Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?

Template:AOTW Navigation As a point of etiquette, please use the [add section] tab above, or the "Add new section" link below, when adding a new topic, and the appropriate [edit] tab when commenting on existing topics. This will lessen the incidence of edit conflicts. Thank you.

When adding a link to Conservapedia that is not already on What is going on at CP? please place <capture></capture> around the link.

For non CP-related talk, please mosey on over to the saloon bar.

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: Archive list

Rob just got the RW article on WP restored.

Check wp:Talk:Conservapedia for the epic WTH, started and thoroughly escalated by Rob... that ended with somebody restoring the RW article on WP. I hadn't been active on WP around that time, I think, so I completely missed the pros and cons of the decision to turn it into a redirect (end of 2008 or so). My intuition would say that it doesn't meet notability, but I'm totally not up to speed with the WP rules. If people from here still remember and/or are knowledgeable about the rules and facts, this might be a good time to chime in. --Sid (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Uhh, isn't the opposite of what he intended? 18:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to tell what he intended... ħuman 20:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Going by what I see, I'd say that not even he knows what he intended. Going by what I suspect, it's simple trolling: He either wants to paint RW in the worst light possible, or he wants its presence gone from the article. That's why he went from Lenski to PalMD to the Hit List, to questioning the LA Times, to involving the Register (to alter who gets "credit" as founder - the cornerstone to focusing his accusations on Pal), to invoking NPOV, to accusing Pal of defamation. And he will go on and on until he gets his way or until a sysop realizes that that section alone is more than 30kb large, filled with wild tangents and accusations by Rob. --Sid (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Which one is Rob again? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 21:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Nobs01. Just check the talk page there, it quickly becomes obvious. --Sid (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Weapons-grade batshit for brains. Can't miss him. --Robledo (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It's kind of annoying to read, in that those little bloggish articles are treated as factual scholarly sources -> "RW IS AN ORGANIZATION DESIGNED TO VANDALIZE CP". Rob's own hit list is pretty great, though. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 21:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, all his whining accomplished his goal in a way: The NPOV of the entire article is now in dispute just because one section says what a CP-approved source says and nothing more. God, this is why I hate wiki politics. --Sid (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Just call me a "transformational figure" and "agent of change." RobSmith^{don't bother me} 22:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Is the accusing PAL of defamation better or worse than Brian McDonald stating that Trent and Ames are criminals over and over? I can't tell. 22:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

£20 says that Colin (whoever he may be) is actually in prison for crimes of internet terrorism against CP. EddyP (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't take that bet all day because Karajou's making damn sure all of us RatWikian vandals end up in the clink! 23:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there are more words in the Conservapedia WP article than there were in the LA Times article. I think I'll stay out of it, but why is RW in the CP article at WP anyway? It doesn't add anything but more criticism. Šţěŗĭļė couch potato 00:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is RW on WP in the first place? Is WP:Notable? I don't think so. 00:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

RationalWiki is nowhere near notable enough for Wikipedia. You need to start a Liberal Bible Project (LBP) or something, and make a lot of noise. Cp anon (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Mh, wikilawyering is fully engaged. I am now officially accused of a COI (which I only fully realized because I happened to check his contribs) because I fixed an error in the RW article while stating several times that I'm a longtime RW member. God, I fucking hate trolling. --Sid (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Though I admire the tactic from an outside POV: Never stick to one subject, keep bringing up new accusations while always claiming that this is indeed what you've been saying the entire time, then mix it all into one big, garbled claim... and ask for outside sysops who don't know the history. He did it with the NPOV claim, he did it with the COI claim... and let's see what he does later and tomorrow. --Sid (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Sid, sorry to have to do that, but you violated process and trolled me. WP is not RW or CP where you can troll at will. I'd be happy to discuss some issues here if you like. But it would have to begin with a recognition and statement from you that some of my concerns (my concerns, not Andy's, TK's, Karajou, Phil Raymont, et al) are quite valid in WP, and your constant bring up extraneous arguments (trolling) is unhelpful. Thank you. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 02:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, right, because misuse of process isn't in the wikipedia guidelines. Except it is. Šţěŗĭļė couch potato 02:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The CP trolls at WP keep trotting out the line from the LA Times about "[RationalWikians]...by their own admission -- engage in acts of cyber-vandalism." Just who admitted this and exactly what was admitted to? Did anyone admit to vandalism or posting pornography? Because from what I have seen here, out of the early members only one could be called vandal in the traditional sense of the word. I'm thinking of IW unless anyone can suggest any other likely suspects. Certainly it was not the modus operandi of Trent, Ames etc.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Lily, you are completely correct. However, since WP is stuck with "reliable sources", if the newspaper writer got it wrong, and no one else bothered to get it right, WP has to report lies. It's an interesting conundrum (in WP world, anyway). ħuman 09:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

We have two reputable, verifiable sources per cp:WP/RS wp:WP/V, that Peter Lipson founded RW, "by their own admission engages in cyber-vandalism. From there Lipson writes 'CP represents everything I abhor {insert more marginal, fringe, and extreme views quoting Lipson's hate filled screed]'" Proposed text: "Rationalwiki editors have confessed to at least two acts of cyber-vandalism, (1) the Hit List, and (2) authoring brusque, offensive and deceitful comments about Dr. Lenski," per WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:V.

Now, the question is, do you guys want the RW entry deleted? vote here. Do you think you can control its content, too? What about WP:COI? What if you can't and RW is exposed for what and who it is? It probably makes sense for you guys to remain non-notable, marginal, fringe, and extreme. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 14:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I think both those statements would have issues with verifiability, OR, undue weight, and some other policies, but that could be discussed if the article is kept. Frankly, I expect it will be redirected to its section in the CP article. DickTurpis (talk) 15:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yah but you guys aren't going to be able to sockpuppet and troll to control it's content in the manner you've become accustomed. You'd probably all end up being banned indefinitely. And I'd probably have to retire from RW to avoid COI. We need serious negotiations at this point per wp:CIVIL, and it would be helpful to do it here in RW. While I appreciate the humor and laughs with you guys, I ain't fuckin around nomore. I know where the bodies are burried. Please, only serious editors engage me how to proceed. And trolls go fuck yourself (Sid, did you really say you hate trolling above? Well look who's calling the kettle a honkey). RobSmith^{don't bother me} 15:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

What's cyber-vandalism? The hit-list was parody, and brusque, offensive and deceitful comments on Lenski were made by Aschlafly, too. Is he a cyber-vandal himself? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 15:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Rob, it has been explained to you several times exactly why you are utterly and completely wrong. Can we please stop feeding the troll and let the WP guys handle this? -- Nx / talk 15:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Be advised, you need to begin taking me seriously, cease incivility, and if youj are indulge these discussions, address specifically the concerns that have been raised. You will be the next user reported to COI Noticeboard. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 15:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been incivil.

Your concerns have been addressed multiple times.

This is RationalWiki, not Wikipedia, you can't report me at WP for my comments at RW.

I don't think I have violated COI, so go ahead and report me. -- Nx / talk 15:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You edited mainspace RW. You could show good faith now by voting to delete the RW entry. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 16:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:COI does not prohibit me from editing the RationalWiki article at Wikipedia (I'm assuming that's what you mean by mainspace RW, and not RW's mainspace, which I have, indeed, edited). -- Nx / talk 16:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That's your interpretation, but you of course, are not the final arbitrator on that. I, by contrast, have little or no editing history in either mainspace. I've tried to resolve disputes and have been relentlessly trolled. And I think I can prove a history of tendentious editing and WP:OWN, and a shitload of other violations by RW editors long before I ever attempted to improve Wikipedia & bring NPOV. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 22:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

And the interpretation of other WP editors who are getting annoyed by you dragging this issue all over wikipedia and have already told you to put up or shut up. -- Nx / talk 22:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Editors with histories of undisclosed COI and tendentious behavior? Ever been through any level of wp:WP:DR? Let's see the case. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 22:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Who are you talking about? Can you point out specific cases of tendentious behavior or COI editing? Also, [1] -- Nx / talk 22:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, I would expect acts of vandalism to be reverted on Conservapedia - after they have been spotted. So, while this necessary criterion is met by the hit-list, what about the brusque, offensive and deceitful comments against Lenski? No reversal there, Conservapedia seems to endorse them! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 15:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The Hit List and in inifiltration in the Lenski affair probably would warrant thier own subheads in the RW entry if it survives. Hell, that's RW only claim to notability. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 15:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Does RW really cares about being on WP? like CPAnon said, We are not doing all this to please mommy ( and get the inheritance). RW is not pandering to the left wing for recognition. We are just concerned/entertained by the sheer stupidity and closed-mindedness some fundies have...

