Talk:Conservapedia/Archive 6

message: I believe we are having a DDOS attack right now... started at 12:30 EST(summer) august 17th... is that worth a mention? 64.231.193.171 16:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Attack is still going... 64.231.193.171 18:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: No, a different site's DDOS attack isn't worth a mention in an article about Conservapedia. --McGeddon 18:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A simpler explanation is that there is problem with your sites nameserver or the server your site is located on. I see no evidence of an attack. This is off topic anyway, might warrant removal. Tmtoulouse 18:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Liberapedia Under Attack!

message: I was prevented from signing on because i used the screenname "thissiteisasham". This contradicts the basic claim of free editing. I am appaled
Yeah, I was IP blocked because I made an account entitled "liberalsrule" with the reason: "now you can rule at wikipedia".  What a joke.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.99.142.163 (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any grounds for a Lawsuit 

message: Why does this article have to be about wikipedia vs conservapedia. Most of the article is covering either the founder of conservapedia's criticisms of wikipedia, or visa versa. POV
The reason why wikipedia figures heavily into the conservapedia article is because conservapedia was formed as a reaction against wikipedia. Therefore to understand conservapedia one must understand what it was reacting against. Roninbob 04:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermoore it would be difficult not toTourskin 06:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's just be careful not to make this into a Conservapedia article, using every conceivable oppurtunity to attack Wikipedia.--74.13.89.3 12:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive cleanup required 

message: There seems to be some disagreement about this. I don't favor the inclusion since we dont have any source that explicitly connects the project with pseudoscience. However, I don't think the recent argument "If wikipedia has a bunch of pseduscientific articles, would it be "pseudoscience" as well?" holds water since Wikipedia doesn't have policies which support pseudoscience. Overall, I think we should leave the cat out for now. JoshuaZ 22:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, when I visited the site and checked the policy page, I didn't find any mention about the creationism controversy, so I made that comment. Also, I agree with you that the category should not apply. The reason is, pseudoscience is often applied to a study or a specific theory, not a website or a project, because a website itself can't be a "pseudoscience", it can only be "containing pseudoscientific materials". Conservapedia is a project, not a theory or a study. WooyiTalk to me? 22:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree. If a website has sufficient promotion or discussion of pseudoscience, it should have the category. Hence the category says "this category comprises articles pertaining to pseudoscience" JoshuaZ 02:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anyways, let's put this debate aside, can you provide the link where the Conservapedia explicitly states in policy that they support creationism? WooyiTalk to me? 03:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There isn't one as far as I'm aware although there are reliable sources that said pretty close to that (why are we bothering going through this much effort if we both agree that it shouldn't be here?) JoshuaZ 03:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep, you do have a point, sorry about that. No need for further arguing :-) WooyiTalk to me? 04:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience cat- opinions? 

message: Maybe there should be some mention of their notoriously slow server.  It seems that about half the time their page either doesn't load, or takes an extremely long time to load.  For a site that claims to be a definitive conservative source, its server power sure seems to be incredibly rinky-dink.  --Boss hogg01 17:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find a reliable source that discusses this then we can include it. JoshuaZ 04:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Their Server

message: "Our study suggests that Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public."
I think they misspelled neutral :/ (maybe its the homeschooling)
--chandler 18:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How exactly does one quantify liberalness? Does the American public have an average liberalness of 7, and Wikipedia an average of 42? They haven't even defined whether the scale is linear or logarithmic! --Nathan (Talk) 00:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OppS! 

message: Does this really add anything to the article?  There is quite a bit of original research, and all the cites lead back to RationalWiki, and thus fail WP:RS.  Are there any reliable secondary sources on this? --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 05:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's irrelevant. RW started in response to CP but it's not relevant in the CP article. There should be a RW article for this stuff, though I doubt that it's notable yet. Totnesmartin 09:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll delete the section tomorrow based on the above concerns. Addhoc 13:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to touch the RW stuff as its COI for me, but for what its worth, I concur that we are not yet wikipedia notable and don't belong here. Tmtoulouse 18:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the RationalWiki section as there were no authoratative sources and it was original research.  Also, the site is not notable and appears to have only a handful of editors. Jazzman123 22:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I removed it, since it was almost pure OR and sour grapes this time around. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 22:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RationalWiki 

