Last modified on 6 April 2021, at 15:12

User talk:Aschlafly

Return to "Aschlafly" page.

Americapedia

Hey Andy! I was wondering if you would consider changing the name of Conservapedia to Americapedia. It's okay if you don't want to, but I think it could be really cool since we are all about American value here. Plus maybe, then we would have a better chance at converting some of those scummy liberals to the good side. I really admire what you have done here with Conservapedia! -BHickle

You asked about the search result script

Basically the way it works is it literally just changes the Google search results.. If you type in a topic that would normally have a Wikipedia entry at the top it will change it to the text found on conservapedia as well as taking you to conservapedia if you click it.. I've tested it and it works as long as there is a conservapedia page with the same name as the Wikipedia one.. If not it will just default to Wikipedia.. I'm currently working to find some developers to improve it and see if it's possible to plant search results for conservapedia pages that don't exist on Wikipedia.. but so far it already works really well. Ive uploaded it here https://gofile.io/d/Q63V6k And you can download it and open it in a text editor to see that it's legitt

Miley Cyrus photo

Hello Andy, do you think it's inappropriate to include this photo on the Miley Cyrus page? File:Miley Cyrus.jpg I don't have much of a problem with it, but DouglasA disagrees. --1990'sguy (talk)

I'm OK with it.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2019 (EDT)

MPR suggestion

This struck me as a very Conservapedia type of story: "'In God We Trust' will remain on US currency as Supreme Court declines atheist challenge." PeterKa (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2019 (EDT)

So the last will be first, and the first last

Could you please explain this concept in the language of set theory? What is the paradox, and how is it resolved by set theory? Thanks. --AugustO (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2019 (EDT)

The paradox is obvious. In number theory and virtually every other system of logic, the last cannot be the first. But in set theory it can.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2019 (EDT)
I take the bait: how can the last be the first in set theory? --AugustO (talk) 19:40, 15 June 2019 (EDT)
Thanks for archiving. Enumeration of elements of a set is up to the intelligent designer. This is how Georg Cantor proved that the set of real numbers is larger than the infinite set of rational numbers. But you're in good company if you resist his way of looking at things. Many great mathematicians of his time thought (incorrectly) that he was some kind of charlatan.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2019 (EDT)

Georg Cantor's great breakthrough ("Cantor diagonalization") was not in showing that the rationals are countable—that is a fairly straightforward construction—but in using that fact to show that the reals are not countable. There are many ways to specify the correspondence between a given denumerable (countable) set and the natural numbers. In fact, there are a uncountably infinite number of ways to set up the correspondence. Whether any of these constitute "intelligent design" is not for me to say, except that I think that term gets overused in certain quarters.

Then there's the matter of a "well ordering". A "well order" on a set is an order such that any subset has a least element. So a set with a "well order" is sort of like the positive integers—any subset of the positive integers, even an infinite subset, has a least element. (Note that the full set of integers, or the rationals, or the reals, are not well-ordered by their normal arithmetical order.) But it is a theorem of ZFC logic that any set has a well-order.

Does the well-ordering theorem constitute intelligent design? That's not for me to say. Does it disprove the Cantor diagonalization theorem? No. The well-order on the reals necessarily uses the Axiom of Choice, and cannot be constructed. Cantor diagonalization can be constructed.

Getting back down to Earth, sets can have different orders—the natural numbers from 1 to 100 can have an increasing order and a decreasing order (and 100 factorial other orders too.) With that notion, "the last" under one order "will be first" under the other order. But this is completely obvious under any system of logic, including set theory. But claiming that it's true for the same set with the same order is simply nonsensical.

But I'm in good company if I resist your way of looking at things in this manner. I'm sure AugustO is also.

SamHB (talk) 00:39, 17 June 2019 (EDT)

"sets can have different orders" - precisely. But the number line does not. What Jesus taught was nonsensical to logicians and philosophers of his time, but perfectly logical once Georg Cantor overcame intense opposition and developed the breakthrough of set theory. If Cantor's opponents had recognized the Bible as a book of logic with an open mind, then they would not have mistakenly opposed Cantor so much. Ditto for Thomas Paine.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2019 (EDT)
The real line, like all sets of more than one element, most definitely can have multiple different orderings. Here's an alternative ordering off the top of my head. Let SWAP(X) be result of swapping the 1st and 2nd decimal digits, the 3rd and 4th digits, and so on. Then we can define an ordering on the reals that has X < Y in this ordering if SWAP(X) < SWAP(Y) in the usual numerical ordering. While this may sound weird and contrived, this sort of thing happens all the time in set theory and measure theory, and is actually very close to what goes on in Cantor diagonalization.
Many people were criticized or vilified at some point in their lives. Georg Cantor, Thomas Paine, Galileo Galilei, Louis Pasteur, and Oliver Heaviside come to mind. I don't think it is fruitful to analyze these cases in detail here, and I don't think you have established that the criticism of Cantor arose from an insufficiently open-minded reading of Matthew 20:16. SamHB (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2019 (EDT)

Could you please quote one philosopher or logician of His time who was baffled be Matthew 20:16 (or Mark 10:31 or Luke 13:30)? Especially as Matthew writes ἔσονται οἱ ἔσχατοι πρῶτοι and not εἰσιν οἱ ἔσχατοι πρῶτο? --AugustO (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2019 (EDT)

Many critics of the Bible were probably baffled by it. Don't have quotes handy, but perhaps some can be found on atheist websites.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2019 (EDT)
So your claim that "what Jesus taught was nonsensical to logicians and philosophers of his time" was probably just made up. --AugustO (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2019 (EDT)
My statement was self-evident. When I have more time I can research it further, but the reality is that writings of Jesus and his followers survived to a far greater extent than those of his detractors, so the thinking of non-believers is not always easy to find.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2019 (EDT)

I for one am not baffled by it at all. Jesus was not making a statement about set theory or measure theory. He was making a moral/ethical statement about pay scales. One can disagree with Him (and some of the workers did), but His statement was very clear. The "first" and "last" referred to the wages of the workers and the time when they had joined the work crew. Jesus's statement was clear in Biblical times and is clear now.

One can't just say "I have invented a new field of mathematics, and I am calling it 'set theory'". One needs to provide various theorems and results showing that it is a fruitful new area of mathematics, Cantor, and others, did just that. There are the various theorems about cardinality and measure theory. There's the Baire Category Theorem (which provides another proof, independent of diagonalization, that the cardinality of the reals is strictly greater than the cardinality of the rationals). There's the Cantor set, which is a uncountable set of measure zero, a seemingly paradoxical result. There's the Cantor function, which has derivative equal to zero everywhere except on a set of measure zero, but has f(0)=0 and f(1)=1, also seemingly paradoxical. And there are other theorems, like the Heine-Borel theorem and the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem. And Zorn's Lemma. And, of course, all of analysis and topology.

You can't just treat set theory like some simple monolithic thing invented by Georg Cantor. The notion that the field could have been worked out by an open-minded reading of Matthew 20:16 is rather far-fetched. SamHB (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2019 (EDT)

Set theory is a different style of reasoning. Otherwise there would not have been such intense, hostile opposition to it. But its power and logic ultimately prevailed over the opposition. And Georg Cantor is properly given all the credit.
Workers at the time of Jesus disagreed with him, as many do today, when he observed paradoxically that the "last shall be first, and the first last." But when viewed as a set theorist does, there is not paradoxical about it at all.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2019 (EDT)

MPR deletion

Hello Andy, would you please restore the massive amount of information accidentally deleted in this edit on Template:Mainpageright? (scroll down a bit): [1] I also sent you an email about this. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2019 (EDT)

Thanks, I thought I restored it already. It seems to have the proper link at the bottom.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2019 (EDT)
Sorry, I did not see that you had already restored the info. Thanks! --1990'sguy (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2019 (EDT)

Copy&paste of PD or freely usable material

Hi Andy, User:Honeyko is wondering if it is acceptable to insert public domain or other freely usable text from Infogalactic (or perhaps other freely usable sources) into Conservapedia articles. It is not plagiarism, but do we have a policy in regard to republishing such materials? I was thinking that is was generally discouraged, but I'm not finding much about the topic in our rules and documentation.
Thanks! --DavidB4 (TALK) 19:28, 20 June 2019 (EDT)

Infogalactic is not public domain, but is under a Creative Commons type of license. So, no, that material should not be copied here. If something is truly public domain, then copying to here is OK but attribution should be included. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2019 (EDT)

A different name for the "Gish Gallop"

Eugenie Scott coined the term "Gish Gallop" as an insult to how Duane Gish supposedly went from claim to claim so fast in a debate that it would take much longer to answer each claim. However, Atheists do the same thing all the time, including Aron Ra. I heard Kent Hovind use the terms "Ra Rush" and "Ra Rant." I was wondering if there is a place for an article that describes this tactic without using the name that insults Duane Gish. Shobson20 (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2019 (EDT)

Good points. But I checked Duane Gish's entry and it says the term is used by his critics. What do you suggest? Please feel free to edit as you think best.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2019 (EDT)

Image question

Hello Andy, is it appropriate (with licensing) to upload this image? [2] It was taken in the Oval Office and is on Trump's Twitter account, but it doesn't explicitly say that it's Public Domain. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2019 (EDT)

That's public domain. We can use it. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:25, 29 June 2019 (EDT)
Thanks! I will upload it right now. It's good to have a photo of one of the greatest political figures right now along with one of the greatest minds in constitutional law. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2019 (EDT)
Right: Two-time winner of Conservative of the Year meets with its first winner (for the last decade)!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2019 (EDT)
I think both men will be candidates for the upcoming 2019 Conservative of the Year nominations. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2019 (EDT)

Conservative Sports

Hi Andy, I don't have enough wiki experience to add to the table you created but I suggest Cricket as a conservative sport. It is commonly called 'The gentlemans sport' and I cribbed this from the internet: the game only gained popularity in the 17th century, when English aristocrats started playing it. They decreed that cricket would be played in ‘a gentlemanly manner’ , which means no sledging, cheating, bodyline bowling , temper tantrums or excessive appealing. If the batsman knew he was out, he should ‘walk’ even if the umpire decided otherwise. Cheating is punished quite heavily and the only team currently which breaks the gentleman's code is Australia who sometimes behave in a very nasty manner which is frowned upon (they have been fined multiple times for poor behaviour. The NZ Cricket team however are considered some of the best and kindest team - often making sure their competition are OK if they are felled or struck by the ball and playing with true sportsmanship (see here where a NZ player assists an opposing team who have just lost the match). A true sport of gentleman. JohnSelway (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2019 (EDT)

If you read the article it says Then Elliott made that noble gesture of sportsmanship to Steyn distraught on the ground, offering him a hand up. JohnSelway (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2019 (EDT)
I would consider adding shooting sports: [3][4][5] Also, schools in more conservative areas are creating shooting sport teams (and I've heard that they used to be common in public schools): [6][7] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2019 (EDT)
These are terrific suggestions. Please feel free to add them, or I will. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:23, 1 July 2019 (EDT)
Thank you Andy. If you could add cricket I would appreciate it. I don't have enough wiki experience! JohnSelway (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2019 (EDT)
I figured it out by copy/paste. JohnSelway (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2019 (EDT)

PD template unlock request

Hello,
Template:PD tag is used heavily on our image collection. It is designed to require a parameter ("source") so that the source URL can be included in the template. However, some people are attempting to use the template by simply referencing it and pasting the link. This is something which should work, but it does not. Ideally no parameter name should be required, but since it has been built and used this way, there is no changing it now. Instead, I would like to attempt to set up this template so that it accepts the URL with or without the "source" parameter tag, to simplify usage without breaking it on the 261 pages currently using it. I am not particularly skilled at this, but I think I can do it.
Would you be willing to unlock the template so I can give it a try? Note that it is also under cascading protection from File:John McCain official portrait 2009.jpg, and perhaps others, so the protection on such pages will also need to be updated. Thank you! --DavidB4 (TALK) 18:24, 11 July 2019 (EDT)

I unlocked it. Please let me know if I need to unlock anything further! Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2019 (EDT)
Thank you! I think I have finished with it, as best I can, so it can be locked again, if you want. --DavidB4 (TALK) 17:55, 22 July 2019 (EDT)

Respectful disagreement

As I'm sure you know, not all people who are "conservatives" agree with each other. Even a lot of "conservatives" disagree with some things this website says (Such as conservatives who are not Young Earth Creationists, even devout Christians like William Lane Craig and Frank Turek are not YECs). For example, a newer user named Enr15 edited the article on the Roman Catholic Church to have an extremely biased Catholic point of view. I reverted the edits because I know that major changes like that should not be made without discussing on the talk page (I recommend he read "The Church of Rome at the Bar of History" or watch this video: [8] ). At the same time, Northwest is Catholic. Is there a space where I can voice my own editorial opinions which might not agree with some of the information in this website (I won't change any mainspace articles without permission)? As an example, I have a very negative attitude towards extreme Christians and "Churchians" who condemn rock music, including Jack Chick, so I can see where some of his critics are coming from. I have also added many Christian Rock songs to the Conservative Songs article. I read his tract on that, and I do understand that many Christian musicians have been given tempting offers to take God out of their music since Christian music doesn't sell as well, and some have sold out, but not everyone does. Petra, in particular, has made some of the most wonderful songs ever, and it's mainly due to the songwriter and only original member, Bob Hartman. They are deeply devout and not Satanic by any stretch of the imagination. Look up the testimony of John Schlitt sometime, it's an amazing story of a man who went from the sin and vice of the secular music industry into the clean Christian music industry. The contrast of his before and after life is incredible.

You know that I've voiced disagreements about the Video Game article, and I like the fact that DavidB4 has made it less negative and judgmental. A lot of people get banned because they don't know how to disagree respectfully. Shobson20 (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2019 (EDT)

Differing viewpoints are welcome on this website in the search for the truth. The talk page of an entry is the best place to post commentary. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2019 (EDT)
I was thinking of adding a lot of general commentary to my user page. SamHB has done so with his page. But I wonder if doing too much of that constitutes a violation of the 90/10 rule. Shobson20 (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2019 (EDT)
It should be OK to post repeated comments to your own talk page.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:55, 13 July 2019 (EDT)
The general principle should be that, if you edit something in a way that someone is likely to object to, put up your reasons on that article's talk page immediately. Respectful discussion, without 90/10 threats, will often follow. While the 90/10 rule is, in the end, whatever the blocking person wants it to be, I think the intent is to stop "anklebiters" (I wrote that article, in response to just such a person!) who waste people's time with incessant and repeated whining over the same issue.
I use my user page, as opposed to my talk page, much more than many people do. This is done not so much for "90/10 insurance", as for making clear statements about where I stand on various issues; this is important, since most people here disagree with those stances. One's user page is a more formal and proper way to make such statements than one's talk page. This paractice may or may not suit you. SamHB (talk) 11:19, 14 July 2019 (EDT)
Also, this is probably a little off-target, but if you have some specific topic you want to voice your opinion about in detail, there is also the option of writing an essay. Essay polices are much more lenient, and allow for strongly opposing viewpoints and arguments, as long as they are done in a reasonable and respectable manner. Otherwise, your user page is your own, so as was already discussed, this is a good place for such commentary. The 90/10 rule is, as SamHB alluded to, intended only to stop those who constantly chatter and discuss, while almost never making any meaningful contributions. It is not intended to stifle discussion, though. Just keep making some substantive edits as well, and it seems to me that you should be fine. --DavidB4 (TALK) 17:55, 22 July 2019 (EDT)

Insight from Singapore's wealthiest man

The richest person in Singapore (one of the wealthiest countries in the world) has admitted that God and His Son Jesus are the most important things in one's life: [9] He notes (and refutes) how modern culture rejects God and puts things like sex, alcohol, drugs, money, and material success (as seen in Hollywood movies, he notes). This seems like a powerful refutation of part of the secular left's worldview. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2019 (EDT)

That's amazing ... and Breitbart rather than the lamestream media carries the story!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 01:12, 26 July 2019 (EDT)
Are there any CP articles that are appropriate for me to add this? This is too important, I think, to not find a place for. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:27, 26 July 2019 (EDT)
Perhaps in the quotation section and/or elsewhere in this popular entry: materialism? Thanks!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2019 (EDT)
Done! If there are any other good articles to add it, please let me know. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:28, 27 July 2019 (EDT)

Don't bite the newbie editors via reversions

CP needs research assistants, copy editors, and people to do maintenance and formatting work, not just content contributers. Most wikis have a Don't Bite the Newbies policy. I find this archived discussion useful. If CP doesn't have an official policy, it still is useful for CP Admins to know that reverting newcomers has the effect of limiting CP's user base. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:05, 28 July 2019 (EDT)

Other than people inserting nonsense and/pushing misleading/errant liberal/leftist tripe, I think this was an excellent post. A little politeness and diplomacy goes a long way.Conservative (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2019 (EDT)
Oftentimes, new editors try to change the POV of articles, copy info from Wikipedia, or made other edits which are unencyclopedic (on an encyclopedia). Rob has a good point on treating new editors with respect, but it cannot be at the expense of the quality of CP's articles. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2019 (EDT)

Unlock request

Would you please temporarily unlock File:Holodomor2.jpg, per a request from RobSmith so he can add categories? --1990'sguy (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2019 (EDT)

I think you can re-lock it. Thanks! --1990'sguy (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2019 (EDT)

Violent Democrats

Hello Mr. Schlafly, Conservapedia has a page on atheist mass shooters, but Conservapedia does not have a page on mass shootings committed by Democrats/leftists. Can one be made? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JobsNotMobs (talk)

We already have Left-wing violence in the Trump era, where examples like that are already mentioned. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2019 (EDT)
Yes. A Violent Democrats article would only start a nuclear arms race with a Violent Republicans article here and elsewhere. OTHO, if trends continue and Democrat party leaders continue advocating violence, it may be necessary someday. Just not now. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:16, 5 August 2019 (EDT)

MPR

A poll found that Republicans have become even more opposed to gun control, despite massive pressure from the media, Democrats, the establishment, and liberal activists: [10] This setback for the Left might be a good MPR entry. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2019 (EDT)

KIWIFarms

Hi.

I have a question regarding article creations. Should I create an article for KIWIFarms, and if so, should I list it as a conservative site or a liberal site? On the one hand, it mocks disabled people and may have driven someone to suicide. But on the other, they did show the massacre at New Zealand and didn't cave to censorship, so... yeah. Not sure what to list it as, if it should be created that is. Pokeria1 (talk) 09:20, 17 August 2019 (EDT)

It's your call. Disapproval of someone or something is not an absolute bar on creating an entry about them. But I would leave out any suicide accusation as too speculative.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:28, 17 August 2019 (EDT)
The site is neither. It's a juvenile meme troll factory and barely satirical or parody. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:01, 17 August 2019 (EDT)
Okay. Well, since it's neither, probably better off not creating them. Pokeria1 (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2019 (EDT)
It's amazing that sites that allow free thought and exchange of ideas are considered conservative, and sites that are run like a concentration camp are considered liberal. Why is that? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:30, 17 August 2019 (EDT)

Move request

Andy, can we move this Essay:Rich Man and Parable of Talents to Parable of the Talents. It looks like only minor changes would be needed for this to be a proper article. Progressingamerica (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2019 (EDT)

Image upload request

Hello Andy, would you please upload the vastly superior Commons version of John Trumbull's Declaration of Independence painting to File:Declaration of Independence.jpg? The file is protected, so I can't do it myself, and I have experienced technical difficulties trying to upload new versions of existing images in the past (see this and this). --1990'sguy (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2019 (EDT)

Hoped that worked!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2019 (EDT)
Thanks for doing it, but the CP file still looks blurry and poor (compare to the Commons link). This is the same problem I encountered. I wouldn't want to upload a new image since this one is linked in so many articles. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2019 (EDT)
I deleted the prior version. Any better now? It may be that the Commons link uses a large file to get the better resolution, but I'm reluctant to go to a larger file which might slow speed.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2019 (EDT)
It's still showing the same version. I doubt file size is causing it, as the resolutions for the Italy maps I tried uploading a few months ago were the same. Overall, I think it's good to avoid using large file sizes, but for important and high-profile images like this, a clearer, quality image might be better. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2019 (EDT)
I've encountered this problem before: upload to a new file but the old image persists. So I uploaded to a separate file and inserted it into the template. If you like the image in the template, we could then update the other links (less than 20) in just a few minutes.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2019 (EDT)
I like it, and we can update the remaining links -- once that's done, you could delete the old one if you want. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2019 (EDT)
Yeah, I've seen this before. It seems that even after overwriting/deleting and replacing, that image name holds the original image's aspect ratio. Using a different name is the way around it...I have not found a fix. Perhaps it is fixed in newer versions of Media Wiki. --DavidB4 (TALK) 22:29, 24 August 2019 (EDT)

Not to detract from DavidB4's comment above, but in addition to the old file (File:Declaration of Independence.jpg), please delete File:76485685i79.jpg, a redirect which has been protected. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2019 (EDT)

Update MediaWiki, bots

I was wondering if MediaWiki could be updated. This version seems out of date. As a site note, would it be possible to use bots to help stop vandalism? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChickenHacker (talk)

Yet one more unlock request

Hi, I hate to keep bothering you with these, but when you get the chance, would you please unlock Template:Infobox person? I would like to add some documentation to the template's info page, and perhaps expand the template itself with some more parameters. Thank you! --DavidB4 (TALK) 15:10, 13 September 2019 (EDT)

American Progressivism

Andy, I would appreciate your yes/no about this.

