Talk:Conservapedia

Template:Pbneutral

Alexa figure

I removed the up down indicator someone stuck onto the Alexa figure as it is confusing whether it means the number or the ranking. I also do not see that we need a running commentary on it when there is a link to the original at Alexa and it does not say if it is one day, one week one month or three months or whatever.

Secondly they rounded the figure saying it would stop people changing the figure so often! I don't see it doing that. It also alters the given figure unnecessarily.

Thirdly the time when the Alexa figure was got was removed from the display. This rather removes the point of the up down indicator.

Fourthly the American ranking was removed. That is probably the most important thing about the Conservapedia ranking as they don't care about the rest of the world. Dmcq (talk) 08:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The Alexa figure is hardly accurate in the first place so no accuracy is lost because it never existed in the first place. More on my talk page. Marcus Qwertyus 09:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC) in relation to this article or the problems raised so will revert. Dmcq (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I have read the explanation on the talk page indicated and can and it looks like they have just ignored the problems raised. They fail to acknowledge the problem with the indicator. The length of time is just assumed, I gues they think people will know from one to another article but they won't. The rounding of figures is just arbitrary. They fail to acknowledge that Conservapedia is only really interested in America. They fail to put in when in with the figure. Dmcq (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

And not only do I consider the up down indicator confusing I really see no point in it for Wikipedia. This is not a running commentary of this point in time, readers can easily go to the Alexa page if they want today's latest update. We're not running a tickertape. Occassionally updating the figure is reasonable but this type of messing around is just silly. Dmcq (talk) 14:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I was recently blocked from the Conservapedia for removing the word "socialist" from Baracks page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.43.64 (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

This section is about Alexa figures. You need a section heading. Anyway what you said has no content for improving this article. This page is not a forum for grumbling about your treatment elsewhere, it is for improving the article. Dmcq (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

recent news story

Here's a fairly recent article that may be of use for the article: http://blog.nj.com/perspective/2011/07/new_jersey_home_schooling_the.html - Nunh-huh 03:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Editorial viewpoints and policies

For the citation needed in that section, this may be the best description available. It links from Conservapedia's blocking policy which Conservapedia is an open wiki that does not allow liberal censorship. The same idea is also stated here, 9.We do not allow liberal censorship of conservative facts. [3] nobs (talk) 00:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

We'd need a reliable source talking about something like that and referencing it in some way. The link in that 'recent news story' section before this for instance is a reliable source and shows up all sorts of weirdo things with the site. Dmcq (talk) 09:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. It is cited to the subject itself, and notable enough for inclusion. Viriditas (talk) 00:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Positioning of the Conservative Bible Project section

Whenever I read through this article, I generally find that the 'Conservative Bible Project' section, being at the end after, seems to mock Conservapedia as if saying 'you've just read all this ridiculous stuff, you won't believe this', just as The Onion does in its stories. Maybe it should be moved? Jookia (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't read it that way, but anyhow where else would you put it? The Bible project is a major separate part of Conservapedia. Dmcq (talk) 11:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure. It just seems like this article is written as a parody, then adds something more unbelievable to point out 'hey, we're not serious'. But it's not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jookia (talk • contribs) 21:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it for real? If so, it should stay in there. I struggle to believe it's real though. (123.2.53.91 (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC))

His edits to the hearing on evolution.

Anyone got a link to the version with his edits? Assuming that wikipedia archives edits for that long, of course. 98.223.134.100 (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

There was some discussion/speculation about this subject a while ago, this may point you in the right direction. Bottom line is that Andy never supplied a link, but his brother's account did edit the article in the relevant time frame. Whether or not Roger's edits fit the claim Andy made and/or if they're the only ones that fit is another set of questions that I didn't really bother to research. --Sid 3050 (talk) 23:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)