message: The article used to state:
Conservapedia presents evolution as an incorrect interpretation of measurable and observable evidence, phenomena, and claims that all living organisms were created in their current form,
This is not how Conservapedia presents the matter.  First, Conservapedia presents "The Theory of evolution"  and not "evolution".  Secondly, where does Conservapedia state it is an "incorrect interpretation"?   
Here is what I replaced the above sentence with which more accurately reflects the Conservapedia article on the Theory of evolution:
Conservapedia presents the theory of evolution as lacking support and states that creationist scientists and some secular science journals state that it is contra-evidence 
Jazzman123 22:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the opposite way you describe.  The article is titled "Theory of evolution"  and if you type in "Evolution" it redirects you to "Theory of evolution".  Please show me where the article states that most defenders of the theory of evolution are atheists.  I believe you are misquoting and you gave no direct quote.  Lastly, you state that Conservapedia misinforms regarding the theory of evolution yet you fail to give even one example.  Jazzman123 01:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I respectfully decline. If you can't recognize the misrepresentations, so much the worse for you. This talk page is for discussion of this article, not Conservapedia's inadequacies. - Nunh-huh 01:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The talk page is for reasoned discussion and not for trotting out a lot of accusations you cannot reasonably defend.  The "most defenders of evolution are atheists" charge you made would be easy to defend if what you stated were true. Jazzman123 01:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone who reads beyond the first sentence of Conservapedia's woefully inadequate article may judge for themselves.  Now, what are we going to do about your use of a neologism in this article?- Nunh-huh 02:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theory of evolution and Conservapedia 

message: It appears to be so at present.
This talk page appears to be wandering towards discussing the pros and cons of Conservapedia itself - not how to improve this article, or describing how the site itself develops (would "evolves" be appropriate?). Jackiespeel 14:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They prefer the term "change over time." omg ShiftPlusOne 20:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Evolves" is utterly ironic. "Change over time" is hysterical. ScarianTalk 03:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conserapedia down

message: Should we include examples of Conservapedia's plainly ignoring facts? For example, the article on Canada asserts that the current national flag was imposed on the Canadian people by the Liberal government of the time to appease socialists and Québec nationalists. This, needless to say, is not true. The article on communism begins by stating that the ideology has claimed more than 100 million lives and continues to enslave one-fifth of the world's population.
Soviet Canuckistan 01:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples? 

message: Now merely describes the town.
The 'Debate Fork or Spoon' remains - and the Falafel/loofah comment has been restored.
The Conservapedia comment on the article link on today's C main - to [] effectively contradicts what is said in the comments. 
The proportion of short and/or unreferenced articles remains.
Jackiespeel 13:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Milton Keynes

message: Why are we using http://www.rationalwiki.com as a source? it does not (to me) match WP:RS --Fredrick day 22:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. I removed it as a source where I saw it. Might want to double-check though. VanTucky 22:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  http://www.rationalwiki.com 

message: VanTucky-Why are you pushing the trash about 3000 users being blocked? Firstly, it is 3000 usernames NOT users; secondly, the source you are using, CPs own block log, clearly states that the reason for many of the blocks is trolling, vandalism, sock puppets; also, the log shows that the autoblock is picking up these socks too. Others are obviously blocked for the username, eg FUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCK - not really going to let that one stay, are they? This is just sour grapes bellyaching from VanTucky, attempting to mislead with his edit. Have you been blocked from there or something? And the excuse that "the source does not etc" is total garbage - the source STATES THE REASONS!! 89.241.225.210 23:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Calm the fuck down. Take a breather. It is not just "names". It is users and the IP's they come from. The reason the source does not support the claim about why is not that it doesn't say, is that while it is reliable to check Conservapedia for how many blocks it has in place, it is not okay to just take its word on why. That needs an independent third-party source. VanTucky 23:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I pointed out, the list shows a vast number of autogenerated blocks, refuting your claim. Also, sequential uses of eg Carlowcrab to Carlowcrab15, the first blocking listed as being a sock of previous blocked user Crippes, shows that blocking of multiple socks is taking place. Now, you either want the reference included or you don't, but you can't cherry pick the facts from it to suit yourself and your POV. 89.241.225.210 23:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not cherry-picking. The names do not prove they are sock puppets. Even if it did, just accepting what that page simply implies about the blocking policy of Conservapedia is not an allowable source. A reliable third-party source that directly states Conservapedia's blocking policy is necessary. VanTucky 00:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Anyway, there is no autoblock, not to my knowledge. --Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 19:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Putting it in description is actually the proper way to go about it, because unless we can find a third-party source that criticizes   Conservapedia for its blocking, then it technically constitutes Original research. It wouldn't be as a simple descriptive fact however, which is what it was originally. VanTucky 20:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: And under further review, it seems someone also blocked the username "Canadian" with the reason "idiot". Alright, I need to take five and calm down. (They also blocked "iluvjesus", who had zero contribution between account creation and deletion (same day), so it's not because of vandalism. No reason was given there) Did they even say that the account names have to be "serious" (as seen by them) anywhere during the account creation process? I haven't seen any. Bockbockchicken 08:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey guys, just as a question, does the comment really add that much to the article? The article as stands already identifies that the Conservapedia site is run centrally with a central buereu controlling the expression of points of view on the site, and also controls the registration of user name process. Is this info needed for an encyclopedia article? IF you think it is, can't we just say *Conservapedia currently blocks x/y usernames registered? Isn't that verifiable, simple to understand and more... umm... encyclopediatic (invented word for this occasion). Just a thought from an outsider. --Brynic 12:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Block list

