020 (EDT)
That's a great idea DavidB4, but the problem is that I can't figure out a way to code that into the source properly. I tried using <span style="(etc.)"</span>, but it didn't seem to work. I think it probably has to do with the way the wikitable functions, but I'm not entirely sure. Since I used what RobSmith suggested, the party affiliations are distinguished, so I suppose the font colors don't really need to be changed, though I do very much appreciate your suggestion! --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 22:34, 25 April 2020 (EDT)
I am curious though, is there a way such that if two images are aligned to the right, that one image is directly to the left of the other? --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 22:37, 25 April 2020 (EDT)
For plain text, you can just use "<font color="000000">Colored text</font>". Wouldn't that work? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the problem. Anyway, I'm glad Rob's suggestion is working! --DavidB4 (TALK) 00:40, 26 April 2020 (EDT)

McSally Derangement Syndrome

Just wondering, is it about time for Conservapedia to coin the term "McSally Derangement Syndrome" and make a page about it? After all, the liberal hatred for Martha McSally has been getting worse and worse, given the snowflakes erupting all over the internet, the establishment media being somewhat biased towards the senator, and even idiotic websites having been created as smears, all for the purpose of trying to oust McSally this election year. --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 12:39, 3 May 2020 (EDT)

I tend to shy away from inventing terms, but I'm not firmly opposed to it, if this seems like a useful topic to others. I suspect that most snowflakes doesn't even know who McSally is, but they do know who Trump is. This seems to better justify having an article on the latter than the former. --DavidB4 (TALK) 00:32, 5 May 2020 (EDT)
About TDS, it seems that 1990'sguy already created the page a few years ago. And about McSally, while some snowflakes may not have heard of her, those who do tend to despise her and constantly tout her likely 2020 Democrat opponent Mark Kelly. For example, after the "liberal hack" rebuke against Manu Raju, there was a massive left-wing meltdown that McSally would *dare insult a CNN reporter*. Many have also used McSally's vote against Obamacare to ridiculously argue that she is somehow opposed to protection for pre-existing conditions, despite the fact that the Republican-led repeal efforts does provide a certain degree of protection for such. Also, on The Hill, I always notice in the articles about the senator that the comment sections are filled to the brim with idiotic liberal remarks, such as touting Mark Kelly's little-known military record while blatantly ignoring McSally's Air Force record as a combat fighter for two decades (I noticed the idiocy when citing The Hill as a biased establishment media outlet here). And that's not to mention the "opinion" articles on AZ Central attacking the senator. As well as the threat by a Tuscon man in 2018, etc. Overall, given this as a major election year, liberals are pouring a massive effort to unseat McSally, and their nonsensical rhetoric getting out of hand. Thus, I suppose whether the page should be made or not could be up for consideration at the moment, as it's possible other editors may have certain disagreements. And I do appreciate your input, DavidB4! --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 01:08, 5 May 2020 (EDT)

ICO file to highlight Conservapedia tab on browser

Most websites have a little jpg pic for the tab, like wikipedia or wordpress have a blue letter W. This helps people keep track of sites when they have multiple tabs open. It is done with a tiny image file with an .ico extension. It would need to be inserted somewhere in the site settings. (Without an ico or icon file, the tab presents on the browser as a plain blank rectangle.)

Information Box

I've been working on a page for a World War I battle recently, and I want to add an information box at the top to include some of the basic facts and statistics. But I don't know for sure if I need to create a new template for that, or if there's an existing one I can apply: some exist for other wars like the Revolutionary War, but I can't tell if they will carry over to World War I or another conflict. Any ideas? -Teakin88

I'm using the WWII battle Template on 2020 Leftist insurrection. You could just cut n paste that one. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 23:39, 2 August 2020 (EDT)
Thanks Rob! That was very useful. -Teakin88

Is it OK for me to copy stuff I wrote on Wikipedia to here?

