Difference between revisions of "Talk:Main Page"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Over 1,230 thumbs up: Irreligion and domestic violence article: user page not user talk)
(Over 1,230 thumbs up: Irreligion and domestic violence article)
Line 354: Line 354:
 
:[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVfHeWTKjag Here] is an early 2014 video on click fraud being done on legitimate Facebook advertisers that mentions spammers trying to cover their tracks by engaging in various unrelated Facebook activity to help cover their tracks. [http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrymagid/2014/10/06/why-facebook-hates-and-fights-fake-likes/ HERE] is a late 2014 article on Facebook fighting fake Facebook likes. I don't know how successful Facebook's anti-spammer campaign has been. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:18, 13 January 2015 (EST)
 
:[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVfHeWTKjag Here] is an early 2014 video on click fraud being done on legitimate Facebook advertisers that mentions spammers trying to cover their tracks by engaging in various unrelated Facebook activity to help cover their tracks. [http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrymagid/2014/10/06/why-facebook-hates-and-fights-fake-likes/ HERE] is a late 2014 article on Facebook fighting fake Facebook likes. I don't know how successful Facebook's anti-spammer campaign has been. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:18, 13 January 2015 (EST)
 
:::By the way, before the Freedom From Atheism Foundation shared the [[Irreligion and domestic violence]] article on their Facebook page, the article had about 300 Facebook likes. Based on the other Conservapedia atheism articles (some of which are more popular than others), I think the original 300 Facebook likes are all (or virtually all) bona fide Facebook likes as no efforts were made to garner these 300 Facebook likes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:25, 13 January 2015 (EST)
 
:::By the way, before the Freedom From Atheism Foundation shared the [[Irreligion and domestic violence]] article on their Facebook page, the article had about 300 Facebook likes. Based on the other Conservapedia atheism articles (some of which are more popular than others), I think the original 300 Facebook likes are all (or virtually all) bona fide Facebook likes as no efforts were made to garner these 300 Facebook likes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:25, 13 January 2015 (EST)
 +
I think some editors here are inferring that there's some sort of chicanery afoot due to the amount of likes from people with foreign sounding names. Maybe there's a less nefarious explanation. Most native English speakers find User:Conservative's writing style to be disjointed, repetitive and oddly phrased. Perhaps non-native English speakers don't take notice of these glaring rhetorical flaws and judge his work based purely on the merits. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 18:06, 13 January 2015 (EST)

Revision as of 17:06, 13 January 2015

This page is for discussion only of Main Page content and feature items. For discussion of other issues relating to the Conservapedia community please see: Conservapedia:Community Portal

We have moved some of the material formerly on this page over to Conservapedia:Community Portal. Please try to have general discussions there, and leave this page for its stated, but all-to-often violated, purpose of discussing improvements to the main page. We can do it! SamHB 17:14, 6 December 2014 (EST)

Archive Index

Landrieu Item

It may be worth noting that Landrieu was very much a Blue Dog Democrat and that even with her support of Keystone XL, she was soundly beaten because of her links through the party to Hussein Obama. He's toxic and none of them can get away. Nhodgson 22:20, 6 December 2014 (EST)

Popular articles at Conservapedia

The current view count is led by:

Article Page views
Homosexual Agenda 6,700,715
Atheism 5,582,034
Barack Hussein Obama 2,734,448
Adolf Hitler 2,255,249
Wikipedia 2,150,728
Muslim agenda of the Obama administration 2,054,564
Counterexamples to Relativity 1,998,699
Examples of Bias in Wikipedia 1,550,956
Conservative Bible Project 1,524,396

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

Rounding out the top 25 would be:

Article Page views
Sarah Palin 1,078,400
Liberal 1,078,002
Homosexuality and Anal Cancer 781,045
Homosexuality and Parasites 780,921
Atheism and obesity 779,023
Homosexuality 658,817
Evolution 656,228
ObamaCare 610,019
United States Presidential Election, 2008 579,521
Joseph Biden 575,876
World famous paintings 509,483
George W. Bush 471,628
List of dictators 442,356
Abortion 426,857
Global warming 426,511
Democratic Party 420,749

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

Interesting suggestion, but insight is obviously not a popularity contest. The list of most-visited pages is already automatically compiled and readily available. The most noteworthy popular pages should be a different list.--Andy Schlafly 13:58, 27 November 2014 (EST)
Some of the articles view counts such as Homosexuality and Parasites are the result of clickbots. There are no good reasons to have the enemies of Conservapedia dictate which articles are featured on the main page due to their view counts listed at the bottom of their pages. Furthermore, some of the articles have underestimates of their view counts due to the articles being temporarily deleted. For example, the evolution and Richard Dawkins articles are underestimated by about 500,000 page views if memory serves. Conservative 15:59, 28 November 2014 (EST)

