Category talk:Conservapedia

Im sorry, but let's discuss that first.--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 15:18, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

I was discussing it, hence my asking to add it to the portal. There was no reason to delete the whois information from the discussion page. Devils advocate 15:20, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

The deletion was probably hasty, the information is public knowledge, my question is how would it aesthetically be integrated? tmtoulouse ^beset 15:22, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

It's not only public knowledge, but pretty easy knowledge to obtain. That said, for the sake of aesthetics why not just post a link to where it can be found? The information will be the same, just not cluttering up the works. --Kels 15:26, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

A link will work. I will find one to use now. :)

Sorry i didn't know it was a simple WHOIS report. I want to be extra careful about posting people's personal info, even if it's publically "obtainable". If that's just some random corporate address, fine. Just better safe than sorry. As much as I think Assfly=douchebag...--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 15:54, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

How about working on the aesthetics of the link though? looks kinda ugly atm. tmtoulouse ^beset 15:55, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

I will attempt to make it more appealing though it may have to wait till I get home. Devils advocate 16:50, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

From the whois

This is curious.

Visitors by City: 1) Spånsfäb, SE 8.2% 2) New York, NY, US 7.8% 3) Los Angeles, CA, US 4.9%

"Spånsfäb, SE"? A proxy server or something? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 15:58, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Its a city in Sweden. I can ask a friend or two and see if maybe the local news in Spansfab ran a story on the site. If they did it could account for the number of visitors from there. of course it could be as you suggested a proxy server. A pity it does not list ips so I could check. It would be good to know they are laughing at him in Sweden. Devils advocate 16:50, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

The Alexa stats have always had a high % from Sweden. ŠтΈṜȳŁЁ^and...? 16:54, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Stripping

The stripping of the formating is problematic since this is a "portal" and we have been using the same formating for all portals. tmtoulouse ^beset 20:00, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

I was trying to make it smaller and couldn't get the "divs" to color up and line up pretty. SJIHAS had noted on talk:main page that it was a bit cumbersome - with the whois thing, the main link, and the galileo quote, the cat didn't even start listing until screen "two". Feel free to reformat it/revert it, but I do think he had a point. He also seems to have some "other" ideas about how RW should accomodate visitors interested in CP, some of which I don't fully understand, so hopefully he will chime in here with his concerns. He may not have seen how the portal system works; he seems not to have liked how the featured contents section linked to CP stuff (though I'm not sure how).

There also seem to a be plethora of rather pointless subcats here. human^{be in} 21:14, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Could you get rid of the ugly purple color too? I like the blue ones. CЯacke® 21:25, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Here's what I will do. 1. revert my prev. edit. 2. shorten the intro text. 3. try to prettify the whois link. 4. comment out the Galileo quote unless we can make it take up a lot less space. 5. ask you to take the two "featured" sections and put them sid-by-side under the intro, which should be 100% width. By the way, even with the whois thing moved, the first four words from the title on are "conservapedia". A mite redundant? human^{be in} 21:30, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

And the ugly purple color?CЯacke® 21:32, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

I like purple, but I get your point? Please contribute further... human^{be in} 00:11, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

Random message

Although you might know this already, Conservapedia has recently unprotected Global Warming, Barrak Obama, George W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan. Go out there and do what you do best!^{— Unsigned, by: 69.107.76.29 / talk / contribs}

This IS what we do best - run Rationalwiki. PFoster 13:51, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Other slams on Conservapedia

For those who haven't met me from the Lenski Affair, my name is Jim and I run a blog chronicling religious stupidity in all of it's forms, The Rational Reply. So recently I've gotten around to writing directly about Conservapedia (Conservapedia on starlight, more to follow).