Debate: Does Conservapedia need at least one single page devoted exclusively to American Progressivism? Progressingamerica (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2019 (EDT)

I think some context can be found here: Talk:Progressivism#Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn --1990'sguy (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2019 (EDT)

Pro-choice? how about anti-life or pro-death?

Liberal rags like Wikipedia refuse to use the term pro-life, instead saying "anti-abortion" or "anti-choice." I think we should return the favor and use one of the two terms in the section title, since that's what they really are, as this video shows: [11] Shobson20 (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2019 (EDT)

Night mode problems

I have been having some problems with this 'night mode' DavidB4 told me about. I am currently editing from in the GMT + 7 time zone, so I am unable to contribute sometimes. He told me that 'If this is a problem, you could contact User:Aschlafly. He might be willing to upgrade your account to get around this.' so I was wondering if you, being the owner of this site, could somehow find a way for me to edit during night mode. I understand if this is not possible at this time, as DavidB4 told me that upgrading my account may be necessary for me to edit during night mode, which I may or may not be worthy of right now. Please let me know what can be done as soon as possible. My only intention here is to contribute to this fantastic and trustworthy encyclopaedia as effectively as possible.

Many thanks, --Toby Chester (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Double redirect request

Hello Andy, would you please look at the newest comment here -- Talk:Allies -- and fix the double redirect on this protected redirect page? --1990'sguy (talk) 11:03, 17 October 2019 (EDT)

A request for a lock on Infant baptism

Andy, as I expressed on the talk page of Infant baptism, during my research I found an abundance of virulent polemic online regarding the hot-button topic of infant baptism both pro and con, enough to give me reason to humbly request that you please consider, if appropriate and reasonable, locking the main article, solely in order to avoid vandalism and distortion of the balance of presentation through subtle editing by opponents or proponents of the doctrine, to slant it more toward, or away from, a factually balanced treatment. I included both sides of the argument in the reference notes of the body of the article and in the listing of External links. Constantly reverting the changes could be a persistent annoyance. Objections could be reserved to the article Talk page, with a relevant note saying so at the top of the page. Trusting your judgment. Peace be with you, now and for ever. --Dataclarifier (talk) 11:59, 19 October 2019 (EDT)

Locked as requested. Will also put a message directing folks to the talk page.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2019 (EDT)

An election preview

I think we killed two birds with one rock: we made Katie Hill the poster child for White supremacy and the Equality Act. Need to build these themes. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 15:15, 26 October 2019 (EDT)

IMO, a Nancy Pelosi staffer looked at our Katie Hill page, saw links to both White Supremacy and the Equality Act, called Hill into Pelosi's office, and Hill was gone before she even made it back to her own office. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 15:09, 28 October 2019 (EDT)

Main page popular articles

Could you add The New Colossus, at least just for a few weeks. Progressingamerica (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2019 (EDT)

Done as requested. Thanks for the suggestion!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2019 (EDT)
If you would like to de-list it from the popular list, it has been updated now. Thanks for your help. Progressingamerica (talk) 11:33, 23 November 2019 (EST)
Replaced it with Samuel Adams. Thanks for the suggestion to make a change, and please make more in the future!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:46, 23 November 2019 (EST)

Problem with Talk:Infant baptism

Andy, RobS on the Talk:Infant baptism page is beginning to be a real problem. I tried to be patient but it's getting out of hand. Please take a look and see if the Talk page too should be locked. I'm not certain one way or the other, but I don't think he is posting any thing useful anymore, just repeating the same argument. It ceases to be an example of vigorous debate. The whole page has become bloated. I tried to be fair and answer every objection. It seems to be utterly counterproductive. If you do lock it, it will remain an example of debate on the issue. As before I trust your judgment. I'm not going back to look. Quite frankly it's been hard on my bloodpressure. Peace be with you. Michael Heart. --Dataclarifier (talk) 01:58, 3 November 2019 (EST)

I'll take a look but the general policy is to leave talk pages unlocked. You don't have to respond there and everyone knows that a talk page is merely a discussion that typically contains different viewpoints. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 10:58, 3 November 2019 (EST)
Michael, you seem to have a tenuous relationship with the truth. I called you out on this in January, here, where you had falsely claimed that your user page had been vandalized, and that you had arranged for it to be locked.
And now you claim (4 sections above) that the infant baptism article has been vandalized. Aside from a notice from Andy that it has been locked, and a very few edits today by Wikignome72, who, as an admin, can blow past any locks, the page has 331 revisions, every one of them by you.
So now the discussion has, not surprisingly, moved to the talk page, and it is a very lively and robust discussion. And you now want that locked? That's not the way things are done on talk pages. Perhaps you would rather do your writing on a blog someplace, that lets you control comments from other people. I believe there are services on the internet, such as "blogspot", that let you do that. You might want to contact one of the User:Conservative people about doing that. But that isn't how things are done on talk pages on an open wiki. Especially now that the locking of the article pages has moved everything to the talk page.
SamHB (talk) 11:29, 3 November 2019 (EST)
Michael, the above rant is by a user who has been repeatedly blocked. Your edits are very welcome here and please ignore the rude tone above. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:35, 3 November 2019 (EST)
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that there is anything that Dataclarifier should or should not do. I think the robust discussion on the talk page is fine, and none of it bothers me. I apologize for anything that was considered rude. SamHB (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2019 (EST)

I don't think the talk page should be locked. CP has editors of different theological viewpoints, and inability to reconcile those different viewpoints shouldn't be an excuse to stop discussion of them. And to be fair, the vast majority of the text on the talk page are comments from Dataclarifier, which is fine, but because of that, it's not fair to put all the blame on RobS for the long text on the talk page. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2019 (EST)

And spamming a talk page is not discussion. Neither is removing other people's comments to remove them from context. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 15:37, 3 November 2019 (EST)
In fact, the mainspace "Infant baptism" page should also be unlocked -- there was zero edit warring on it, so Dataclarifier didn't even have a reason for requesting protection. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:52, 3 November 2019 (EST)
He's put a lot of work into all his stuff. Most of his postings on talk really belong in Essay space if he doesn't want to be interrupted by argument or refutation. Many of these discussions then could be held on an Essay space talk page.
His basic argument is that infant baptism brings salvation, yet he's never defined what salvation is despite repeated requests. Consequently, the discussion strays off into numerous other topics. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:08, 3 November 2019 (EST)
A link could even be made from Infant baptism to his Essays. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:13, 3 November 2019 (EST)

Andy, I'm more grateful than I can express for your remark above regarding my edits. (I do disregard the rude tone of the "rant".) I had come back to mention that I discovered that other sites on infant baptism and other related "hot-button" topics have talk pages that have been archived one, two, three, even eight times, full of comments and venom responding to their topics. Accordingly, I withdraw my request that Talk:Infant baptism be locked, so that there will be more opportunity for others to speak up and further enliven the debate. Eventually I suppose an archive will be necessary. I am absenting myself from that Talk page. It just means that I won't be available to be baited any more, and will no longer be anyone's favorite target. That may put out the fire. (Just take a look at my own talk page, at the remarks made at the bottom by RobSmith's "Suggestion", and my final definitive answer in response: User talk:Dataclarifier#Suggestion.) Pax vobis --Dataclarifier (talk) 03:43, 5 November 2019 (EST)

The mainspace "Infant baptism" page should be unprotected. There was absolutely no edit warring, and Dataclarifier dominated the page's edit history. --1990'sguy (talk) 07:59, 5 November 2019 (EST)
Dataclarifier, you wrote: "Quite frankly it's been hard on my blood pressure."
You should keep in mind that if people want to find answers to an issue, there are tons of resources on the internet plus God gives wisdom/answers to those who humbly seek Him. So if you see a page or two on the internet that you want to change, but cannot do so to your satisfaction, its certainly not the end of the world and certainly not worth getting your blood pressure up over. Wikignome72 (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2019 (EST)
Per RobSmith "Suggestion" on my talk page, I just created Debate: Infant baptism and moved into it most (not all) of the debate on the Talk:Infant baptism page, leaving intact on the original talk page at infant baptism the comments re the article, its structure and sources of information cited there, and posted a note redirecting all general comments on the topic to Debate: Infant baptism. I did the same on my own talk page. By the way, the blood pressure response was unexpected, and is entirely physiological and involuntary. I was surprised that it happened. I think my creation of the new debate page will be more useful. (I don't intend to contribute anything more to it.) --Dataclarifier (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2019 (EST)
(The "final definitive answer" that I posted on RobSmith's "Suggestion" entry on my Talk page, has also been included in the move of the debate from the Talk:Infant baptism page to Debate: Infant baptism. --Dataclarifier (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2019 (EST) - )
I was suggesting you place the original two lengthy sections on Protestantism versus Catholicism in one Article Essay space, minus the intervening comments, to preserve the original research. It just needs an appropriate title. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 23:03, 5 November 2019 (EST)
For example: Essay: Differing perspectives on infant baptism. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 01:25, 6 November 2019 (EST)

A few minutes ago I copied this entire posting to Debate: Infant baptism as relevant part of the whole general debate. --Dataclarifier (talk) 08:33, 6 November 2019 (EST)

Problem: Obsessive redundant repostings

RobSmith persists in reposting to Talk:Infant baptism the same edit already moved twice to Debate: Infant baptism. This seems rather obsessive. I moved his postings verbatim to the Debate page. He calls it spamming. I don't believe he will stop reposting the same comments again and again at Talk:Infant baptism and badgering me about the matter on my Talk page. Please look into the matter and do what you think appropriate. (Seems like this is proof that the main article needed to be proactively locked.) Thanks to you and all of the good Protestant editors for your own outstanding works on Conservapedia. --Dataclarifier (talk) 12:00, 6 November 2019 (EST)

Do not remove other peoples ongoing discussions. That is a blockable offensive. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:03, 6 November 2019 (EST)
The Talk page has 8,000 page views, your Debate page has 176, or 2%. I can appreciate you trying to hide a "debate" you lost badly, but removing other peoples ongoing comments and discussions, who have committed no site policy violations, is a no no. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:09, 6 November 2019 (EST)
Perhaps we need a page on Wikietiquette. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:13, 6 November 2019 (EST)
The same reposting was just now repeated at Talk:Infant baptism. RobSmith's POV has been preserved now four times on Debate: Infant baptism. --Dataclarifier (talk) 12:15, 6 November 2019 (EST)
Talk:Infant baptism clearly directs all debate on doctrine to Debate: Infant baptism. It isn't hidden. --Dataclarifier (talk) 12:24, 6 November 2019 (EST)
RobSmith imposed a block of my IP and Dataclarifier ID in response to my moving of his doctrinal debate to the Debate page where it is more appropriate. (Block now expired)
I have never deleted or removed his comments from Conservapedia. Nor have I blocked him to prevent debate. In addition he has reposted again verbatim the same reposted doctrinal debate argument at the Talk:Infant baptism page. --Dataclarifier (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2019 (EST)
There are three other editors besides myself engaged in discussion in the two subsections thaT you have removed several times now; when an editor engaged in a discussion comes to reply, they do not know where to find it. Please, show some etiquette and do not interfere with other editors ongoing discussions. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:05, 6 November 2019 (EST)

Andy, this entire encounter with the adversary has been a real faith builder and a privilege to experience. This has not been my only one. I don't make light of it by any means. Thank you for your supportive comment above. --Dataclarifier (talk) 13:55, 8 November 2019 (EST)

Dataclarifier, we live in a post Protestant Reformation period where Protestantism is growing rapidly in the world.
You can't pretend that Protestants/Protestantism and their arguments don't exist and move the opposition's arguments to a debate page. This is unacceptable.Wikignome72 (talk) 14:16, 8 November 2019 (EST)
You can't move doctrinal debate about infant baptism on the articles talk page to a debate page. Please stop doing this. It is impolite, must end and it is counterproductive. Wikignome72 (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2019 (EST)
Copying text to another page without removing it from the page copied is not a move. --Dataclarifier (talk) 11:00, 9 November 2019 (EST)

error in link to external source needs minor correction

A colon needs to be replaced by a hyphen in the following link at locked article Infant baptism.
12:48.htm should have been 12-48.htm (I can't get to it.)

error https://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/12:48.htm
correction https://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/12-48.htm

Thanks, Andy. --Dataclarifier (talk) 09:31, 9 November 2019 (EST)

Conservative of the Year 2019

I have created the Conservative of the Year 2019 article. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:59, 9 November 2019 (EST)

Terrific start!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2019 (EST)
Would it be appropriate to post the article on the main page until a winner is announced? --1990'sguy (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2019 (EST)

Bilski v. Doll

Hello Andy, I see that the Bilski v. Doll article has not been updated. I tried to update it, but it's too much of a mess. The two Wikipedia articles on the case (1,2) don't have the same name as the case, so it seems to me that the situation is relatively complicated. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2019 (EST)

I improved both. Please let me know if further edits would be helpful. Thanks!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2019 (EST)

Scribes (Bible)

I just completed a new article Scribes (Bible). I hope it's worthy of Conservapedia. Pax vobis --Dataclarifier (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2019 (EST)

Wow, that's fabulous! Very well done.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2019 (EST)
I did a major revision with additional material and division with subheadings for improvement. Includes section on calling scribes "my father" (Mt 23:9). --Dataclarifier (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2019 (EST)
Looks even better now. I did a minor punctuation improvement. Terrific work.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2019 (EST)

Technical display problem at Religion#Development of religion

Just a "heads up" alert. Recently, every time I have accessed the article Religion (simply to read it) there has been a display flutter and blackout of a portion of the article at Religion#Development of religion. The section reads fine in edit mode—no problem there. All other parts of the article remain stable in page display. I am unable to determine if the fault is with my own computer. Tech error? Virus? No other parts of Conservapedia have presented this difficulty. --Dataclarifier (talk) 00:16, 15 November 2019 (EST)

I have observed so such problem, on the religion page or any other. I would recommend that you reboot your computer, perform a comprehensive virus and malware check (installing the necessary antivirus software if necessary; I recommend Norton), restarting your web browser, and trying again. SamHB (talk) 10:57, 15 November 2019 (EST)
Sam, just now no problem. (I have had Norton for more than 2 years now). My internet server is through a land line. My own tech says it's probably the area I live in, and fact that I'm near "end of the line". Coincidental. Thanks. --Dataclarifier (talk) 10:05, 1 December 2019 (EST)

Eros

Just created article Eros from already available material in other articles here. I assume you don't need me to notify you every time I create another article. Thanks for all you do, Andy, for your efforts to present unbiased truth. --Dataclarifier (talk) 03:47, 15 November 2019 (EST)

My article on Hong Kong is published

My article on Hong Kong was published in Hong Kong-based Dim Sum Daily. It has been up only a couple of hours and it already has a thousand page views. Could you put on MPR and help it along? PeterKa (talk) 07:14, 24 November 2019 (EST)

Good article. I hope you continue making first hand written accounts in a series. (you don't have to be at ground zero for all events, just cover the issues involved). RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:06, 24 November 2019 (EST)
My follow up story has been published in the Seattle Times. Dim Sum Daily toned me down a bit, but the editor at Seattle Times played up the anti-communist/pro-democracy angle. I submitted various pictures to both newspapers, but both editors selected the same picture of me in a mask. PeterKa (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2019 (EST)
Tremendous work. Very well done! Posted.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:11, 14 December 2019 (EST)

Gouverneur Morris

Just thought I would mention, the Westin states that "Our hotel takes its name from the state's first Governor"[12] Gouverneur Morris was never a Governor that I am aware of. Progressingamerica (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2019 (EST)

You're right! Great catch!!!! I'll fix it if you haven't yet done so.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:04, 8 December 2019 (EST)
Can we just remove it altogether? It's about another person altogether. What value does it add to the article? Progressingamerica (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2019 (EST)
Moved it to another entry, but feel free to object to that new home for it!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2019 (EST)

request for restoration of possibly unitended deletion of a section of an article

Andy, the following section was deleted after you locked the text of Infant baptism. See earlier version 1584071. It was based on historical information I had found online re the topic. Could you please restore it? Thanks. --Dataclarifier (talk) 15:04, 15 December 2019 (EST)

Andy, I am 100% positive that Tertullian did not indicate what Dataclarifier says he did. Please do not grant this request.
Dataclarifier wanted this article locked after he put various material in the article. On a wiki, the dialetical method (The dialectical method, is at base a discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to establish the truth through reasoned arguments) and civil discourse are important - especially on matters where there are competing theological camps. The infant baptism article has been a trainwreck as far as this occuring. And unfortunately, I don't see things turning around anytime soon.
When I got involved in the article Petrine Primacy, we managed to hammer out an article without too much rancor, etc. But right now and for the foreseeble future, I do not have time to be a referee or a big contributor to infant baptism.Conservative (talk) 15:42, 15 December 2019 (EST)
Simply FYI relevant to comment by Conservative, I noticed the following Diff. The online sources supporting the deleted segment in ref notes were also removed with the deletion. I understand and sympathize with Conservative's lack of sufficient opportunity to improve the balance of the article. I am in a similar bind. I only had come back to consult the article, not to critique it. That's why the appeal here from both of us for your judgment in the matter. Faithfully yours, --Dataclarifier (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2019 (EST)
I moved my reply to Dataclarifier from my user talk page message area to the Infant baptism talk page area. It is located HERE now.
The battle between Dataclarifier and Robsmith is kind of a rhetorical Thirty Years' War. At this juncture in my life, I am endeavoring to avoid internet drama - albeit not always successfully. But after responding to an atheist on my talk page via "SS American Religion: Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead" about the eventual triump over secularization in the USA, I decided to renew my pledge. One thing for certain, even atheists admit that the atheist movement is dead or dying (see: Decline of the atheist movement). I tango and cha-cha-cha on the grave of the atheist movement! Olé! Olé! Olé! Conservative (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2019 (EST)

Earliest historical mention of infant baptism: A.D. 185

The earliest explicit mention of infant baptism is found A.D. 185 in Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book II, Chapter 22:4.[1]

For He came to save all through means of Himself — all, I say, who through Him are born again to God — infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. (boldface emphasis added)
This born again is a direct reference to John 3:3-5:
3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
King James Bible (KJV)

The Greek New Testament word for "man" here in John is τις tis "anyone".[2]

See interlinear text of John 3:5. No human being is excluded. Age is not mentioned.

references

. .

Thanks, Andy. Hope you have a wonderful Christmas. --Dataclarifier (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2019 (EST)

Mysterious duplication of entire article onpage

Andy, just "eyeball" and check out the following diffs. [13] [14]. My own check of the page's View history does not show who made the duplication. I am certain I didn't do it. Can you determine who was responsible?