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

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

SamHB, what are your thoughts related to the social science data contained in this article: Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity. Conservative 01:05, 29 November 2014 (EST)
Haven't read it. SamHB 00:56, 21 December 2014 (EST)

Thank you for your thoughtful responses. In order for the list to be effective, two changes should be made: 1) the list should be shortened to 10 or at most 25 items. 2) There should be an objective criteria for inclusion on the list. It should not be up to one or two people to curate the list based on which articles they find most interesting or which they have written. Thanks, Wschact 07:22, 7 December 2014 (EST)


Archiving this talk page

There are a number of people who contribute to this talk page, but don't read it every day. Accordingly, it may be best if it is archived on a monthly or bimonthly basis instead of the recent shift to moving items (about improving the main page) to the archives very quickly. Once an item is in the archives, other editors do not feel free to add to the discussion. So, the quick archiving of this talk page closes off debate prematurely. I would like to learn what other editors think about the frequency of archiving this page. Thanks, Wschact 07:03, 7 December 2014 (EST)

Sorry to step on your toes about archiving your main page ideas. I did it because it didn't look like people were contributing to the topic anymore on the main page talk page. I will restore your post to the main page talk page. Conservative 12:47, 7 December 2014 (EST)

Singapore stands up to the homosexual agenda

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

Pornographic information and profanity on Wikipedia

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

Gayer than thou: Kenya and Pakistan

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

Islam

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

You wrote: "makes questionable claims as to whether the candidates discuss there really supported "Islamists"". Why are the claims questionable? Conservative 18:56, 13 November 2014 (EST)
The one thing (if not others) that Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, Maryland Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown, former Senator Scott Brown and former Florida Governor Charlie Crist have in common is that they all love the United States and oppose anti-American Islamic extremists. There is ample evidence to show this and the cited item does not do a convincing job of demonstrating the contrary. There are reasons why people did not vote for them (e.g., raised my taxes, carpetbagger from MA, or flipped flopped between the Republican and Democratic party), but being pro-Islamic extremist/pro-terrorist was not a factor. Thanks, Wschact 20:50, 13 November 2014 (EST)
Your response wasn't helpful in terms of indicating why the material in the article was questionable. For example, why isn't the material on Crist in the article accurate?Conservative 21:36, 13 November 2014 (EST)
In addition, in terms of analyzing voting decisions it can be done at a corporate/segment/individual level. And in some geographic areas, the Islam issue is more of a hot potato due to larger than average Muslim/Jewish populations within the larger population in question (In Dearborn, Michigan where there is a large Muslim population for example, some Muslims stoned some Christians), the mix of liberal/conservative/nationalistic/religious composition of the populace, etc. Another example: Florida has a lot of pro-Israel/Jewish voters so the Islam issue could be more of a hot potato issue within a segment of the Florida population. Furthermore, the rise of ISIS makes the Islam issue be more of a political hot potato issue. Conservative 00:34, 14 November 2014 (EST)

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

Franklin Graham didn't think it was nice. He said it was “sad to see a church open its doors to worship of anything other than the One True God of the Bible.”
And Ann Coulter noted that in this last election, "Republicans swept everything from U.S. senator to substitute-part-time-dog catcher." So maybe it would be best if you started dancing to the beat of the conservative drum, because conservativism is obviously what American people have demanded of their leaders. VargasMilan 11:03, 16 November 2014 (EST)
Evidently Franklin Graham doesn't realize that Christians and Muslims worship the same god, so that seems like more of an argument for improving his and others' reading comprehension. RedG 13:55, 16 November 2014 (EST)
Maybe he's read about some contradictions you haven't. You aren't even aware that Christians don't worship a "god", but rather the supreme God, maker of all things.VargasMilan 14:09, 16 November 2014 (EST)
Yes, and Muslims worship the same deity. The meaning of "god" is "something that is worshiped", and the word a corruption of the pagan word "gaut", which was some deity or another (it's not entirely clear what) of the Germanic tribes. It is therefore entirely correct to refer to the Abrahamic god is just that, a god. RedG 19:04, 16 November 2014 (EST)
Perhaps in your fantasies you are being responsive and recounting correct and well-reasoned information. The reality is very different. VargasMilan 09:46, 17 November 2014 (EST)
Are you disputing the etymology of the word "god", or its use in the English language? RedG 16:26, 17 November 2014 (EST)
@RedG: I'm really sorry that you have been abused so badly at Conservapedia. I'm particularly bothered at the "internet psychiatry" of characterizing your writing as "your fantasies", and that "reality" is different. I want you to know that there are quite a number of decent and well-intentioned people here. You should ignore the abusers, and feel welcome to make contributions. We particularly need people who are knowledgeable in matters of science. If you can contribute in this area, dig in! SamHB 22:22, 20 November 2014 (EST)