I am primarily a Wikipedia editor. (Feel free to check me out, my username is the same there.) I don't really prefer reading here because I think this site is very opinionated and derogatory to many people, and I do not agree with all the views of this site, even though I am a Christian. However, I don't really mind copying my contributions to this and other wikis. Is it OK (for non-politically related subjects)? Thanks! Félix An (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2020 (EDT)

If it's your own work in your own words, then I believe it's fine. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Thursday, 21:43, 5 August 2020 (EDT)
Thanks! Which sources can I cite here that are considered "reliable"? Félix An (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2020 (EDT)
I don't believe there to be a very detailed guide on that. Just go with sources that you can instinctually trust and don't seem sketchy. For example, Wikipedia should not be cited unless it's to prove the latter's liberal bias. Most conservative sites like Breitbart, Townhall.com, and the Daily Caller are great. Just keep in mind that the main reason for citing references is to back up whatever points you're trying to make on the articles you're editing on. If you cite anything that contains inappropriate language/content in any context, then it's important that you specify in the reference whatever that needs to warned for readers. Hope this helps. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Thursday, 22:07, 5 August 2020 (EDT)

Access Issues

Has anyone else been encountering serious problems accessing Conservapedia the last few days? It seems like half the time I get on here, I'm met with an error message: "Internal Server Error," "Gateway Timeout," "Unauthorized," etc. It isn't all the time, but it's often enough to be frustrating, and if I'm not the only one, it needs to be sorted out. -Teakin88

The DNC and their allied CCP hackers don't like the message getting out, so they are attempting to suppress information. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 15:06, 10 August 2020 (EDT)
My recent edits have disappeared--again. Does anyone know what is going on??? -Teakin88
I have no idea what's happening either. Also, I had just mentioned about the issue here. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Wednesday, 11:04, 19 August 2020 (EDT)
Continuing to figure things out now. We have and will restore some of the edits. Sorry for the unexpected disruption!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2020 (EDT)

Request to change article on homosexuality

Hey, nice work guys, I really love the articles. One thing I have noticed though is the lack of articles like "arguments FOR homosexuality." Now, I'm just as God-fearing as the rest of you, and I refuse to buy into the Homosexual Agenda as well, but if we want this place to maintain its non-partisanship, we should address both sides and deal with the Left's arguments accordingly. I was thinking about changing the existing debate articles by also including arguments for both sides. I have seen these leftists bring up some terrible points lately and I have just wanted to address them with this wonderful community - LeftistSchools

You have to be an expert to talk about certain things discreetly. After all, the Bible says about some: "What they do is too shameful to discuss." Is that how you spell God-fearing? VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 10:07, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
I'd suggest a Debate page rather than a mainspace article at this point. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 12:43, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
My bad, I missed that typo when I was writing this up. It has been fixed. I believe you referenced Ephesians 5:12? Just before that verse, does it not also say that we should "Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them?" I agree with RobSmith in that a debate page should be set up. Active discussion must be involved if we are to expose the deeds of darkness - User:LeftistSchools
Verse 12 actually reads, For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 18:46, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
The Holy Apostle says to expose "the futile works of darkness" by contrast through seeking "complete goodness and right living and truth." It is also written, "cast not your pearls before swine, lest they trample them." The argument is over. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 20:16, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

Ham and eggs

If you say you have ham and eggs, you must have at least some ham or some eggs. If you switch steak for ham and switch oatmeal for eggs, how can you still say you have "ham and eggs"? That shouldn't be difficult to understand. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 10:36, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

Night mode

Just wondering, is it just me, or is night mode not around anymore? Usually for a certain time period when night mode's on, account creation is disabled for everyone (except administrators), and editing is limited to those with the "Administrator" or "edit" tag. This usually prevents trolls from vandalizing when most editors aren't as active on CP. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier's mother be all well! Wednesday, 13:56, 9 September 2020 (EDT)

More server issues

Is it just me, or does it occur for anyone else editing that CP would function normally for around nine minutes, then won't load for the next six minutes, with the process repeating? —LiberaltearsMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Thursday, 23:47, 23 September 2020 (EDT)

I typically can make 2 or 3 edits, purge the history for the past hour, and can re-edit. I'm rotating between 4 browsers to do it. It's been happening for about 3 days. RobSFree Kyle! 00:07, 24 September 2020 (EDT)
Ah, I see. I'll try purging my browser cache and see if it helps to at least partially resolve the nuisance. Thanks for the reply!
LiberaltearsMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Thursday, 00:15, 24 September 2020 (EDT)


I'm new to Conservapedia, and I was wondering if there is a category for articles that need improvements? Such as spell-checking, adding wikilinks to dead-end articles, etc. Things that are easy to help me get familiar with the process of editing here. Thanks. MAGAViking (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2020 (EDT)

If you look at the left side on any CP page and under "Edit Console", there's a link that says "Special pages". That lists some maintenance reports, including dead-end pages, etc. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Saturday, 19:36, 24 October 2020 (EDT)


No, but that's a good idea. Here's a suggestion: you could look at Popular Pages, and begin with the newer ones that seemingly are receiving the most traffic right now. Thanks! RobSFree Kyle! 19:38, 24 October 2020 (EDT)
Thank you for the suggestions! MAGAViking (talk) 19:45, 24 October 2020 (EDT)

"President Biden"

So, although I hope and pray that the courts do the right thing and invalidate the voter fraud occurring, there is of course the possibility that Joe Biden will be taking the oath of office on January 20th.