I don't think anybody here seriously cares for a RW@WP article beyond some vanity, and most people agree that it doesn't meet notability standards. And the lack of Reliable Sources about RW would make it practically impossible to expand beyond its current state since anything beyond that would be Original Research. --Sid (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Rob, I am going to say this one more time. Nowhere have you shown that RW members admitted to inserting brusque or offensive comments, nor have you produced these comments. Please show us or kindly be quiet. EddyP (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Are they going to blame RW for the Barack Obama article too? Alain (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If the subtext here, by the way, is that Rob wants RW to be responsible for goading on Andy's cretinous conduct in the Lenski Affair, perhaps he ought to come out and say that he also disapproved of Andy pursuing that course. Then when we get him to admit that there's no good support for the proposition that RW is somehow officially responsible for the tone of that debacle we'll have him admitting that Andy's hubris is the source of CP's butthurt, not some unidentified editors with no editorial control who were banned and oversighted in any event. 16:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Well Nutty, here's the beauty of that matter: I was inactive for a long period of time. RW kept good records of these matters ("Damn, he's back."). As Director of Internal Counterintelligence, I felt deeply remorseful for what transpired in my absence. Namely the Hit List, Lenski affairs, and infiltration into the Zuegledon group. These Ne-ev-er would have happened had I been around. Ne-eev-er. So I've had time to conduct an internal review, and now must mitigate the damage. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 18:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hehehe. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You think you would have talked Andy out of the Lenski letter, Rob? I don't think so. He was pretty set on that and many saner minds could not persuade him otherwise (saner minds.....maybe that was the problem). Do you also think you could have kept TK out of the Zuegledon group so he wouldn't leak it? I gotta say, a TK vs. RobS grudge match would have made for great viewing. DickTurpis (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Dick, with all due respect, you are behind the curve here. It is pretty well established, from the get-go, that the ZB stuff wasn't leaked by me but rather a defrocked Admin by the name of "Jessica", editing from South Africa, as the "leaked" correspondence shows. Most speculate it was really RW Admin Psygrimlin. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 21:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

"Most," meaning you, right TK? Junggai (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately despite any amount of effort on your part, and I trust your good intentions, I do, CP will never be monolithic in any sense except the single fact that it reflects Andrew Schlafly's will. There will never be a central control or Director of Internal Counterintelligence with the leadership you guys have. It's just a fact. You can't even agree amongst yourselves on simple matters of policy. The endless bickering on ZB just goes to show that you're sometimes even talking at each other through clenched teeth (the way I feel when I speak with creationists and cantankerous wingnuts). No sir. The Lenski letters were going to go out because Andrew Schlafly wanted them to go out. That's on you all (really it's on Andy but you can share his shame, which I take it you are). The so-called hit-list was also completely consistent with CP ideology. It remained on the website until you CP was made the subject of national scorn in the press. I don't see that business as any different than the repulsive brand of highly personalized hatred that passes for dissent in any other area of concern at Conservapedia. The problem with CP is that people like Karajou, Jpatt, Andy are such incredible extremists that the only glimpses they get of themselves in them mirror are when they suspect CP editors of being "liberals," "parodists," "vandals," etc. simply because they're as or more right wing as Jpatt, Andy, et al. I personally find the paradox entertaining, but I'm not charged by God and Ronald Reagan with maintaining whatever image CP thinks it's projecting. 18:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• The so-called hit-list was also completely consistent with CP ideology.

Nutty, are going to retract this statement? You have an opportun8ty now (and I voted for you for Loya Jirga). RobSmith^{don't bother me} 18:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It's really just Andy's personality permeating the whole project and dooming it to failure. From what I've seen of him, he'll simply do whatever the fuck he wants (fair enough, it's his site), and nobody will ever talk him out of anything. He'll never question anything or anyone that seems to support his beliefs - that's why it's so easy for parodists to infiltrate the site, place nonsense everywhere and goad him into making a fool of himself - nor will he ever seriously consider any challenge to his opinions. That's CP in a nutshell, Rob, and you can't blame it on parodists and intelligence failures. The latter are pretty much a defining feature of your site anyway, pardon the pun. Röstigraben (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Are there any screenies floating round of the hitlist history? I remember a couple of sysops editing it before it was exposed. EddyP (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Gee, Rob. "Peter Lipson is still active at RationalWiki." [2] Do you really consider 9 edits in 2010, and none since February 16th to be "still active?" Šţěŗĭļė couch potato 23:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

CP sysops like to stretch the definition of 'active', because it makes their number of active users slightly less pathetic. EddyP (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That's far more active than Airdish, Colin or Flippin, ain't it? --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 13:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

At the moment, the same definition of Active users (Users who have performed an action in the last 7 days) is used at RationalWiki (170) and Conservapedia (76). Other wikis use other periods of time, e.g., wikipedia 30 days. For a direct comparison of the active commentators over the last 90 days have a look here:

CP

RW

Two interesting oberservations:

1. The fluctuation of editors at CP is much higher, as the numbers are spiked by short-lived editors. From a marketing view, you could boost your numbers by changing to a longer time period.
2. The last bump was due to Colbert. It's time to pull another public stunt!

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 13:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Heads up

I'm looking at the Hit List, Lenski affairs, and Zuegledon[sic] matters through the same eyes a Wikipedia Arbitrator would view. And I can do this cause I'm neurtra[sic]. I was inactive, and never have looked at particulars in any of these matters. I only have the credibility of sources to begin with. And let me make this absolutly[sic] clear, Andy Schlafly is not an active user at Wikipedia. Andy's BEHAVIOR in the Lenski matter, or [sic] ANY matter, is not in question here. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 23:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

(EC!!!!) You're not neutral. You're trying to whitewash the Conservapedia article by claiming that all the things CP has been criticized for were actually done by vandals and parodists. -- Nx / talk 23:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Hit List: created by parodist, endorsed by sysops
• Zeugledon: original research, of no interest for wikipedia
• Lenski: please, get me a statement of Andy where he dissociates himself from concrete remarks made at conservapedia

Neurtra? I don't think so (nice word, BTW) larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 23:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

LArron: Stop trolling and harassing me. I've lost several responses in my communications with others in a good faith effort resolve a WP dispute becuase of your trolling. Please stop. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 23:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Rob, pointing out that you are wrong is not considered trolling. Except at Conservapedia of course, so I understand how you might be confused. -- Nx / talk 23:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This might be fun. Even if you ignore the above concerns, there are a few questions:

• Hit List: Do you have Reliable Sources covering it?
• Zeuglodon: Do you have Reliable Sources covering it?
• Potential RW involvement in the Lenski Affair: Do you have Reliable Sources covering it?

From what I see, the answers are... uh... no, no, and... no? But please, do show us your sources, Mr. Absolutely Neutral Arbitrator! --Sid (talk) 23:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom does not get involved in content disputes. [3] Seems to me, your rejection of the first steps of WP:DR several times in WP doesn't look good. Then, wp:OWN over both the CP & RW entries. Also COI and tendentious editing. Wanna see your Username on the sockpoppet Noticeboard for the next several years, too. Sid, wake up. You would help yourself by moderating your conduct in interaction with other users and begin addreessing these concerns seriously. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 22:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

<No, actually, forget it. Give me a moment.>

You're still thinking that you're following WP:DISPUTE?