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

Your user name looks like Andy's, but you behave far differently. You talk like somebody who's not aware of his surroundings. Some religions lead to disaster. Some to persistent agitation incompatable with the peace that is the prerequisite for prosperous living. VargasMilan 20:10, 20 November 2014 (EST)
@VargasMilan: Is this a joke? Are you trying to imply that Wschact is a sockpuppet of Andy? Are you implying that Andy practices sockpuppetry on his own wiki? The similarities between the names are an "a" and an "sch". Their editing content is worlds apart. And I can assure you that I have had email discussions with both of them, and they are most definitely not the same person. I don't know what to make of the "not aware of his surreoundings" business. SamHB 22:22, 20 November 2014 (EST)
Yes, some actions in the name of religion lead to disaster. Do read what Catholics did to any number of people (Jews, Muslims, people perceived to be witches or otherwise worshiping other deities) during the Black Death, you won't find any such occurrences in Georgian or Armenian Christendom, the Muslim world, India, China... people have done monstrously atrocious things in the name of pretty much every religion that's ever existed, looking at the most extreme examples generally isn't the best way to determine what the typical adherent believes and does. RedG 22:40, 21 November 2014 (EST)

Thousands of Europeans Take to the Streets to Drive Out Islam

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

Why is their "no doubt"? Please provide evidence of these 100s people killed by these individuals.
Second, reporting on an event is not necessarily in support of an event. For example, if the front page reports on ISIS attacking the Iraqi Kurds, that doesn't mean that Conservapedia is in favor of ISIS attacking the Kurds.
Third, my guess is that these soccer hooligans are not conservative, devout Christian Europeans, but non-religious, liberal Europeans. It is the secular left that is known for their unruly mobs. So if these mobs are made up of violent individuals as you claim, they are probably non-religious leftists. Conservative 16:41, 1 December 2014 (EST)
[2][3]. That is over 100 I can come up with without even thinking. Being involved in soccer hooliganism is a crime, in every nation on the planet so there is "no doubt".--Tomqua 16:46, 1 December 2014 (EST)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kaufmann also said:

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

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

Agreed, as for Mr Day however, is he the same Vox Day that makes A rhetorical case for segregation?"[6]--Tomqua 17:06, 1 December 2014 (EST)
I am not a segregationalist. Second, Europe has a history of intolerance and disharmony and economic instability is just fuel for the fire. Here are some examples: The Spaniards drove out Muslims in their country in the 1400s and also drove out the Jews. Many people fled Europe due to religious discrimination in the past. There is currently white, non-religious population flight out of London in an increasingly ethnic religious population in London. Atheism/agnosticism are secular religions and the economic future of Europe does not look bright. History may repeat itself. Conservative 17:23, 1 December 2014 (EST)
You're right, and the security situation is not bright also. The EU and Russia seem to be on a collision course. The seeds of a European cold war have already been sown.--Tomqua 17:28, 1 December 2014 (EST)

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

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

Conservapedia news

I guess this one.[10] Which anti-atheism group by the way, or is it a mystery?--Tomqua 03:17, 8 December 2014 (EST)

Wrong guess. It is the atheism and arrogance article. The anti-atheism group which is going to highlight the article this week is a mystery at this juncture, but the veil of mystery will be lifted sometime this week. :) Conservative 10:09, 8 December 2014 (EST)

Over 720 thumbs up in 10 hours

In the last 10 hours, Conservapedia's atheism and arrogance article has received over 720 thumbs up from the fans of the Freedom From Atheism Foundation.

Dwight Weatherford wrote in response: "...atheists...want tolerance and respect on their terms without giving it. This country was never founded to be religious free, it was founded on the principle that a citizen can CHOOSE their religion not be forced into one denomination. The constitution never gave you the right to not be offended."

Brenda Golden wrote in response to the article: "They say there is no proof that God exists but when God opens the book of life will he find proof of them?"

Over 1,300 thumbs up

The atheism and arrogance article got over 1,300 thumbs up from the fans of the Freedom From Atheism Foundation.