However, since it is now obvious that he will have only done so by stealing the election, I think it is necessary for Conservapedia to determine its policy on referring to Trump and Biden in that scenario. My position is, since Biden did not lawfully win the election, he cannot truly be considered President, and therefore the page(s) devoted to him should not label him as such. Similarly, the page on Donald Trump should state that he remains the actual President (though of course an explanation will be necessary, that he is not able at the moment to exercise the powers of the Presidency).

Again, that's my position. What say others? -Teakin88

Do you believe everything the MSM and Big Tech says? RobSFree Kyle! 15:43, 6 November 2020 (EST)
No. I do believe that the Democrats will try to steal it, and that the institutions which are supposed to stand in the way of that are too corrupt to be automatically trusted to do so. So my question remains--is the Conservapedia policy going to be to continue to acknowledge Trump as the lawful President, even if the worst comes to pass? Teakin88
Trump remains the President and Joe Biden remains a suspected agent of a foreign power. RobSFree Kyle!
I don't think the presidential election is over in Wisconsin. As the old saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Saturday, 15:06, 7 November 2020 (EST)

2020 results

Georgia and North Carolina have finally been called, giving Biden a winning Electoral College tally of 306 to 232. The popular vote was 51 percent (78.7 million) for Biden to 47 percent (73.1 million) for Trump. The total presidential vote was 13.2 percent higher than in 2016.[7] On election day, Biden's net approval was at +6.2 compared to -12.8 for Trump.[8] On election day 2016, Clinton had a net approval of -12.6 while Trump had -21.[9] So Trump could cover a 8.4 gap in his favorability numbers, but apparently not a 19 point gap.

From the chart, I'd say the Trump campaign was on track until the riots hit at the end of May. In others words, we can't blame covid. But we can blame Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, who refused to send in the troops to recover the two police stations that were siezed by the rioters -- at least not without a request from the local governor. What are we to make of the Democratic governors, who sacrificed their own states to the rioters rather than request federal aid? Are they telling their own voters that they are a bunch of racists who had it coming? Jay Inslee in Washington State was reelected by a whopping margin of 57 percent to 43 percent. Inslee called up 200 guardsmen to clear the highways at one point, but only laughed when asked about CHAZ. The state is so blue that riots aren't even controversial.

There is also the odd phenomenon of Republican candidates being nearly tied with Democrats in the House vote and in other downballot votes, despite the fact that Republicans lost the White House by a significant margin. We can expect a Republican sweep in the midterms. Four years of Trump news has exhausted all of us. It seems that a significant number of voters were hoping that ousting Trump and electing Republicans to Congress would give us a break from all the drama. Of course, the problem here is not so much anything Trump has actually done as the hysterical way that the media reacts to him. I certainly hope Trump is not back in 2024 and that the nomination goes to someone like Vice President Mike Pence or Senator Tom Cotton. PeterKa (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2020 (EST)