message: Is Conservapedia's comment on the subject at [] anywhere near the truth? Jackiespeel 17:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conservapedia, Nessie and the Scottish Parliament

message: I think we should include a paragraph about how the sysops run a dictatorship over there I have a source; . -Ĭ₠ŴΣĐĝё 05:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There already is a mention of the influence of sysops and the founders in the criticisms section. VanTucky 15:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sysop Dictatorship 

message: Since this article is such a contentious one, and NPOV is especially important and difficult to maintain, I would like someone other than the contributer to verify that the source actually says what it says (registration is required). VanTucky 15:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not hard to sign up for an account.  But if you don't want to, use mine.  The username is wikipedia@mailinator.com and the password is password . --Phirazo 17:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! will do. VanTucky 17:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LA Times addition 

message: I don't think we can simply go by the name and there claims. right wing perhaps. Conservative? That is certainly open to debate. Let'd either take out the claim or couch it in such a way that it notes the possibility that it is not conservative
:Please remember to sign your talk posts with four tildes (~). 
:The idea that they are not as "conservative" as they claim is part of the Criticisms of Conservapedia already in place. We go by their stated goal and what the majority of reliable published sources mention them as being for the introduction. VanTucky 23:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  intro 

message: Would everyone rate this article as B-Class? Geo. Talk to me 21:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support Definitely comparable to the B-class article examples in the rating scale. VanTucky 19:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessing 