How many thumbs down?--Tomqua 17:19, 10 December 2014 (EST)
To give a thumbs down, an atheist would be reasonably expected to show that that atheist community is humble. No such proof and evidence was given! No atheists washing the feet of others. Nothing! Jesus washed the feet of his disciples. On the other hand, there is proof and evidence that atheism/atheists are arrogant. See: Atheism and arrogance
What proof and evidence is there that atheism is true? The reason I ask is that there is plenty of evidence that Christianity is true. See: Evidence for Christianity Conservative 17:46, 10 December 2014 (EST)
So, out of so many 100s of people liking the article not one person has come to Conservapedia to either comment on or congratulate you. Possible I suppose, but long odds, say 1300-1.--Tomqua 17:55, 10 December 2014 (EST)
Tomqua, please show me how you came up with the probability figure of 1300-1. Frankly, given your lack of support for the probability figure, it sounds like the typical atheist tripe/quackery that atheists are well-known for - especially since the article did get over 1300 thumbs up as can be seen HERE. Conservative 18:05, 10 December 2014 (EST)

Some of the articles linked on that page from this webpage are quite informative about the deceitfulness of atheists. Are there any similar articles that are here but haven't been listed there? I'm a bit new here so don't really know what's here, apart from those articles and the wonderful homeschooling content. Phil PhilH 17:44, 10 December 2014 (EST)

PhiliH, Feel free to research and create these articles: Anti-religious propaganda and Soviet anti-religious propaganda. Using these two articles, summary sections could be added to the Atheism and deception article. Conservative 17:56, 10 December 2014 (EST)
By the way Tomqua, so far the article has received: 1,447 thumbs up from a popular social media website beginning with a F and ending with a k some of which came from HERE, 1 Google Plus share and one Twitter tweet. The mystery of how I/we know this shall remain veiled. In the meantime, a message for you: 是故勝兵先勝而後求戰,敗兵先戰而後求勝 Conservative 18:28, 10 December 2014 (EST)
That gave you just enough time since your last post to press that button another 150 times. Again you bring Conservapedia into disrepute. I am no mathematician but I took the (rounded down) figure of 1300 and as no one came to Conservapedia to comment I take that to be a 1300-1 chance, don't you? This whole episode is quite frankly an embarrassment--Tomqua 18:32, 10 December 2014 (EST)
The over 1,400 thumbs up come from over 1,400 different accounts at that social media website. Are you proposing that there are over 1,400 editors using the User: Conservative account?
Secondly, I/we can tell you are neither a mathematician nor a statistician. No need to point that out. Conservative 18:50, 10 December 2014 (EST)

Syndey Siege

It should also be mentioned that the perpotrator was a self styled radical muslim cleric who was on bail with 50 + sex charges, helping murder his wife, a couple of assualt charges and one or two charges of theft. How someone like that could be on bail astounds me. This is more the issue than the guns. Phil PhilH 17:54, 15 December 2014 (EST)


A couple of things on MPR that need addressing

This item promotes a fringe conspiracy theory about the Sandy Hook massacre that is very hurtful to many people. Having it featured on the main page makes it appear as though Conservapedia endorses this theory, which it certainly doesn't, so I believe that this should be removed.

The wrong form of 'who' is used here. It should be whose.

Thanks, --JonY 19:05, 17 December 2014 (EST)

Thanks, User:Conservative for removing your post about Sandy Hook, and for fixing the spelling error in such a timely manner. Though it seems the original edits were lost somehow, so my links don't lead anywhere.--JonY 20:03, 17 December 2014 (EST)

Pool noodle item

Main Page Right has a new item, "Liberal education working against you. Punishing the eight year-old blind kid by taking his cane away and replacing it with a pool noodle.[1]" I have read the news report and there is nothing to indicate that the teachers or administrators were liberal or conservative. Most conervatives believe in controlling student behavior and do not tollerate kids hitting other kids with their cane. Perhaps we should delete or rephrase this? Wschact 07:26, 18 December 2014 (EST)

'Popular website'

A short while ago there was an item on the main page in which you [presumably User:Conservative] wrote:

'The Conservapedia atheism article has received kudos. 39 Google Plus thumbs up, 4,118 thumbs up from a popular website = 4,157 kudos. In addition, there have been 342 Twitter tweets.

Once again, atheism has been skewered on the internet. Olé! Olé! Olé!''

What is the name of the 'popular website' to which your are referencing? Please can you post a link to show evidence for your claims?

Also why were your contributions to the main page hastily removed?

EJamesW 15:17, 19 December 2014 (EST)

machismo
EJamesW, I will give you a clue: The 4,118 thumbs up from a popular website were unsolicited. They were like the spontaneous olés that a matador receives from the crowd. Olé! Olé! Olé!
Before I consider answering your questions, I have two questions for you. Are you an atheist? If so, what proof and evidence do you have that atheism is true? And please use the definition of atheism that encyclopedias of philosophy use and not some substandard definition of atheism (see: Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism). Conservative 17:41, 19 December 2014 (EST)
This is the website --JaysonK 18:20, 19 December 2014 (EST)
Wrong answer, JaysonK. Were you an overconfident atheist? Scroll through their previous postings and you will not find the article being shared there. Conservative 18:26, 19 December 2014 (EST)
EJamesW. the popular website is Facebook. Apparently, my material has a degree of popularity among social media websites including Facebook users. They shared my material without me asking Facebook users to do so.