The ticket-splitting may have been more in some liberal-leaning districts like the ones that propelled Young Kim, Maria Elvira Salazar, Carlos Gimenez, Michelle Steel to victory. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Sunday, 00:39, 15 November 2020 (EST)
Also, the problem with a candidate other than Trump is that they may not have the populist-approach appeal to some voters that were crucial to his 2016 victory. By the way PeterKa, do you live in Washington? —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Sunday, 00:44, 15 November 2020 (EST)
As of late, I have not followed the 2020 election news closely. But knowing that Donald Trump is a "New Yorker fighter", he will likely run again in 2024 if he does not win in 2020. He may launch a news website/channel too as a prelude to 2024. In addition, Trump has a big ego which could also cause him to run in 2024 should he lose the 2020 election. Furthermore, I can't see Trump letting his very loyal fans down.
U.S. President Grover Cleveland was elected non-consecutive terms and he was a New Yorker.Conservative (talk) 01:17, 15 November 2020 (EST)
Yeah, I got to vote against Inslee and the state's appalling plan to teach sex education starting in the fifth grade.[10] Sadly, there is not much reason for a conservative to vote in Washington State.
In the argot of campaign strategists, Trump commits the sins of going off message and shooting down (attacking targets not worthy of his attention). Just by fixing those problems, he could go up 2 to 3 points in the polls. He'll be 78 on election day 2024. That's a year older than Biden is now. PeterKa (talk) 02:51, 15 November 2020 (EST)
Trump has a lot of energy (I think he might have ADHD). He is like the energy bunny. Barring circulatory problems such as a stroke or heart attack, Trump will run again in 2024.Conservative (talk) 07:56, 15 November 2020 (EST)

Continuous loading problems

CP continues to have loading problems. Often I'm trying to edit the House elections page, and after some updates, the site won't load for a few minutes. This type of issue happens over and over, and it drains my time. When will this be resolved? I really like editing here, though I wish the site could be more efficient than it currently is. Thanks! —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Monday, 23:08, 15 November 2020 (EST)

I'm suspecting that, like last time, this may be the result of attempted DDOS attacks by leftists who don't want people to see the truth as it comes out. They're becoming increasingly desperate and they wouldn't be acting this way if they didn't have anything to fear. Northwest (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2020 (EST)
A larger problem with CP right now is that page views don't go up the way it used to, which probably could've been caused by those very server errors currently wasting my time. My page creations months ago such as this, this, this, and this all quickly got very high numbers despite very few revisions for them. If those leftists were trying to block off people from seeing the truth we're putting out, especially with updates related to the presidential, Senate, and House elections, they might've partially succeeded. Based off here, it seems that total page views are going up steadily, though I don't know what pages account for that, though this seems like one of them. However, ever since those series of annoying problems in August, CP's page view numbers for new page creations has dwindled over time. Now, one of my observations is that CP eliminated the www. from its URL, which may or may not have an impact. Another thing I noticed is that much of the page views could've simply been siphoned off to here due to those 403.shtml errors popping up. Right now, I just hope Andy can fix those loading problems soon, as I often am trying to update the 2020 U.S. House elections page and find out three seconds later that the page won't load. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Tuesday, 21:29, 16 November 2020 (EST)
Aaand we just got DDOSed for a day. Wow. Leftists are p*ssed. Sievert 81 (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2020 (EST)

Conceding an election: Carter versus Trump

Fer nearly two weeks, the media has been whining about Trump's failure to concede gracefully. Okay, I guess he should. But what Democrat has ever conceded gracefully? The New York Times is still running articles that accuse Nixon of stealing the 1968 election from Humphrey by communicating with the South Vietnamese president. In 2016, Hillary's campaign wanted the Electoral College briefed on Trump's supposed treason with the Russians. Were they supposed to undo the popular vote? Meanwhile, Carter's former aides are fighting for vindication by accusing Reagan of conspiring with the ayatollahs. Here is Anne Coulter, brillant as usual: "Gee, Why Can't Trump Accept Defeat Like the Democrats?" PeterKa (talk) 08:29, 19 November 2020 (EST)

Given the circumstances of this election, it's obvious that there was unprecedented fraud in favor of Biden. Also, Ann Coulter hasn't been on the right side of the issues every time; remember when she said Trump "deserved" to lose? The lack of progress in reaching some goals in border security had nearly all to do with the Trump agenda blocked by the courts, so blaming it on Trump was rather unfair and ridiculous. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Thursday, 08:38, 19 November 2020 (EST)
Here is a 1988 Playboy cover promoting the "October surprise" theory of the 1980 election that I thought was pretty funny. ("Mom, I just got it for the crazy conspiracy theory! Honest!")
Trump's political career was both created and undone by Celebrity Apprentice and CNN, with Jeff Zucker presiding over both. Biden could be our most anti-Christian president ever, a Christian-bashing Catholic backed up by a Marxist pope and a Catholic-hating veep. Obama was elected as a Christian and shifted to Christian-bashing toward the end of his first term. We had five unitarian presidents, namely Jefferson, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Filmore, and Taft. Perhaps Pence can bring us back to Nicene-creed orthodoxy.
Liberals remain hysterical about whatever Trump happens to be doing. HuffPost is accusing him of "undermining democracy." Stacy Abrams lost the 2018 Georgia governor's race by 50 to 49 point margin. Ever since, she has been accusing Republicans of "voter suppression," whatever that means. But she isn't undermining democracy, at least not to according to the liberal media. In fact, they treat Abrams as a hero precisely because of this unsportsmanlike behavior.
As for Coulter, I think she has been giving Trump good advise. When the rioters took the police station in Minneapolis, she immediately tweeted that Trump should send in the troops. This was certianly a missed opportunity, one of the few Trump had to reset the race in his favor. PeterKa (talk) 05:29, 20 November 2020 (EST)