Back when I first asked for the article to be locked, I thought something like this, or some other form of mischief, would happen. Be assured I'm not asking for it to be locked now. I can check it myself from time to time. Thanks. Have a blessed Christmas. --Dataclarifier (talk) 07:29, 21 December 2019 (EST)

Anyone can check things like this, you do not need to enlist the site administrators's help. Just look at the page history, the way I did just now. The extreme duplication to which you refer was made at 10:12, 17 December 2019‎, by RobSmith. That was 69 edits ago. All 68 edits since then were made by you. I can't pass judgment on why RobSmith made the change, though I would guess that it was an accident, of the sort that we all make. His edit comment was "organized churches, not individual Christians".
The addition "and the danger of death before baptism", added by you at 14:06, 18 December 2019, is safely in the current version, so no further action should be needed. But when you repair Rob's changes, be sure that is preserved. In fact, you will need to check that all of your edits since then are intact. By the way, Rob's accidental change had the effect of precisely doubling the size of the article, from 184,252 bytes to 368,504 bytes. Whether it was a precise duplication of the content is something I haven't checked; I would suggest that you do that. And then be sure that your recent 68 edits, including the the one about "and the danger of death before baptism", are intact.
I occasionally find myself needing to track down situations like this; it's very annoying. Good luck. Please do not assume malice.
And have a blessed Christmas. SamHB (talk) 10:09, 21 December 2019 (EST)

More night mode problems

I am still having some problems with the Conservapedia night mode. I am still editing from in the GMT + 7 time zone, which is becoming increasingly bothersome for me. You did promote your account to SkipCaptcha privileges back in October, but I am still unable to contribute for a significant portion of the day. You said that 'overnight editing privileges can be added after there are more edits from your account'. The number of edits that required for me to gain overnight editing privileges was never specified, but I have frequently made numerous contributions to this encyclopaedia. In short, I am requesting that my account be promoted to overnight editing privileges, or at least for the number of edits required for me to receive the promotion be revealed. I have enjoyed my time so far on this encyclopaedia, despite the time zone problems. Overnight editing privileges would be a huge help, and allow me to contribute to Conservapedia more effectively. Thank you.--Toby Chester (talk) 11:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

That's right, I've been on this site for a long time and I still have problems with Night mode. Shobson20 (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2020 (EST)

Night mode edit request

I wish to be able to edit when CP is in night mode. It's frustrating to be locked out until 10:00am, or in the case of today, hours after night mode is supposed to be over. I hope you can be sure that I won't vandalize the site. Just for curiosity, what was going on, anyway? Shobson20 (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2020 (EST)

Page name blacklist issue

Hi Andy,
It looks like user:BHathorn is have an issue where he is trying to create a couple pages which are being blocked by the page name blacklist. Would you please take a look? See: Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany#Question_about_a_permission_error
Thanks! --DavidB4 (TALK) 23:12, 19 January 2020 (EST)

Updating information, etc.

Hi Andy, I was just wondering, if you have the time, can you look through my edits just to make sure all the information I added is accurate and consistent? I'm just concerned that some content I added could've been worded better, was outdated, or inaccurate, etc. In addition, how hard is it to become an administrator? I saw the Conservapedia Guidelines page but it wasn't specific on the requirements to become an administrator. Also, just wanted to mention, thank you for founding Conservapedia; I stumbled across this site about half a year ago, and by now, with this great site and with other organizations with similar idealogies, I'm a proud conservative! --Liberaltears 8:42, 23 January 2020

RobSmith threat to delete balanced article

Andy: RobSmith intends to delete an article without any evident justification for his charge of "sarcastic mockery". I did what I could to present a factual article at Burning at the stake, Biblical pretext for, now simply Burning at the stake. I responded with some adjustments in the article. See my simple explanation as a response on the talk page, along with this text that Rob posted on my User talk:Dataclarifier
Ridiculous arguments
If you want to continue ridiculous arguments without engaging on the Talk page of Burning at the stake, Biblical pretext for, I'll just delete the page as "sarcastic mockery" of God's word. You need to engage other editors directly on Talk when legitimate questions are raised - without spamming blocks of text and redundant links. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 01:57, 4 February 2020 (EST)
Whatever you decide. Peace be with you. --Dataclarifier (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2020 (EST)
The user is in gross violation of Conservapedia Commandment #1, copying text from and citing Wikipedia. See here and here. It's a pattern I've detected on just two pages. Burning at the stake, Biblical pretext for is sarcastic mockery of God's word, until I renamed it. But he continues to insert sarcastic mockery of Christianity cut n' pasted directly from Wikipedia. Some of the problems could be fixed with rational good faith engagement with other editors on discussion pages, however the user is in the habit of spamming talk pages with massive blocks of text and redundant links, some of which is cut n' pasted from Wikipedia and elsewhere.
I'd suggest the user take some of that plagiarized text from Wikipedia and simply rewrite objectionable portions, but he seems more interested in using biased, non-Christian, and anti-Christian content he borrows from Wikipedia, and filling CP up with it. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 02:37, 4 February 2020 (EST)
Andy, take a look at his edit summary
01:04, 4 February 2020‎ RobSmith - I won't follow you with a pooper-scooper always) (undo)
This is self-explanatory. Is this harassment? The information I posted to which he so strongly objects is corroborated independently by the several independent Pew Research articles et al. You know my work. I post nothing that I have not been able to verify. As to the above, I have no wish to be baited with anti-Catholic antagonism. That is why I don't respond to his attempts to "engage" with interminable interactions, and limit my response to simple, factual statements.
What did you think of the recent Democratic and Republican performance in the Senate? The win of the Chiefs at the Superbowl 2 February was an exciting addition to my 73rd birthday 1 February. As always, Peace be with you. Michael --Dataclarifier (talk) 02:52, 4 February 2020 (EST)
The information was moved to Talk. It's salvageable. But I won't re-write and clean up your mess. I did enough on mainspace Burning at the stake. If you need input and help, engage there. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 02:56, 4 February 2020 (EST)
Andy: RobSmith just now threatened an edit-war.
You can earn yourself a temporary block for reverting a Sysop with the rollback key. I;m going to rollback your edits a second time on Burning at the stake. Meet me on the talk page to discuss changes or enjoy a temporary block for edit warring. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 03:08, 4 February 2020 (EST)
--Dataclarifier (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2020 (EST)
No, I explained you can enjoy a temporary block for edit warring. You need to engage in good faith at Talk:Burning_at_the_stake#Rewrite-it to fix the content you cut n' pasted from Wikipedia. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 03:15, 4 February 2020 (EST)
It would not be hard, at all, to fix the content you cut n' pasted from Wikipedia. It requires simple good faith editing. But here you are, spamming Andy's talk page with redundant postings.
I can make simple suggestions to objectionable material - there. But you must engage me there. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 03:22, 4 February 2020 (EST)
See my good faith response at Talk:Burning at the stake#Dataclarifier response --Dataclarifier (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2020 (EST)
RobSmith has removed subheading Dataclarifier response from the link I provided, so you can't access it. Go to Talk:Burning at the stake#Rewrite-it and scroll down to my now untitled response. --Dataclarifier (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2020 (EST)

I made a mistake

I created an article for Kendrick Brothers but the brothers should have a lower case 'b'. They do have an organization known as Kendrick Brothers Productions with a captial 'B' but I started a stub article about the brothers themselves. Are you able to fix this? Thank you.--StFrancisThames (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2020 (EST)

Another moved it. I just promoted your account to SkipCaptcha. Welcome!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2020 (EST)

Template creation permission request

Hi Andy, I'm seeking permission to a create a template titled "Template:Republican establishment". I know I mentioned it here and again here, but RobSmith seemed unsure about it, so I was wondering what you would think. Thanks! --Liberaltears (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2020 (EDT)

Sounds like a good idea. I've created it and you can edit it now.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2020 (EDT)
Thanks Andy! Just wondering though, where's the template? I can't find it... --Liberaltears (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2020 (EDT)
Sorry! I thought I had created it, but I had not put anything in it so nothing was created after all. This time it contains a tiny period, which you can replace: Template:Republican establishment. Enjoy!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2020 (EDT)
Yes! Thank you very much, Andy! --Liberaltears (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2020 (EDT)

Great image to quickly upload

Hi Andy, can you upload this image into a file? I think that this would be a great addition for the featured article on Vladimir Zelenko as well as to use for this article as well. Thanks! --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 13:30, 28 March 2020 (EDT)

Done as requested!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 13:45, 28 March 2020 (EDT)
Thank you Andy! --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 13:48, 28 March 2020 (EDT)

So I just watched this video...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s13qZnKdLQ8&feature=emb_title Phil Donahue really seems to be sticking to the zero-sum game fallacy thinking that your mom wanted women to "stay in the home" when she only said that women tend to be happier there. Shobson20 (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2020 (EDT)

Western Civilization to the rescue

Hi, Andy. I'm interested in how America and "Yankee Ingenuity" will overcome the coronavirus. The UK and Israel (part of Western Civ) may also help. But I don't expect much from the socialist countries or dictatorships. I'm also watching progress on the USS Theodore Roosevelt, an aircraft carrier with a coronavirus outbreak. --Ed Poor Talk 12:55, 2 April 2020 (EDT)

Ed, it's great hearing from you! Hope all is well. Ironically, China and India have welcomed innovation in treating the coronavirus more than Democratic governors here have, such as Andrew Cuomo who is hoarding hydroxychloroquine rather than allowing it to be dispensed widely to patients. Reminds me of the greater freedom in communist China in being able to criticize the theory of evolution than is allowed by many officials here. Oh well.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2020 (EDT)
Ed: included in that basic premise is the structural flaw of single party socialism - a system (as advocated by Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders, et al) without checks and balances.
I see two narratives emerging on the origins of global economic meltdown caused by coronavirus: (1) the CCP was negligent in its corruption and greed by not alerting the world of the pandemic so as not to disrupt the tourism trade in Wuhan during the Chinese New Year travel holiday (as the leftist mayor of New Orleans didn't want to disrupt Mardi Gras celebrations, either); and (2) the CCP issued a bioweapon attack in reprisal to trade tariffs which threatened the CCP's hold on power; this is the more conspiratorial narrative which the CCP has already countered with whataboutism and the US military.
The CCP's fake news allies in the United States are already preparing the ground for the next narrative phase: the "factual"evidence that an authoritarian socialist regime had only 3,000 deaths using harsh containment methods vs. the chaotic and freewheeling United States which has over 4,000 deaths when the pandemic first hit shows the superiority of the socialist system. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:11, 2 April 2020 (EDT)
Speaking of Cuomo, can you please post the source about Cuomo hoarding that drug and not distributing it throughout New York on the main page? Pokeria1 (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2020 (EDT)
Just posted the link as requested. The clinical trial did not start on time as Cuomo promised in New York, either. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2020 (EDT)
Thanks, though I was actually referring more to this news item: "Dem New York Gov. Cuomo stockpiles and withholds hydroxychloroquine such that coronavirus patients are unable to get their prescriptions filled in some parts of the State. " Pokeria1 (talk) 08:46, 3 April 2020 (EDT)
Dem Gov. Andrew Cuomo has essentially limited the dispensing of hydroxychloroquine for coronavirus to his slow, small clinical trial,[15] and I heard confirmation of the difficulty of patients obtaining the life-saving medication from a presentation by a New York physician.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:28, 3 April 2020 (EDT)

Modifying Template:Officeholder/senator

Hi Andy, can you modify/improvise Template:Officeholder/senator as I mentioned here? I was really hoping that a sysop would be able to do it as the template is locked as well as the fact that I barely understand template source codes. Thanks! --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 11:59, 3 April 2020 (EDT)

I unprotected it for you to edit as you think best. Thanks!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2020 (EDT)
Thanks Andy! I do hope I can figure it out... --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 12:51, 3 April 2020 (EDT)
Success! While I'm not sure how to make the function “required” in the same sense with all the other functions, I did manage to use three separate optional functions, where whenever one is used in the template, the other two functions are simply left blank. Since I tested the updated version and it works fine, I think you can re-protect the template now. Thank you Andy! --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 13:20, 3 April 2020 (EDT)
I should specify one issue with the way I modified the template; if the function is used more than once out of all three options, then more than one of the options out of “Senior”, “Junior”, and “Former” can show up due to the combinatorials of all three. --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 13:29, 3 April 2020 (EDT)
Oops, never mind. I just tested it, and apparently my worry wasn't the case. --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 13:33, 3 April 2020 (EDT)
Nice, thanks for doing that, Liberaltears! --DavidB4 (TALK) 16:16, 3 April 2020 (EDT)
Yep, no problem! --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 16:17, 3 April 2020 (EDT)

Mainpage: Right

Is there a URL associated with that recent news item? I read today [16] and there appears to be widespread fraud in NY. --Jpatt 14:15, 3 April 2020 (EDT)

I added the link to the country-by-country and state-by-state data. But the American Thinker makes a valid point, too. Thanks for mentioning it, and great to hear from you!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2020 (EDT)

Hiding a revision from view...

Hi Andy, I was wondering if you could fully oversight (hide) the vandalized revisions on this page and this page. While the vandal user names were hidden from view, DavidB4 said that he couldn't fully oversight the revisions from view due to an error, as mentioned here. I'm really hoping that all evidence of the vandalism can be hidden from view due to the seriousness of the matter. --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 17:53, 3 April 2020 (EDT)

Added a question

Hi Andy, I would like to start a page on mediocrity which disuses the subject and how it has been caused by liberals. However, when I went to go start the page, I saw it was previously created but you removed it during a mass removal of pages created by a certain user. I am not sure about the details behind this user, but I wondering if you have a problem with me creating this page up again? --YankeeDoodleDandy (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2020 (EDT)

No problem at all if you create it again. Please create and add to it as you think best. Thank you!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2020 (EDT)

Thank You Andy just wanted to make sure it was okay with you --YankeeDoodleDandy (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2020 (EDT)

Permission requests for several template creations...

Hi Andy, I would like to request permission to create the following templates:

  • Template:Officeholder/lieutenant governor
  • Template:Officeholder/state senator
  • Template:Democrat establishment

--LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 14:49, 12 April 2020 (EDT)

Please do! Those would be terrific templates. Thank you.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2020 (EDT)
Thank you Andy! --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 14:53, 12 April 2020 (EDT)

Coronavirus protests

Hello Andy, I have been looking at these Coronavirus protests that have been springing up all across the country, and I was wondering, how often did Phyllis go to protests or organize them? I am pretty sure she organized ERA amendment protests, but could you give me more information if you have any? Progressingamerica (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2020 (EDT)

My mother Phyllis often organized protests like these! Thanks for asking.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2020 (EDT)
It's my pleasure. I first started attending protests in 2010 at the Tea Parties, and as I mentioned earlier in the year, I also attended the 2020 March for Life. Now that you have confirmed this, could you provide any more information? Maybe she wrote about it in one of her many books or are there photos that you could point to? What could take me considerable time to locate could take you 10 or 20 minutes, or maybe even less. Progressingamerica (talk) 10:16, 18 April 2020 (EDT)
Perhaps the first photo in her entry here (Phyllis Schlafly) is an example?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2020 (EDT)
I recall it like it was yesterday. Someone asked Phyllis about NOW. She responded with something like "they wouldn't exist if they weren't getting federal money". Her organization was entirely grassroots. I instantly became a believer. IOWs, in 1979 the US was approaching 10% unemployment and the federal government was spending money on on anti-family, divisive and social engineering programs like NOW. RobSLive Free or Die 10:24, 24 April 2020 (EDT)
Wow, Rob, thanks for sharing that! They should have had some mention of government funding of the Leftist groups in the Mrs. America miniseries about STOP ERA.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2020 (EDT)

Speedy image upload request

Hi Andy, I'd like to request the quick upload of this image (source page here) into a file (fair use license, I believe), with the small black space on the top and bottom cropped off. Since Matt Innis is a Republican running for U.S. Senate from Nebraska to challenge establishment anti-Trumper Ben Sasse and the primary is less than a month away, I'm making this special request (similar to the previous one on hydroxychloroquine) largely due to a long backlog of image requests in CP:IUR. Thank you Andy! --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 21:18, 17 April 2020 (EDT)

Uploading the image now ...--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2020 (EDT)
Yes! Thank you very much Andy, I really appreciate it! --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 22:25, 17 April 2020 (EDT)

Block of RobSmith and VargasMilan

Andy, thanks for your note my talk page 25 Feb at User talk:Dataclarifier#Unjustified block. I have blocked RobSmith and VargasMilan. Please believe me that I have not done this lightly. See details at User talk:Dataclarifier#Blocked: RobSmith and VargasMilan. I appreciate your work and trust your judgment in the matter. Thanks. Stay Healthy. --Dataclarifier (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2020 (EDT)

Update: The original link I provided was altered by RobSmith. It can be accessed at Talk/Dataclarifier/Archive 01#Blocked (past tense): RobSmith and VargasMilan --Dataclarifier (talk) 07:51, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
Huh? I altered a link? Provide a diff or it never happened. RobSLive Free or Die 13:32, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
See the diff at:
https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Burning_at_the_stake&diff=prev&oldid=1619849
See also the following text at User talk:Aschlafly#RobSmith threat to delete balanced article
See my good faith response at Talk:Burning at the stake#Dataclarifier response --Dataclarifier (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2020 (EST)
RobSmith has removed subheading Dataclarifier response from the link I provided, so you can't access it. Go to Talk:Burning at the stake#Rewrite-it and scroll down to my now untitled response. --Dataclarifier (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2020 (EST)
See also the following altering diff defeating direct link to User talk:Dataclarifier#Blocked: RobSmith and VargasMilan:
https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Dataclarifier&diff=1644391&oldid=1644390
--Dataclarifier (talk) 06:34, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
See also this RobSmith alteration of my subpage respectfully titled "Administrative comments" which he turned into a ridiculously trivialized "Sandbox" — "Creating Sandbox for User:Dataclarifier"
https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Dataclarifier/Administrator_comments&action=history
--Dataclarifier (talk) 09:06, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
You never answered a simple, good faith question and created a new discussion thread loaded with spam. You are spamming and trolling right now on Andy's discussion page, which justifiably could result in removal of your comments and a short term block. Please stop. RobSLive Free or Die 14:40, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
See Conservapedia:Trolling:
  • employing redundant arguments intended to occupy and waste the time, efforts, or energies of other users or to distract them from productive editing and making mainspace article contributions.
RobSLive Free or Die 14:48, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
I can't confirm nor deny Dataclarifier's claims regarding that particular situation, though I will mention I had to deal with similar stuff from RobSmith as well. Namely, a few times after I added in a reply, he while adding his reply tended to delete my posts. When adding my reply back in, I also demand that he stop removing my replies. Here's one example: https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=1441930 He hasn't done that in a while, though given my experience, I won't necessarily claim Dataclarifier was off the mark in his accusation. Pokeria1 (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
If I ever remove a posting it is either a mistake or somebody swore or said something innappropriate. Your diff looks like an error. Sorry. In Dataclarifier's case, it's hard to discern what he's talking about. I think he now is referencing a time he created a subheading entitled ==My response== or something, and spammed the page with extraneous material. I removed the subheading cause I think it was suppose to be a response to a question, and frankly, I'm tired of him ignoring questions and spamming pages. RobSLive Free or Die 05:05, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
In fact, I don't believe I have ever removed a posting of Dataclarifer (except for an unnecessary subhead he created) or deleted a page. I did one page move and rewrote certain sections on Burning at the stake, which if I recall he was satisfied with. RobSLive Free or Die 05:12, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
The way I see it, this dispute has its origins with the infant baptism article, and differences in application between Catholic and Protestant denominations. Since this is an encyclopedia, the article should clearly state "Roman Catholic Church doctrine states..." or "Lutheran Church states..." etc. on this subject where there are differences. But it should also be very, very clear if those differences conflict with what the Bible states, then the Bible is the final authority and trumps everything else. People are just going to have to accept that one small fact. Karajou (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2020 (EDT)
The problem with using the whole "Bible has final say" argument is that there are technically two different bibles (and that's not even counting the King James version) thanks to Martin Luther removing six books from the Bible (including Maccabees), so the Catholic Bible actually has SIX additional books. Maybe if there was literally only one bible, with literally NOTHING removed from it, that solution would work. Pokeria1 (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2020 (EDT)
Fine. Those points belong in separate articles or Essay space. My immediate problem is with an editor who claims "biblical authority" then denies biblical authority on Talk pages and attributes the Epistles of Paul to Satan. Many of these articles carry the Template:Christianity. I've asked this editor several times to clarify these mainspace contributions and he either ignores these questions completely, or spams the discussion with off-topic, plagiarized, contradictory and redundant blocks of hypertext and external links. RobSLive Free or Die 19:18, 5 May 2020 (EDT)
People can (ab)use the Bible as an excuse for a number of ridiculous evils, such as burning at the stake. (Because the catholic church said so, it must be true, right?) Twist in enough, and just like the MSM, you can make your source text say whatever you want it to.
In a more mild sense, the many denominations we now have, exist because they interpenetrate the scripture differently from the others. A clash of religion is inevitable in a project like this, but as Karajou said, I think the best way is to state the various conflicting views from a fairly neutral standpoint in this case. --DavidB4 (TALK) 19:37, 5 May 2020 (EDT)
Because someone claimed in the 12th century a "Biblical pretext" for burning at the stake, and was in gross error, is no reason to promote a "Biblical pretext for burning at the stake" in the 21st century which is accessible to Google search engines and homeschoolers. RobSLive Free or Die 20:06, 5 May 2020 (EDT)

Potential bullying: threat of blocking

Andy, RobSmith says welcome back on my talk page. I am content with having made a strong statement with my own action of blocking. (I was not so naïve as to actually believe an infinite block of him and VargasMilan would last very long.)