message: Please everyone, let's quit with the edit warring for now and discuss this thing. I think, that as Rationalwiki doesn't have it's own article or any other appropriate place to link it, and it is significantly mentioned in the article, it deserves to be linked. VanTucky 17:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  and those are NPOV reviews are they? If it is significantly mentioned in the article then it needs to be an inline citation and mentioned as part of the references and viewed in that context. I don't seen any benefit in pointing our readers to their homepage as a EL. Seems to be the only reason to link to it is so they people have a backdoor to link to NPOV stuff that wouldn't make it's way onto the article here. And I speak as someone who had great fun adding all sorts of shit to conservapedia articles and think it's a disgrace of a site. --Fredrick day 17:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A NPOV is not a criteria for external links, actually thats one of the purposes of ELs to provide POV. There are usually "pro" and "con" ELs on most controversial articles. Tmtoulouse 18:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  and what about the restriction on open wikis? do you feel it meets that requirement? --Fredrick day 18:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is an exception made "for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject" and rationalwiki is a subject of the page. Tmtoulouse 18:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  that's a nice trick you try there - in one paragraph, you try and change the policy from THE subject to A subject. --Fredrick day 19:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So your whole argument comes down to "the" versus "a"? Tmtoulouse 20:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not at all but it's doesn't mean I'm not going to comment on wikilawyering when I see it. There is a significant difference between "the subject of the article" = Conservapedia and "a subject" = anything mentioned in the article. The policy talks about THE subject (the entity the article is about), it does not talk about A subject (an entity mention in an article about something else). The difference is pretty clear. --Fredrick day 20:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The section you sight is for links normally avoided, there is not blatant prohibition. The site is covered in the article, there is no corresponded wikipedia link, it provides appropriate material for an EL that is not possible to include in the article. I think it should be clear that it belongs. Tmtoulouse 20:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What appropriate material? 
like this
"Some people that believe in Nostradamus's prophecies believe that Andrew Schlafly is Mabus.Nostradamus was known to jumble up the names in his quatrains to prevent the wrong people from reading all the valuable information. People that study Nostradamus's quatrains have figured out that Mabus is a jumbled up form of Andrew Schlafly.[1] They get the M from the W (in Andrew) flipped upside down. The A comes from the first letter in Andrew. The b comes from the d just flipped around. The U comes from the upside down n. Finally, the S comes from the first letter in Schlafly.
or  maybe this?
It's mollified by the knowledge that a Wikipedia-like site can only thrive with a relatively free exchange of ideas and some tolerance for vandals, hoaxers, and crackpots, and the gang of beady-eyed zealots running CP are going to stifle it to death while thinking they're 'protecting' it.
Yes this is clearly a high-quality link. --Fredrick day 20:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Cheery picking is fun. You obviously have some sort of bone to pick and at this point its COI for me to add the link back in, hopefully others will come by and add it back in. Tmtoulouse 20:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: There are a range of articles, that vary in quality, . I have outlined all the points and do not feel you have made a strong case at all. You obviously feel the same about me, I am backed in a corner since WP policy forbids me from really doing much with the article at this point. You will win by default if someone else dose not come along who feels similar to me. So I guess I will just wait and see. Tmtoulouse 21:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  well before the meatpuppets arrive and just start reverting the link back in - which of the conservapedia article do you think is of the highest quality? is it  this one? or this one? or maybe this one? An external link should be something of good quality - are you really suggesting articles like that enchance our coverafe of this subject?  --Fredrick day 21:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No meatpuppets will show up simply to revert the link back into the article, I will stand against that act, I was encouraging others who might have some say to come over and have their say. You are attacking more than just the EL link in this article. But whatever, like I said you win by default for now. I am going to bow out of this two-person tug-of-war since I am damned if I do and damned if I don't. Tmtoulouse 21:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trent = pwnt. 89.240.226.59 23:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  How about this as a quality resource? The renus 13:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's pretty good but what's it to do with Conservapedia? This is my position - rationalwiki should be added by an inline citation because it is mentioned in the article (this is us saying this is mentioned in conjunction with conservapedia), Rationalwiki should not be added as an external link (because that would be us saying it is a high quality source on this matter - and it's clearly not). --Fredrick day 13:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lack of ID in academia is one of conservapedia's pet peeves and is extremely relevant to the whole issue (aside from being indicative of the persecution mindset at conservapedia). IMO rationalwiki is a high quality source as it has documented a lot of the "facts" and "science" present in conservapedia (i too have COI issues here) and - especially - the treatment of "liberal" content and editors on the site. The renus 14:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But once again, you link just takes me to a category list that allows me to access articles such as this, this. Are you honestly telling me that those are high quality articles? It's a serious question that I never got an answer about the last time I asked it. --Fredrick day 15:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I linked to a category so you could get a complete idea of the type of resource that rationalwiki is. No, these are not high-quality There are serious articles there are, shall we say, tongue-in-cheek articles and both are fairly obvious to the reader. Does the existence of comedy negate the value of worthy information? A combination of both can be seen here.  Does this documentation become invalidated because of humourous commentary? My point being that yes there are flippancies but there are many serious articles, it is a shame to let these cloud the serious issue. See this article and it's parent category (which will most likely contain comedy articles also). (again, i have a COI regarding rationalwiki as i am a user there and have been banned from conservapedia)The renus 16:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  How would you suggest we view the article about Andrew Schlafly the founder of conservapedia? Since someone we link from here would expect to find additional information on. --Fredrick day 16:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  Well if we are declaring COI - I should point out that I have been banned from Conservapedia for adding flith (although my original bit of vandalism is still there in a prominent article so much for proof-reading). --Fredrick day 16:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Andrew Schlafly article is obviously comedy. However, by exploring the site further Andy's actions on conservapedia are well-documented.The renus 16:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  Never - my forces are ready to nuke the wikipedia server location from space before that occurs. oh wait, they've told me they need to go watch the telly, go on then I don't have a problem with that - as I see that as just saying "this site exists and has been mentioned in conjunction with this matter" rather than the appearance of approval that I think EL tends to give. --Fredrick day 16:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.Tmtoulouse 17:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External linking 

message: While the irony of turning the CP talk page into a defense of rationalwiki and its purpose is sweetly ironic for me, I don't see it helping much. I will only offer this one defense...one does not have to be serious in order to make a serious point. 
Now what can we do to reach a compromise so we can put this issue to bed? EL is out for now, but how would you feel about just hyper-linking the first mention of rationalwiki in the article to its homepage? Tmtoulouse 16:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Never - my forces are ready to nuke the wikipedia server location from space before that occurs. oh wait, they've told me they need to go watch the telly, go on then I don't have a problem with that - as I see that as just saying "this site exists and has been mentioned in conjunction with this matter" rather than the appearance of approval that I think EL tends to give. --Fredrick day 16:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.Tmtoulouse 17:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise time