The question is does Rational Wiki want to do anything with these obvious cross-overs? If so, what? Jim Rational 15:58, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

One thing you could do is cross-post your text in the "essay:" namespace, cat it to here, and put a link to the copy on your blog so people can go read the comments? And also link from there to here, of course ;) As far as your example (without reading it) we have an article on the starlight problem you could add text to. We might get cranky if you just run around adding external links, though... ħuman 16:38, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

I think this is not the first question of this kind we have had from a rational anti-conservapedia blogger. If you search RationalWiki Lenski on the web you get a lot of hits. Is there some other greater anti-conservapedia movement out there that we could help solidify? Would we want to?--Bob^{bing up} 16:47, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Any idea where that conversation was held? Was any kind of a consensus reached? Is there any desire to cross help these clearly complimentary efforts?

I'd be a bit surprised if there wasn't a desire to help each other. Regardless of what format we choose to put our efforts into, where our purposes mesh we should be doing so if only for the greater good of laughing at Conservapedia! Jim Rational 17:39, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

I don't remember the conversation, but this seems important, and Category talk:Conservapedia doesn't seem like a good place. Someone have a better place for this? tmtoulouse ^beset 17:48, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

The two candidates that I thought of for asking the question were here because it's directly straight at Conservapedia and the main page-talk page if this is a more general "what to do with other sites whose purposes mesh with RW at times?" discussion. Jim Rational 23:56, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

I shall copy this to mainpage.--Bob^{bing up} 04:45, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Category tree

I know we had this discussion before to a certain extent but do we have an agreement weather if an article A belongs toa sub-category do we put it in both the category and sub-category? Only this is getting very large and we have a lot of these. 00:39, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

I think it depends - cats don't have to be a "tree" (they can be a ladder, or a web). As far as "cat:CP" items, shouldn't they all be in the main cat? Or is the namespace enough for visitors to find what they want (Cp munchies)? But surely, it deserves some sub-cats by now, if well-selected. And also not necessarily removed from this cat? - just me shooting from the hip for now, until others chime in. ħuman 00:49, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Well my initial thoughts are the reverse ad hominem attacks on Andy should be in the Andrew Schlafly category exclusively. Ditto for the Lenski affair articles as they deal with only a small part of the grand history. The sysop sub-pages should be in their own category as they are only one small part of the fabric. I was thinking of two new sub-categories a Conservapedia Fun for all those amusing little articles that are not really a rebuttle of CP. And a side-by-side sub-category, it is hard to find the side-by-sides articles and they should remain in the main category but also have a sub-cat as a filter. Any thoughts? - User $\scriptstyle {\sqrt {12}}\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }(-3)^{-n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 00:57, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

I agree with Pi. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:59, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Yeah now I have one persons agreement I will go right ahead and do it. - User $\scriptstyle {\sqrt {12}}\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }(-3)^{-n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 01:03, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Cleaning up this category

For starters, I removed the auto-catting from Template:Conservapedia. As a result these have to be checked (they might be uncategorized now). We should use subcategories and put only a few articles into the main cat. If an article is already in a subcat, it should not be in the main category. Too many articles in the main category means some subcategories will be "hidden" (because you have to click next 200 to view them, which is not obvious at all). -- Nx / talk 14:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You are speaking my language. I'll send the ol' OCDBot after them. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 14:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, subcats are listed first so they aren't "hidden" by "excess" articles. I don't see how it's a problem to have a lot of articles in a cat, by the way. ħuman 21:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

They are hidden. Conservapedia's claimed differences with Wikipedia only appears if you click next 200. -- Nx / talk 21:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see, they are cut off at the same point in the alphabet as the articles. So get it out of "W" and into "C"! It seems odd that the software would do that, is it fixable? ħuman 22:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It does that because subcats and articles are stored together in a single list, so when it executes the database query it gets the first 200 articles and subcats, then it separates them. I guess it could be fixed by doing two database queries.