Atheism and obesity

Conservapedia atheism and obesity article: 21 Google Plus thumbs up, 6,093 thumbs up among Facebook users, 404 Twitter tweets and 80 StumbleUpons!

January first is rapidly approaching. Time to make those weight loss New Year's resolutions overweight atheists. Conservative 02:18, 21 December 2014 (EST)

À propos resolutions and announcements

"50 page Question Evolution! booklet. Question Evolution! Campaign runaway train is going to be released"  —Feb 15, 2012

"A Question evolution! campaign group now has 3 writers and at least 3 Question Evolution! booklets/books will be coming out. Some of the booklets/books will be designed for young people."  —May 1, 2012

"A 15 questions for evolutionists booklet and book for middle school students will soon be coming out and they are going to be heavily promoted and distributed."  —Jun 19, 2012

"SS Evolution! passengers get on your life jackets! A barrage of 100+ page Question evolution! campaign booklet torpedoes is headed your way!"  —Sep 19, 2012

"The Question evolution! book for middle school students, edited by a Christian apologist, gains in popularity."  —Jul 11, 2013

"Canadian teacher at a Christian school will be serving as a science editor of the Question evolution! campaign book for middle school students."  —Jul 18, 2013

--AugustO 10:09, 21 December 2014 (EST)

AugustO, have you seen [copyright-violating link removed]. Historybuff 11:24, 21 December 2014 (EST)
User:Conservative, at 10:20h, you answered to my list above by inserting revision 1125336:
"AugustO, have you seen THIS. :)10:20, 21 December 2014 (EST)"
You hadn't signed this text, and you deleted it at 11:21h. At 11:24h, User:Historybuff inserted the text again, and signed it:
"::AugustO, have you seen THIS. Historybuff 11:24, 21 December 2014 (EST)"
Thereby, you confirmed that Historybuff is indeed a sock of yours, whom you used to make a little bit of fun. And while this may have been mildly amusing at this occasion, you have used this sock earlier to claim that "AugustO is practicing bad historiography". You were not willing at that time to address me under your usual pseudonym, but created a seemingly independent instance which agreed with you. Conservapedia:Sockpuppet states:
Editors are dissuaded from running sockpuppets and is cause for blocking. Some Administrators may use Sockpuppets occassionally or Single Purpose Accounts.
I don't think that your deceitful way of using a sock is covered by the exemption for administrators, but should result in a block. Therefore,
--AugustO 15:06, 21 December 2014 (EST)

When I first saw, in Recent Changes, that you had blocked Cons, I wondered how you had found the "smoking gun" for this. Then I read your entry above. Nice work. I might also add that Recent Changes shows an edit to this page at 11:24 EST that was OVERSIGHTED. That is, when you click on "diff" for that edit in Recent Changes, you get the usual "The database did not find the text of a page ..." notice, which shows that something was oversighted. Only 8 people have oversight rights, and "historybuff" is not one of them. The change is actually visible in the history list for this page—it's the "have you seen this" thing with the copyright-violating YouTube clip.

SamHB 16:29, 21 December 2014 (EST)

Dear Conservative, you evoke such strange feelings: I'm not surprised, but I'm still disappointed that you placed yourself above the rules of this site. --AugustO 17:28, 21 December 2014 (EST)
AugustO, no person(s) using the User: Conservative broke a rule. If you think otherwise, by all means, take this matter up with the owner of the website.
By the way, have you ever convinced the owner of the website about anything in your multiple disputes with him? Might I suggest a Dale Carnegie course. Clearly, you need to learn how to win friends and influence people! If it wasn't for me taking pity on you in the past when you were blocked, you might not have ever been able to edit again. :) Conservative 01:27, 23 December 2014 (EST)
I didn't break a rule shouldn't be the sole measure for your actions: As an outspoken Christian, and as someone who represents this site as a sysop, you should strive for I'm doing the right thing.
Was creating a sock to defend your history of failed predictions the right thing? You may have stayed within the rules, but you certainly bend them for this deceitful little ploy. So You know that it wasn't the right thing to do.
You should think about confession and repentance, just say that it was a stupid thing to do, and that you are sorry. Take one day off from commenting on this site, and we'll all move on.
I expect a certain degree of maturity from those with whom I wish to enter discussion. Until you have shown this maturity by taking the steps above, I don't think that any further conversion is fruitful.
--AugustO 06:16, 23 December 2014 (EST)
First you claimed a rule was broken. Now you indicate a rule was not broken. When are you going to stop engaging in self-defeating behaviors such as double-mindedness?
This is yet another frivolous battle you badly lost against the User: Conservative account. 知可战与不可战者胜。 Conservative 07:15, 23 December 2014 (EST)
Semantics. You bend a rule, or broke it. Fact is: You did something you know that it wasn't right - it was a deceitful act. And now you claim victory because you can get away with it?
Conservapedia's article on morality starts with:
"Morality consists of right and wrong in one's personal conduct. "
Take a look at the article: Socking up may have been lawful within the rules of Conservapedia (at least according to a provision which was introduced apparently without discussion by a blocked user: Some Administrators may use Sockpuppets occassionally or Single Purpose Accounts.), but it was - to use a big word - immoral. Using a smaller word: It was a kind of a lie. Deal with it.
--AugustO 08:07, 23 December 2014 (EST)