• "Focus on content: The most important first step is to focus on content, and not on editors."
  • Your efforts have focused more and more on editors... especially as said editors started to show how your content concerns went against Wikipedia rules and guidelines. And when you claimed that you would try to engage me in Dispute Resolution, your first words to me here were "Sid, sorry to have to do that, but you violated process and trolled me. WP is not RW or CP where you can troll at will." That is not content. You're just making personal remarks. And then you tried to make me agree about "valid concerns" that were not sufficiently clarified and later on turned out not to be about the dispute you claimed on WP.
• "When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can."
  • You kept dodging questions of what specific edit or sentence you oppose or how you would phrase things. When you finally got around to suggesting actual changes, they were OR (like including PalMD's essay to brand him as some sort of political radical) or were dismissed on BLP grounds (insisting that PalMD founded RW and ignoring arguments made against your claims that the LA Times doesn't actually say what you want it to say)
• "Don't take others' actions personally."
  • You've done this the entire time, insisting that RW editors violate COI rules even after the people from the Noticeboard told you this wasn't the case. Your "People who disagree just have to be from RW and people who agree with me are neutral" stance led to you declaring that a RW editor had removed some dispute tag in the RW article and that a neutral admin had agreed with hanging a dispute tag in the CP article. Both claims were evidently false (and while you apologized for one, you just ignored the other).
• "Please give both yourself and the other party some time."
  • You rushed both the NPOV and COI Noticeboard alerts out the moment you felt that you might be able to make a case. Less than five hours after posting your initial talk page edit (at time in which a mere two editors had replied) you had alerted the NPOV Noticeboard. And your COI accusations against me came less than two hours after starting the COI talk page section on Talk:RW. Dispute Resolution doesn't just begin when you declare it does. You declared vague concerns, some people replied to you, and you ran away to ask for neutral parties.
• "Assume that an editor is acting in good faith until it's absolutely clear that they're not."
  • You accused RationalWiki editors of controlling the content of the CP article and further told me "Your contribs at wp:CP hurt the WP project. I'll prove it to Arbcom, if necessary." All this without ever moving beyond vague claims about me "shaping the article" or me trolling you. You couldn't even be bothered to look up an actual quote or edit by me, instead citing someone else and then just lamely declaring "While those are not your words, you were right there from the beginning in shaping the article".
• "Not discussing will make people less sympathetic to your position and may prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution."
  • Your repeated unwillingness to move beyond rule-citing or dishing out accusations without providing proper diffs (in several cases making misleading or openly false claims, such as RationalWiki editors removing a RS or the above claims about who added or deleted tags) lost you the support of the very people you alerted. Plus the people who tried to engage you on Talk:CP - way before I even made my first edit in that discussion.
• "Also consider negotiating a truce or compromise."
  • You told me to acknowledge that your concerns are valid under threat of ArbCom. How is that a compromise or truce? If that is your idea of negotiating a truce, you failed.
• "Ask for help at a relevant noticeboard"
  • You did this twice (veeery quickly), and the people there did not share or even see your concerns. Later, you blamed me defending myself against your various accusations for this.
• "Last resort: Arbitration: [...] Be prepared to show that you tried to resolve the dispute by other means."
  • This I gotta see. Your dispute resolution consisted of quickly dragging matters to Noticeboards instead of trying to discuss properly first and of accusing me and other RW members of trolling, controlling content, hurting the Wikipedia project, threatening with ArbCom, threatening to drag me to the Sockpuppet Noticeboard, threatening to drag Nx to the COI Noticeboard, trying to coerce Nx into voting for deletion in AfD:RationalWiki... and then you told me to go fuck myself.

Oh yeah, and all of this while acting as Conservapedia's "Director of Internal Counterintelligence" and claiming that as such, you "now must mitigate the damage". And then you went on to claim that you're neutral.

Your entire conduct of the last few days here and on Wikipedia completely and openly contradicts your case. You have tried several times to make some sort of case against RationalWiki, and you failed each and every time simply because you were not even able or willing to properly communicate your thoughts to people who know what you are trying to do - much less to people who just arrived.

Right now, you are resting your entire case against me on a single hope: "And trust me, they will have no patience for large blocks of text like the one you just stated to defend yourself". Let me just point out: I like to be verbose, but I can be concise when needed. There is a reason some people here praise my WIGO writing skills. --Sid (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

</No, actually, forget it. Give me a moment.>

I have started a section on Wikipedia since this section is just escalating limitlessly. --Sid (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

I think this is where it needs to go, Sid. [4] Seriously. All the steps are laid out in WP:DR. Let's just move to informal mediation. There we can discuss some of these content issues you repeatedly raise. I know nothing of YEC, evolution, Lenski, etc etc etc. I do know the history of your editing both the wp:Conservapedia & wp:RationalWiki mainspace. Let's resolve those issues quietly (privately, if you'd like) in Mediation. Take you're time reviewing the processes, but please let me know. Thank you. nobs^{don't bother me} 23:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

(I moved your reply since otherwise, my other follow-ups will be stranded.) No, Rob. I repeatedly tried to discuss content here, even after your first and sudden threat to drag me to ArbCom for my editing history of the last three years. Yet somehow, I'm apparently the only one of us who wants to discuss content. Your entire editing pattern boils down to just citing rules you think make you right while people around you point out that your most basic foundation, the content proposals, are either bad or missing. I asked you to engage me on Talk:Conservapedia to address your content concerns, and so far, there is no reply by you, but yet another ArbCom reference here on my talk page. If you really do have content concerns, stop shoving your interpretation of the rules in my face and just tell me what you want to change! I'm sick and tired of you continuously pestering me without making ONE good suggestion yourself. --Sid (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

[unindent] ArbCom has to decide to accept or reject the case. I'm taking the initial steps to resolve disputes, per WP:DR. That there is dispute in WP between editors, there is no question.

• Battle of Conservapedians and RationalWikians
• wp:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive175#Conservapedia_edit_war

Sid, rejecting offers to resolve disputes doesn't work to your advantage. nobs^{don't bother me} 17:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing to reject. You just kept making threats and accusations while I repeatedly tried to talk about content. I made a lengthy post detailing my thoughts on the Lipson/LATimes issue, which you ignored. I asked you to engage me on Talk:CP, which you ignored. I asked you on Talk:RW to discuss your content concerns, but you first wanted to revert my edit to the RW article even though the COI Noticeboard told you my edit was justified. Show me diffs where you tried to discuss content. All you did on RW was accusing me, threatening me with ArbCom and stating that you are engaging me in Dispute Resolution, but I don't see your posts about content. I repeat my invitation to discuss WP content on the according WP talk page. --Sid (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

You are neutral and yet the only one interested. Stop wasting free (Free:socialist : EVIL!!!666!! ) and precious arbitration time at wikipedia and just let go of it... Alain (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

...Or at best, just link the [Guide]to WP , they'll get the gist of it... Alain (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD is a Keep

which I find a bit surprising. --Opcn (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the AfD closer left the whole redirect question open, so another guy followed through there and made it a redirect while a user from the COI Noticeboard included some of the language from the RW article in the CP one. So it can be summed up as "Keep and Merge", which isn't terribly surprising. No objections from my side. --Sid (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I expected it to return to a redirect. The decision wasn't so much "keep" as "don't delete". ħuman 20:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I de-stickied the thread. ħuman 21:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Rob must be terribly disappointed that it wasn't deleted and the earth salted. --Kels (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

7 keep, 6 delete, 10 redirect, 3 "delete and/or redirect". That's 19 to 7 against keeping the stand alone article. Closing admin: "The result was keep". This, folks, is why Wikipedia admins should not be allowed to breed. Secret Squirrel (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The closing user made it clear that he wasn't weighing in on the redirect question and just decided between "completely delete it with no redirect" and "don't burn it, you guys figure out what to do with it", so it was more like 20 to 6 against complete deletion. Besides, keep in mind that it's not pure vote-counting that decides these things (at least not last time I checked). --Sid (talk) 08:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

He apparently decided to ignore the decision (and a lot of other stuff). His most recent move on the CP talk page boils down to "The AfD has established that RationalWiki is non-notable, and the LA Times is inaccurate, so let's remove the section here!". Let's see what happens from here. --Sid (talk) 09:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like knobs got to him in private? ħuman 00:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Andy's definition of abortion

What a worthless, hateful sack of shit that guy is. Last night he pulled Definition of Abortion^img out of his ass and smeared it on the wall for everyone to look at. Let's parse this abortion, shall we?

•The definition of abortion is the termination of the defenseless life of an unborn child for any reason other than to save the life of the mother. I'm curious as to what the procedure is called if is to save the life of the mother? For a lawyer, Andy's also remarkably sloppy about the use of 'termination', since it does not speak to the mechanism or even the intentionality of that termination. A car crash or overwhelming infection can result in termination of the defenseless, etc. This is like defining murder as the termination of human life, making atherosclerosis the murderer of my grandfather. But atherosclerosis's ties to City Hall keep the cops from touching him!