Biden opens the border. What happened to covid?

What is the No. 1 policy priority of the incoming Biden administration? Covid? Global warming? Racial justice? No, no, and no. It is increasing the level of immigration in order to create more Democrat voters. With the media in peak covid hysteria, Biden has announced that he is going to let in more illegal immigrants. This is on top of the increase in legal refugees that he told us about last week. Not only will he stop wall construction, but he will also freeze deportations for 100 days. This may be a preliminary to ending deportation altogether. If that's not incentive enough, illegals will get free health care, including the covid vaccine. This is early, specific, action that suggests that Biden prioritizes opening the border over almost every other issue.

Current American citizens are not the constituency that Biden is appealing to. Only 34 percent of Americans want an increase in immigration, according to Gallup's lastest poll of this issue, which was taken on May 28-June 4. The idea of giving illegal immigrants free health care is both hugely unpopular and economically unsustainable. You can think of Bidenism as a reversed image of democracy. The country would be run, not for the benefit its citizens or even its current residents, but for non-citizens who now live outside its boundaries. See "Poll: 67% Of Likely Voters Say Illegal Immigration Is A Serious Problem, Most Believe Democrats Don't Want To Stop It" and "Biden’s COVID Plan: Close The Economy, Open The Border." PeterKa (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2020 (EST)

The future of the Republican party

Vice President Mike Pence looks awesomely presidential in this video. You won't get past a Pence-led Space Force, you filthy Martians! PeterKa (talk) 12:34, 22 November 2020 (EST)

An observation about the Gateway Timeouts

The Gateway Timeouts always appear to happen at the same frequency in terms of their occurrence. They seem to show up three times every hour, lasting for five minutes each time then going away for fifteen minutes only to show up again. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Tuesday, 22:52, 23 November 2020 (EST)

What happened to Matt Drudge?

For many years, Matt Drudge was the top source of conservative news. In 2018-2019, his site gradually moved to the left. Nowadays, it is just another news aggregator. Viewship has declined sharply. What kind of business model is that? Perhaps Drudge sold out to some liberal billionaire. But who, when, and why? This story follows the rabbit hole as far down as it goes. In the summer on 2019, Drudge switched the site's advertising account to a company owned by Margaret Otto. She lives in Mountain View, California and is the wife of Adrian Otto, an executive at Google. The pair has been managing server traffic for the Drudge Report since at least 2005.

The writer didn't come up with anyone beside the Ottos who is directly connected to the site: no interns, no editors, no sign of what happened to Drudge himself. It seems that everything is automated. Drudge Report is in the process of the being transformed into a scam site. Since August, it has been running "hidden ads" they charge the advertiser for, but that don't actually appear on the site. PeterKa (talk) 04:08, 26 November 2020 (EST)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving, and THANK YOU to all the dedicated, hardworking editors on CP here! —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Friday, 22:57, 26 November 2020 (EST)

Saxon math

In a Biden presidency, the teacher's unions will be in driver's seat when it comes to education policy. So we can expect a lot more "anti-racist education." Pretty much every Democrat, including Biden himself, has called Trump a racist. Calling Trump supporters racists is common as well. Biden calls us "uglies" and "chumps." In short, "anti-racist" really means anti-American. A lot of parents may soon give homeschooling another look.