AugustO, you made a false accusation. You don't have the moral high ground. Once again, the editors who use the User: Conservative account are victorious! Feel free to engage in last wordism at this juncture. Conservative 16:26, 23 December 2014 (EST)

Conservative, do you deny that User:Historybuff was your sock? Do you deny that you used this sock to pretend to be another person supporting your positions? --AugustO 16:55, 23 December 2014 (EST)

It seems that we are not in for a Christmas miracle, User:Conservative stays unrepentant (perhaps he should think about a career in politics.) Nevertheless: Merry Christmas --01:22, 24 December 2014 (EST)

Decline of the secular left

The article Decline of the secular left received 1,709 Facebook likes and 2 Twitter tweets. Conservative 22:23, 25 December 2014 (EST)

Decline of the religious right

For balance here's another article [11]. This website is ranked 362 in the USA and 1,136 globally [12]. By comparison, Conservapedia has the following rankings - 24,727 in the USA and a global rank of 79,598. You do realize that boasting about '2 tweets' shows incredible ignorance about twitter - Ellen DeGeneres had a tweet that was retweeted 3.3 million times! Also as regards to Facebook likes check out this - 'The Thinking Atheist' [13] - 186,796 likes! EJamesW 17:17, 27 December 2014 (EST)

EJsmesW, the Slate article did not take into account: the religious American Hispanic community and its expected future growth (Hispanics tend to often be religious), the expected shrinking of Secular Europe's population along with the higher birth rates of religious European immigrants, potential future continuation of religious conservative immigration to Europe due to labor shortages because of an aging population, the rate of secularisation has flattened to zero in most of Protestant Europe and France, a longstanding trend of resurgence of religion in the world and the shrinking of the percentage of people in the world who are atheists/agnostics (see: Global atheism and Desecularization), potential economic instability in the USA/world due to the high levels of US/Western World sovereign debt (tough economic times often increases religiosity) and the growth of Christianity in China/Africa and recently India [14][15][16](see: Global Christianity . We live in a world of global communications and mobility of people due to immigration). Conservative 14:04, 28 December 2014 (EST)

Decline of the Religious Brit

While we're on the subject of the religious right, wrong, left, whatever...can you find a picture of St. Dunstan and add him to the Gallery of British Heroes? I've been asking for yonks. AlanE

Tim Tebow

Irrespective of his religious beliefs, the reason he isn't in the NFL right now is only that he is a horrible quarterback. Some of the league's best, including Aaron Rodgers and Peyton Manning, are quite devout Christians. Why don't you want to get behind them, instead of attempting to prop up an NFL failure like Tebow? And as an aside, Tebow openly and egregiously violates Matthew 6:5 with his insistence on shoving his fundamentalist beliefs into everyone's face; hardly what I'd call a decent Christian. RedG 15:42, 28 December 2014 (EST)

