Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia talk:Abuse"

Revision as of 15:34, June 16, 2007

I'm not objective because I've been editing the article myself. It seems to me that User:RightWolf2 has the impression that unsupported opinion is OK as long as it's conservative opinion, and is at least near the borderline of Conservapedia Commandment #6. It particularly bothers me that, in order to support the statement that

"[Wikipedia's] Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site administrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community."

he cites http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ although the link page contains neither the word "homosexual" nor the word "gay." Perhaps there is relevant material on that site, but it's his job to find it and cite it, not to keep reinserting a link to this site's home page. Dpbsmith 16:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia-Watch is Daniel Brandt's site. I don't know if it states that outright, but I try and look into it. RobS 17:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

This here http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html I think is what he is referring to. RobS 17:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

The word "homosexual" isn't on that page, either. Only one reference to "gay," an assertion that a Wikipedia administrator "attempt[ed] to falsely suggest that Brandt is gay."

My objection is not that he's citing a strongly anti-Wikipedian website, although this should probably be made clear. The question is: does the site really say what he says it says, and, if so, where? Dpbsmith 19:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I think that's right; what the editor is probably suggesting is if someone did the actual leg work of checking those users cited on that list, they would come up with a high percentage disproportionate to the general population of people who openly confess to being gay. Of course this, in Wikipedia, would be considered Original research. RobS 19:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Current Alerts

We need to make sure that we removed current alerts after they have been handled. I propose that once someone has addressed a current alert, we only leave it up for a day max, because the current alert section is getting messy with comments.--Elamdri 20:23, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I also moved Current Alerts to the Top of the page, so we don't have to dig to find them.

• Excellent! --~ TerryK ^MyTalk 02:56, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

What happened here

Goodness! Whatever happened here? --~ TK ^MyTalk 02:15, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

The page was archived, TK. Use the little history button at the top of the page. Myk 02:18, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I archived the page, as it was too large. Geo.Talk 02:19, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Speaking of large...that Conservative Abuse page is very much too long! I shall archive it now. Gee, I hope I do it right...anyone wanna say how to do it correctly? Or maybe someone wants to do it themself?  :p --~ TK ^MyTalk 03:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

• I see the helpfulness is overflowing, and once again proving my point. A few who consider themselves "elite" will never offer help or information, because they like their positions of knowing the Wiki so well, they can supplant their ideas for the majority of the users. --~ TK ^MyTalk 16:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

This sure seems like “criticize[ing] without solutions” [1]. I was under the impression that “Criticism, without offering a solution...is unacceptable behavior.” [2] I mean you posted your question less than 24 hours ago and “We don't have a running clock here, demanding instant action.” [3]--Reginod 19:54, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

• Exactly, as opposed to being rat packed instantly with criticism. Yes, you have it right. --~ TK ^MyTalk 19:58, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I’m not sure what you mean by “rat packed” but I’ll go ahead and assume it was intended in the politest and most civil manner possible and not as a baseless ad hominem attack. I’m also not sure what your other point was, but I think mine was fairly clear, if you are going to attack people for complaining about things then you ought not complain rather than fix things (I on the other hand have never told people to stop complaining as I think legitimate complaints well expressed benefit the site, especially on locked pages) .--Reginod 20:18, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

• Last night, I was talking to TK and I mentioned the possible idea of a tutoring system for new sysops or editors. I know this isn't really the appropriate page to bring this up, but it's a possible solution. I know Wikipedia does it. MountainDew 19:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I once had the motivation for something like that (and I still occasionally got the drive back, like in Conservapedia:Footnotes - technical help). Even these days, I try to help where I find calls for help, but it's relatively thankless work in many cases.

On-topic: I think the first step for that would be to compile a list of open questions. We have some sysops who need a few pointers for sysop tools, and we got some sysops who need a full-scale "MediaWiki 101". It will be impossible to write a help without a starting point. --Sid 3050 20:08, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I am afraid we are past that now, they don't want others sharing knowledge, it robs them of their elite status. --~ TK ^MyTalk 20:02, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

TK, I'm disappointed. I thought I helped you often enough for you to avoid such broad statements. --Sid 3050 20:08, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Maybe eventually the field of thistles will be burned to grow anew. MountainDew 20:02, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

The archive didn't really suit me. Can you leave some of the recent stuff up, so it's handier to use? When I drop in, I'm usually in a hurry. I just want to add a one-liner, on the model of what I see in front of me. If it's too clean, I kind of freeze up. --Ed Poor 20:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Accusations of trolling

Excuse me, but adding the conservative Christian view of sex to Heterosexuality is not "trolling", and neither is removing loaded words like "genocide" and "murder" from Holocaust. AppliedFaith 10:53, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

We are debating "editing done in an attempt to embarrass conservapedia" [4]right now with a recommended ban of 6 months. These two edits, in my view, could earn you a one year ban, but you are free to put your input on that discussion page if you feel these were not attempts to embarrass Conservapedia. RobS 13:19, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

'Genocide' and 'Murder' are both legal charges that the instigators of the Holocaust were found guilty of. They are facts. Conservapedia is in favour of facts (a fairly difficult statement, but bear with me). Hence removing facts from Conservapedia is trolling. Wikinterpreter