He now continues to threaten me on my talk page with the same tone of domination unchanged. If I refuse to respond to him re contentious topics, he may decide again to slap another block on my account. He gives me no reason to believe otherwise.

You have expressed both here on your talk page and on my own talk page the freedom of contributors on Conservapedia to make the prudential choice of exercising a decisive refusal to engage in contentious continuing debates with other editors and administrators.
However, shortly after you gave me that advice (assurance to know that I do not have to respond to any comments) and subsequently after I chose to exercise that option with RobSmith and said on a couple of talk pages that I would no longer respond, and that I had said all I could say, he kept demanding additional response, and finally inflicted a short term block for my refusing to get ensnared again. What is to prevent this again if I choose not to respond? Especially since both our positions have been more than adequately expressed, and I might say "redundantly". All I could do was reiterate what I had already said, and back it up with substantial documentation. He insists that my completely substantiated responses are "incomprehensible" and "say nothing".

Now that I have found that you removed the more extensive unjustified intentional [21 Feb to 1 May] block by VargasMilan on 25 Feb, I simply ask you for the standard Conservapedia freedom enjoyed by others here to legitimately refuse to further respond to RobSmith or others like him without a threat of blocking for exercising that fully available option. Without such assurance, I see no real possibility of continued involvement in contributing to Conservapedia, even though you expressed hope that I would continue, because I could be blocked again for exercising legitimate refusal to respond, for "who knows how long?". Please answer. Either here or on my talk page. --Dataclarifier (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2020 (EDT)

"He now continues to threaten me" - this is simply a pointed lie. I suggest User:Dataclarifier begin building good faith with other users. RobSLive Free or Die 20:29, 5 May 2020 (EDT)
Secondly, Dataclarifier received two blocks, one for 10 minutes and one for an hour after undoing the actions of a Sysop, i.e. edit warring with a Sysop. The worst that can happen to Dataclarifier in the future, if he refuses to defend controversial edits on Talk, is a revert of edits and page protect to deny access.
Nowhere was Dataclarifer ever "threatened" with a block for refusal to answer good faith questions. RobSLive Free or Die 21:42, 5 May 2020 (EDT)

Archive and Administrator comments

Andy, to handle the current controversy on my talk page, I set up two pages: an Archive of all that has been submitted to this date, and a special "Administrator comments" page where I can move special commentary from any administrators regarding my work and responses posted on my regular talk page. I posted an info notice re this on my regular talk page. Peace be with you. --Dataclarifier (talk) 10:25, 6 May 2020 (EDT)

The original link I provided was altered by RobSmith. It can be accessed at Talk/Dataclarifier/Archive 01#Blocked (past tense): RobSmith and VargasMilan --Dataclarifier (talk) 07:48, 7 May 2020 (EDT)

You are spamming redundant postings again. And also spamming by creating unnecessary new subheadings. RobSLive Free or Die 13:58, 7 May 2020 (EDT)

Administrator deletion of content from a User's Own Talk page in violation of Conservapedia Guidelines

Andy see Revision history of "User talk:Dataclarifier". Without cause RobSmith has unjustifiably vandalized my own talk page, deleted material from it and sabotaged the pages I set up as stated in the posting above by changing them and deleting material there. He is violating the Guidelines. I also found that I was unable to restore the lost material from older copies of the pages. --Dataclarifier (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2020 (EDT)

What does that prove? That you added a category to your talk page 3 times and on 4th one you got a warning? Look below. Even Andy's talk page is not included in any Categories. RobSLive Free or Die 17:06, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
I didn't add the category. Until I saw your messages, I was unaware of it's presence on the page. You didn't even give me a chance to respond before you blocked me. --Dataclarifier (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
I told you to quit spamming. How did you respond? You spammed your user page. RobSLive Free or Die 17:30, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
It just occurred to me that the category appeared with my copying of the Commandments and Guidelines pages. It was not intentional. According to their content I have the freedom and right to include all decent material I choose to post. Also to remove any unwanted comments. --Dataclarifier (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
You also have the freedom and right to not edit war, troll or spam a Sysop. RobSLive Free or Die 17:41, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
The following was posted on my talk page
Dataclarifier: You have now added an unwarranted Category to your User Talk and User Talk subpages 6 times. You warned not to after the 4th effort. You have earned a 10 minute block for editwarring with a Sysop. The next block will be one hour in length. RobSLive Free or Die 17:16, 7 May 2020 (EDT)

I didn't add the Category tag. I finally found it and removed it. It turned out to be part of what I copied and posted here. --Dataclarifier (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
I have never spammed a sysop. I have not been on your talk page. --Dataclarifier (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
You're spamming right now. What you posted above is spam. You spammed at least two Sysops, Andy and myself.


Dataclarifier: I'll make a deal; Any time you commit a violation of policy, rules, or guidelines worthy of a block and I have to clean up a mess you made but I overlook the block, I'll make a notation in the editor summary Strike # with cause. Then, when you do get a block and want to come here and dispute it, we can debate it on the merits. RobSLive Free or Die 17:50, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
Every time you blocked me I have been unable to respond because you have blocked all ability to edit. So when I do get a block and want to come here and dispute it you make it impossible. --Dataclarifier (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
Go to the block tool and scroll down. The first is 10 Minutes. The 2nd 1 hour. The 3rd 2 hours and so on. Lifetime you have received 3 blocks from me, two 10 minute and one 1 hour. I wiped the slate clean and started over at 10 minutes. The next block will be one hour. RobSLive Free or Die 18:11, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
This controversy bids fair to continue interminably. I wanted to quit it long ago, but you coerced a continuation by threat of block. You've gone through with your threat by actual follow-up action numerous times, and you claimed that you were not threatening to block. It is now abundantly evident that you personally do not want me on Conservapedia. Andy does. See edits above and also on my Archive 01 page. In a week I will purge my current talk page of all your future comments. I will not get further embroiled in your time-wasting edit warring against me. I will not respond to you, from this moment on. --Dataclarifier (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
Here's the block log. I am one of the least likely Admins to issue a block, ask anybody. Any block you ever received was for a violation of site policy, and in every case it was for undoing the actions of Sysop. In every case you were warned not to. In every case, if you responded, you responded with spam. The combination of spamming and edit warring = trolling. It's a habit you've developed that I'm trying to help you overcome. RobSLive Free or Die 18:27, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
Notwithstanding what you have said: Many readers appreciate substantiating evidence or immediately accessible proof backing assertions made in response to challenges put forth to be answered. That is not spamming. They can see then for themselves the facts which provide a basis for intelligent evaluation of any debate from both sides. Would you deny them that opportunity to exercise their own opinion of whether or not the assertions of either side of a debate have merit? I question why anyone would remove such material from the reader's view. No more response. I'll just tend to my talk page and contribute what I can to the content of Conservapedia. --Dataclarifier (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
In a discussion page regarding mainspace content, your primary responsibility is to address the point under discussion with other participants in that discussion, not playing to an audience of readers. RobSLive Free or Die 23:03, 7 May 2020 (EDT)

Posting other users signatures

For months Dataclarifier has cut and pasted other users signatures to pages that other editors have not been involved in. I have respectfully asked him stop spamming and stop forging signatures. He's forged my signature to a User subpage 18 times, and when politely asked to stop, he did it again five more times. I am going to delete the spam page.

Dataclaifier: if you wish to recover the user subpage, you can ask me or another sysop to restore the page. If and when the page is restored, you have a responsibility, in a reasonable amount of time, to remove any other user's electronic signature from the page. You can leave intact a text version of the signature with date and time, but the electronic link must be removed. RobSLive Free or Die 05:30, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

Joe Biden and Liberal Double Standards

Hello Mr. Schlafly,

What do you think about creating a page titled "Joe Biden and Liberal Double Standards" to highlight liberal double standards regarding the recent sexual assault claim and other sexual harassment claims made against him?

Thank you, TheNewRight --TheNewRight (talk) 13:12, 4 May 2020 (EDT)

Great idea! Please create the new entry as you suggest.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2020 (EDT)

Locking my user page

This is not something I would usually ask, but I'd like to obtain the ability to lock and unlock my own user page as needed (per the vandalism history on my page). The reason I'm asking is because I'm getting frustrated with the continued vulgar vandalism of my page by the Juvenile Delinquent (the nickname I use for the young troll who uses sockpuppets with a variety of vulgar and foul variations of other editors' usernames to keep coming back to vandalize the site, so chosen because of his childishness, immaturity, lack of respect for authority and punkish behavior on the site) and I want to be able to lock/unlock my user page when necessary to keep the kid from constantly having his way here with his vandalism sprees. Northwest (talk) 08:21, 5 May 2020 (EDT)

That's good request, but I'm not sure the software permits it. Suggestions are welcome as to how to achieve this with WikiMedia software.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:26, 5 May 2020 (EDT)
From what I know, locking pages from editing would require either the "protect" or "Administrator" tag. --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 12:55, 5 May 2020 (EDT)
The lesser protection level, "Autoconfirmed" could be used to help reduce this, but as CP is currently configured, it seems that new users are either instantly autoconfirmed, or gain this tag very quickly. In the "local settings.php" file, the following variables can be used to configure this:
  • $wgAutoConfirmAge – Number of seconds an account is required to age before it's given the implicit 'autoconfirmed' group membership. (I suggest setting this to a fairly long time)
  • $wgAutoConfirmCount – Number of edits an account requires before it is autoconfirmed. (perhaps something like 20?)
Maybe these could be checked and perhaps adjusted, so that users are only autoconfirmed after making some number of edits? This way, we could autoprotect pages which really have no business being edited by junior editors, without causing problems for everyone else? I know it isn't exactly what is being requested here, but it might help. We could then add autoconfirm protection to Northwest's user page, so he can still edit it, but brand new user accounts cannot. --DavidB4 (TALK) 13:37, 5 May 2020 (EDT)
Going the autoconfirmed route (i.e. only being able to edit selected articles, user pages and user talk pages after a certain amount of time and edits) could do the job if it can be configured, that way it puts an end to that kid's continued nonsense (or at least slows him down enough to discourage him). Northwest (talk) 02:29, 6 May 2020 (EDT)
I'll try putting that protection level on your page with an expiration date, so we can try it. It he wants to troll you though, he will find other ways. Let me know if you want it changed or removed. --DavidB4 (TALK) 18:18, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
Maybe Andy can promote Northwest to "protect", "oversight", and "check user" abilities. That way, Northwest can edit his own user page even if it's protected, identify the IP addresses behind the vandal accounts and block the source, and even hide certain revisions from view if need be. --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 20:36, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
I just checked my user page and I'm still able to edit there, so that part's not an issue. As for a promotion to add those abilities, I think that'll be Andy's call to make. Northwest (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
About promotions, hopefully Andy might get to some of them soon. After all, I noticed that you were promoted to "edit" and "block" abilities before having made 1,000 edits, and I currently have over 2,000 edits. --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 22:10, 7 May 2020 (EDT)

Liberaltears, I set up your talk page in a way that will prevent vandalism to your talk page and I locked it.

You can see what I did at: User talk:Liberaltears.

If you didn't like what I did, you can get an admin to revert it.Conservative (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2020 (EDT)

I'm fine with what you did. Just wondering though, can you also set a protection on my main user page to "autoconfirmed"? --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 22:42, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
I just did your second request. The request about your user page.Conservative (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2020 (EDT)
Thank you Conservative! --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 21:46, 8 May 2020 (EDT)

Need help with editing

can someone help me find the confirmation number requested when editing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fremantle (talk)

Are you referring to a CAPTCHA? --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 21:57, 13 May 2020 (EDT)

Improvising a protected template

Hi Andy, I request a very specific edit to be made to Template:Infobox officeholder/Personal data, as it's protected and editing is limited to sysops. For the military service section, in the third line between {{!}} and {{!}} '''Military service''', I request colspan="2" {{WPMILHIST Infobox style|header_bar}} be replaced with !colspan="2" style="background:#E5CDFF". Thanks! --LiberaltearsJust say no to quid pro joe! | Free Roger Stone! 23:41, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

I unprotected it for you. Please edit as you think best.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:11, 17 May 2020 (EDT)
Okay, thank you Andy! --LiberaltearsJust say no to quid pro joe! | Free Roger Stone! 00:12, 17 May 2020 (EDT)

Piers Morgan vs. Dr. Fauci

Who's more believable? The Brit who lost a gun-control debate with Ben Shapiro? Or the doctor who runs our infectious disease institute? Piers Morgan cites the FDA as saying the malaria drug will kill you. Fauci's institute has just started a large clinical trial of it.

  • Some preliminary reports have suggested that hydroxychloroquine, alone or in combination with the FDA-approved antibiotic azithromycin, may benefit people with COVID-19.
  • Numerous clinical trials are planned or underway ...

I like journalism and journalists, but the fake media get get annoying from time to time. --Ed Poor Talk 12:17, 19 May 2020 (EDT)

Captcha

Can you remove the captcha from my account. User: Conservative requested that I ask you to do so for my account. Ethan Parmet (talk) 11:34, 27 May 2020 (EDT)

Please review

Your edit is incorrect - please review the article more closely as the mayors themselves say they got it wrong. JohnSelway (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2020 (EDT)

Oh. So they went out and arrested a few locals after they rounded up the prime movers. In real time, the reporting is accurate. RobSLive Free or Die 02:00, 31 May 2020 (EDT)
The edit is incorrect - as per the mayors stating as such. There not much to it. The article explicitly states that they mayors retracted their statements JohnSelway (talk) 02:04, 31 May 2020 (EDT)
Also Fox News confirms it. Edit to Conservapedia proven right should be reverted. JohnSelway (talk) 02:46, 31 May 2020 (EDT)
You're peeing in the wind, my friend. Bill Barr says it's true "in many places". RobSLive Free or Die 03:35, 31 May 2020 (EDT)
Your argument is a bogus as it gets. You're disputing the difference between "some" and "all" as the mayor initially said. "Some" doesn't make the statement any less true. Nowhere does he say "none". RobSLive Free or Die 03:41, 31 May 2020 (EDT)
I'm reminded how after a source for the Steele dossier told the FBI he lied to Steele, McCabe and Strzok told the court they interviewed the source and he apparently was telling the truth. So let's imagine for a moment a Democrat mayor releases an out-of-state terrorist for fear of catching Covid 19 in jail, then tells the press "we have no out-of-state rioters in custody", is he lying? You think this sounds far-fetched and crazy? You, in New Zealand, don't know these scum-sucking Democrat bosses, how they operate, or why they do the things they do. RobSLive Free or Die 03:49, 31 May 2020 (EDT)
And as to your Fox News source, just what the heck is this?
  • many of the more serious protesters are far-left or anarchists, without a significant appearance yet by far-right groups
"Yet." You call that news reporting? predicting the news? What happens when yet never happens? they gonna manufacture a "far-right group" to fulfill law enforcement and journalists' prophecy? RobSLive Free or Die 04:06, 31 May 2020 (EDT)

Userbox template creation request

Hi Andy, I request permission to create a userbox template titled "Template:Userbox-4" (as similar to Template:Userbox-2) to specifically be used for any userbox with four included images (two on each side). Thanks! --LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 23:48, 12 June 2020 (EDT)

Permission granted! Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2020 (EDT)
Thank you Andy! It will take some time, observing of other templates' source codes, critical thinking, and I'll aim at getting it done tomorrow! --LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 00:34, 13 June 2020 (EDT)
Wonderful!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2020 (EDT)
Alright, so I was able to create the template (here) with all the functions set properly, although I couldn't figure out a way to set a spacing between the 1a and 1b images and between the 2a and 2b images. However, it's not a big issue, as I currently only could think of this userbox to create and the outer spacing between the images and borders for it don't seem to be a huge problem. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 22:48, 13 June 2020 (EDT)
It looks fabulous. Well done!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2020 (EDT)
Thank you Andy! —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 12:25, 14 June 2020 (EDT)

Minor request regarding MPR

Hi Andy, I saw your MPR post and the graph included. Can you increase the size of the image by roughly ×1.6 so that viewers won't have to squint to see the text? Thanks! —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 00:08, 27 June 2020 (EDT)

Done as requested! Of course, any viewer could also simply click on or expand the chart to view in larger print.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:37, 27 June 2020 (EDT)
Thank you Andy! —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 11:43, 27 June 2020 (EDT)

Promote to SkipCaptcha for BernieandTrumpFan and TheAntiWikipedian?

Hi Andy, I request that BernieandTrumpFan and TheAntiWikipedian be promoted to SkipCaptcha tags for their good faith contributions to Conservapedia. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 18:49, 29 June 2020 (EDT)

Thanks for the suggestions! I'm reviewing some of their edits.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2020 (EDT)

Google can be changed

Not to boast, but I changed google.com so that when you enter the search terms "north korea last icbm test" it actually returns the bit I put in, at Wikipedia:

  • It has been 3 years since North Korea's last ICBM test.

Actually, they have a "years and months" template, so it's more precise. (Okay, I'm boasting a little bit. :-) --Ed Poor Talk 20:18, 2 July 2020 (EDT)

Wow, Ed, that's an impressive observation and use of a Wiki template!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:34, 2 July 2020 (EDT)

Page creation on Hydroxychloroquine denial

Hi Andy, what do you think about this page I created earlier today? Do you think there were any major details I forgot to add? Thanks! —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 23:23, 8 July 2020 (EDT)

Great idea. I'll add to it as I think of more.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2020 (EDT)
Awesome! And from what I've heard that could be very important info to add, there are probably a few more Democrat governors who had restricted access to or banned HCQ (because "orange man bad"), and the subject covered in this article by the Gateway Pundit also seems like something I could do some research on. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 21:21, 9 July 2020 (EDT)

Hi Andy. Is it possible to have rights for "night time?"

Hi Andy. I'm Nishant Xavier, a Catholic Christian Conservapedia Contributor. I write for OnePeterFive. For Conservapedia, I've written and contributed to articles from the Gospel of St. Matthew to the Augustinian Hypothesis through Messianic Prophesies to Josephus on Jesus and some political contributions like Conservapedia's unofficial predictions state-by-state for the November 2020 U.S. Presidential election based on polling. Since I'm a user from India, often it happens that the time when I would be free to contribute (1 PM to 8:30 PM my time) is the time when Conservapedia is locked for me. Is there any possible workaround this one thing alone? If I was able to contribute even in half the blocked time, I'm sure I would be able to double my productivity on the whole. It's a little difficult with it in place. But I understand if, because of vandalism, it has to remain so.

Please let me know. May Our Lord Jesus bless you.