well, red, if you can come here - knowing we are just as Christian as Tebow - I'm sure you can stomach him bowing in prayer on TV whenever he makes a touchdown. Karajou 17:02, 28 December 2014 (EST)
Tim Tebow has a winning record as an NFL quarterback. Some people don't like him because he stands up for his faith, not because he doesn't win enough. The following objective article from last year identified 10 starting NFL quarterbacks who were not as good as Tebow: [17]--Andy Schlafly 18:42, 28 December 2014 (EST)
In all the time Tebow was with the Jets, they never gave him the chance to see the field. As if Mark Sanchez and Gino Smith were better! When he was given a chance with Denver, all he did was win. Aschlafly hit the nail right on the head-- For those who don't like him, it's because of his standing up for his faith, something Sanchez and Smith have never done. DanAP 20:07, 28 December 2014 (EST)
Again, Rodgers and Manning have both actually won a Super Bowl, whereas the furthest Tebow has ever gotten is playing half a season for a team that was good without him before losing in a thorough beatdown in the second round. Is it impossible for you to consider that might be the reason people rate Manning and Rodgers (and Brady, and Brees, and the list goes on...) higher? Rodgers especially is also an open devout Christian (albeit he doesn't bludgeon everyone to death with his faith at every possible moment), and it doesn't stop anyone from viewing him as the best in the league, so accusations of a big conspiracy theory against Christians don't hold water. Matt Flynn has a winning record as a QB, has stats Tebow could only dream of, and yet no one considers him great because he also hasn't done it for more than half a season; same thing here. RedG 22:33, 28 December 2014 (EST)
golly, red, you make it sound as though Tebow is hitting people over the head with his study bible. You have proof of the bludgeoning, or would you rather have Tebow do the liberal thing, and gun down people over shady drug deals while shouting obscenities? Karajou 23:43, 28 December 2014 (EST)
I assumed that the people reading this had sufficient reading comprehension to recognize the figurative use of the word bludgeon, I will remember not to do so in the future. In any event, the question still stands; why no love for religious quarterbacks who have actually won a Super Bowl? RedG 02:19, 29 December 2014 (EST)
The media, "Red", give plenty of "love" to Rodgers and Manning. Just look at the commercials for five minutes. The issue at hand is the blackballing of Tebow. Why do you refuse to admit that there are plenty of quarterbacks playing in the NFL right now who are far worse than Tebow? Are you going to insist that Michael Vick is really a better player? DanAP 10:12, 29 December 2014 (EST)
Yeah I would because Vick, unlike Tebow, can still accurately throw the ball more than 10 yards. He's not what he once was, to be sure, but in his prime he did things Tebow will never be able to. You might find this informative, it does an excellent job of explaining both his lack of decent mechanics and the reason why he could get away with it in college but not in the NFL. RedG 23:07, 29 December 2014 (EST)

Feminists caught in astonishing libel against men

Feminists across the country (as well as President Obama) were caught exaggerating the rate of sexual assault on campuses by an incredible 2800%! (Ann Coulter column: "One in five people who write for Rolling Stone are morons"). Even when reducing the number of men included the figure by assuming an average assault rate as high as two assaults per offender, that's still a libel upon at least 8% of the entire population of college men.

Feminists wish to turn women against men in hopes that they will become dependent on feminists and their liberal allies instead of achieving on the basis of merit, even if it hurts real women victims by this all too typically extreme example of them crying wolf. VargasMilan 17:19, 29 December 2014 (EST)

We will be visiting another planet in a few weeks

Don't be surprised when pictures appear in March of a new planet. In my experience, the mainstream media always springs this kind of news suddenly as a shock to elicit a trauma bond with them and awe at the implied mastery and dispensation of all classes of knowledge by them through their doing it off-handedly. And, anticipating an objection to my claims, let me just say: it's new to a lot of people. VargasMilan 01:13, 9 January 2015 (EST)

LEAD ... For God's Sake

Although Urban Meyer endorses the book and credits it with turning his life around, he did not write it. I think you probably know that, but the wording of the MPR item might lead people to believe otherwise. MelH 14:36, 13 January 2015 (EST)

Over 1,230 thumbs up: Irreligion and domestic violence article

That is very impressive for an article with only 1,900 views at the moment! And what a mixed international readership - here a list of the first couple of persons to give it the thumbs up:

Mbrutal Lebih Enjoyy * Aamir M-Hassani Baloch * Ibra LachOuri Him * Mas Meng * Mas Jum Adja * Widia Ekaa * Bang Irwan Ndruru * Ita Arnita * Md Forhad * Shopon Islam * Ananda Sakiyya Salsabila * Alon Boy Dip * Nasymi Al-Chasbu * Neupane Beesal * Bren Castro * ইসলাম সত্য ধর্ম * Aurthohin Hridoy * Yhacnthiecz Zhieecweg Woleszz * Josh Shelley * Francesco Rifky * Heinry Ronaldo Leiwakabessy * Wachid Abdu Abdurrohman * Angga Sapola * Boeun Sreytuoch * Roni Putune Jaya Dipa * Widia Yaa Widia Jr. * Turh Amun * Kamal Sharma * Serly * Merki Acwila * Zhazha Izha * বর্ণচোরা নাইম * Kariena Putry * Arunima Cheetri Adhikari * Epa Efot Ryanti * Mike Walker * Dipesh Karki * IxHa CimBlint * Isra'Angga Putrha Raider * Omprakash Rawal Battery * Jack Sangpujangga Yangstia * Florian Otr Nuhiji * Sher Shreesh Magar * Nóùrddîñe Bôúd * Nabil Hassan * Rendi Junaedi * Brando HeadBanger'z * Ocend Wangger * Rifat Ahmed * Yogiie PUttraa Rockmetall Jr. * Anisah Poetrhy Libra * Ryani Yani * Irwan Saputra * Nidaer Jurniliz * Don Collins * Swostika Ad * Kikien van Houtten * Nainoe Abuk Berta * Ditta Verawati * Jhody Haris Munandar * Tena Maniez * Mtz Kakkay Zai * Ashley Scholefield * Qaiser Azeem * Zhuharty Zcipith * Dek Idris Oi Oi * Ervina Vina Devi * FifieLuedfiye Tjahele'x Saqmodare