•In medical terminology an abortion includes any artificial termination of the life of an unborn child. Horseshit. In medical terminology, an abortion refers to any pregnancy loss, which is why we have the subcategories of induced abortion and spontaneous abortion. In popular terminology abortion may only refer to the induced variety, with 'miscarriage' for spontaneous abortion, but so fucking what? Here, I'll play Andy in reverse: "In legal terminology, murder includes any artificial termination of the life of a human." Would Andy accept that definition?

•Pro-abortion advocates attempt to confuse the distinction between an abortion, which is contrary to nature and health, and a miscarriage, which is natural. Yes, miscarriage; so natural, and not at all contrary to health. What could be more natural and healthy than a good ol' fashioned miscarriage? It certainly has no effect at all on the future fertility of the mother - oh wait, it does. It doesn't affect the likelihood of future premature birth or miscarriage - oh wait, it does. It doesn't 'increase the risk of breast cancer' - except that oh, it does, if we use Andy's own uniquely stupid and wrong definition of such things. We all know how miscarriage has no longterm psychological effects, and no mother ever dies. Praise God for the wonders of miscarriage! Jesus Fucking Christ on a Giant Mechanical Dildo Fucking YHWH. "Natural". Fuck that fucking piece of shit.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

ETA: when an edit by Ken actually improves your article^img, it's time to swallow a bullet.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I really have to wonder why they need a Definition of Abortion article at all? Shouldn't that be on the Abortion article? DickTurpis (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Ken's articles, like FOIA's, reproduce by budding. When one sub-topic is too large for the main article, it splits off into its own page. With a complementary series of block-quotes, of course. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the krazy so succinctly, Martin.

One thing I don't understand is how anti-abortion nuts get away with saying abortion is OK if the life of the mother is in danger. If the embryo/fetus really is an unborn child, i. e. a human being with a right to live, then wouldn't that still be murder? Can I shoot my brother in the head if I absolutely, positively have to have that liver? How do they do it? mb 17:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

the list of wanted articles in the abortion project is somewhat extreme, a lot of those would seem to duplicate material. Anti-abortion nuts are not quite nutty enough to scream , "save the baby " and "die bitch" at the same time , and may be smart enough to realize that if the mother dies, the babies chances are pretty slim anyway. Hamster (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You guys might laugh, but Operation Matutinal Defenestration will soon be in full swing and mark the end of Abortion on the internet!!! ^{ONE / TALK} 19:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the meaning behind Andy's definition. The abortion debate is not so much about whether abortion is moral or immoral, but whether the embryo/fetus is a person/baby or just a mass of non-sentient tissue. If you believe "baby", you're probably going to assert that abortion is wrong. If you believe "lump of tissue", then abortion is no more wrong than having your tonsils out. By defining abortion as "termination of the life of an unborn child", Andy is trying to skip right over the debate to the conclusion. --WJThomas (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I dont have a problem with that definition. (and I hate to agree with andy, even slightly) but unless terminated a fertilized egg is going to become a human baby, barring any major defects. Defining it as "a lump of tissue" might be technically correct but seems somewhat like sophistry. Just an old guys opinion. Hamster (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm in danger of starting a whole debate about abortion, but your statement isn't actually correct. A large number of conceptions actually end in spontaneous abortions (or miscarriages, if you want to use the more common term). One study, for example, found that 61.9% of conceptions ended in spontaneous abortion, 91.7% of which ended without the woman even realizing she was pregnant. 92.17.150.152 (talk) 01:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Abortion articles

This warrants a discussion. One little comment I would like to make: I love how in every article about something they disagree with there's at least one picture of Hitler and/or Stalin. It literally makes me laugh every time I see that: how can they take themselves seriously? =)) It's like they're trying to make a parody site.

I've never seen anything more childish than comparing the other side with Hitler or putting an image of a baby girl with big eyes in an attempt to manipulate emotions. How can they expect to be treated seriously? I can't believe I used to try and have honest debates with them. :) diego_pmc 20:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that it is mostly Ken who is doing this. He's a step above (or below) the rest. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

On a serious note, with Ken's SEO skills (or lack of it)and link farming methods, how much impact will these articles have on the general internet world. Rather how likely is that some neutral person searching for abortion bumps into one of Ken's creations? --Buscombe (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, how likely is that some neutral person searching for creation bumps into one of Ken's abortions? ^{ONE / TALK} 21:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Bravo, sir. Bravo. Top-notch wordplay. Three internets for you. 23:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"Either way, they're up to a target of 126 abortion articles" unlinked, and list is gone now. Please 'splain? ħuman 00:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I would imagine that's going to be the end of abortion around the world now. Once everyone searches for and finds Ken's amazing articles on the topic, people's heads will be turned and that'll be the end of that. You'll see. He's a visionary genius, our Kenny Baby. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 07:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Lighthouses are more useful than churches

I hadn't heard it before, but lighthouses are more useful than churches seems to be a genuine quote by Benjamin Franklin - this great American with the tiny flaw of being utterly a-religious.

Nevertheless, the insertion^img of this quote into the article on Ben F. is punished as deliberate insertion of false information^img.

“”Weil, so schließt er messerscharf, nicht sein kann, was nicht sein darf.

- Christian Morgenstern

(As, he concludes cunningly, it can't be, what should not be... )

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 22:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

A better translation - by a certain Max Knight - for, he reasons pointedly, that which must not, can not be.

It's certainly a fascinating quote, but I'm honestly curious -- is there any source that says conclusively that Franklin did make that statement? There are, of course, a lot of quotes attributed to famous people that the never said. (Though that might well have been Franklin's sentiment.) MDB (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I've found a couple of references to it that cite Poor Richard's Almanack 1758, but getting an online cource for that is looking pretty tough. In passing - they tend to quote it as helpful rather than useful, not that it really matters Worm^{(t | c)} 23:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Scanned images of the Almanack are viewable at [5]; I've had a quick glance over it but can't immediately see the lighthouse quote. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough and someone else can spot it.. (if you click on the images they helpfully increase to a bigger, readable size!) alt (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There's also this downloadable text; searching for either "lighthouse" or "church" returns nothing useful. alt (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he used an aerchaick spelinge? ħuman 00:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The origin of this quote seems to be a letter of Benjamin Franklin to his wife Elisabeth (Jul 17, 1757), where he writes: The bell ringing for church, we went thithers immediately, and with hearts full of gratitude, returned sincere thanks to God for the mercies we had received: were I a Roman Catholic, perhaps I should on this occasion vow to build a chapel to some saint, but as I am not, if I were to vow at all, it should be to build a light-house.

So, here is something for everyone: thanks to God & preferring to build a light-house over building a chapel.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 05:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Most churches, have a tower or steeple. Why couldn't they combine the functions of a place of worship and a lighthouse? Or even for making lead-shot? Or a windmill? A church with a revolving cross seems like a great idea. But oh no, they have to build something that is pretty much only used one day a week.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Westboro

I'm pretty sure Conservapedia has an item refering to the Westboro Baptist Church as Leftist. I may be dreaming though

They do. Based off the basic system of "I don't like them, therefore they are liberals." SirChuckB^{That is all} 00:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

See^img for yourself^img. You can decide from here. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Suddenly the headline is "unencyclopaedic"^img - like that ever stopped them before. Oversighted too. obviously O'Brian giving that bunch of lefties money is a bad thing. Why would O'Brian support lefties anyway? oh wait... because they're not... --PsyGremlin말하십시오 01:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

But didn't no other than TK say that the news isn't meant (to even pretend) to be encyclopaedic? If it wasn't for the fact that even in CP's little world it's unacceptable to support WBC - the Assfly would be 100% behind them. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't like this statute!

