5 January 2009
- 20:5920:59, 5 January 2009 diff hist −851 Conservapedia →Suggested guidelines for prospective editors: poor examples added by IP with no attempt at backing them up
23 December 2008
- 23:2623:26, 23 December 2008 diff hist −177 Conservapedia that's a little unnecessary, don'tcha think? editing's on now anyway, Andy just forgot to hit the big red button
21 December 2008
- 21:4221:42, 21 December 2008 diff hist +280 Conservapedia →Suggested guidelines for prospective editors: isn't this the same as saying "follow 90/10"? let's just expand the 90/10 part so that we only have to talk about it once
- 21:3721:37, 21 December 2008 diff hist −26 Conservapedia →Suggested guidelines for prospective editors: humiliating?
20 December 2008
- 19:0819:08, 20 December 2008 diff hist −107 Conservapedia clearly this is not true; Rationalwikians periodically brag about how their intentional parody from days, weeks, and months ago is still there
- 19:0519:05, 20 December 2008 diff hist +871 User talk:Jazzman831 late response to Gulik's, um, question
- 18:5418:54, 20 December 2008 diff hist +1 Jesus-Wiki dormant seems to apply; there has been no activity in what seems like over a year (last edit to main page was November 2007)
- 18:5318:53, 20 December 2008 diff hist +318 Conservapedia →Suggested guidelines for prospective editors: there's a little irony in me writing this one, but it needs to be said anyway
- 18:5018:50, 20 December 2008 diff hist +84 Conservapedia it's rare that someone who follows every other rule (especially 90/10) is blocked *only* for disagreeing. If a new user does nothing but disagree, they are just a troll and should be blocked anyway
- 18:4418:44, 20 December 2008 diff hist +82 m Conservapedia →Suggested guidelines for prospective editors: it's a *conservative* wiki -- should we warn people not to blog on Wikipedia, or not to write about shirts on pantsopedia?
- 18:4218:42, 20 December 2008 diff hist +146 Conservapedia again spun to the detriment of CP, by people who don't know how to put together a sentence that includes "Coservapedia" and doesn't include "evil"
- 18:3118:31, 20 December 2008 diff hist −91 m Conservapedia this is another case of taking trolling out of context -- it is very rare that a new user, acting in good faith and with good wiki protocol, will commit this error
- 18:2918:29, 20 December 2008 diff hist +437 Conservapedia →Suggested guidelines for prospective editors: expand username point -- this isn't a steadfast rule and there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to enforcment of the "first name last initial"
- 18:2118:21, 20 December 2008 diff hist −34 m Conservapedia the same goes for rationalwiki -- you seem to neglect to mention that most if not all mentions of RW are trolling or vandalism -- justifiably blockable offences
- 18:2018:20, 20 December 2008 diff hist −25 m Conservapedia that's a little disengenuous, now isn't it? A new user wouldn't know anything about the so-called FBI incident, and wouldn't be trolling, like all others who were blocked for "mentioning the FBI"
26 November 2008
- 18:1118:11, 26 November 2008 diff hist +468 Talk:Conservapedia →Wikiindex
24 November 2008
- 19:5019:50, 24 November 2008 diff hist −18 Conservapedia I think the white flag has been raised and a truce has been agreed to
- 19:4919:49, 24 November 2008 diff hist +283 Talk:Conservapedia →Wikiindex
- 19:4619:46, 24 November 2008 diff hist +175 User talk:DavidCary →Request for neutral admin
23 November 2008
- 23:3623:36, 23 November 2008 diff hist 0 Talk:Conservapedia →Go ahead, keep deleting the "Criticism" section.: ok, reareading, not all of them are that bad
- 23:3523:35, 23 November 2008 diff hist +612 Talk:Conservapedia →Go ahead, keep deleting the "Criticism" section.
- 22:2922:29, 23 November 2008 diff hist −1 RationalWiki (en) →External links: change descriptions a bit
- 22:2622:26, 23 November 2008 diff hist +423 Conservapedia →Criticism: this is vague, try to expand; hopefully the language is agreeable to all?