Blessings, Nishant X.NishantXavierFor Christ the King

Hi NishantXavier, I believe you're referring to "edit" rights. If Andy sees this post, then I also hope I can be promoted with the "edit" tag as well. —Liberaltears

May Dataclarifier be well! 11:55, 9 July 2020 (EDT)

A while ago, I asked Andy about user rights here, but got no response. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 11:59, 9 July 2020 (EDT)
Both accounts were just promoted. Sorry for the oversight in not noticing your earlier request for this, Liberaltears!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2020 (EDT)
I've inquired more than once and been totally ignored every time. Shobson20 (talk) 02:17, 10 July 2020 (EDT)
Hi Shobson20, I do hope that Andy can promote you to "edit" rights sometime soon. You are fortunate to have "Block" abilities though, and were promoted to such around a year after you had created your account, similar to how my promotion yesterday iss around a year after when I had created mine. If it helps, I would personally think about how more great content can be added to CP here, contribute what you can, consider whether it's enough for promotion to a certain tag, and inquire if need be. You did seem to block over 100 trolls, which proves you're a very faithful, trustworthy editor here! —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 10:59, 10 July 2020 (EDT)
I had to be a squeaky wheel just to get block rights. Now I think Andy is intentionally playing favorties, he shows that he cares more about you than me. Andy, you're STILL ignoring me. Shobson20 (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2020 (EDT)
I'm all for opening up the wiki, but I've also seen people block 20 of their own sockpuppet accounts trying to earn brownie points, so I'm not sure how effective that sort of merit system is. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 12:23, 10 July 2020 (EDT)
If you want to talk merits, notice that NishantXavier has been promoted to edit after being here for less than a year, whereas I've been around since December of 2017, Made several essays to promote conservatism and Christianity, made contributions to the existing essays, and blocked many trolls who are definitely not me. I've inquired to Andy about edit right multiple times, have been completely ignored each time, and am STILL being ignored NOW. By contrast, NishantXavier inquires ONCE and gets promoted IMMEDIATELY. From a simple analytical standpoint, this is evidence that Andy is playing favorites. I used to think that maybe he was too busy to notice, but now I think he's deliberately treating others better than me. Shobson20 (talk) 12:35, 10 July 2020 (EDT)
I don't know if this would be helpful, Shobson20, but I whenever in the last few months when I had hoped for a promotion, it would help that I found a good page to create or update. Maybe you could start an essay, or create pages for some conservative pundits/commentators like Katie Pavlich, Liz Wheeler, etc.? —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 12:34, 10 July 2020 (EDT)
I don't know what the backstory is there. There evidently is mistrust between Andy and Shobson. I may have been inactive at that time. Let me point out, Shobson could've abandoned his account and created a sock account to smooth over a misunderstanding. His treatment, as he explains it, can create the impression of unfairness and actually encourage sockpuppetry. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 14:22, 10 July 2020 (EDT)
Just added edit privileges to Shobson20's account. Not sure what the holdup was due to. It was not intentional.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2020 (EDT)
I'm grateful for your action, and despite what LiberalTears may say, I'm not holding a grudge. I'll be perfectly willing to put this behind me if he'll stop bringing it up. Shobson20 (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2020 (EDT)
Thank you very much, Andy! —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 21:10, 9 July 2020 (EDT)

Yes, thanks so much, Andy! Thanks also for all your efforts through the years in making the Conservapedia the great Encyclopedia that it is. I'm sure as we all work together, CP will scale even greater heights in the years to come! Thanks and God Bless, Nishant X. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 01:37, 10 July 2020 (EDT)

Hope everyone is happy now. Let's all work together to make Conservapedia the hottest and most happening place on the internet in the next decade. Beating Wikipedia at its own game has to be the aim; it won't be easy, but it can be done. Above all, we have to attract many many more to our site. In the meanwhile, let us ask not what Conservapedia can do for us, but what we can do for Conservapedia! It's up to all of us to make this place greater still. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 01:22, 11 July 2020 (EDT)

Well said! Thank you.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2020 (EDT)

Project 100 Million

Hi Andy. One other thing. When I read Network211's Project 100 Million, I thought of a similar project for CP: ""Network211 indicates that as of September 2019, over 37,000,000 web visits have occured on their websites.[3] Network211 works with many Christians/churches throughout the world.

Network211 currently has a project called Project 100Million.

Project 100Million is an evangelism and discipleship ministry of Network211. Their goal is to reach 100,000,000 people worldwide with the Gospel online." https://www.conservapedia.com/Network211" I was thinking, couldn't Conservapedia have a similar 150 million people project right here? We have more hits on this site than they do on theirs; it would be a great way to get people involved; people from around the world could sign up and post their testimony on the project page; it would be a way we could help fulfil the Great Commission. What do you think of such a project? Shall I go ahead with starting a CP project page for it? NishantXavierFor Christ the King 23:02, 12 July 2020 (EDT)

Fascinating suggestion! Please start an entry here and let's see how it unfolds.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2020 (EDT)

Wow, Andy! So encouraged by your incredible enthusiasm. Wonderful. Just as you say, I will start the page on CP soon. I hope to have a plan like 15 by 2021, 150 by 2023, 1500 by 2025 etc culminating in 150 million by 2035. Many say that over the next 10 to 15 years, Internet Evangelism will be the most successful form of evangelism. Anyway, I'm very excited and can't wait to get started! May Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ mightily use this project for His Glory! At His leading, let us prayerfully see how we are to go about it. Lord Bless. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 00:31, 13 July 2020 (EDT)

Project Page Created

Hi Andy. Project page created: https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:150_Million_Souls_for_Christ_the_King Please review. Thanks again for your edifying enthusiasm on this. I created the page, added a plan, some statistics, and gave my own testimony. I encouraged others to sign up and share their testimony for Christ, or urge their friends to do the same. Please let me know for any more ideas/material to add to the ongoing project in time. God Bless. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 16:06, 14 July 2020 (EDT)

CP's clock isn't set right

I'm putting this in at 8:08 PM Central Time US/Canada. Shobson20 (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2020 (EDT)

Promote Mr. Nationalist to SkipCaptcha?

Hi Andy, can you consider promoting Mr. Nationalist to a SkipCaptcha tag, seeing that he's made some helpful copyedits on Conservapedia pages? Thanks! —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Thursday, 02:25, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

Promotions?

Hi Andy, I have several requests regarding user rights. Firstly, as previously mentioned here, did you ever thoroughly look through the contributions of BernieandTrumpFan and TheAntiWikipedian? Since you had promoted me and other users to SkipCaptcha before making many significant contributions, I think that these two users have shown the merit worthy of getting the tag. Also, can you please consider promoting BHathorn? According to here, he has made over 35,000 edits, nearly all of which are mainspace contributions. And finally, do you suppose I can get a "Block" and/or "Upload" tag? In regards to "Block" abilities, there were many times I was vigilant against vandals but couldn't block them. Also, I'm currently going to focus strongly on the 2020 congressional races, and with many images I want to add (a long list here), CP:IUR tends to be a very slow process. Thank you once again! —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Tuesday, 00:27, 4 August 2020 (EDT)

Can you consider granting BHathorn "move" privileges? I noticed several of his page creations to have encoded invisible characters in the URLs, and given several of his previous move requests on CP:IUR, I think it would be great if he's able to move page titles himself whenever he feels the need to. Thanks! —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Wednesday, 18:04, 5 August 2020 (EDT)

Hi again Andy, did you see this message earlier? I apologize if I sound too repetitive, though I just want to note that I spend around several hours every day adding important updates to CP pages right now, and at least getting upload rights would be much appreciated so that I can improvise a large number of pages. Thank you! —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Sunday, 18:15, 9 August 2020 (EDT)

"500 Internal Server Error" over and over again

This site works for about 5 minutes and then shows "500 Internal Server Error" for over an hour. Shobson20 (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2020 (EDT)

Tell me about it! I was trying to work on this page specifically with the table I added to the right of TOC; when I had started editing, the server was functioning fine. A few minutes later, the 500 ISE issue popped up. I probably had spent the next hour adding on to the table, and knew I was spending too much time at once looking at my computer screen. I really had wanted to take a break, but leaving would result in my work lost. I then kind of accidentally pressed the x-button on the tab, and unlike when the server functions normally, there was no warning pop-up, so all my progress got lost. I'll probably get back to that tomorrow, seeing the server errors as a real pain to deal with when trying to make large edits. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Friday, 20:54, 6 August 2020 (EDT)
Something else I noticed: CP pages don't appear to load normally; random boxes and cells pop up and quickly disappear in the process sometimes. Scrolling to the bottom of pages doesn't immediately take one to the bottom, and it takes a second or two to load properly. And I think these types of server problems may also be occurring on other wiki sites as well. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Friday, 21:01, 6 August 2020 (EDT)
I just had the same thing happen to me a few minutes ago while trying to look through some of the articles I edit. Note that it never seems to happen to Wikipedia or other wikis, which leads me to one conclusion, in four letters: D-D-O-S. Northwest (talk) 03:53, 7 August 2020 (EDT)
Actually, I saw a similar case happen to Wikipedia. When reading an article there with a giant chart, the loading was odd, just as the loading had been on Conservapedia here yesterday for a while. Maybe it's because the CCP and its cronies are probably boiling over of how truthful we are. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Friday, 13:58, 7 August 2020 (EDT)

Delete request

Hi Andy, it's not urgent, but when you get some free time, would you please delete this page? I'm not allowed to delete it, since there have been more than 25 edits to that page. We want it removed becuase the name included some blank (probably unicode) trailing characters in it. Thanks! --DavidB4 (TALK) 23:47, 8 August 2020 (EDT)

Done as requested!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2020 (EDT)
Thank you! --DavidB4 (TALK) 18:00, 9 August 2020 (EDT)

Byzantine Empire

Could you restore Byzantine Empire? It has reverted to August 14 version again. PeterKa (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2020 (EDT)

Restored! Sorry about the disruption.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2020 (EDT)
Hi Andy, can you see if you can restore my contributions as well? This includes the ones you restored around two days ago, which are now gone. Thanks! —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Wednesday, 14:31, 19 August 2020 (EDT)
Hi Andy, if you could restore mine as well that would be appreciated. Thank you. -Teakin88
Added back all of Teakin88's missing edits from the old site. The only transition edit not yet replaced by Teakin88 is a small one to Battle of Tannenberg. Can you redo that one, Teakin88? Thanks and sorry again for the disruption.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2020 (EDT)
Restored Liberaltears' edits from the old site also, as best I could tell (one or two entries had already been updated recently here and I did not overwrite those). Sorry and thanks again.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:12, 21 August 2020 (EDT)
Thank you Andy for restoring what you can! I remember most of the other contributions to have been relatively minor ones, as it's mainly the edits to the 2020 U.S. House elections page and the page creations on Jon Ossoff and Barbara Comstock that were quite time-consuming. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Friday, 00:25, 21 August 2020 (EDT)
Your full list - please tell me if you'd like me to copy anything else over:


* 23:09, 16 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+4)‎ . . m Ayanna Pressley ‎ (wikify, capitalization) (current) * 21:02, 16 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+332)‎ . . Jon Ossoff ‎ (→‎2020 U.S. Senate election in Georgia: added a detail) (current) * 20:23, 16 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+632)‎ . . Jon Ossoff ‎ (→‎2020 U.S. Senate election in Georgia: added a detail) * 20:21, 16 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+506)‎ . . Jon Ossoff ‎ (added a detail) * 20:10, 16 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+4)‎ . . m Jon Ossoff ‎ (→‎2020 U.S. Senate election in Georgia: wikify) * 20:10, 16 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+345)‎ . . Jon Ossoff ‎ (→‎2020 U.S. Senate election in Georgia: added a detail) * 19:28, 16 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+33)‎ . . m Jon Ossoff ‎ (→‎2017 special election: wording, specification) * 19:26, 16 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+4)‎ . . m Jon Ossoff ‎ (→‎2017 special election: wording) * 19:26, 16 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+291)‎ . . m Jon Ossoff ‎ (add specification) * 19:23, 16 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+14)‎ . . m Jon Ossoff ‎ (→‎2020 U.S. Senate election in Georgia: wording) * 19:23, 16 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+572)‎ . . Jon Ossoff ‎ (→‎2020 U.S. Senate election in Georgia: added a detail) * 19:18, 16 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+37)‎ . . User:Liberaltears/Images to request for uploading ‎ (current) * 19:18, 16 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+19)‎ . . Template:Democrat establishment ‎ (added Jon Ossoff to the list) (current) * 19:17, 16 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+19)‎ . . Jonathon Ossoff ‎ (added {{Delete Notice}} - page title is a typo) (current) * 19:16, 16 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+24)‎ . . New! Thomas Jonathan Ossoff ‎ (Redirected page to Jon Ossoff) (current) * 19:15, 16 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+24)‎ . . New! Jonathan Ossoff ‎ (Redirected page to Jon Ossoff) (current) * 19:15, 16 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m Jon Ossoff ‎ (fixed typo) * 19:14, 16 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+24)‎ . . New! Thomas Ossoff ‎ (Redirected page to Jon Ossoff) (current) * 19:14, 16 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+24)‎ . . New! Jonathon Ossoff ‎ (Redirected page to Jon Ossoff) * 19:11, 16 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+4,035)‎ . . New! Jon Ossoff ‎ (Created page with "{{Infobox officeholder |name=Jon Ossoff |image= |birth_date=February 16, 1987 |birth_place=Atlanta |party=Democrat |spouse=Alisha Kramer |alma_mater=Georgetown Unive...") * 12:25, 16 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+22)‎ . . Gay pride ‎ (Since the top of the page says the term is an oxymoron, I don't see why we should remove the category link.) (current) * 12:22, 16 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+95)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎MD-5th district: added an image) (current) * 11:38, 16 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+119)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎ME-2nd district: added image) * 11:37, 16 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+1)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎Kentucky: ditto, move image) * 11:36, 16 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+98)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎KY-4th district: adjust image size) * 11:34, 16 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+4)‎ . . m United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎IN-8th district: wikify) * 11:32, 16 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+12,645)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (More updates!) * 22:48, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+4)‎ . . m Al Green ‎ (→‎Quotes: italicize) (current) * 22:46, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎California: ditto) <nowiki>22:43, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎CA-27th district: ditto) 22:43, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎Colorado: move image, adjust size) 22:36, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+122)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎TX-24th district (open): added image) 22:34, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+4)‎ . . m United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎TX-24 Republican primary: wikify) 22:33, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+87)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎TX-7th district: added image) 22:32, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎Texas: ditto) 22:32, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+1)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎Texas: move image, adjust size) 22:31, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+84)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎TX-2nd district: added image) 22:29, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+51)‎ . . Template:Democrat establishment ‎ (added a category link) 22:29, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+51)‎ . . Template:Republican establishment ‎ (added a category link) (current) 21:55, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+27)‎ . . William Marcy Tweed ‎ (added {{Democrat establishment}}) (current) 21:55, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+27)‎ . . Lyndon B. Johnson ‎ (added {{Democrat establishment}}) (current) 21:54, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+219)‎ . . Template:Democrat establishment ‎ (added a section on historical figures (start)) 21:48, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+57)‎ . . Establishment ‎ (added two templates) (current) 21:39, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+1)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎Oregon: ditto, move image) 21:39, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎Oregon: adjust image size) 21:38, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+80)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎OR-4th district: added image) 21:36, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+121)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎NC-11th district (open): added image) 21:34, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎New Mexico: ditto) 21:34, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎New Mexico: adjust image size) 21:33, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+80)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎NM-3rd district (open): added image) 21:31, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎New Mexico: adjust image size) 21:31, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+133)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎NM-2nd district: added image) 21:01, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+8)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎MI-13th district: replace/move image) 20:58, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+147)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎MI-8th district: added image) 20:56, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎California: ditto) 20:55, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎California: move image, adjust size) 20:54, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (-1)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎Illinois: move image) 20:53, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+10)‎ . . m United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎IA-4th district: specification) 20:52, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎Iowa: adjust image sizes) 20:50, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+93)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎IA-4th district: added image) 20:49, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+104)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎Iowa: added image) 20:47, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎Iowa: move image) 20:46, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+86)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎IA-2nd district (open): added image) 20:46, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+23)‎ . . m United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎Iowa: specification) 20:45, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+1)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎Iowa: ditto, move image) 20:44, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎Iowa: adjust image size) 20:44, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+86)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎IA-1st district: added image) 20:42, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+109)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎IL-3rd district: added image) 20:39, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+4)‎ . . m United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎CA-48th district: wording) 20:38, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎California: ditto) 20:37, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎CA-33rd district: move image, adjust size) 20:36, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎Hawaii: adjust image size) 20:35, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+77)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎HA-2nd district (open): added image) 20:34, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎Georgia: ditto) 20:33, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎Georgia: ditto) 20:05, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎Georgia: ditto) 20:05, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎Georgia: adjust image size) 20:04, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+107)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎GA-9th district (open): added image) 20:03, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+114)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎GA-6th district: added image) 20:02, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (-5)‎ . . Lucy McBath ‎ (whoops!) (current) 20:02, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+55)‎ . . Lucy McBath ‎ (added image) 20:01, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎Georgia: ditto) 20:00, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎Georgia: adjust image size) 19:59, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+87)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎GA-5th district: added image) 19:57, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+84)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎CT-3rd district: added image) 19:55, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎Colorado: move image, adjust size) 19:54, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+129)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎CO-4th district: added image) 19:52, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎Colorado: move image) 19:51, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎Arizona: adjust image size) 19:50, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+97)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎AZ-6th district: added image) 19:49, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎Arizona: adjust image size) 19:48, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+120)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎AZ-4th district: added image) 19:47, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎Arizona: adjust image size) 19:47, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+95)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎AZ-2nd district: added an image) 19:44, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎Alabama: ditto) 19:43, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎Alabama: adjust image size) 19:42, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (-1)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎Alabama: move image) 19:41, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+72)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (→‎AL-2nd district (open): added image) 19:39, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+15,163)‎ . . United States House of Representatives elections, 2020 ‎ (added updates) 11:56, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+1,252)‎ . . Mike Coffman ‎ (added a detail, category links) (current) 11:16, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+23)‎ . . m User:Liberaltears/Images to request for uploading ‎ 11:14, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+14)‎ . . m Barbara Comstock ‎ (→‎2016 election: wording) (current) 11:12, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+365)‎ . . Barbara Comstock ‎ (→‎2016 election: wording, added detail) 11:00, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+976)‎ . . User talk:Dataclarifier ‎ (→‎Note: new section) (current) 09:27, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+404)‎ . . Nickey J. Monica ‎ (added move request (see here)) (current) 01:38, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+9)‎ . . m Barbara Comstock ‎ (→‎Trump era: specification) 01:36, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+9)‎ . . m Barbara Comstock ‎ (ditto) 01:36, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+7)‎ . . m Barbara Comstock ‎ (wording) 01:35, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m Barbara Comstock ‎ (→‎Trump era: wording) 01:34, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+4)‎ . . m Barbara Comstock ‎ (→‎Trump era: wikify) 01:33, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (-8)‎ . . m Barbara Comstock ‎ (→‎2018 election) 01:32, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+12)‎ . . m Barbara Comstock ‎ (→‎2018 election: wikify, wording) 01:30, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+30)‎ . . New! Barbara Jean Comstock ‎ (Redirected page to Barbara Comstock) (current) 01:30, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+30)‎ . . New! Barbara J. Comstock ‎ (Redirected page to Barbara Comstock) (current) 01:29, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . Barbara Comstock ‎ (→‎2018 election: copyedit) 01:29, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (-8)‎ . . Barbara Comstock ‎ (→‎Trump era: dewikify) 01:27, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+15)‎ . . Barbara Comstock ‎ (→‎Obama era: wording) 01:26, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+11)‎ . . m Barbara Comstock ‎ (→‎Virginia House of Delegates: wording) 01:23, 15 August 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+12,602)‎ . . New! Barbara Comstock ‎ (Created page with "{{Officeholder |name=Barbara Comstock |image= |party=Republican |spouse=Chip Comstock |religion=Roman Catholic<ref>[https://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/s...")

"Block" and "rollback" abilities?