Therefore London is atheistic!^img So it seems anything that mildly irritates Andy or is slightly unaesthetic to his eyes is atheistic. Gawd, how does man live without freaking out at every turn. Aceⁱ⁹ 07:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, isn't that brilliant? How much more into the territory of blog can he go? "That's not Art, that's just a steaming pile of shite! I could make that in my sleep!" DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 07:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I was going to make a clever reference to this gem, but the amount of stupid overloaded my brain. Keegscee (talk) 07:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I like how he throws a random quote from somebody who's not using their real first name and initial on the front page. Then again, given some of the stuff that's won the Turner Prize over the years... maybe if they'd done a mural of autumn leaves... --PsyGremlinTal! 07:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It really does fit perfectly with his whole "Autumn Foliage" theory. How does he maintain a consistent thought process? How does avoid lacing his shoes with spagehtti and answering the iron when the phone rings? Aceⁱ⁹ 07:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, the blog he linked has concrete proof that the 2012 Olympics' art is bad. First, some people somewhere posted negative comments. Second, some other blog says the logo is also dumb. Admit that asymmetry is ugly or lose all credibility. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 07:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Atheist Art. Wow. Bethcha 10 points that, or some derivative of it, becomes a new Schlafly insight. Aceⁱ⁹ 07:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

A thousand internets to the person who points out the artist is Jewish and not atheist on CP. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

"La la la, he's faking he's Jewish to cover his atheism through Liberal Deciet (tm), la la la la la..." - Ravenhull (talk) 08:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Surely he shouldn't be referencing a blog that features a naked female breast in it's logo? Steve Kay (talk) 08:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

London, atheistic? That's presumably why I live up the road from several churches and a mosque, and indeed I believe a Sikh temple.Webbtje (talk) 10:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Well London is in Britain and Britain is in Europe see, and according to the likes of Andy, all of Europe is "atheistic" and "socialist". Why stop his stereotyping now? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

On my browser, Andy's declaration that this is an ugly piece of design looks like this - >

VISUAL INSTABILITY? Teapot/kettle/black, Andy? DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 19:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I am more curious how "Visual instability" is the very antithesis of faith. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm taking bets on whether, "Instability is the antithesis of faith", is Andy's new "Insight of the week" that will have its own page written almost exclusively by Andy and then summarily forgotten about next week.Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 20:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Andy is pulling an april's fool, right? RIGHT!!!?!?!? ( Betty have some good arguments , taken from CuckooPalace main page talk)

While I fully agree with anyone that thinks the proposed ArchlorMittal Orbit, the full name for the awful thing, is a ghastly piece of modern sculpture and shouldn't be built, even if there is supposed to be minimal cost to the London taxpayer since the materials have been donated, I don't quite see how one can make the leap to stating that it's 'atheistic'. Horrible, unsightly, and ugly (pick your own adjective) ...certainly - if you don't happen to like that sort of thing, which I don't. However, since the donor is a practicing Hindu, the designer a practicing Jew and the Mayor of London a practicing Christian, I'm not sure where the atheism of it all fits in. I can see how in an avowedly an atheist state such as the former USSR, current North Korea etc one could make such a suggestion with confidence, but here in Britain, where the Christianity is the state religion, to suggest it's a reflection of an atheistic culture is going a bit too far I think. Now if you want to suggest it's a sign of a lack of artistic taste and a reflection of the appalling pseudo-cultural values the Mayor - who as a Conservative should know better - is trying to impose on us, I'm with you all the way! BetsyNewson 11:05, 1 April 2010 (EDT)

London is atheistic, and the sculpture was designed for acceptance by its audience. One telling quote about it -- that it was intended to create an image of instability -- demonstrates that the product is the antithesis of faith.--Andy Schlafly 11:14, 1 April 2010 (EDT)

From where I sit in south London I can think of three CofE churches, a Methodist Hall and the biggest Mosque in Europe, all within a 5 min. walk and all seemingly fairly popular on the appropriate day of that religions worship. A slightly longer walk will bring in the local Catholic Church and a Salvation Army Hall, so I'm still bemused at where you get the 'atheistic' description. Materialistic certainly - but then what big city isn't these days? In spite of everything there's still a lot of all sorts of religious belief and practice going on throughout the whole of the City and while I've had many Christians and Mormons coming to my door inviting me to join them and even Muslim leaflets advertising their services, in the 35 years I've live here, I've yet to be approached by an atheist asking me to change my faith to theirs. However, each to their own; I'll just stick to putting the sculpture down as a monument to bad taste.BetsyNewson 11:37, 1 April 2010 (EDT)

Alain (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Andy: "How is this sculpture atheistic? By glorifying disorder and instability and excluding any hint of God or faith."

Ah, that's why it's atheistic, it doesn't mention God or faith!

Andy (cont'd): "The very meaning of the word "devil" is disorder."

It's more than atheistic, it's Satanist!

Andy yet again: "What do you expect an atheistic sculpture would look like, if not this?"

Perhaps it would actually depict something atheistic? Have a little sign saying 'There is no god', maybe? Webbtje (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

What on earth does "fair use of a freely released direct image, without any value added by photography." mean? ħuman 00:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

"This is CG, not a photograph, so it isn't art and I don't have to cite anything. It was posted on the Internet, so I can use it freely." ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 08:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Am I crazy or is Andy using a little wry humour in referring to "the great Sean Penn"? He doesn't often use wit. But whatever he's saying, it's the same old Andy - "What would an atheistic sculpture look like other than a sculpture that I said was atheistic? You cannot deny I'm right" DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 16:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

<Godwin alert>Andy probably subscribes to the art school of "whoever envisions a green sky and blue grass should be sterilised." --PsyGremlinSnakk! 17:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent "great Sean Penn"! Also: "The tower was met with much criticism from the public when it was built, with many calling it an eyesore" (WP on the Eiffel Tower) Green Giant (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Wait a second....

This doesnt make any god damn sense at all. The big bang theory predicts, and supports the idea of, space time to still be expanding. Completely fucking stupid these people. Aceⁱ⁹ 09:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It's creation.com isn't it? Do you expect it to make sense? Green Giant (talk) 09:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

But this is dated 2010? Where are these people living for fucks sake? Fucking hell, its not even wrong. Aceⁱ⁹ 09:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

No, he probably does understand the Big Bang theory, it's support of the expanding universe, and cosmology. He is simply lying, and what more, he knows that he is lying, he just doesn't care. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

See, that's what I've been thinking about PJR, and it applies to Ken too. And hell, probably Andy in a way. They don't consider themselves to be lying, because to them, the honesty of a statement doesn't matter. It doesn't even enter into the discussion. They take as a given that whatever they say, no matter if it's backed up by fact or if it's a deliberate twisting of someone's words, as automatically true, since they're not intending to lie. All that really matters is that points get scored for Team Creationism, or in Andy's case, his own personal political views. --Kels (talk) 13:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hence why I keep calling their bullshit informed by Postmodernism, as much as they deride it in their mainspace. They believe what they believe, and if any two bit source confirms their opinions, they'll accept it, no matter how blatantly false it is. Only in the Postmodern age can one claim their own facts, and wingnut Christians (make that wingnuts of any political or religious persuasion) all over the place are going to town with it to argue whatever they like without any standards of falsifiability. We're heading into a new dark ages, I tell ya. *opens a new bottle of Wild Turkey* Junggai (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Bloody hell. The assumption I used violently contradicts the foundational assumption of the big bang, which says the universe has no centre and no edge. In that model, the fabric of space would not change. I'm not an astronomy guy, but isn't that exactly the opposite of what the big bang theory predicts? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 15:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

In essence yes. When it was first discovered that galaxies were moving away from us through redshift, it was postulated that in the past, they must have been closer, correspondingly at one point deep in the past, all of the universe was together and thus had a beginning. The Big Bang was one hypothesis put forth to explain this. Over time it become a very well supported theory because of all the subsequent evidence and is now directly tied to the idea the universe is expanding.

Dr. D. Russell Humphreys most likely knows this, he is just hoping you do not in the hopes of passing off his "rational" as some sort of theory that not only explains the Pioneer's Anomaly, but refutes the Big Bang, as the latter challenges his notion the universe came to be by "Magic!" --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Uh, hang on everyone, I think you're all reading this wrong. The expansion stuff is a red herring; that's not him saying big bang theory doesn't predict an expanding universe. He's saying that the matter in the universe is localized to an area around us - which is entirely not big-bang, which predicts roughly even distribution throughout. It makes sense, too: if you assume that matter is localized around us, you lose the gravity pulling the spacecraft out of the solar system - which looks like the craft being pulled back toward the Sun (not convinced the maths actually works out, but the theory is sound). MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 19:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, this is getting so tiresome. Now Ken is getting involved. Which means that, when I do my regular patrolling CP for scientific/mathematical stupidity, I can't ignore him any more. Which is too bad, because he eats up whole screenfuls of Recent Changes.