Domestic violence in the U.S. seems to raise great concern in Pakistan and other countries of the Far East... --AugustO 14:38, 13 January 2015 (EST)

The Freedom from Atheism Foundation Facebook page does a lot of Facebook advertising so that may explain the ethnically diverse audience. Since the Facebook page is backed by a wealthy foundation, it can afford to do a lot of Facebook advertising. Facebook adverts are likely cheaper when done outside the Western World plus there is a lot of immigrants in the West.
Second, Christians are not the only people to dislike atheism. Hindus and Muslims also dislike atheism. Atheism is foolish and atheists are often very arrogant/angry/militant/liars so it is not surprising that a wide variety of individuals dislike atheism (see: Atheism and deception and Atheism and arrogance and Atheism and anger and militant atheism).
Third, both atheists and Muslims are often aggressive and they are in a culture war in Europe. And Muslims often mistreat women and are often criticized for it. So when Muslims find out that atheists also often mistreat their women, the thumbs from Muslims are to be expected. It wouldn't surprise me if a few of the Muslims told their Muslim friends about the article. Conservative 16:15, 13 January 2015 (EST)
Conservative, you need to take more care with the names of the accounts you use to click 'Like' on Facebook. Take "Kamal Sharma": Kamal is a muslim first name and Sharma is a high-caste Hindu surname. The combination is... odd? But Zhuharty Zcipith and IxHa CimBlint, they're OK. StaceyT 16:25, 13 January 2015 (EST)
I'd quite like to meet the no doubt staunchly conservative 'FifieLuedfiye Tjahele'x Saqmodare'. Davidspencer 16:30, 13 January 2015 (EST)
By the way, one atheist said the Conservapedia Irreligion and domestic violence article was sexist since one of its sources was a journal focusing on the mistreatment of women.
Since liberal, atheist men are so weak, cowardly and un-athletic (See: Atheism and cowardice and Sports performance: Religious faith vs. atheism and Atheist nerds), it wouldn't surprise me if many of them are henpecked and physically abused by their militant atheist/feminist wives and girlfriends who disrespect them because they lack MA-CHEESE-MO! See: Atheism and machismo). Conservative 16:32, 13 January 2015 (EST)
Is "Yhacnthiecz Zhieecweg Woleszz" the same Yhacnthiecz Zhieecweg Woleszz who 'likes' the FB page on "Read The Quran - Verses for Today"? StaceyT 16:34, 13 January 2015 (EST)
I also have a question: Why haven't you changed your age on your user page? Do you like people to think you're only 15? VargasMilan 17:34, 13 January 2015 (EST)

A certain portion of Facebook visitors/likes for Facebook pages that are popular and do a lot of Facebook advertising are fake. From what I heard, the fake accounts try to hide their fakeness by engaging in various Facebook activities. In 2014, if I am not mistaken, Facebook launched an initiative to cut down on fake Facebook likes. Conservative 17:01, 13 January 2015 (EST)

Here is an early 2014 video on click fraud being done on legitimate Facebook advertisers that mentions spammers trying to cover their tracks by engaging in various unrelated Facebook activity to help cover their tracks. HERE is a late 2014 article on Facebook fighting fake Facebook likes. I don't know how successful Facebook's anti-spammer campaign has been. Conservative 17:18, 13 January 2015 (EST)
By the way, before the Freedom From Atheism Foundation shared the Irreligion and domestic violence article on their Facebook page, the article had about 300 Facebook likes. Based on the other Conservapedia atheism articles (some of which are more popular than others), I think the original 300 Facebook likes are all (or virtually all) bona fide Facebook likes as no efforts were made to garner these 300 Facebook likes. Conservative 17:25, 13 January 2015 (EST)

I think some editors here are inferring that there's some sort of chicanery afoot due to the amount of likes from people with foreign sounding names. Maybe there's a less nefarious explanation. Most native English speakers find User:Conservative's writing style to be disjointed, repetitive and oddly phrased. Perhaps non-native English speakers don't take notice of these glaring rhetorical flaws and judge his work based purely on the merits. --DonnyC 18:06, 13 January 2015 (EST)