--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2020 (EDT) Hi Andy, can you consider granting me "Block" and "rollback" abilities sometime soon? Sometimes I'm quick to revert vandalism before other editors with "Block" abilities halt the moronic liberal idiocy, though I can't block the trolls from continuously causing trouble; as of right now while typing this, there's this troll that needs to be blocked. Also, rollback abilities will make it much quicker and easier to revert vandalism. Thank you! —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Thursday, 21:24, 19 August 2020 (EDT)

Never mind about the dimwitted troll I mentioned, Shobson20 ban-hammered the idiot. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Thursday, 21:26, 19 August 2020 (EDT)
I don't have rollback abilities either, but its simple to rollback revisions by selecting the revision you want to rollback to, selecting "compare selected revisions" and then hit "undo." Shobson20 (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2020 (EDT)
From my general understanding with how rollback abilities may work despite not know how they precisely show up here on CP, links may appear on user contribution pages for current edits such that, when clicked, all the immediate edits on that page made that user gets reverted. If this is the case, then one with "rollback" abilities can simply go on the Special:Contributions page of a vandal and right-click all the rollback links to open them in new tabs so that vandalism can very quickly be reverted. While I don't have the tag to be absolutely sure yet, my supposition comes from having "rollback" abilities on the sewer rat site after getting autoconfirmed status there; the reason I had registered an account that wiki initially (and only very hesitantly) was so I could talk to RobSmith there. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Thursday, 21:39, 19 August 2020 (EDT)
Notwithstanding the talk over user rights, thank you very much Shobson20 for blocking the idiotic dimwit! —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Thursday, 21:43, 19 August 2020 (EDT)
You do well in catching those trolls, but I still remember how you complained to Andy and other admins about me, Rob, Conservative, and VargasMilan trying to claim that we were "bullying" Catholics, and it makes me uncomfortable with the thought of you as a moderator. In the end, we all did what Conservative suggested and moved the discussion to organized debate pages and removed all the back and forth nonsense. The Purgatory debate now has over 15,000 views! We have settled all the conflict and hostility. By the way, I've been wanting outside contributors to the essays that I've created. You don't have to like me to contribute. Have you noticed how many times you had to send a message to Andy, and how long it took for him to finally respond? Now maybe you'll begin to understand how I felt. Shobson20 (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2020 (EDT)
Do yo have link to those Essays? I'll take a gander. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 22:21, 20 August 2020 (EDT)
They are all linked on my user page. Shobson20 (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2020 (EDT)
Is there any other reason you'd be uncomfortable with me having "Block" abilities aside from the Catholic/etc. disputes? You got those rights before reaching 1,000 edits, and I have made nearly 5,000 edits (I currently have 4,813, though around 100 edits disappeared with the server/database errors). Also, if you want others to contribute to your essays, I'll see if there's anything good to add. I'm also thinking about creating an essay titled along the lines of "Essay:Worst Liberal Quotes", with this being a nice start. If you're interested, you can create the essay, as I'll be heavily focused on the 2020 congressional races. And about not getting replies as quick as I may like, I've been used to that for months here on CP, and while I may get disappointed over those types of situations, I always remember that my main objective here is to contribute what I can to the mainspace. Lastly, can you please examine this page? This edit seems to be a case of trolling, but I'm not 100% sure what revision I ought to restore the page to. I unfortunately don't have the best judgment for every single situation. Thank you! —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Friday, 20:32, 20 August 2020 (EDT)
For an essay about Liberal craziness, you might want to look at this one or this one. Shobson20 (talk) 21:12, 20 August 2020 (EDT)
I was thinking about a specific essay listing moronic quotes by liberals. Do we already have a page for that? —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Friday, 21:30, 20 August 2020 (EDT)
Great idea! But beware of fake news about that and please be sure to have a quality citation for each quote attributed to someone. I can add to the entry too!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:19, 20 August 2020 (EDT)
Alright, I just created the page here and made sure to use video references. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Friday, 23:30, 20 August 2020 (EDT)

Catching up on a lot of "todos" right now. Thanks for your suggestions!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2020 (EDT)

Quick question

Hi Andy, I'm just curious about the way CP's set up, do we have a username blacklist log? Thanks! —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Friday, 19:20, 21 August 2020 (EDT)

We do, not sure at this point exactly what its name is.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2020 (EDT)
Oh, okay. Also, I know this is out of topic, but why did you rollback my edits here? All I did for the latter was add an officeholder template, a "References" section, and a few category links. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Saturday, 20:10, 21 August 2020 (EDT)
My rollbacks are sometimes mistakes, the result of a touch-screen error. That rollback was a mistake, sorry! I rarely rollback any edits except by new vandals.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2020 (EDT)
Okay, I think I see what you mean about that. Thank you very much for replying about it, I was initially worried that I may have done something wrong! —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Saturday, 22:30, 21 August 2020 (EDT)

Suggestion

Hi, can you make a page debunking this claim https://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/agitation/blackbook/blackb.html. Basically saying that Mark Kramer admitted to errors in the Black Book of Communism

I am not familiar with those facts, but feel free to create a new entry that is factual! New entries are created by typing in the entry name to see if it already exists and, if not, then clicking on the link (usually red) to start typing text for the entry. The save page key is near the bottom. Welcome!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
I will do my best but I am having problems debunking it currently. If anyone else is seeing this and wants to take a stab at it go ahead. Have a nice day - Oofiss

Updated Links: https://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/bookstore/commie.html https://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/agitation/blackbook/index.html

"Popular article" suggestion

Can I get Byzantine Empire recognized as one of the "Popular articles at Conservapedia"? I recently added a section about how classical learning was preserved through the Dark Ages. PeterKa (talk) 07:07, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

LT

I'd like to nominate User:Liberaltears for promotion to Block and/or Upload rights. He's a valuable footsoldier in the chaotic days ahead. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 20:31, 31 August 2020 (EDT)

Promoted with respect to blocking rights. Need to chat with him more about uploading restrictions before granting that, and see what he has in mind. Maybe you can direct him here for a discussion. Thanks!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2020 (EDT)
Thank you very much, Andy and RobSmith! —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Tuesday, 20:53, 31 August 2020 (EDT)
By the way, what was it you wanted to discuss with me about specifically, Andy? —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Tuesday, 00:15, 1 September 2020 (EDT)
You need to understand the appropriate rules for upload rights. Assign proper accreditation, avoiding copyright infringement, categorization, etc. Tell me what you know about what copyright materials we can use and cannot use. RobSTrump 2Q2Q
So from my understanding, all public domain images can be uploaded to CP, as well as all files on Wikimedia Commons. All images on Flickr that are released under a Creative Commons license can be uploaded as well, with specific restrictions applied based on the details that vary (i.e. cropping, etc.). Beyond that, fair use images can sometimes be uploaded from certain sources if there are no specifications against re-using them, and such sources include Ballotpedia. Images that can't be uploaded include those from the AP, and any source that specifies not allowing for re-using of files. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Tuesday, 00:47, 1 September 2020 (EDT)
That's pretty good. Getty Images, too should not be uploaded. While it's not always possible to dig into the terms of use, always always always link to the source so we give proper accreditation. In fact, you may even want to include that accreditation in the thumb text visible on the page for either sources you wish to help promote, or if the source specifically asks for it, or in some cases if your not quite sure if usage is allowed. If you upload content you created, like a picture you yourself took, make sure you credit yourself as the source if a link is not possible.
Also, categorization. All uploads must be categorized. I find it useful to add to more than one category, or as many as possible for trying to locate the image later among the 30,000 or so already uploaded. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 00:59, 1 September 2020 (EDT)
Oh, alright then. By the way, I'm just wondering, can cropped screenshots be uploaded? That would be very useful for catching extremist activities on far-left groups like Occupy Democrats and the "Lincoln" Project. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Tuesday, 01:04, 1 September 2020 (EDT)
I do it all the time just for space saving and focusing the reader. I'm sure some content providers might not like that, but if they have objections to it they usually spell it out pretty boldly. But this is rare.
Additionally, images can become orphaned if you put it on just one page; that's one reason I use multiple categories. Orphaned images can be extremely hard to locate. Orphaned images also take up extra space on the server and I'm told they do have an impact on lowering Google rankings. also. months or years later you may want to use an image you uploaded, but forgot on what page you put it. Categories will help find it. For example, Category:Democrats is catch-all category for hundreds of my imgs, but it narrows the search for trying to find the same image later. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 01:12, 1 September 2020 (EDT)
One other thing: sometimes terms of use are extremely complicated and ambiguous, and even run to several pages; when that happens and your still not sure whether you can use it or not (Remember, we're not using it for commercial use), just include "Used with permission" in the upload box to signal you at least tried to read the terms and maybe misunderstood in good faith. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 01:28, 1 September 2020 (EDT)
Okay, thank you RobSmith! —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Tuesday, 01:30, 1 September 2020 (EDT)
Don't rely on fair use. Start slowly, just posting one or two a day until there is time review. User:DavidB4 is exemplary in his uploads and his style can be followed, such as File:Luc Robitaille.jpg. Will grant you uploading privileges now. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2020 (EDT)
Thank you very much, Andy! —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Tuesday, 15:17, 1 September 2020 (EDT)
By the way, I just tried uploading a file and nothing happened; after following through the procedure and clicking the "Upload" button, I got the same screen but without the information filled in, and nothing showed up for Special:RecentChanges. Did I do something wrong? —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Tuesday, 15:33, 1 September 2020 (EDT)
Never mind, I seem to have understood how the uploading process works. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Tuesday, 16:13, 1 September 2020 (EDT)

ACORN

Thank you for Conservapedia. The Template:Communism contains two list of organizations -- current organizations and defunct organizations. I moved ACORN from the current list to the defunct list, and you moved it back. I find this a bit puzzling -- why have two different lists if we are not gone to move organizations to the defunct list when they die? Would not a measure of Conservapedia's success be documenting a day when the list of defunct organizations grows long and the list of current organizations grows short? FirstAmendment (talk) 13:34, 7 September 2020 (EDT)

Actually, only the name ACORN is defunct, not the organization. It just changed it's name. That's why moving it to defunct may not be the best solution. RobSFree Kyle! 13:37, 7 September 2020 (EDT)
I did not know that. The article said that it was defunct. Organizations morph all the time. For example, in 2008 the Obama campaign was called "Obama for America" and then it was followed by a series of other organizations having the OFA acronym. It is currently called "Organizing for Action." Legally they were separate groups. What criteria should we use for a defunct organization? If "Organization X of Nevada" renames itself "Las Vegas Chapter of Organization X", but everyone still calls it "OXN" I suppose keeping OXN on the list would be best. But if an organization says, "please stop the legal challenges because we quit." it may be best to declare victory, move the organization to the defunct list and write new articles on the reincarnations. Thought and guidance would be appreciated. FirstAmendment (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2020 (EDT)
I didn't realize that you had merely moved it to a different category. I thought it had been deleted and I felt that even if it no longer exists (which some would dispute), it should be there for historical reasons. Please feel free to reinstate your change as you think best. Thanks and sorry for the misunderstanding.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2020 (EDT)
It's basically the same "community organizers" behind all these organizations. Sometimes an organization has name just for one election cycle, like "Stop Preposition 8". For the next cycle the same people create a new organization with a new name.
Keeping up with this stuff is a full time job, and someday I may have to write an article or essay on how to do it. You have to identify the key "organizers" in each city, of which there may only be 1, 2 or 3. Then there's much overlap, 1 organizer can sit on the board of several sub groups, like a protest group made up members of a black church, a student organization, and labor union at the same time *each maybe having its own name or identity). Than those local leaders coordinate across state lines with other groups. A good example is the group in St. Louise that walked across the McCroskey's lawn. It was already highly organized in St. Louis under some other name, but then became affiliated with the Black Lives Matter movement as the local chapter. It didn't officially change its name, but it did use the Black Lives Matter name to recruit new members locally. RobSFree Kyle! 00:35, 8 September 2020 (EDT)


I think the solution is to leave ACORN among the active groups, and spell out in the opening sentence of the ACORN article that name has been changed; the problem is that it has over 50 names in 50 states now. However, there still must be some umbrella organization over the 50 state offices. RobSFree Kyle! 15:24, 7 September 2020 (EDT)
Thank you for your response. It seems to me that if there is "some umbrella organization" there must be FEC or IRS filings. Given ACORN's legal problems, I would be very surprised if any umbrella organization remains. ACORN played a very visable role in 2008 voter registration efforts. Neither ACORN nor any successor is filling that role in 2020. FirstAmendment (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2020 (EDT)
Not all offices are locally funded; many if not most rely on out of state funding for overhead and payroll. RobSFree Kyle! 00:21, 8 September 2020 (EDT)
ACORN has people who travel the country. For example, a professional organizer shows up at an office a few months before a school board election, hires people to register voters, knock on doors, pass out leaflets, sign petitions, and on election day GOTV. The next day, win or loose, they are down the road to another state to do the same thing for another upcoming election.
Even some of the more skilled foot soldiers at signing up valid voter registrations follow these organizers around the country, sleep in their cars or whatever, and treat it as a full time job. RobSFree Kyle! 00:43, 8 September 2020 (EDT)
I have done further research on ACORN. ACORN International is an active organization with chapters in many nations including the United States. Technically, it is a different organization than described in the article. So, I agree that ACORN should not be moved to the "defunct" list. FirstAmendment (talk) 08:04, 8 September 2020 (EDT)
Good. Thanks Even BLM has at lest 3 umbrella organizations that I count. RobSFree Kyle! 08:28, 8 September 2020 (EDT)
If you dig deep enough, you'll probably find Community Organizations International is associated with the Socialist International. These people are 'trained Marxists' like Alicia Garza and Patrisse Cullors, as Obama was and who did training for ACORN. But ACORN is name like KGB and it doesn't matter anymore how many times they change their name to cover their tracks. It's a reputation they are stuck with. RobSFree Kyle! 09:32, 8 September 2020 (EDT)
In the riots, I'm dealing with another group with the same problem, the FRSO which, in some cities evidently, has changed its name to Liberation Road. RobSFree Kyle! 09:37, 8 September 2020 (EDT)

Unlock request 9-8-20

Hi Andy,
A couple of locked pages need a link updated due to a page I moved. When you get a chance, would you mind either unlocking Template:Calculus and L'Hopital's rule, or replacing the link "derivative" with the link "derivative (calculus)" on them? Thank you! --DavidB4 (TALK) 17:31, 8 September 2020 (EDT)

Unlocked as requested. They do not need to be relocked. Feel free to edit at your convenience. Thanks!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:23, 8 September 2020 (EDT)
Thank you! --DavidB4 (TALK) 11:54, 9 September 2020 (EDT)

MPR proposal

Hi Andy, can you consider putting the following on MPR:


How did such a strong push for a coronavirus vaccine get in Trump's otherwise spectacular rally in Winston-Salem, North Carolina? [17] Could it be his inept advisers?


Thank you! —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier's mother be all well! Wednesday, 23:28, 8 September 2020 (EDT)

Fabulous suggestion! Done (with some wikilinks added and not as much bolding to make it easier to read).--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:58, 8 September 2020 (EDT)
Thank you very much, Andy! —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier's mother be all well! Wednesday, 23:59, 8 September 2020 (EDT)

Another template creation permission request

Hi Andy, can I have permission to create a template with a title along the lines of "Template:Image thumbnail"? The idea is that maximum limits for images in thumbnails seem to be limited to the size of the file that's uploaded, which is a setback for using certain images uploaded at small sizes. With such a template, an image can be normally inserted in a single-cell wikitable (so that there isn't a size limit) with text at the bottom to mostly mimic a normal image thumbnail. Thank you!
LiberaltearsMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Tuesday, 01:32, 15 September 2020 (EDT)

Sure, go ahead with this idea! Thanks for suggesting it!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 10:54, 15 September 2020 (EDT)
Alright then, I'll aim at getting the template done sometime later today, as I'm unfortunately somewhat busy at the very moment.
LiberaltearsMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Tuesday, 11:35, 15 September 2020 (EDT)
Update! I think I now adjusted everything on the template mostly alright after numerous testing, with the only real issue remaining is the spacing between the text vertically, as seen in an implementation here. What do you think about it overall?
LiberaltearsMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Sunday, 00:37, 20 September 2020 (EDT)
Fantastic!!!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:08, 20 September 2020 (EDT)

Upload rights

I would like to request upload rights, since I am really trying to get the flagicons from Wikipedia from Conservapedia, to show the small flag icons, like {{USA}} or {{CHN}}, in articles. I have one more step, and that is uploading flags, but I can't do it, since it says "You do not have permission to upload this file, for the following reason:

The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Administrators, Upload.".

Another reason is I am making my own sandbox here: https://www.conservapedia.com/User:Punish_China/GDP_(PPP)_milestones_by_countries. I really need the flagicon to show the flags, but it says to upload the .svg files. I have the files, but I can't upload them, since it says I need upload rights. I would appreciate if I get upload rights. Thanks, and have a good day! - User:Punish China

Official CP page where revisions can be requested for deletion?

Hi Andy, do you suppose CP could have an official page where specific revisions can be requested there for deletion (having their visibility changed), especially with recent racist vandal accounts inserting the n-word on pages? Thank you! —LiberaltearsMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Tuesday, 19:52, 29 September 2020 (EDT)

Template creation request for election wikitables

Hi Andy, I request permission to create a template titled "Template:Election table" for pages on the 2020 elections, like the ones here and here. Thank you! —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Sunday, 22:30, 3 October 2020 (EDT)

Great idea! Please create the template as you suggest.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2020 (EDT)
Yes! Thank you once again, Andy! —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Sunday, 22:48, 3 October 2020 (EDT)
Success! I replaced the raw source codes with the template here and here, and everything's perfect! —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Sunday, 23:44, 3 October 2020 (EDT)
Congratulations!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:46, 4 October 2020 (EDT)

Can I please have access to edit at night?

I have lots of stuff in the mornings and tend to edit at night. If not, can I have a list of requirements to get it?

TrumpConservative account

Hi there, you may remember that I edited here regularly several weeks ago. Since then I had trouble logging into my account and therefore created this alternative for now. When I log in, the website acts as though I am still logged out. If there is a way to resolve this, I would be glad to hear about it since I would enjoy returning to editing once again. Thanks! TrumpConservative3 (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2020 (EDT)

Hi TrumpConservative, if this is you, then when trying to log in, make sure that after putting in your normal username and password, click on the "Keep me logged in" checkbox before pressing enter. This helped me bypass the problem, and hopefully it'll work! —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Monday, 18:56, 12 October 2020 (EDT)
Thanks! I have logged in successfully now. TrumpConservative (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2020 (EDT)


Fair use question - newspapers

Hi Andy, User:Voshbed is requesting that this image of the front page of a 1977 spanish newspaper be uplaoded. Typically, I think this would be protected by copyright for 95 years after publication, so I assume it is still under copyright. Question: Would it be accpetable for us to upload this under the Fair Use clause, or is an entire frontpage news article "pushing it" too much? Thanks! --DavidB4 (TALK) 13:58, 15 October 2020 (EDT)

Your make good points and let's not upload that image here. A link to it rather than uploading it would be better. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2020 (EDT)

American Thought Leaders

Gives your mom a mention about 27 minutes in. RobSFree Kyle! 00:13, 18 October 2020 (EDT)

Thanks for the tip!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2020 (EDT)

Thank you very much!

Hi Andy, thank you very much for putting the United States Senate elections, 2020 page on MPL! I'll definitely try to catch up on missed details tomorrow for that page. Also, your edit here is very excellent: the Democrats are very likely to pick up Maine this election season and oust Collins mainly due to the statewide ranked-choice voting system that favors them. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Sunday, 00:59, 18 October 2020 (EDT)

Thanks! Who wins political control of the Senate is more important than most realize.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2020 (EDT)
Exactly. If the Democrats take control, they will aim at abolishing the filibuster to ram through a far-left agenda that they're trying to mask prior to the general elections with the help of the extremely biased MSM in portraying them as supposedly "moderate". —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Sunday, 14:03, 18 October 2020 (EDT)
Dems would enact court packing, too.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2020 (EDT)
Here's one possibility: if the Democrats cheat their way into "victory" this election season and take the Senate, they'll abolish the filibuster and enact far-left policies unpopular with so many Americans such that they'll lose in a landslide in 2022, where Republicans will then take back control and pass real accomplishments, thanking Schumer for being able to. If such is the case, it will be kind of like how Trump's now able to confirm so many judges all thanks to Harry Reid. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Sunday, 14:20, 18 October 2020 (EDT)

And thank you once again; putting a table on the Senate elections page for the RCP aggregates seems like an awesome idea! I'll constantly check for updates daily. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Wednesday, 23:20, 20 October 2020 (EDT)

MediaWiki

Hi Andy, given that the suggestion for adding protection levels seems to have been brought up at least once, do you know how that could be done? Since you founded CP and have control over the settings for this site, would you be able to tweak the MediaWiki database/filesystem to possibly add protection levels restricting editing/moving/uploading actions to those with "edit", "SkipCaptcha", and "protect" tags? Thank you! —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Sunday, 00:13, 1 November 2020 (EDT)

Editing

Having another problem. After being logged in after about two minutes the website goes down, making it almost impossible to edit. Is this a common problem experienced among users?

Thanks. TrumpConservative (talk) 10:47, 7 November 2020 (EST)

Do you get a 403.shtml error, a Gateway Timeout, a 504.shtml error, a "Forbidden" pop-up, or is it that the site just won't load? —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Saturday, 11:33, 7 November 2020 (EST)
Takes forever to load as if there is no internet. Yet other sites work, just as though CP is down. TrumpConservative (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2020 (EST)
Fingers crossed, it seems to be working at the moment. TrumpConservative (talk) 16:44, 8 November 2020 (EST)

What are the requirements to get the Upload and Block rights, and a fix to autoconfirmed permissions

Just curious as I wanted to be able to upload images I took myself (screenshots), and block the vandals that vandalize the site. I've reverted some of the vandalism, but they just reverted my edits. I'm curious how long I have to be part of the site/how many edits to receive those rights.