Russel Humphreys thing has been cited before, and soundly debunked (mostly in early December) on the pioneer anomaly page. See the talk page also. As related on Conservapedia, Humphreys postulates some kind of mysterious gravitational attractive force "near the Milky Way galaxy" as I recall, and points out that the probability of that mysterious force center being there is 1 in a trillion. Which scores a point for divine creation. Or geocentrism. Or something; I'm not sure what. When it gets pointed out that such a thing would attract one Pioneer vehicle toward the Sun and the other away from it, EvanW posits that this mysterious force is actually near the center of the solar system. SaraT then points out that that makes the probability 1 in a septillion. With the edit comment "We already have a source of gravitational attraction in the center of the Solar system. It's called the Sun."

I have read the Humphreys paper. He fills it with hairy math equations, hoping to intimidate the reader into thinking he [Humphreys] knows what he's talking about. It is bullshit. He gives the Schwarzschild metric. Not some biblically tweaked version of the Schwarzschild metric, intending to show that God tweaked it that way through some divine plan, and that the tweaked version explains the Pioneer anomaly. The exact Schwarzschild metric, worked out in 1917 from Einstein's GR theory.

The fact that Humphreys mentions the Schwarzschild metric means that he must endorse the physics that it relates to, namely, that gravity arises as a fictitious force from the curvature of spacetime, as governed by Einstein's equation setting Ricci's tensor to zero in empty space.

Utter bullshit. As usual.

Gauss (talk) 03:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

March 2010 and CP and RW

edits and editor's rights at CP Mar 2010

edits and editor's rights at CP Mar 2009

edits and editor's rights at RW Mar 2010

edits vs account creation at CP Mar 2010

edits vs account creation at CP Mar 2009 - a more diverse picture

edits vs account creation at RW Mar 2010

• RJJensen edited only once more than CollegeRepublican
• the editing sysops are divided into two groups: the old guard, who created their accounts in 2007, and the not-yet-outed-parodists of the year 2009
• last March, 501 editors made 13,009 edits, this March, there are only 226 editors, making 7481 edits. This site is growing rapidly!

RW is more vibrant, counts more edits and more editors. And it is not dominated by an old guard...

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 13:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Spiffing! Webbtje (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I love your graphs. Good work! Senator Harrison (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should graph pageviews since that is the most telling sign of progress, 7 mil homepage. Check out their ranking among Conservative blogs. Oh it's they all come there to laugh, sure you can say that to make yourselves feel better. RW views/ page manipulation bots only affect no more than 5% of the results, if that. Have a Holy Thursday.--193.200.150.137 (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's telling that 348 editors at RW made 16,600 edits last month - and only two (TK and RobSmith, btw) got blocked larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 19:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yah, awfully closed minded, intolerant and oppressive of minorities. Thanks for highlighting that. nobs^{don't bother me} 19:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Rob, for pointing out more obvious facts about CP. What would we do without you? DickTurpis (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, RW is the place to complain about CP and RW. Doesn't sound too closed minded, intolerant and oppressive of minorities for me. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 20:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for appreciating! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 20:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, man, your charts are works of art. mb 22:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

lol, CP as a whole is waaaay under the 90/10 rule!!!! Alain (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW, dear BON, all the numbers have to be taken cum grano salis: while clicks may originate by clickbots, many of the edits aren't legitimate either - it will be quite amusing to have Aschlafly comb through the Bible translation when JacobB is outed as parodist... PS: works of art jeez, thanks! Upps, April 1st... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Reading comprehension fail

Andy tries to read an article about the late Jaime Escalante. He determines that libruls ostracized Escalante and forced him back to Bolivia. According to the article, Jaime quit Garfield High School over reaction to his opposition to bilingual education in 1991 (which I'm assuming is the librul ostracization). Escalante taught for 7 more years at Hiram Johnson with mediocre interest and results from studuents. In 2001 he moved back to Bolivia. Until his recent death, he frequently visited the US. I love the way Andy thinks. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 17:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Lesbian teacher story April fools

Pwned!

so fucking hot found it here Andy called it a shocking news story. Why didn't any of the attractive teachers in my highschool lez out? --Opcn (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless conservatives were paying for it with RNC donations, this is disgusting and should be discussed. The next logical question is WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THAT JANITOR? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 18:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

...But... they're women. SJ ^Debaser 19:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I know. El Taj^{Don't make me do stuff} 19:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

But... they're hot! SJ ^Debaser 19:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hot yes, but how dedicated are they as lesbians ? maybe they just lesbians while waiting for the right man ? "allegedly kissing" , while naked ? thats just wrong. "sent to Department of Education disciplinary chambers." , do disciplinary chambers have bondage gear, chains , whips and leather ? All I can say of this is it never happened at my school :( Hamster (talk) 20:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd be willing to bet money that the janitor's initial reaction was incredibly positive. But then they said "no, go away", so he was like "We'll see about that!" I was going to write something about how it sounded like this was out of school time and so the response was overblown (someone sneaking into a school out of hours to have sex? That's old news) but then I noticed the line about it being during a school assembly. So yeah, the response is pretty justified, although the emphasis on them being lesbians irks me. X Stickman (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

update, 3rd hotty caught with Male student . Thank God they arent all lesbians. http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-naked-school,0,6345652.story

Hamster (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

What's up with the dating on those two stories. Today is a day of paranoia for truthfulness for me. X Stickman (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice catch X S. It's obviously a prank. ħuman 01:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

But wouldn't it be so much more awesome if it wasn't? H. Randolph Twist (talk) 04:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Why nobody try to blackmail them before calling the authorities is beyond comprehension. I wish that happened when I was in school. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 21:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Good catch --Opcn (talk) 06:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

And to everyone who took it seriously, PWNED! ħuman 06:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Really? then someone was laying the groundwork pretty early. 86.156.156.43 (talk) 09:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Would you like to buy shares in an awesome bridge I am building? ħuman 09:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The story broke in December last year. The Wikipedia entry for the school included it as of January, and most of the stories about the teachers being charged are dated 30th or 31st of March. If it is an April Fool it is a very odd one. 86.157.17.135 (talk) 13:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hot. Lesbians. Education.

A coursemate told me how at his old high school a few months back, a couple of female teachers got caught sending super sexy messages to each other over the school system. Apparently the IT Technician for the school found the messages, caught up with them and got a piece of the action. They got caught after school hours having a three-way in a classroom by the caretaker (janitor). Now if that's not totally rockin', I dunno what is. SJ ^Debaser 11:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess any place will do if the urge suddenly grabs you, but seriously, a schoolroom is hardly conducive to comfortable sex. Unless of course someone was dressing up and getting a cane out - "You've been a very naughty boy!"  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Clear off the desk, stack up some chairs... oughtta work. ħuman 01:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Student Loan Takeover

Sometimes the political "commentary" makes me weep. This headline on CP alleges that [w]hen the Democrats enacted ObamaCare, they nationalized the student loan industry. The Congressional Budget Office is estimating that will add $52 billion dollars to the national debt over ten years.

The cited source is this article on CNS, which ledes: "The student loan overhaul legislation signed into law by President Barack Obama on Tuesday could add $52 billion to the deficit between 2010 and 2020 when the cost of the market risks and administrative expenses of the loans are taken into consideration, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported."

Wow! That's pretty surprising! See, prior to the reform, the government would guarantee private loans. That is to say, a student would apply for a loan to a loan company, and that company would get the money from the government and give it to the student, charging slightly higher interest during repayment. So in exchange for a zero-risk capital-free loan (since not even bankruptcy gets you out of student loans) the lending company got a significant cut of the interest. Their role was essentially just to take your money and send you paperwork.

The reform eliminated the middleman, leaving the program almost entirely the same except that the government was no longer paying lending companies for their vital work of collecting checks. So hearing that it was going to lose more money... well, that's kind of hard to believe. What magic was at work?

But shucks! It turns out that when you check the actual numbers, it's a lie. Just a flat, bald-faced, unashamed falsehood being promoted as news. Checking the CBO report cited by CNS reveals that indeed FDLP (the new direct loans) loans would increase the deficit by $52 billion on a fair value basis. That is to say, if there were no loans at all, then this program's loans would cost an additional $52 billion or so when factoring in risk. But there are student loans. They existed prior to the reform. And without reform, they would have added an additional $105 billion. In other words, the reform will save $53 billion.