American Thinker has an enthusiastic report on Saxon math, a popular sequence of homeschooling classes. Saxon got a frontpage National Review story back in the 1980s. AT recommends the pre-2007 editions. On Amazon, I didn't find later editions for sale, aside from a couple of workbooks. The New York Post also recommends Saxon. Here is a story about a school that switched from Saxon to another brand. The teachers complained that Saxon is repetitious. But is that really a flaw? The teacher can always adjust the pace and not every student needs to cover every problem. Here is a 1993 study that found that the Saxon method was effective. PeterKa (talk) 09:05, 27 November 2020 (EST)

New topic: Trump Victory

How are you all feeling about Trump's likelihood of being named victor in the presidential election? His team's lawsuits don't seem to have had any positive results. I'm starting to lose faith that he'll be awarded a second term by the Electoral College. --IScott (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2020 (EST)

The more illegal vote fraud committed by the Democrats that gets exposed (and more and more of it is getting exposed day by day), the less and less likely it is that the Democrats will be able to retain any semblance of power, much less get Biden into the White House. Not only is Trump getting his second term (as, by all rights, Biden basically legally forfeited the election the moment it was discovered that the Democrats illegally cheated on his behalf), but it's a given that there will be massive fallout from this as he invokes EO 13848 (regarding illegal foreign interference in a United States election), which would allow the Trump administration to legally seize the assets of companies (including Facebook, Twitter and Google/YouTube) and individuals (which could even include members of the liberal media) that were complicit (whether by aiding or covering up) in said foreign interference. This may very well also lead to the end of the Democrat Party as many of its members, along with their operatives, end up going to prison and face military tribunals for electoral fraud, sedition, insurrection (with intent of violently overthrowing the duly elected US Government) and many other crimes - and in the case of Democrats who committed treason (and there are quite a few of them), they would potentially face execution for that crime. Northwest (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2020 (EST)
Wait, we can contact the Trump Campaign and show Conservapedia sources the necessary evidence. --United States (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2020 (EST)
The Secretary of State for California certified for Biden today.[11] That gives the Democrats a certified majority in the Electoral College. So it is no longer possible for election fraud lawsuits to overturn the election. I suppose we could go the Hillary Clinton route and demand that the Electoral College be briefed on Hunter's corruption and how Joe is a treasonous stooge of China, or at least was for many years. In July, the Supreme Court affirmed unanimously that state laws binding electors are valid.[12] Thirty-two states have laws of this kind. The governors count the electors's votes. They can presumably disregard votes of the kind that SCOTUS has now ruled illegal. PeterKa (talk) 10:26, 5 December 2020 (EST)
California is just very Democrat, how about the toss-ups? --United States 11:08, 5 December 2020 (EST)
Here is the certification site. Only Missouri and New Jersey remain uncertified at this point. Trump can't win without Pennsylvania. The U.S. Third Circuit upheld Pennsylvania's certification on November 27, so the legal options seem to have run out there. PeterKa (talk) 12:13, 5 December 2020 (EST)
That looks absolutely bogus to me (and may, in fact, be one of numerous psy-ops ploys being employed by the Left to try to demoralize and discourage our side) and I'm not about to buy it, especially considering that Trump still has other avenues to go to get the illegal Democrat vote fraud overturned in the swing states and elsewhere. In addition to him invoking EO 13848, if the SCOTUS is intimidated by the criminals in the Democrat Party to not rule as they should and declare the election in Trump's favor (which he rightfully won anyway, as all votes that came in after the closing of polls at 8:00 p.m. local time are invalid and don't count under federal election rules), then he'll have no choice but to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 against the Democrats, their operatives and their brownshirts to deep-six their illegal coup (which the vote fraud they're committing is a part of). Northwest (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2020 (EST)
Various states encouraged non-citizens to vote, notably California. But these states tend to be "deep blue" anyway. So this type of fraud would effect the popular vote more than the Electoral College vote. Every state should require voter ID. Whether fraud is an issue or not, it would make people take the process of voting more seriously.
The latest is that the Dems are calling for Trump's lawyers to be sanctioned. What about Gore's lawyers, who pushed the "hand recount" nonsense back in 2000? There was no basis in Florida law for counting votes by hand. Furthermore, there is no reason to think that this method is more accurate than a machine count. Ron Klain, who headed Gore's recount effort, is now White House chief of staff. In short, there is no shame in trying to cheat your way to victory if you are a Democrat. PeterKa (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2020 (EST)
The thing with that is, though, those who were witnesses first-hand to the vote fraud as they took part in it are now starting to feel shame and are speaking out against it due to the reawakening of their consciences. The more hardcore "true believer" Democrats may not feel that way now, but they're going to have their "come to Jesus" moment the moment arrests for vote fraud (and related crimes) start being made. Northwest (talk) 13:15, 6 December 2020 (EST)
Also, Biden again defended China. That just gives me a headache. --United States (talk) 13:15, 6 December 2020 (EST)

Will fraud allegations keep Republicans from the Georgia polls?