Also, to fix the issue with autoconfirmed users, read this: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Autoconfirmed_users

I recommend setting $wgAutoConfirmAge to 604800 (7 days) and $wgAutoConfirmCount to 25. This will allow you to semi-protect pages, although note that all existing users will have autoconfirmed permissions regardless of edits and time. It's also possible to set up extended confirmed users, for which I recommend 5184000 (2 months) and 500 edits. I don't know how to set it up, but I assume it's similar to autoconfirmed. Sievert 81 (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2020 (EST)

Regarding uploading files, you can just put requests in CP:IUR for now and I'll generally try to get to them quickly. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Saturday, 22:01, 13 November 2020 (EST)
Just added one. Sievert 81 (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2020 (EST)

User:Conservative misusing sysop powers

Hi Andy, I have evidence that User:Conservative has apparently misused sysop powers this year in some instances.

For one, he has used his revision-deleting powers mostly to hide non-inappropriate revisions, usually his own edits (see here). I've noticed in several instances that they were perfectly fine and there were no convincing reasons to remove them; such that he doesn't want anyone else to seem them, it would have been possible for Conservative to never publish them. The problem is that he has extraneously used his power to delete revisions that come with his administrator privileges to remove ones that aren't inappropriate at all. Furthermore, it's possible that he had deleted revisions related to the Catholic/anti-Catholic debates that could've been used against him or other users, as Dataclarifier has said that revisions he previously viewed mysteriously disappeared.

Conservative also acts as if he can dictate how other users' user pages/talk pages go. A while back here, he unilaterally decided to lock my talk page so that I couldn't edit it. He also deleted and then immediately recreated Dataclarifier's talk page, wiping it of its previous revisions plus its >300,000 page views (see here). Just because Conservative is a sysop doesn't mean he should get the ability to unilaterally make these decisions about other users' talk pages.

Conservative has recently also given extraneous, unnecessary, free publicity to that wiki we aren't supposed to directly mention here; see this diff, this, this, this, this, and this. When I questioned him about it here, he didn't answer directly, and instead bragged about other things. Since we don't let other users on CP give free publicity to that site, I don't see why Conservative should get to.

In general, it would probably be preferential if we can have sysop accountability. Without it, we may end up driving away good users because some administrators/assistant sysops end up misusing their powers, as has been witnessed this year. Thank you Andy! —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Sunday, 19:25, 14 November 2020 (EST)

Liberaltears is afraid of being banned at a secular leftist wiki. His attempts to delete my jab at that wiki in order to curry favor with the editors of that wiki is sad.Conservative (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2020 (EST)
Wow, a strawman attack from you. My entire point is that we shouldn't give RW free publicity here as you have done. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Sunday, 23:21, 14 November 2020 (EST)
I thought the issue was sysop accountability, not free publicity for a troll site. What's more important or a priority? RobSFree Kyle! 23:27, 14 November 2020 (EST)
I tend to have a balanced view of Donald Trump. I see both his positive and negative traits.
One of the things I like about Trump is his New York willingness to fight.
I see no reason to delete that essay due to some secular leftist absurd claim that I was "inciting violence".
Too many times American conservatives have lost battles due to their unwillingness to fight and their frequent willingness to wilt in the face of bogus criticism. For example, a leftist inappropriately crying "racism" when it is not warranted causes many American conservatives to flee into their bunny holes.
User: Conservative cowers before no secular leftists. Never back down!Conservative (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2020 (EST)
I don't see the point in this war. The 'essay' seems pointless, but harmless. I also don't see the point in editing RatWiki and this wiki (but am open to an explanation) and the essay doesn't give RW publicity. Conservatives that find this website aren't switching to RW. Also, you can't talk any sense into RW. I tried. Sievert 81 (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2020 (EST)
(ec) Conservative is missing the point; this is a discussion about Sysop accountability, not some offsite dispute he has with others. Undoing Karajou and my edits is problematic. RobSFree Kyle! 23:51, 14 November 2020 (EST)

RobS deleted the essay due to some bogus claim by a RW editor that it was inciting violence. There is no reason why Conservapedia needs to back down due to an absurd claim by a RW editor.Conservative (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2020 (EST)

My 2 cents is keep the essay, block both for a day or so for edit warring. They should have looked for consensus on the article's talk page. Sievert 81 (talk) 23:55, 14 November 2020 (EST)
The talk page itself has been spammed with redundant attacks against offsite editors, and a revert wheel war is ongoing. RobSFree Kyle! 23:58, 14 November 2020 (EST
Let's archive the talk page and make a new one to discuss the inclusion of the essay. No personal attacks.Sievert 81 (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2020 (EST)
Specifically, RoBS wrote: "It has been suggested that this page is an "incitement of violence". As such, I am deleting it. RobSFree Kyle! 03:59, 8 November 2020 (EST)"
The ridiculous "suggestiom" was made at the RW wiki by a RW editor.
RobS' reason for deleting the essay was completely absurd. It was a case of flagrant "surrenderism". I am not going to put up with any "surrenderism".Conservative (talk) 00:00, 15 November 2020 (EST)
Wow, another continuation of your strawmans. Some of us want the "essay" deleted mainly because it unnecessarily promotes that wiki we shouldn't mention directly here on CP, not out of cowardice. You seem to have some trouble directly getting to the point and instead try to divert the discussion. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Sunday, 00:14, 15 November 2020 (EST)
which is why we should get a consensus instead of edit warring and using strawmen arguments.Sievert 81 (talk) 00:17, 15 November 2020 (EST)
The essay is a harmless joke. This whole "controversy" is a tempest in a teapot. I suspect it is just Liberaltears payback about some of my criticisms of Catholicism.Conservative (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2020 (EST)
Another false assumption coming from you. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Sunday, 00:35, 15 November 2020 (EST)
That's your view, but others have opposing views. All should be heard and discussed. Sievert 81 (talk) 00:28, 15 November 2020 (EST)

I regret bringing up the Catholicism vs. Protestantism fighting in the past at Conservapedia which devolved in a lot of repetitive content being posted many times. I do think the differences between Protestanism/Catholicism is worthwhile to bring up, but it could have been done better.Conservative (talk) 00:32, 15 November 2020 (EST)

Conservative: the point is you should discuss this stuff at RW, and not use CP to call attention to that site. If there is any question, the title of the Essay has nothing to do with a debate on the merits of atheism. It was created as an attack page on offsite editors. As such, it generates unfounded criticism of CP, for example CP tolerates and advocates violence against atheists. All this could have been avoided, should not have occurred, and is further evidence for the need of sysop accountability. Particularly when they begin wheel warring. RobSFree Kyle! 01:04, 15 November 2020 (EST)
I am not going to dignify the absurd claim about "inciting violence" with endless discussion. I already covered this matter on the talk page of the essay.Conservative (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2020 (EST)
Go there and tell them. RobSFree Kyle! 01:14, 15 November 2020 (EST)
I really don't have anything more to say about this tempest in a teapot.
In addition, I am involved in an endeavor where a fellow participant in the endeavor was wildly successful. His great succcess has generated a ton of things for me to do. It is a good "problem" to have, so I am not complaining. So even if I desired to endlessly ruminate on this trivial matter, I really don't have time to do so.Conservative (talk) 01:28, 15 November 2020 (EST)
Oh, so you come here and smear the rest of us as inciting violence against critics, walk away and accept no accountability for your actions? RobSFree Kyle! 01:32, 15 November 2020 (EST)

Totally ignoring RationalWiki is defeatism and being a punching bag. Conservapedia should point out the obvious that the website is full of untruths due to its secular leftist ideology and the penchant for secular leftists to lie. Conservapedia should also point out that many of its editors are wimps and mentally ill (Some of RationalWiki admins have indicated that they suffer from mental illness and struggle to maintain coherency. RationalWiki Ace McWicked admitted that many RationalWikians are "pearl-clutching" pansies). I created a few essays about RationalWiki that can be found when people do a search for "RationalWiki" via Conservapedia's search box.

Other than that, Conservapedia should not spend to much time on those clowns. This is especially true when it comes to this tempest in teapot.

RobS caving to the ridiculoous charge by a RationalWiki editor that my harmlessly humorous essay supposedly incited violence.Conservative (talk) 09:26, 15 November 2020 (EST)

Read the subheading above. This discussion is supposed to be about abuse of rights. RobSFree Kyle! 12:09, 15 November 2020 (EST)
You may have committed a crime in countries outside the United States with your posting. You have no idea what you are doing. RobSFree Kyle! 12:11, 15 November 2020 (EST)
In the United States you are protected by the First Amendment; in countries outside the United States, you are smuggling in intellectual property that may deemed hate speech, no different than smuggling weapons or dope. RobSFree Kyle! 12:15, 15 November 2020 (EST)
Conservative, you aren't the exception to the rule: if other users can't mention that wiki here, you shouldn't either. I don't know if you had noticed a while back, but User:Punish China was blocked by Minuteman repeatedly for directly mentioning them. And you should know better than to portray us as cowards for wanting the essay deleted; it's because it gives that site unneeded free publicity!LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Sunday, 12:31, 15 November 2020 (EST)
MAY have commmitted hate speech? RobS, you are going off the deep end. I suggest limiting your posts at RationalWiki as it is good not to be around mentally ill people if you find they are affecting your behavior! (Some of the RationalWiki admins admitted that they struggle keeping coherent thoughts)
I hope Interpol does not arrest me during my travels outside the USA! Conservative (talk) 13:49, 15 November 2020 (EST)
It could happen. It's happened before. And you're dumping that liability on the rest of us. RobSFree Kyle! 14:31, 15 November 2020 (EST)

Could happen? Where? In a Dan Piraro Bizarro comic strip?Conservative (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2020 (EST)

Wow, you just can't answer my point. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Monday, 00:38, 16 November 2020 (EST)

Recent downtime

Was that downtime leftist DDOS attacks or just server issues? Sievert 81 (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2020 (EST)

Looking into it ....--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2020 (EST)

Conservapedia URL

Hi Andy, can you please make sure that there's an https:// in front of CP's URL? Without it, it's not confirmed that this site is secure to use, and thus logging in could compromise my security. The only reason I'm logged in here right now is via a proxy. Thanks! —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Wednesday, 12:30, 25 November 2020 (EST)

It is https at all times but, depending on the browswer, that many not immediately show in the URL line. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 13:11, 25 November 2020 (EST)
The HTTPS just doesn't show up regardless of what browser I use. When will it be restored? Every time I publish an edit via a proxy right now, I get a Gateway Timeout/504.shtml error. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Wednesday, 14:35, 25 November 2020 (EST)
Never mind, the HTTPS is back in the URL now. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Wednesday, 14:47, 25 November 2020 (EST)
I know Google Chrome recently started hiding the protocol--was that perhaps the issue? In my opinion, that was a bad choice on their part. --DavidB4 (TALK) 16:37, 25 November 2020 (EST)
I always edit using Firefox, and there was no HTTPS in the URL earlier today. When I was about to login, there was a warning saying that logins could be compromised. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Wednesday, 16:45, 25 November 2020 (EST)
Oh, okay. Interesting... I don't know why that might be. --DavidB4 (TALK) 17:12, 25 November 2020 (EST)

My article on Trump in Vietnam

Check it out: "Trump remains popular in Vietnam." PeterKa (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2020 (EST)

Thanks for the tremendous article, Peter!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2020 (EST)
When I wrote the article, I thought I was writing about American politics. But both Vietnamese and Chinese have sent me nationalistic commentary. PeterKa (talk) 05:39, 27 November 2020 (EST)

User Rankings based on Edits

I am stressing doing this here: https://conservapedia.com/User:United_States/User_Edits, using this: https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:UserProfile/United_States&mobileaction=toggle_view_mobile, with me and other users, to count other user's edits, and ranking barely 16. Is it possible to have a ranking of several and of hundreds of users based on their number of edits, in order to see what rank United States, Liberaltears, RobSmith are? - User:United States

Conservapedia Courses

Thank you so much for your work in putting together the free courses. May the Lord bless you for your efforts. I have to say, it would really be nice to have science courses as well! Science is a real liberal stronghold these days.Isaiahbc (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2020 (EST)

No new user accounts

There haven't been any new user accounts created since December 10 and when I am not logged in, there's no option to create an account. It seems that no one can make an account. Did you do something? Shobson20 (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2020 (EST)

It's because there is a bug that prevents IP bans from working. So the sysops disabled account creation to stop vandals. Sievert 81 (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2020 (EST)
Blocking works, though too broadly sometimes. The new account creation has been temporarily turned off not because of an issue with blocking, but because of a massive wave of pro-Marxist vandalism that occurred, and then re-occurred. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 13:28, 15 December 2020 (EST)

You were completely right about Meadows

Based off this article by the Gateway Pundit, it seems that you were completely right about Trump's inept advisers, particularly Mark Meadows. Just curious though, what sources did you get that information from several months ago? —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Monday, 23:30, 20 December 2020 (EST)

Thanks for alerting me to that! Posted accordingly. Appreciate it!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:03, 21 December 2020 (EST)
No problem! —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Monday, 14:06, 21 December 2020 (EST)

MPR post on IA-2?

Hi Andy, do you suppose you can make an MPR post about the situation in Iowa's 2nd district where Rita Hart is currently attempting to overturn an election in an undemocratic fashion? Maybe something like this would be great:


Sore loser Rita Hart is currently attempting to overturn the election in IA-2. In an undemocratic fashion, she asks for the U.S. House to "review" the race rather than heading to an Iowa court. [18] Residents in the district are not impressed, including many of those who voted for her. [19]


Thanks! —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Wednesday, 19:38, 22 December 2020 (EST)

Great catch, but Rita Hart is unknown to most Americans, so I'm not sure this ranks at the same level as the MPR headlines that are posted. But I'll consider this further. Thanks!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2020 (EST)
I know that most people probably aren't aware of the Iowa state senator, though this is a rather noteworthy thing currently going on. Hart officially filed a notice of contest today to the U.S. House to attempt overturning the House race she lost after supporting a recount that showed her losing in the end by merely six votes. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Wednesday, 19:47, 22 December 2020 (EST)

CP issues that still need to be resolved

Hi Andy, can you please fix Special:RecentChanges and other parts of the database (such as view counts for pages) so that everything updates properly rather than taking a day each time to display the most recent changes/updates? Also, in order to get to CP currently, one must specify the https:// when typing in the URL or there will be a "Corrupted Content Error" popup, which needs to be fixed as well. In addition, there's the login situation where one still needs to check on the "Keep me logged in" checkbox just to log in properly, as well as the 127.0.0.1 issue. Did you see my last dozen or so emails I sent to you regarding some of these problems? Thanks! —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Sunday, 16:37, 27 December 2020 (EST)

Liberaltears, I don't see any of those problems in my edits. Could it be a browser issue?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2020 (EST)
Here's part of the problem: some of these issues more affect our readers (who presumably don't register accounts to log in to) and may be part of the reason our page view growth has recently fallen by 66%. If Special:RecentChanges doesn't load properly for those who aren't logged in, then our readers won't see the latest edits that have been made to pages. If http://conservapedia.com doesn't redirect to this site properly (or at least not consistently if a browser issue), then many may think our site is down and cause a decline in our page views. Right now there isn't nearly as much of a motivation to make as many edits as before because our page views have fallen significantly. There's also the 504.shtml problem when editing very large pages like 2020 U.S. House elections. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Sunday, 16:54, 27 December 2020 (EST)
403.shtml has got to be the most successful page in CP history; it's gotten a half million hits in two and half months. RobSFree Kyle! 17:01, 27 December 2020 (EST)
Yeah, that's a fair point. However, that was when CP's total page views grew by ≥180,000 per day. Currently it's around 70,000–80,000 per day. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Sunday, 17:04, 27 December 2020 (EST)
One view every l5 seconds sustained for 75 days is impressive. RobSFree Kyle! 21:08, 27 December 2020 (EST)
In reply to Libertears, Conservapedia is a work-in-progress and constantly improving. Content remains the top priority. Issues like viewing Special:RecentChanges while not logged in will eventually be resolved but do not take priority over content. Thanks for your substantive edits!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2020 (EST)
I'm glad to contribute where I can! —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Monday, 17:45, 28 December 2020 (EST)

Is this appropriate?

Hi,

I don't really know how to put this diplomatically, but here's my best shot...

I have been looking through Conservapedia's content and I have noticed that the vast majority of it is defending and promoting the ideology of conservatism, however, it seems to lack a lot of non-politics/conservative related content on things like aircraft, history (non-US history), geography etc. I would be happy to write these types of articles for Conservapedia, however, I am worried about them not falling into the remit of Conservapedia, could you please confirm this? Don't worry, I won't be offended if you say no...

Thanks in advance!--Elnencatala (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2021 (EST)

I want delete and protect rights

The CCPshill is making socks and making garbage articles. Shobson20 (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2021 (EST)

You'll have to get in line like everyone else. I've made far more edits than you have, and I don't have those tags yet. Besides, what do you think is the message you're sending to us when you say you'll be indefinitely inactive and suddenly come back right when there's vandalism by a certain troll? —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Sunday, 16:23, 3 January 2021 (EST)
Other than troll blocking, I HAVE been inactive. Andy seems to grant privileges based on how users could utilize them. I was given rollback rights based on how I was on the ball with blocking that troll making repeated socks. Since you've been just as on the ball sometimes, you should too. You got blocking rights when Andy noticed how quick you were to revert edits by trolls but couldn't do anything to block them. Shobson20 (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2021 (EST)
Granted, the edits appear to be the work of an abusive sock, but is any of the content useful for Conservapedia? RobSFree Kyle! 16:46, 3 January 2021 (EST)
No, it's pro-liberal, pro-communist propaganda that the troll is using as a sounding board. DavidB4 agrees with me. It's the standard policy to delete articles created by trolls. Shobson20 (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2021 (EST)
How is an outline of the Economics of the Soviet Union pro-liberal and pro-communist propaganda? You may have been a little too quick on the trigger. RobSFree Kyle! 16:52, 3 January 2021 (EST)
The standard procedure that senior admins like Karajou use is to simply delete articles created by trolls and vandals. I've seen Karajou do it many times in the past. Shobson20 (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2021 (EST)
I looked into it, all of his garbage is copied and pasted from Leftypedia. Even worse than R------- W---. Definitely does not belong here. Shobson20 (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2021 (EST)
Your willingness to this quickly block new users indefinitely isn't necessarily helpful; if a troll knows that you're just waiting to banhammer him, he'll just get a thrill out of wasting much of your time on a spree to mock all of us. In addition, your habits seem to reflect on a misuse of your powers; you consistently have acted as if you haven't understood enough of the context of a situation or just disregard such. Back then over here, after I had asserted that your block of me was unfair, you responded in less than half an hour by blocking me, which quite frankly had proved my point. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Sunday, 17:22, 3 January 2021 (EST)
Leave it alone, just let that go already. Shobson20 (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2021 (EST)
If you hadn't abused/misused your block powers, why would you be hesitant to address that point? It's obviously easy for you to tell me to "let that go already". —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Sunday, 17:41, 3 January 2021 (EST)
I'm not "abusing" anything. I think this [20] makes as clear a case as any for why I block the socks of that CCPSHILL guy. I found exactly where he's copy editing from, and it's a left-wing website. As for you, I did explain before [21] [22] and you've chosen to ignore it, so there's no point in discussing anything, it only makes you madder, so it's better just to drop it. Conservative told us not to bring that stuff up anymore. Shobson20 (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2021 (EST)
Diffs? RobSFree Kyle! 16:24, 3 January 2021 (EST)
Why is this a speedy? Did you inquire if it was a cut n paste? I seems to be just an outline. RobSFree Kyle!
Opps, I didn't verify that it was made by the same use as the others...my mistake, I deleted. It didn't look substantive, but was it made by someone else? If so, we might want to have someone restore it. --DavidB4 (TALK) 16:53, 3 January 2021 (EST)
No don't, some of those pages were already deleted by Karajou before, and it's all content copied from the Communist propaganda site Leftypedia, all of the vandals other edits to existing pages are replacing the entire page with the version of the page on Leftypedia. This guy is literally making socks and then copying and pasting source code from Leftypedia here. Shobson20 (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2021 (EST)
Shobson20 said on November 8, 2020 that he would be indefinitely inactive. However, based off his contributions, it seems that he conveniently comes back here right when there's vandalism to revert it. For the undos and rollbacks in his contribs, the vandals' contribution pages are linked in the edit details, and the corresponding times listed prove my point. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Sunday, 16:34, 3 January 2021 (EST)
That's not the issue. The issue is his revert actions without engagement and discussion with a new editor. RobSFree Kyle! 16:42, 3 January 2021 (EST)