So because the winners get to write the history books, objectivity and neutral language are to be thrown out the window? AppliedFaith 11:15, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

AppliedFaith, the winners in World War II were those who were opposed to slaughtering innocents. I think it's okay that people who are not in favor of slaughtering innocents get to write the history books. Do you disagree?-AmesG_yo! 13:24, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

as someone if favor af abortion, you have nothing to say about slaughtering innocents. --CPAdmin1 21:21, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I think an encyclopedia shouldn't be using loaded terms that by their nature tell readers what to think. And try telling the civilians of Dresden, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima that the Allies were opposed to slaughtering innocents. AppliedFaith 14:38, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Don't be an idiot. --Hacker^{(Write some code • Support my RfA)} 21:56, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Hacker, there is no need for you to call a person an idiot. --AdrianP 21:45, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Look, I'm half Jewish. I don't appreciate attempted negation of the Holocaust, and I reserve the right to call it for what it is. --Liπus the Turbohacker^{(contact me)} 20:26, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

If you disagree

• - Ed, a kilt (pleated male skirt) and (on formal occasions) dress shirt with ruffles is traditional Scottish dress. Unthank 07:26, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

  --The man in the traditional attire was in fact Jack McConnell the first minister of Scotland. The head of the Scottish Executive. I will revert you unintended vandalism. Auld Nick 07:45, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

  1. You are both on probation. Let's see your writing plans. --Ed Poor 07:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

-- for pointing out that the kilt is traditional Scottish dress? Google images of kilt if you don't believe us. Driving competent and experienced writers away is no way to make Conservapedia a success. Unthank 08:04, 30 April 2007 (EDT) ---By the way I'm a grandfather called Nicolas and have nothing to do with Satan. Auld Nick 08:09, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

• Britinme (talk • contribs • count) history of adding copyright violations.[5][6] RobS 14:06, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

I strongly object to this characterization. The American Friends Service Committee stuff is licensed under creative commons - no copyright violations there. If you check, you'll find that the Albania stuff is only on one other site on the internet, and that's QI. It's on QI because I am a moderator on that site and I wrote it, so if there's any copyright there it belongs to me. Please withdraw your accusation and apologize. This statement should not be posted here without checking any such issues with me - that's the height of discourtesy.--Britinme 18:30, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank you. It will be investigated. RobS 21:18, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

QI says, "abridged from a longer version you can read here" [7] which links to to Crossing Boundaries: Albania's Sworn Virgins [8] on the Jolique site which has a copyright noitce. Is this correct? RobS 00:26, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

'Abridged' means I took a short section from it, which counts as fair usage, and I linked to the original article--Britinme 12:47, 1 May 2007 (EDT)Corrected mis-statement--Britinme 13:01, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Ok, that looks acceptable. And I appologize for any misunderstanding. RobS 14:07, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

I was unable to add another vandal entry yesterday. The system said I was spamming.

I was unable to add another vandal entry yesterday. The system said I was spamming. Conservative 17:50, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

That's probably due to a filtered word. The error message should tell what word caused the problem, and you can change the word by using "**" instead in order to do the edit. Thanks.--Aschlafly 17:53, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

• But unfortunately one needs to remember to copy your entry to your clipboard, or it will be totally lost, and sometimes the filter does not tell you what the word denied is! --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 08:20, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

I ran into the same thing, but I followed TK's advice and it worked fine. ;-) Learn together 11:20, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

I generally haven't had this problem (of losing my edit), and I've done some testing and figured out why.

First, I generally use IE. I think this should work in other browsers, but I won't guarantee it.

I almost always preview my edit before I post (the "Show preview" button next to the "Save page" button). The spam filter doesn't object when you do a preview, but previewing saves your edit in the browser's memory. So the steps are these:

1. Make your changes in the edit box.
2. When you've made your changes, click the "Show preview" button.
3. When you are happy with the preview, click the "Save page" button. The spam filter then gives the error message.
4. Click the browser's "back" button. In theory, you are going back to the last preview view. The browser will respond with an error message, saying that the page has expired, and to click the Refresh button if you want to resubmit your entry. (What you are thereby resubmitting is the text that you last previewed).
5. Click the Refresh button. The browser has effectively gone back to step 2. That is, it has resent the contents of the edit box, which it has remembered. So you now find yourself back in the edit box, with your changes intact, ready for you to remove the offending word and resubmit.

• This might seem a convoluted way of avoiding the problem, and perhaps it is if this is the only reason you use the "Show preview" button, but if you get yourself into the habit of previewing before submitting, it's no extra work except when you need to recover your edit.
• If you preview, then make a minor change, then try to save the page without getting another preview, then the text you recover will be as it was before you made those minor changes; i.e. it will be as it was when you last previewed.

Philip J. Rayment 23:17, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Is there something going on here…

…that I don't know about? Looking at the recent changes, there seems to have been a spike in really unpleasant vandalism levels. Is there any info on this?

It's Saturday. ~ Sharon^Talk 11:34, 16 June 2007 (EDT)