The Russia collusion hoax went on for years. Hillary could spend $2 billion on her campaign and millions voted. But up against Russian bots and $100,000 worth of ridiculous Facebook ads, she didn't have a chance. I don't recall that the media ever worried about the sanity of people who believed such nonsense.

When Mueller finally testified, it turned out that the man was an empty shell, or at any rate a guy with better things to do than read the Mueller Report or worry about whether Russians were colluding with "Trimp," as he called the president. Liberals didn't skip a beat. They moved right along to the Ukraine phone call issue. Why can't Trump ask anyone he likes to investigate Biden? Running for president certainly didn't give Trump any kind of immunity.

That's why it's so thoughtful of the media to be concerned that Georgia Republicans will become so discombobulated by the allegations of fraud in the presidential election that they will neglect to vote in the all-important Senate runoffs on January 5. See "Faith shaken in system, Trump’s Georgia supporters consider skipping U.S. Senate runoffs." The headline may sound like parody, but this article is the real deal. Apparently, there was a townhall where attendees asked the state Republican chairwoman why Republicans should invest time or money in the runoffs. What do want to bet those people were Democrats? PeterKa (talk) 06:50, 6 December 2020 (EST)

Rumor is, Durham has expanded his probe to include election fraud. Durham was appointed as special counsel in October. Special Counsels must be appointed from outside government. THis means Durham must have privately retired as a US Attorney at some point. Is firing a Special Counsel an impeachable offense? RobSFree Kyle! 15:37, 6 December 2020 (EST)
Patrick Fitzgerald, special counsel in the Plame case, was also a serving U.S. attorney. He was appointed by Comey, who had "full power of the attorney general." The regulations were issued by the attorney general, so the AG can override them. Every special counsel appointment has been irregular in one way or another. Special counsels are supposed to investigate crimes, but communicating with Russians isn't a crime. That didn't slow Mueller down. Unlike Comey, Rosenstien did not the have the full power of the AG. He got around the regulation by appointing Mueller as a "special assistant." PeterKa (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2020 (EST)

Attention Hong Kong burglers: Carrie Lam's house is full of cash

Hong Kong is a major banking center, but the banks are too afraid of U.S. sanctions to let Chief Executive Carrie Lam open an account: "Hong Kong's leader is being paid in cash due to US sanctions. Carrie Lam earns $56,000 a month and says money is piling up at her house." PeterKa (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2020 (EST)

Attempted murder of election fraud witness

On the main page, there is a headline on the "In the News" column that claims to link to an article with a video of an apparent attempted murder of an election fraud witness. However, on that very same article, an editor's note claims that it is not an attempted hit on a fraud witness. I think this headline should be removed from the main page as soon as possible, to ensure that Conservapedia maintains its credibility. --Toby Chester (talk) 06:17, 9 December 2020 (EST)

History of Conservapedia

I was looking at the Alexa ranking and statistics on this site and as I noticed the 'similar sites by audience overlap' statistic. I thought to myself, "I wonder if there are other good conservative sites out there," thinking that this would lead me to them. I was mistaken for one. When I saw 'Rationalwiki.org', I thought it would be another good conservative site like this one, hence 'rational', but it's swarming with liberals. I was a little annoyed at first, but some of their content funny, just because it's so wrong. As I was browsing the site, I came upon Conservapedia's article. Evidently, they have an extensive network of (mis)information about this site. If the liberals are going to write our history, I think the admins should create a page on this site detailing the history of Conservapedia from a conservative point of view. -Mark Adams(Discuss with me) 10:33, 18 January 2021 (EST)


I propose we establish a Conservapedia Project page for dispute resolution and editors to air their grievances against other editors, rather than clog up Andy's talk page. I propose we call it Conservapedia:Kangeroo Court, unless somebody has a better name. RobSFree Kyle! 21:32, 31 January 2021 (EST)