- 22:2222:22, 23 November 2008 diff hist +619 Conservapedia →Criticism: re-add links (with new descriptions), and edit to give what I think is a fair but accurate description
- 22:1822:18, 23 November 2008 diff hist −466 Conservapedia →External links: I think we could even move these into the criticism section
- 07:4107:41, 23 November 2008 diff hist +446 Talk:The Conservapedia RationalWiki war →What wiki means to me
- 07:3207:32, 23 November 2008 diff hist +141 User talk:MarkDilley →Conservapedia, RationalWiki etc
22 November 2008
- 18:5118:51, 22 November 2008 diff hist +517 Talk:The Conservapedia RationalWiki war No edit summary
21 November 2008
- 22:1122:11, 21 November 2008 diff hist +821 User talk:DavidCary Request for neutral admin
- 22:1122:11, 21 November 2008 diff hist +422 Talk:The Conservapedia RationalWiki war No edit summary
- 07:1207:12, 21 November 2008 diff hist +472 Talk:The Conservapedia RationalWiki war No edit summary
- 00:2300:23, 21 November 2008 diff hist +642 Talk:The Conservapedia RationalWiki war No edit summary
20 November 2008
- 18:1818:18, 20 November 2008 diff hist +307 Conservapedia →Criticism: add citation as requested -- I don't think this should be in the actual article, but <ref> tags don't seem to work...
- 01:3701:37, 20 November 2008 diff hist −303 RationalWiki (en) not only is this a gross simplification, but it's not actually a criticism of RationalWiki; if you want to criticise Conservapedia, then do it on the right page!!
19 November 2008
- 20:1420:14, 19 November 2008 diff hist +781 User talk:Comets Request for neutral admin
- 20:0920:09, 19 November 2008 diff hist +92 User talk:Jazzman831 →RE:
- 19:3919:39, 19 November 2008 diff hist +640 N User:Jazzman831 New page: I've been to this site a few times before, but I didn't decide to register until I saw [http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Conservapedia_Talk:What_is_going_on_at_CP%3F/Archive89#Wikiindex_on_Con...
- 19:2919:29, 19 November 2008 diff hist +216 User talk:Michaeldsuarez No edit summary
- 19:2719:27, 19 November 2008 diff hist +9 Conservapedia →Criticisms: Really Gulik?
- 19:2419:24, 19 November 2008 diff hist +152 Talk:RationalWiki (en)/Archive2 →Hell!
- 19:2419:24, 19 November 2008 diff hist −533 RationalWiki (en) Undid revision 59800 by Proxima Centauri if the section starts out "criticism of Conservapedia", then how does it belong in "Criticism of rationalwiki"??
- 04:4504:45, 19 November 2008 diff hist −1,950 RationalWiki (en) →Criticism: this is a criticism of RationalWiki, not a criticism of Conservapedia -- were this to be a fair criticism (compared to that of Conservapedia, then much, much, more should be added
- 04:3604:36, 19 November 2008 diff hist +216 Talk:Conservapedia →Go ahead, keep deleting the "Criticism" section.
18 November 2008
- 20:3220:32, 18 November 2008 diff hist +348 Talk:The Conservapedia RationalWiki war No edit summary
- 01:0401:04, 18 November 2008 diff hist +228 Talk:Conservapedia →Lengthy criticisms
16 November 2008
- 19:2819:28, 16 November 2008 diff hist +442 Talk:The Conservapedia RationalWiki war No edit summary
15 November 2008
- 23:4823:48, 15 November 2008 diff hist +1,077 Talk:The Conservapedia RationalWiki war No edit summary
- 23:3123:31, 15 November 2008 diff hist +345 Talk:Conservapedia →Lengthy criticisms
- 18:3718:37, 15 November 2008 diff hist +216 Talk:The Conservapedia RationalWiki war No edit summary