message: Conservapedia got mentioned in a bit on The Daily Show, specifically its article on homosexuality. I'd point this out there, but it seems editing is restricted to logged-in accounts and new accounts are disabled (otherwise I would point it out there instead of here). I guess that's one way to counteract vandalism. Nifboy 04:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random note/Reaction and Criticism Update 

message: How does running away from even a perceived bias solve the problem? Let's say for argument sake that Wikipedia leans to the left. Well how does breaking away and forming a conservative answer to Wikipedia create any less bias? All you're going to have is an encyclopedia with a conservative bias. Wouldn't it make more sense to dig in your heels and stay on the "liberal" Wikipedia to balance the perspective on ONE website? Diverging onto one direction does nothing but add to the ridiculous "RED-BLUE" divide in this country. The Righties should stay on Wikipedia so that there's an equal balance between Left and Right. Ericster08 05:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Playing devil's advocate, chances are that the editors of Conservapedia see Wikipedia as completely unfixable - they perceive that the liberal bias runs so deep that it would be less effort to just start over. Alternatively, they believe that the prescence of any liberal viewpoint is undesirable, and the requirement that Wikipedia include such views for the purposes of neutrality runs counter to their objective. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 23:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explain its purpose 

message: So the Registration is now closed, I quote:
I used the create an account URL address of index.php?title=Special:Userlogin&type=signup&returnto=Main_Page ignoring the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/ and then added it to http://www.conservapedia.org to get: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin&type=signup&returnto=Main_Page.  I find this funny and this is why I changed the registration to "Invite Only".--WhereAmI 06:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Registration seems to be no longer closed, I was able to create a working account without problems. 137.250.121.1 12:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup it's open again.  Maybe they don't allow people to create accounts at night?  I'll find out tonight, then.--WhereAmI 18:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This is true.  I suppose it is approve only?  I am changing the Wikipedia page to reflect this as "Approve only".--WhereAmI 23:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was blocked as a "Troll" without any edits yet.  I assume this happened to everyone else?--WhereAmI 00:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Edit conflict) Wikipedia kinda likes for things to be cited. So really, it ought to say nothing at all. At any rate, my office mate created a user name about an hour ago and made a user page containing nothing but the Apostle's Creed and he was blocked without explanation (with autoblock, so I can't get in either, not that I would be overly inclined to).  So I don't know if "invite only" might be "you can register, but not for long". --BigΔT 00:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, let us leave this at nothing for registration.  We can't keep up with their methods of registering.--WhereAmI 08:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closed Registration

message: Can someone revert this? 4.253.40.211 15:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vandalism it may be, but nonetheless not distant from the truth.Tourskin 06:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Vandalized 

message: The website is currently being raided by EBworld and a few other places. It's not very successful due to the disabling of registration, but still, good to see it get what it deserves. NoMercyX 04:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't agree anymore my mystery friend. That website is pathetic, its giving Christian thought a bad name. And Assyrians did not invade mesopatamia or conquer babalyon in 1000 BC. Yes it was me who put that up there. Well it seems like the guy has to conserve what he has. Tourskin 06:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you sure it is eBaum's?  A lot of raiders claim to be from there when they are not (I know 4chan's /b/tards do this).  Besides, raids are notoriously hard to source (see Habbo Hotel)  --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 03:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies for my naivety, but what's a "raid"? ScarianTalk 04:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A raid it is when one online community trolls another, en masse.  It is also known as an invasion.  The trolls will often use their online community for coordinating a raid.  Raiders have been known to take down entire sites due to cracking, DDoS, or simple traffic overload. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 19:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Encyclopedia Dramatica does "raids" like this all the time, such as in the August 2005 raid of WikiFur or the 2006 raid of deviantART. Nathaniel B. Heraniaos 01:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raid 

message: Why is this article up for deletion? I cannot seem to find any reason for it? And there has been no comment on the matter from User:Nathaniel B. Heraniaos. Utterly perplexing. - Oh... in previewing this article I notice that he was told to nominate an article for deletion correctly. And, in the process of reading his comments, I discovered that he dislikes Conservapedia. Fair enough. ScarianTalk 02:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion

message: Here on Wikipedia it has video games, cartoons (mainly Japan and American made), medicine, TV, movies, people etc. The name Conservapedia seem like it would mainly have info on conservitive people and what conervs. would like.   THROUGH FIRE,  JUSTICE IS SERVED! 03:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "it only has 17 articles" - so it's not all bad then! Totnesmartin 22:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What kind of articles does Conservapedia have? 