Hmm, good idea. After all, then Andy won't have to deal with notifications about users posting on his talk page on arguments he appears to take no interest in involving himself in. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Monday, 12:25, 1 February 2021 (EST)
If Andy wants to get involved in one of these peeing contests, there's nothing stopping him. This would encourage users to resolvd problems among themselves. RobSFree Kyle! 14:15, 1 February 2021 (EST)
I think we should just stick to keeping Conservapedia simple. Having dispute resolution pages can end up being a mess, like it is on Wikipedia. Bytemsbu (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2021 (EST)
Every dispute doesn't' have to be resolved. The idea now is simply to keep trolls off Andy's talk page and give editors a place to air grievances, which may or may not be legit. RobSFree Kyle! 21:17, 1 February 2021 (EST)
Warning: Off topic; personal attack
You're starting again with the false accusations, Rob. You should've left well enough alone when Karajou removed this section and took that for the signal he was sending you, but now you're making like the proverbial "dog with a bone" that just won't drop it and let it go (especially now with your attempts to appeal to other editors here). Northwest (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2021 (EST)
You're only continuing to prove my point (and Karajou's point) every time you do this, Rob. Ever since you decided to go rogue and bend a knee to the Biden regime with that post on my talk page falsely accusing me of "trolling" while leaving a link to that DHS note (which appears to have been the moment that you snapped), you've been getting progressively worse. The only reason you put that warning template up to hide what I have to say is because you don't like what I have to say, and only liberals resort to that kind of censorship for similar such reasons - and every time you do this, you only further prove that point. Northwest (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2021 (EST)
The Kangaroo Court will reduce the incidence of divisive flame wars, giving aggrieved parties a place to vent their spleens differences. RobSFree Kyle! 00:08, 2 February 2021 (EST)

No one is going to post on a forum with a title like the one proposed. This page is as good a place as any for the "Why is RobSmith so mean?" discussion. PeterKa (talk) 00:28, 2 February 2021 (EST)

The objective is to establish a process where editors know they will be heard. Right now, Andy's talk page is the first and last resort for complaints and disputes. Some (probably if not most) are too trivial to deal with, which Andy doesn't have time to deal with. This leaves some editors frustrated for not getting resolution to their problems.
A Kangaroo court will give all editors a chance to present their case with evidence before objective viewers. The viewers can then reject it without merit, or possibly render a decision one or both parties. The decision of course is without any enforcement mechanism, and blocking editors can cite as a second offense if the user doesn't mend their ways. Andy of course would be the Final Court of Appeal, but only after the Kangaroo Court rendered a decision.
Sysops would be the only group of editors with direct access to making a complaint against a Sysop on Andy's talk page, by-passing the Kangaroo Court, and eliminating the frivolous cases we've seen in the past. RobSFree Kyle! 01:04, 2 February 2021 (EST)
Warning: DFTT
I'd like to let this drop and move on, but RobS is clearly unwilling to and he's letting it affect both his judgement and his ability to do his job. Northwest (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2021 (EST)

Nothing wrong with this "Kangaroo Court" idea. Except the name, and that name would be a deal-killer. I don't like to copy names from other projects. But maybe "Board of Arbitration" would fit better.--TerryHTalk 08:06, 2 February 2021 (EST)

Or "Consultative Assembly" or anything would do. There just ought to be a process where people know they will be heard, no matter how valid or ridiculous a complaint might be, rather than chaos, helplessness, and frustration some users now feel. I just want to get the ball rolling on some ideas to kick around. RobSFree Kyle! 08:55, 2 February 2021 (EST)

I don't think its a bad idea, but is Rob calling for this or is Andy calling for it? It is said that this would clean up Andy's talk page, but I don't see Andy saying that. Do we have enough regular editors to necessitate an Arbitration committee? As noted above by another user, it can get messy over at Wikipedia. What is the problem being solved with this, is there a rash of users being banned who are legitimate users? (not trolls or deviants of some kind) Progressingamerica (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2021 (EST)

  • What the heck is this, an “HCM” on Conservapedia? I vote NO! to this, simply because one of the founding principles of our wiki is that it is to be a meritocracy, not a mobocracy like Wikipedia or the Rat-Tard nest. With all due respect, RobS was just recently banned from the Rat-Tard nest, and appears to miss it enough to want to institute a page like their “chicken coop” here. This is not the first of his Ratdiculous suggestions; I recall he once wanted to have a “vandal bin” like they have. The Ratdiculous way of doing things has failed over there, causing the Rats to adopt policies more like Wikipedia’s and even our’s, so why in the world would we want to bring that here? DMorris (talk) 11:55, 3 February 2021 (EST)