Do you want to answer my question? I feel like that'd be a lot more productive for time spent.
If you mean the page 3 one then...
Conservativism as an ideology isn't really united by any one thing so much as its professed resistance to change and desire to return to supposed better times (exemplified in the MAGA slogan for Trump's little band, to use an example). It is also often opposed to progressive ideals of change. It often (falsely, in my personal opinion) also proffers to adhere to certain cultural norms, religious traditions or biological realities.
As an additional qualifier whilst often associated with the Right wing this is more because for much of the twentieth century right wing politics were dominant in "western", for lack of a better term, nations. Economically left wing conservatism can and has existed, perhaps best exemplified by Stalin's soviet union, which outlawed homosexuality and pursued russification policies. However left wing conservative thought is generally more flexible on SOME issues compared to the right wing, notably the SU was willing to allow Women to fight though whether that was desperation or ideology taking the lead can be somewhat uncertain.
Modern right wing conservative thought 'broadly' follows several lines. The "social conservative" which is a limited welfare state that otherwise is conservative (most modern nations, the tories in the UK, Australian Liberals etc). The "reaganite" conservatives who are against even that, this is the business conservatism thats dominated the republican party of the US. The "alt-right" which can range anywhere from neo-fascist to outright fascist to just anti-progressive etc. "Religious conservatives" whom mostly concern themselves with what they see as moral issues, this used to be big in the Republicans but still has some present. Alot of conservative islamists are also broadly under this branch, or the indian Hindu nationalists to use another example.
What makes these conservative rather than ultra-conservative for the most part is that there is, usually, a limit to how far they'll go in pursuit of said ideals.
Ultra-conservatives are best exemplified by those willing to go to any length to get their "better world", return things to the way they once were or preserve their personal power. Ignoring economics for more ideological concerns. (Stalin for his part just barely avoids this because of his extremely pragmatic personality, he was willing to forgoe idealogical gains for personal gains to himself or the soviet union, also because he embraced some "progressive" ideals which muddy the waters.)
Fascism, reactionary absolute monarchs, Bannana republics and so on are defined by this. Potentially left wing conservatives that also might qualify are Pol Pot (returning to an agrarian world because he was fucking insane).
I feel I should also note that a final difference between the 2 is that whilst conservatives can be convinced to support positive change under some circumstances (John howard and gun laws, etc), this is almost never true for ultraconservatives.
To sum up, Conservatives are not inherently bad, but their opposition to change can be.