Reading the terribly-written CNS article all the way through is difficult, but it seems as though the author just plain doesn't understand what's going on here. I guess sometimes it pays to read the mainstream media... and perhaps even primary sources.--^talk 04:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Isn't 105-52 closer to = 53? Not 40? PS, thanks for the legwork. I almost believed CP and wrote a lettre to my congressladies! ħuman 04:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hehe fixed. Thanks.--^talk 08:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Maths can be difficult, especially "addition" and "subtraction", which are of course, branches of multivariable calculus, and only explained in layman terms by 23 dimensional string theory. So, no big deal. ħuman 08:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Those comments have prevented me from reading my bible, they must be wrong. --Opcn (talk) 11:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read the report in detail, to see if their maths is right, or where the extra money is from, but the summary, at the start, actually indicates it's even better than what you worked out, AD - it states that, overall, the direct loan program will save $62 billion between 2010-2020, as it will cost $68 billion less, but the administrative costs to the government will rise by $6 billion. So, it seems, the CNS has problems even so much as reading the summary of the report it's citing. 92.16.221.75 (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You forgot to factor in lost tax revenue over ten years. Taxes on profits the banks were making and taxes on employee wage earners over ten years. Nor did you account for the cost of loans steadily rising as the cost of college rises. So defaults increase, late payments increase, the overall costs increase, tax revenue decreases, government expenses increases such as overhead/union costs and inefficiencies increase with sub-par government workers surfing porn instead of working. The govt has yet to make a profit on anything they do. If you believe they'll be in the black b'cuz of accounting gimmicks, you need to re-examine your unicorn.--193.200.150.137 (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

And that lot's gonna add up to $53,000,000,000? Grow up! ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 14:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Grow up? Wow you really got me, good comeback, I didn't realize how mature you people are here. Might not add up to $53 billion and the CBO has never had correct figures. It will still be a significant money loser and will come close to multi-billions in the red. Right burnt toast?--193.200.150.125 (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course it will lose money. If a random troll says so it must be true! Think of the money the government is losing by collecting interest on student loans, rather than just taxing the interest banks collect on the loans. I just love it when cretins make up stuff and then complain about it. It shows what their true intentions are. DickTurpis (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Something to look forward to

More lulz upcoming.^img (Andy's gonna teach American Government) ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 11:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Featuring a hands-on lab in which students will construct effigies of Obama, don bed sheets, and burn the effigies in a totally not racist way.--^{Ask me about your mother} 12:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of his classes, what's he deal with Andy's writing class? Has it been going on, or is it more classroom and less online oriented than his others? DickTurpis (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Or mathematics. The fundamentals seem to fall by the wayside at Conservapedia in favor of the fantasy that these people have facility with more advanced material. It's like a bunch of monkeys invading a physics labs, donning lab coats, and declaring themselves young Enrico Fermis while they nervously get fingerprints all over things they cannot even identify. 13:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

WIGOs were all buggered up

The RU486 and Ken abortion WIGO's were all buggered up, mixed in with the London one, commented out., and sharing WIGO poll numbers. Hope the cleanup was as intended. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 16:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The RU486 WiGO is flawed. While the punctuation in the article is confusing, it says: ....banned in 1989 [SEMICOLON] under Clinton the ban was reversed. Poor reading skillz on someone's part here. DickTurpis (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I see they've been commented out again? If they're not liked/wanted, why not just remove them? Leaving them there is pretty confusing for other editors. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 20:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Because it fucks up the numbering/vote counting thingy? Green Giant (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Ve Haf Vayz...

was reading 'The Salmon of Doubt' last night and came across a wonderful quote/saying/thingy tucked away in the pages. Apparently in old Russia they had a saying, "Whatever isn't illegal, is compulsory." Got me thinking (it was late, ok?) that that's just what CP is like.

In order to fit in, you have to believe 100% in all of Andy's many crazy beliefs, or else you're branded a liberal. Gun control bad; abortion = breast cancer; homosexuality bad; bible = liberal; stars aren't billions of years away; etc; etc. Miss any of these beliefs and you're a RINO, or liberal (just think of PJR, hounded out of Dodge for being pro-gun control. None of his other beliefs mattered - Andy actually called him liberal).

No wonder he's surrounded by spineless toadies, who act as his echo-chamber, they have no idea when they might step on one of his crazy toes, so simply echo everything he says. Which also explains why the ZB is merely another forum for the sysops to snipe at each other and not to make policy. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 17:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

about an hour ago I was cleaning up in the bedroom & down the top of the bed was stuffed: "The Salmon of Doubt"! (end of cleaning!) I was still trawling through it when I turned on my PC & logged on here. Spooky coincidence? Or is it? Green Giant (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Even weirder coincidence: I was reading a Heinlein book ("The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"), and one of the characters says, "Seems to be a deep instinct in human beings for making everything compulsory that isn't forbidden." *scratches head* Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I was searching my randomly-assorted bookshelves once and discovered I had two copies of a book about coincidences. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Pwned by mudkip

Congrats to the brave RWian did this Tweety (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Rather doubt any RationaWikian would be so infantile. (and it's hardly "brave"} Green Giant (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

And some dangerous blasphemy Tweety (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Nah, mudkips are a RW joke, so they must at least read the site. And there was a bit of grammar pwning in there Tweety (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Green Giant (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, ok I'll open my mind. Seeing as it was directed at CP though, I have a hunch it was a RWian Tweety (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Isn't mudkips a 4chan thing? --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 20:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

4chan and ED provide a lot of CP vandals.

Mudkips is (1)not really a RW meme and (2)pretty played out by now. It's also not especially funny, so I dunno if I'd call it "pwning" by any standards. --Kels (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I suppose this at least reminded me of why I should never look-up images at work. Even something as innocent as mudkip turns up some interesting cosplay/body painting pictures. Nice pictures but probably not the best way for me to keep my job. --^{Ask me about your mother} 12:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You think you had it bad? I wanted to look for the bodypaint pictures you mentioned and suddenly found myself on some 4chan mirror/archive. That's what I get for not checking the URL before clicking Google Image results. *headdesk* --Sid (talk) 12:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

(undent) That's what you get for having sinful thoughts about women in the nip and painted blue. See you in Hell - the pictures are worth it. --^{Ask me about your mother} 12:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Ken banana WIGO

What the hell is he even trying to get at with "Conservapedia could carve out of a banana an ideology with more backbone than atheism?" That doesn't even make sense. Ken (since I know you're reading), would you care to enlighten me? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I think, but am not sure, that it's some bollocks to do with the design of a banana implying special design for monkeys and humans to eat it, it's perfectly designed apparently. n00bs. Tweety (talk) 09:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

he's saying atheism, as a theory, has less backbone than a banana. what's not to understand? Honestly guys, do you just switch to "ken said it, therefore it's incomprehensible gibberish" or something? He's wrong about this, but his point is plain to see. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Ohhhh. I misread it. I thought he was saying he was going to carve atheism into a banana. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

And "hur hur, they're wearing Santa hats" is an argument with a backbone? I'm reasonably familiar with the Atheist Experience show over the past few years and the video Ken's linking to is absolute cobblers. They failed to mention that theists are actually prioritised by the call screeners, and the participants in the chatroom during the show regularly complain when atheists just call in to agree. We enjoy arguments and disagreements. The policy against having theists as guests is more down to avoiding having people coming in to proselytize, since public TV has quite enough of that already. --^{Ask me about your mother} 11:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I may have been thinking of the wrong thing, but I'm sure Assfly and his minions kept wanking on about a banana being the atheist's nightmare a while back? Tweety (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

'Cause of this ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 12:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally: we're #1 on a search engine beginning with "G" for banana fallacy. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 12:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah cool, I knew that creationists had some sort of flawed logic around bananas. Yet all they do is demonstrate ignorance of natural selection. Tweety (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The Atheist Experience had a Christian pastor on the show on January 10. Shock of God posted his video on March 29. 14:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Pointing that out to Shock will simply get you blocked from his channel. Shock is more fond of the blockuser button then CP is of banning, and that is saying a lot. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I listened to a few of his videos. That guy's a special kind of asshole. The comments make me a little nauseous. I'd be happy to get blocked for speaking the truth to this person. 17:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Writing course