message: This edit removed what I think is an important point, that perhaps is just not in the right place. I think this point needs to be made in reference to the conservapedia copyright section, in that there is a lot of wikipedia material that is on CP and it could be a problem. Tmtoulouse 01:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While you are correct that this should be focused on the site itself, you're incorrect in assuming that a large amount of comparative information is inappropriate. Since its inception and in every thing it does, Conservapedia defines itself in opposition to Wikipedia. And when I say everything, I mean everything. And every single news article that has significant coverage of the site does so via a comparison to Wikipedia. Thus, this extensive encyclopedic treatment of Conservapedia in comparison is vital to a proper structuring of the content in accordance with the source material. VanTucky (talk) 03:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's reasonable to include some facts about Wikipedia to provide context in the Conservapedia article, but we need to make sure we don't go too far in that direction. --Metropolitan90 04:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of material on wikipedia

message: I don't know where else to put this, because I couldn't find a place in Wikipedia:Copyright to list pages that violate Wikipedia's copyright, but the following articles on Conservapedia are just a few of potentially many which are copied (at least partially) from Wikipedia without attribution, and without using the GFDL:
*Ted Stevens at  - everything but the "Criticisms" section
*American Football Conference at 
*National Football Conference at 
*Financial Analyst at  - the middle 2 paragraphs at least
*Intelligence agency at  - the first paragraph
--SteveDeans 17:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also point you towards the article on the Qu'ran/Koran which has been cut and pasted complete with footnote references which are all now broken. V-Bede 13:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a Siteadmin at Conservapedia, we will be pulling any wikipedia copyvios on sight. Dagomar 21:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violations of Wikipedia's Copyright 

message: I've notices a distinct parallel between aspects of Wikipedia and Conservapedia, most notably the name of the Conservapedia "commandments" (like the ten commandments) seems to be based on the "five pillars" of Wikipedia (similar to the Five Pillars of Islam). Two questions. 1: Is this significant enough to be put into the article? 2: Would it need some sort of citation? Calgary 03:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see our policy on original research.  I don't think it's suitable.  WLU 00:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Parallels

message: It seems Conservapedia has a rather large amount of protected pages. Also, from what I can tell some people (like me) have be blocked from the wiki for simply stating there belife. Tesfan 02:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Their membership system is similar to Citezendium, where all users who sign up for an account have to first go through a verification process by a sysop who would upgrade them to editor status. --wL<speak·check> 07:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Syops only pages

message: I thought it would be interesting to note, even though I refuse to add it to the article (more of an FYI), that Conservapedia is blocked by all Department of Defense computers, Wikipedia is not. I thought this was a little humorous. Crmadsen 01:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, no its not.  Not that I ever do, but I can access CP from my Army work computer. Jrssr5 20:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Interesting Note

message: I've never knowlingly added nonsense to Wikipedia, but if ever there was an article that deserved it, it's this one. I'm sure the people at Conservapedia mean well, at least in their minds, but it really is sad. This article should lead with "Conservapedia is a comedy parody of Wikipedia." I genuinely thought Conservapedia was a joke. I hope they put a stork image in the intercourse article (if they ever make one). Perhaps "limbs" could be substituted for "legs" as they did in Victorian times for women's legs. There is plenty in Wikipedia which bothers me, but most of that is because it's the truth, or at least an attempt at the truth! Hopefully Conservapedia doesn't get very far. I shudder to think that there will be kids who eat chicken "mammary glands" for supper. Anyone care to comment? Jimaginator 14:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humorous, or Just Sad? 

message: I've noticed (through the conservapedia list of examples of bias in wikipedia), that the bit about conservapedia's licence not being copyleft being "an issue which has led to some concerns", is sourced to an article that only give Jimbo Wales, as the one raising the concerns. Do we have a source for a more neutral party raising concerns? If not, then I think we should attribute the concerns to Jimbo Wales. Silverfish 11:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be attributed anyway, that it's to Jimbo isn't a problem in my mind - he counts as an expert on copyleft and on-line encyclopedia's to me.  WLU 17:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with quoting Jimbo, but I was more pondering if other people not connected with Wikipedia have made similar comments. Anyway, I've now including the appropriate Jimbo quote in the article. Silverfish 17:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  copyright concerns bit