But putting aside technical problems, this category still needs cleanup to make it useful. Right now it's just a dumping ground for any and all CP related articles - not much more useful than just listing all pages in the Conservapedia namespace. -- Nx / talk 22:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

New subcategories

We need some new subcategories. Any suggestions? -- Nx / talk 19:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I have two possibilities: Category:Conservapedia essays for essays about Conservapedia (duh!) and Category:Conservapedia terms for pages such as Conservapedia:Banhammer. I'll poke about later and see what else I can come up with. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 23:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of one for articles about CP articles (refutations and side-by-sides) and one for site-related stuff (history, rules, etc.) -- Nx / talk 23:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I was just thinking about the side by side one as well, and one for "not-quite essays" like Conservapedia:An open letter from a disillusioned conservapedian. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 23:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The side by side one was deleted in July '09, so I guess we can't use that. OCDBot 00:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

How much are you hated by Conservapedia?

There's a hilarious game doing the rounds on the internet called, "How much are you hated by The Daily Mail?" So I thought I'd do a corresponding game called "How much are you hated by Conservapedia?" Here's how it goes.

(Scale: Ignored, Block for a month, Blocked for a year, Permanently Blocked, Permanently blocked and reported to the FBI.)

1. . Are you a woman? (Yes/No)
2. . Are you heterosexual? (Yes/No)
3. . Are you a Christian? (Yes/No)
4. . Do you have a job (Yes/No)
5. . Do you think it was all a lot better in the old days? (Yes/No)
6. . Are you married? (Yes/No)
7. . Were both of your parents born in the USA? (Yes/No)
8. . Are you pro-abortion? (Yes/No)
9. . Have you ever voted Democrat? (Yes/No)
10. . Have you had or are you having premarital sex?
11. . Do you believe in global warming?
12. . Do you believe in unification of Church and State?
13. . God Save The Queen?

(The correct answers are No, to 1, Yes to 2, No to 3, Yes to 4, Yes, to 5, Yes to 6, Yes to 7, Yes to 8, no to 9, no to 10, no to 11, yes to 12, yes to 13. If you get all answers correct you will simply be ignored upon registering on Conservapedia, if you get one wrong, you will be blocked for a month, two wrong and you’ll be blocked for a year, three and you’ll be Permanently blocked, four and you’ll be permanently blocked and reported to the FBI.) --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a generic list of conservative talking points. An experienced CP-watcher would have included, say, homeschooling, abortion and breast cancer, the fact that teenagers are responsible for the greatest achievements, relativity, the Bible being too liberal, something about earthquakes, maybe Tiger Woods, Tim Tebow, classroom prayer, bestiality, and shaken babies. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 20:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Add video games. And you could play a separate game just with Ken with topics like being catholic, old earth creationism, non-fundie evangelical, evolution, etc. 23:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Longer version:

How Much Are You Hated by Conservapedia? (Scale: Ignored, Block for a month, Blocked for a year, Permanently Blocked, Permanently blocked and reported to the FBI.) 1. Are you a woman? (Yes/No) 2. Are you heterosexual? (Yes/No) 3. Are you a Christian? (Yes/No) 4. Do you have a job (Yes/No) 5. Do you think it was all a lot better in the old days? (Yes/No) 6. Are you married? (Yes/No) 7. Were both of your parents born in the USA? (Yes/No) 8. Are you pro-abortion? (Yes/No) 9. Have you ever voted Democrat? (Yes/No) 10. Have you had or are you having premarital sex? 11. Do you believe in global warming? 12. Do you believe in unification of Church and State? 13. God Save The Queen? 14. Do you believe that reading The Bible prevents earthquakes? 15. Do you believe that classroom prayer helps prevent shaken baby syndrome? 16. Do you play video games? 17. Do you believe that the Theory of Relativity is scientifically accurate? 18. Does abortion cause breast cancer?

(The correct answers are No, to 1, Yes to 2, No to 3, Yes to 4, Yes, to 5, Yes to 6, Yes to 7, Yes to 8, no to 9, no to 10, no to 11, yes to 12, yes to 13, yes to 14, yes to 15, no to 16, no to 17, yes to 18. If you get all answers correct you will simply be ignored upon registering on Conservapedia, if you get one wrong, you will be blocked for a month, two wrong and you’ll be blocked for a year, three and you’ll be Permanently blocked, four and you’ll be permanently blocked and reported to the FBI.)

Thanks for the suggestions, guys. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 05:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)