When the teacher happily spouts ...most of the remaining 8 books is finished^img on the main page, is it any wonder the writing course has been... er... aborted? --PsyGremlinZungumza! 10:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I can actually guess what he meant, and it's possible that he's technically not wrong: When most of the remaining books are finished, then it means that several books are finished while others are not. But he likely means that all remaining books are mostly finished. That being said, it's phrased somewhat clumsily in my eyes, which of course is a slight fail when it comes from Mr. Writing Course. --Sid (talk) 10:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Should we be assuming the quantifier "most" is countable? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 14:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It's been asked before but never answered: What ever happened to the writing course? Inquiring minds want to know! 209.194.12.218 (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Inquiring minds will probably be blocked for asking at CP. EddyP (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, you will be blocked for pretty much anything at CP. --Sid (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I think a few weeks ago Andy said something about the weather interfering. You know, the snow they got a month or so ago. Perhaps as someone mentioned above, it's simply running off-line? Writing is a lot easier to grade and comment on on paper. ħuman 00:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

CP's been really dull lately

There's no sense of community there anymore, not even a disfunctional one. There's no talk page interactions or arguments anymore, everyone's doing their monomaniac things, and you can count the users without needing to take your socks off. Maybe there'll be some new homeschooling blood come American Government, but I'm not holding out much hope. Oh, for the heady days of late '08... EddyP (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, this winter we did have the Colbert thing and the buzz over the CBP. We might have something similar again if Andy and his band of parodists ever finish the Bible. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm frankly surprised at the exodus of the loyal homeschoolers. 3 edits this year from Addison, nothing from Sharon since October, nothing from Bethany since June. I wonder if they actually wised up and started thinking for themselves. DickTurpis (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

If they're off at a real-world college then hopefully our friends in the American Association of Super Liberal Professors are doing their jobs. Andy's own daughter hasn't edited since December. SJ ^Debaser 15:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they're at college, except maybe SharonS (who was Andy's #2 when he was teaching). Lil Phi was never a very active member. I think Bethany's disappearance is the most remarkable, as she was there from the beginning, always seemed loyal (except for the separate test controversy), doesn't seem to be in college, and yet has had the longest absence of any of the regular HS crowd. Hopefully she's gone on to better things, and doesn't have an insane manchild as a mentor anymore. DickTurpis (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Poor Andy, I bet his hearts broken and his soul crushed... and shit Tweety (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

"and you can count the users without needing to take your socks off"... I see what you did there. mb 17:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Fun fact: The various brands of American Christian fundamentalism have all of them been suffering from really abysmal retention rates for several decades. A solid majority of fundie kids have turned their backs on the krazy five minutes after first leaving for college. Few people remember this, but large parts of the Evangelical movement were pro abortion well into the seventies; they changed their minds only when they realized that if they wanted replacement-level reproduction they needed clown car vaginas. mb 18:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

"Clown Car Vaginas"....you just named my next band. DickTurpis (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That's really what changed their minds? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Not surprising, and I could just parrot the obvious. Of course, they also need to adapt to people geting exposure to the wide-wide world before those children stumble a site that shakes their beliefs to the core. --Sigma 7 (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Tetronian: it wasn't the only reason, at least not for all of them. Some of the phony hysteria about the poor murdered baybeez is due to the hippies, the pill, and the second wave. You grew up during the 50s, you swallowed the staggering amount of ritual degradation that 50s dating came with, you married at age 22. What did all that get you? A disillusioned, bigoted, repressed spouse who resents you for being exactly as disillusioned, bigoted, and repressed as they are, and you know you're stuck with them for the rest of your life. Young girls fucking like bunnies, completely safe from the suffering and humiliation that would have been yours had you done the same? That's bound to make you angry. Carefree sex becomes something you desperately, if not consciously, want to see punished, e. g. through unwanted children. Some of the rage, however, really did begin as a more or less open rationalization for a policy change aimed at producing more soldiers for the movement. Go google "quiverfull" some time. mb 20:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Funny, I started the article here on Quiverfull and had no idea. (If nothing else, that simply proves that Andy's "don't read a book, write a book" mantra is total bull.) Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

"Schlafly proven wrong, film at 11." I had no idea this place had an article on Quiverfull. :D mb 00:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Also missing are big content contibutors RJJensen, Dean S and Addison DM. I think a part of the problem is that CP seldom allows account creation these days, at most times during the day there is only the option to login - no new accounts can be made. CP also lost a lot with the departure of consistent editors such as PhilipJRayment, DanH, CPAdmin1, LearnTogether, and so many others who either fell by the wayside due to ideological differences or TK. Refugee^{talk page} 18:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Note: I moved this comment here from discussion above, where I had placed it out of order. Refugee^{talk page} 21:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not just that prolific editors have been lost - it's that (even mildly) dissenting editors (PJR, CPAdmin1) and developing editors (the homeschoolers) have been lost. There's no debate or discussion anymore, no interaction. There aren't even many vandals anymore. Also, I see SamHB has been removed once more. What for? Apparently his userpage had inappropriate content.EddyP (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that TK is the only admin who bans people for no real reason, then deletes their user pages. Even when the person is not a "vandal" for example SamHB: (Block log); TK (Talk | contribs) blocked SamHB (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked) (Retired under voluntary circumstances; Admin(s) will reactivate upon request). If he retired voluntarily and is free to come back, why delete his user and talk pages? TK does this constantly. Why delete all record of the person? Doing this causes red links to user names throughout hundreds of pages on the wiki and leaves no record of who the person was, their views, or history of user and talk pages edits. Thus, when trying to trace back a particular edit or the history behind it, one comes up with nothing. This seems like a power play issue, there is no justification for it other than "flexing his muscle" - haha I can make you disappear, I have the power! It also seems to me that TK never really writes anything other than links to news stories on the main page; all his edits are to ban, revert, or warn on talk pages. Refugee^{talk page} 21:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

As Orwell explains in 1984, power is the ability to distort the truth or vanish it when need be. This is all TK is doing, really. Just power games. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Tk routinely oversights anything he reverts. Def 1984. Green Giant (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's the greatest power - to delete and then hide all evidence that he's done this - the ultimate in dishonesty. Refugee^{talk page} 21:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Rjensen's latest exploits

Prof. Jensen recieves a warm welcome [6] from the "inventor of Wikistalking." [7] (Note to Dick Turpis: ED's Wikistalking#Wikipedia Official Manual cites the notorious Rangerdude case verbatim). nobs^{don't bother me} 21:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no, Prof Jensen was an arrogant ass [8], and Will Beback reminded him that he shouldn't be an arrogant ass. That's all. -- Nx / talk 21:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Say Rob, what are you wasting time here for? Shouldn't you be wikilawyering building your case against those 88 refs you've got such a hard-on over for possible wrongthink? --Kels (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused: why don't you mention this on CP - or WP? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 21:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It'd get reverted on CP, and no one one WP cares. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Nobody on RW cares either, of course. But it is a good opportunity to call Rob an idiot. --Kels (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey he got McCarthy's name taken out of a list on the page, I think he can call it a job well done and give up while he is ahead. tmtoulouse 22:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Made Lipson non-notable, too. The true notablitly (such that is) rests with a collective group of founders. (And we schooled some of young rats on basic civility, on and off wiki). nobs^{don't bother me} 23:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Ames is in a panic. What, pray tell, has come over him? (other than the fact he finally got a real job). nobs^{don't bother me} 23:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well done Rob.

The only schooling I see is you being schooled in regards to WP policies. -- Nx / talk 23:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

So your happy with the article then Rob and we can all move on? tmtoulouse 23:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Happy? I'm finally gonna learn about YEC, evolution, Lenksi, Dawkins, etc., stuff everybody knows I've stayed out of. Since it's labourious to review underlying cites for factual representation, which I've done a lot of over the years, editors can show good faith by correcting thier mistakes now.

You and Sid handled yourselves well, but even Mediators won't bother skimming Sid's longwinded hypertext. nobs^{don't bother me} 01:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I learned a valuable lesson in how Rob can't put together a coherent argument. I feel like I've grown a little here. --Kels (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

~

Talk about taking advantage of the misfortunes of others

"R.I.P.: The developer of the personal computer, Henry Edward Roberts, has died at age 68. He was the first to employ Microsoft founders Bill Gates and Paul Allen, who later licensed work that Roberts felt belonged to him. Subsequently Microsoft's monopoly destroyed Netscape, and by overcharging built a fortune later used to buy a "chair" for atheist Richard Dawkins and liberal approaches to education." (my emphasis) A guy dies & all Andy can do is badmouth Dawkins!^img Green Giant (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Added to Cheap shots. – Nick Heer 00:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)