90/10 Rule Clarification

I was looking through the guidelines and I came upon some contradiction over the actual parameters of the rule. First, is the limit for talk page edits 10% or 90%? I've seen rules that say both ways, and I would like to be safe in making edits. Second, do minor edits, such as adding a period and proofreading count toward the mainspace edits total? Out of an abundance of caution, I have abstained from making talk page edits until I have 9 mainspace edits to cancel them out, and I would like to know if my abstinence is justified.
Thanks, -Mark Adams(Discuss with me) 19:25, 3 January 2021 (EST)

Hi Mark,
I'm obviously not Aschlafly, but I believe the 90 refers to talk, while the 10 refers to mainspace (at least 10% of edits should be to mainspace). The rule is not intended to stifle free discussion, but only to ensure that people are not just here to talk and waste time. As long as you also are contributing some, you shouldn't need to worry about posting on talk pages. --DavidB4 (TALK) 22:09, 3 January 2021 (EST)
Right. Don't worry about the 90/10 Rule, Mark, unless there is unexpected, incessant provocateur activity by someone.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2021 (EST)
Thanks for clearing that up for me. -Mark Adams(Discuss with me) 08:22, 4 January 2021 (EST)
We're supposed to have a collapse Template now, I guess. RobSFree Kyle! 15:12, 4 January 2021 (EST)
Yes, and it's here. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Monday, 15:27, 4 January 2021 (EST)

Your reduction of the block length for a vandal

Andy, why did you reduce my block of this vandal from infinity to merely 6 months? Didn't you see their vulgar, inappropriate comments on Talk:Main Page via the diffs? Furthermore, looking at here, it seems that the user was previously blocked for vandalism. Since it's someone who apparently decided to come back after a two-year block length expired, giving a mere 6-month block would be a bad idea. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Friday, 21:27, 7 January 2021 (EST)

Long blocks are disfavored, for multiple reasons. For example, blocks are of an IP address and thus prevents legitimate users from accessing via that same IP address in the future. An infinite block implies, incorrectly, that people don't change. Some do change.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2021 (EST)
First of all, autoblocks aren't even enabled right now, as I've noticed in Special:BlockList. Secondly, even if they are, they only last for up to 24 hours. Thirdly, this particular vandal proved that they didn't change because they came back after a two-year block following previous vandalism. I'm mostly aware who this is, and this person who consistently creates socks trolling talk pages like that won't merely change. I can discuss more of this with you via email. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Friday, 21:42, 7 January 2021 (EST)
Blocks are not any form of punishment. They are simply to prevent improper edits for the time being, on a site that generally welcomes editors of all ideologies.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2021 (EST)

Gypsy Taub page

I have created Gypsy Taub which User:Karajou had deleted as "inappropriate". It is with different, original content. I also cc'ed you on an email to her daughter Inti Gonzalez. In God's Love.--Amorrow (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2021 (EST)

Twelfth Amendment

"The House GOP could still reelect Trump under the Twelfth Amendment with a majority of state delegations."

How exactly is that still possible at this point? I thought they already did the electoral college unsealments now? Genuinely curious, especially when I really want Trump over Biden. Pokeria1 (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2021 (EST)

The Twelfth Amendment grants the House (voting by state delegation, where the GOP holds a 27-20 majority) the authority to elect the president based on a count of the Electoral College votes in which no one gets 270 legitimate votes. The Twelfth Amendment is silent about who does (votes on) the count, but implicitly that power is in the House (voting by state delegation).
The House has a quorum by state delegation to convene, vote on the count, and then elect the next president. But Trump's inept advisers are hiding this option from him.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2021 (EST)
Didn't they already vote, though? Or am I missing something here? I thought they voted on January 6 for Biden, at least that's what's being reported anyway. Pokeria1 (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2021 (EST)
That vote on the 6th (7th, actually) was under the Electoral Count Act, which is likely unconstitutional. That was not under the Twelfth Amendment, which takes precedence.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2021 (EST)
The Electoral Count Act is a Jim Crow era relic. It was created by the same Congress that refused to take action against the Klan. RobSFree Kyle! 15:08, 10 January 2021 (EST)
Okay, though there's apparently an issue on how, at least according to my Dad, who definitely voted for Trump, the 12th amendment makes clear that the quorum only applies if the candidates do not get the majority votes, instead going for top 3. Also cited the pocket constitution. Apparently, it says the following in my family's pocket constituion:
"The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;–The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;–The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such numbers be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. [And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President–-]* The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no other person constitutionally inelgible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
  • Superceded by section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment.
From the way my Dad's talking, (and bear in mind, he voted for Trump, and didn't want Biden or Harris in office at all) the quorum won't work from that reading because Biden DID get 270 votes, whether legitimate or not. I really need some more details to dissuade my dad regarding that bit, more than just 138 GOP Electors and having a vast majority of states supporting Trump/the GOP, since Dad doesn't think that's applicable due to the bit about according to him, that only applies if there IS no majority votes involved that conclusively decided the winner (ie, having three candidates winning). Pokeria1 (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2021 (EST)

Hey Aschlafly.

I think there should be some vandalism rollback tools to get rid of vandalism and a warning system similar to that of Wikipedias Twinkle and Huggle. --Punish Joe Biden 23:26, 15 January 2021 (EST)'

I'm definitely not Andy, but I've looked into the vandalism tools on Wikipedia and they seem way too lenient. Our small community can't afford to wait for the vandal to edit three or four or however many times Wikipedia makes its editors wait. We should ban a vandal right when they vandalize if it's obvious. However, I would be in favor of a noticeboard similar to [[23]]. That way non-admins can easily tell admins when there is vandalism. That may also help with our account creation problem. -Mark Adams(Discuss with me) 07:26, 18 January 2021 (EST)

Please open account creation again

Andy, our Alexa ranking and page view growth has significantly fallen for the past few months, and this problem only seemed to have gotten much worse since you locked account creation. Can you please just open it again and keep it that way? If CP is on the right track, we'd elicit the scorn of leftists, yet they currently are laughing at us for shutting potential new editors out. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Saturday, 01:08, 16 January 2021 (EST)

I agree. If took me more than two weeks to get an account here. Limiting accounts may block vandals, but it hampers the efforts of serious editors. -Mark Adams(Discuss with me) 06:53, 16 January 2021 (EST)
I can vouch for that, as I ended up blocked from editing for a day a little while back solely because I happened to share the same IP address as a vandal by sheer coincidence, despite not actually doing anything to warrant it. Pokeria1 (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2021 (EST)
Those are good points to bring up. And as for the 127.0.0.1 problem, all autoblocks have apparently been removed to stop that problem from affecting every user, as I noticed in Special:BlockList. This means that Andy has altered the CP MediaWIki database, which does make me wonder why he didn't take some previous suggestions on improving it. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Saturday, 12:01, 16 January 2021 (EST)
If we were to bring back wide range blocks and keep account creation open for other IPs, we should add some kind of very visible link so that interested new users could request an account or email an active user to create one. -Mark Adams(Discuss with me) 10:06, 17 January 2021 (EST)
Hmm, that sounds like a good idea. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Sunday, 12:04, 17 January 2021 (EST)

I've reopened account creation now. As to our traffic, it is strong and growing as reflected by our posted Statistics page. Alexa has never properly measured our traffic or fluctuations in it; Alexa seems to be merely a marketing tool for Amazon. Thanks for your comments and suggestions.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:21, 17 January 2021 (EST)

Okay, thank you very much! —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Sunday, 12:33, 17 January 2021 (EST)

Hi There.

How do people get file upload rights? --Punish Joe Biden 18:20, 17 January 2021 (EST)

By having a very strong record of contributing content.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2021 (EST)
Alright, thank you for telling me. --Punish Joe Biden 18:30, 17 January 2021 (EST)

Just one more question

Is the user User:CP is far-right a sock?

Conservapedia priorities

Please see Conservapedia:Project Priorities and update, protect, etc. as, of course, you see fit.--Amorrow (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2021 (EST)

I need access to the Main Page

Will you please grant me access to Main Page? Either remove protection or make me an admin or something? Thanks in advance.--Amorrow (talk) 02:00, 20 January 2021 (EST)

POTUS and stuff

Please review Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and their talk pages. It would be in your best interest to do so.--Amorrow (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2021 (EST)

Special:WantedCategories mostly cleaned up now

I just blew through Special:WantedCategories as efficiently of my time as I can. Please unprotect the pages and categories I need access to to complete the job. The same goes for Special:UncategorizedCategories.--Amorrow (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2021 (EST)

They're unlocked now. RobSFree Kyle! 02:11, 21 January 2021 (EST)

Edit request

Please add Conservapedia:Project Priorities to Template:Mainpageleft#Quick links. I would like it to be prominent.--Amorrow (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2021 (EST)

Main Page statistics

Please remove the two statistics at the top of Template:Mainpageleft and replace them with the two statistics in priority #3 cited in Conservapedia:Project Priorities.--Amorrow (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2021 (EST)

Alexa does not measure organic traffic. My understanding is that Alexa is a browser extension that a very, very small percentage of people use.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2021 (EST)
Please read https://support.alexa.com/hc/en-us/articles/200449744-How-are-Alexa-s-traffic-rankings-determined- and https://blog.alexa.com/alexa-panel-increase/amp/ .--Amorrow (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2021 (EST)
Almost no one uses Alexa to find websites. From the cited link: "Unique Visitors are determined by the number of unique Alexa users who visit a site on a given day." This begs the question of who Alexa users are. No one I know or read about.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2021 (EST)

Some privileges for my account might be nice

Please see User talk:Amorrow#Images.--Amorrow (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2021 (EST)

I think the trolls have been manipulating you......

Andy, in regards to opening/locking account creation, I think you've played into the hands of the trolls trying to undermine CP. On that day after you opened account creation at my request, the vandals came back to strike us with excessive nonsense, and their goal was likely to get you to immediately lock account creation again, which you did. The solution to handling the trolls is not locking account creation, but finding a better method of dealing with them. For instance, immediately blocking them upon sight will lead them to continuously create sockpuppets as a means to use up our time on whack-a-troll banhammering. In regards to the Sievert 81 sock last time, he went away after I talked with him and then handed a block, yet you seem to disagree with my method, as evident with your deletion of the talk page. In addition, dealing with vandals who make highly inappropriate edits should be to simply delete the revisions. After all, what's the point of the CP functions meant to handle trolls if we lock out everyone from being able to create an account, which would include the trolls themselves? A major current problem is that admins who can delete revisions don't do so when needed often enough. I would also suggest quickly fixing the URL problem so that http://conservapedia.com redirects properly not to mention restoring the www. in it, as well as ensuring that all search engine spiders can index our pages with little to no problem if that's not already so. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Saturday, 15:03, 23 January 2021 (EST)

Also, it's not good PR when an editor asks for enhanced user rights (see immediate above thread) is responded to with a 30 day block. There should be more open discussion and clear articulation of CP policies without fear of reprisal. RobSFree Kyle! 16:19, 23 January 2021 (EST)

Andy, just how long do you intend to keep account creation locked like this? Right now as we have a potential to gain new readers and improve our web traffic as conservatives are being banned elsewhere online, there's a chance we can gain more helpful editors that you're currently shutting out. Keeping potential new editors out just to keep vandals out simply isn't worth it. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Tuesday, 21:56, 25 January 2021 (EST)

LT, shhh, you're making too much sense. Nobody wants to hear that. RobSFree Kyle! 22:29, 25 January 2021 (EST)

Please give BHathorn "move" and "delete" abilities

Andy, can you please just give BHathorn "move" and "delete" abilities in case he may need them in the future? If CP is to make it clear that users are expected to be efficient and contribute meaningful content via 90/10, then he deserves those tags by the standards set on user rights given to other users. I've noticed for a while now that a problem tends to be that you've extraneously and unnecessarily given too many privileges to users trying to undermine CP while ignoring many who contribute the most content. Some things on CP could use reforming, and its better late than never!LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Tuesday, 00:44, 26 January 2021 (EST)

RobS

I think RobS needs to have a serious talking to, as some recent edits made by him to selected articles on this site, as well as comments he made on both my talk page and his, are indicating that he has started acting irrationally since the recent publication of a Department of Homeland Security note[24] announcing the illegal persecution of conservatives for speaking the truth about the illegal actions of the Biden regime. He has also recently abused his powers on this site, as he unjustly blocked me for calling out what he did on my talk page (where he falsely accused me of "trolling" for reporting the truth about the Biden regime[25]) and for his irrational and falsely accusatory comments on his talk page[26]. Although what I said to him in response may not have been ideal, the fact remains that what he said prior to that is not only inexcusable and unjustifiable, but also calls into question why he should continue to be an admin here if he is going to abuse his power in response to pointing out the truth about the Democrats and their minions. Northwest (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2021 (EST)

Northwest's rightwing extremist views will call down the Biden DHS on all of us. A 10 minute block to make the point after he reverted a Sysop warning should be sufficient. RobSFree Kyle! 02:45, 28 January 2021 (EST)
Congratulations, you just proved my point for me (including your use of false accusations). Northwest (talk) 02:47, 28 January 2021 (EST)
You've had your Warning, both from me and the DHS. Nuff said. RobSFree Kyle! 02:50, 28 January 2021 (EST)
Meantime, I highly recommend you review your edits over the years that the DHS may now deem racist. RobSFree Kyle! 02:52, 28 January 2021 (EST)
Go ahead, become Biden's lapdog. All that means is that you outed yourself as a leftist shill from the start who only posed as someone who was against Communism, and when and if Biden loses 2024 and his stuff is undone, it will reflect badly on you in the long run. Conservapedia was created specifically to AVOID becoming a far-left talking point after Wikipedia did so under the direction of Jimmy Wales, and your current actions point to me that you're just a leftist plant. In fact, I've been suspicious of you since you refused to look at clear evidence that Putin WAS in fact still an unrepentant Communist, given even by sites like The New American as well as stated from his own mouth. To say little about how you implied that the Soviets didn't want nuclear war (despite their actions proving otherwise, not to mention those of Che Guevara and the fact that Lenin's whole ideology made it clear they wanted no restraint in the use of force, meaning if they had access to nukes back then, you'd bet they would use nukes on a mere whim if they felt like it, even against their own people, to say little about outside the USSR) when I merely suggested JFK get removed as a deep state victim. Pokeria1 (talk) 05:52, 28 January 2021 (EST)
Where'd you get the idea Putin is a communist? ....lemme guess, the MSM, Hillary Clinton, and the Comey FBI, and only after the Uranium One deal and Russian Reset and after he embarrassed the begeezus out of Obama in the Crimea. Thank you for your input. RobSFree Kyle! 06:40, 28 January 2021 (EST)
If what you say is true, we can look back at what you were saying when Hillary hit the Russian Reset button, when Obama and Hillary sold American uranium to the communist Putin, etc etc etc. Here. Hmmm, You were writing on John Paul Sarte, Star Wars. and Jean Jacques Rousseau. You weren't concerned about communism at all. I bet $50 bucks I can identify a couple dozen of your socks on several wikis. RobSFree Kyle! 06:50, 28 January 2021 (EST)
Off the mark, I'm afraid. I never bought the MSM's line, not to mention the Comey FBI and Clinton, about Russia Collusion (actually, if there was ANY Russian Collusion, it was from Clinton, and I'd argue Putin's more likely to support her than Trump). Actually, if I must be honest, I got the information about Putin being pro-Communist from WesternFreePress and Trevor Loudon, both of whom were very firmly against Hillary Clinton as well as pretty clearly Pro-Trump (not to mention Ion Mihai Pacepa, whom during the 2016 elections made it VERY clear that Hillary if anything would continue backing the Soviet line as a reason to NOT support her and if anything support Trump instead of her.). I also got it from New American, aka the John Birch Society. Not to mention some posts from FreeRepublic that exposed his communist sympathies in the present day, all without even MENTIONING Trump at all. And I was also suspicious of Russia still in fact being communist since I saw the movie Dreams of My Father in theaters when I saw a statue of Karl Marx being prominently displayed in Moscow briefly (made me wonder at the time "if Russia truly renounced Communism, why do they still have the founder of that ideology's statue up instead of doing to it that they did to various Lenin and Stalin statues?").
In addition, I don't use sockpuppets. If I get banned, I don't make any attempt at recreating a new identity (and even if I did, I certainly wouldn't be posting on there. I only made one exception on TV Tropes, and that's only because I couldn't find a way to get them to let me back in and I really needed to make certain edits. Well, okay, also LittleAriel Forums, but that was more to retrieve stuff that was backlogged there that I posted earlier which I couldn't access due to being banned, and I never made a single post to it under the new handle.). As far as Star Wars, I pointed out that time that George Lucas was trying to promote the Vietcong due to it being Communist based on Bill Whittle's Han Shot First video (which I saw back in 2012), and I even pointed out in those edits that Rousseau was pretty much responsible for a lot of the mess that Communism has now done. Heck, one of my edits for Sartre back then if I recall correctly even cited how he was firmly in bed with the KGB and that was one reason why he sang praises for that mass murderer Che Guevara. So no, those edits if anything PROVED I was very much concerned with Communism. In fact, one reason I did those edits was BECAUSE I had to be nearly brainwashed by leftists in the education system and nearly got tricked by Metal Gear Solid Peace Walker regarding Che Guevara. Pokeria1 (talk) 06:57, 28 January 2021 (EST)
Wait wait wait....you paid money to see Dreams of My Father?
Oh, and Rouseau, Sarte, and Star Wars were only 3 picked out, but I could have added a half dozen or more in the 10 seconds it took. I didn't want confusion with too much detail. RobSFree Kyle! 07:11, 28 January 2021 (EST)
Note for Andy: This is what's called "piling on", or the "pile on effect" after NW made a formal complaint. RobSFree Kyle! 07:13, 28 January 2021 (EST)
Not me, per se, more my parents (it was a family outing), but I definitely was interested in it after seeing a trailer, hoping that film would expose Obama as a creep (hated the guy since 2008/2009 due to his refusal to stop abortion even after I did that red envelope campaign, of which I think over 500,000 bare minimum went to his office, blocked them from even entering. And by 2012, his more communist views were coming to the forefront, which gave me MORE reason to hate him and want him removed from office including via impeachment, even being disgusted by the Republican members not taking the opportunity to do so despite very clear crimes and high misdemeanors practiced by him. Had to send several emails to my representatives urging them to do impeachment proceedings.). And I've seen all the Dinesh D'Souza films up to this point. And all those edits I made a while back generally were an attempt to expose people as being leftists/liberals, to say little about being communists. So yes, actually, back then, I DID care about exposing Communists. Wouldn't have made those edits at all if I didn't care at all as you seemed to imply. Pokeria1 (talk) 07:16, 28 January 2021 (EST)
Fair enough. I myself wasted a couple hours of my life reading Dreams from My Father, but only in the hope that my self-sacrifice would lead to the betterment of humanity. And I didn't waste any money on it. But your reference to somebody else paying still makes me think you don't understand how capitalism works. But anywho...what else do we have here....Ayn Rand, The Simpsons, the Crucible, Socialism (and another half dozen I'm leaving out)....do we detect a pattern here.... RobSFree Kyle! 07:42, 28 January 2021 (EST)
This one really cracks me up from the Hillary Clinton talk page:
  • Time for an overhaul. I'm gonna begin rotating out some of the older stuff into spinoffs to make room for this next sad chapter of U.S. history. User:RobSmith 10:09, 19 May 2016 (EDT)
  • Not really sure why that is necessary? At least, not to the degree that you've removed content into these spinoffs. The page is now quite literally useless. User:Progressingamerica 16:42, 19 May 2016 (EDT)
  • Yeah, and besides, I'm not even sure what the next sad chapter is referring to that directly relates to Clinton you alluded to, as there doesn't seem to be any major additions to the article. Certainly nothing that would necessitate rotating the older stuff into spinoff article extensions to leave room for it. User:Pokeria1 22:50, 19 May 2016 (EDT)
See, this is a telltale identifying marker of Leftists - No vision. No foresight. RobSFree Kyle! 07:54, 28 January 2021 (EST)
I actually do have an understanding of how Capitalism works. You pay for what you want to see. And to be fair, if I go with my family, I barely have any real reason to need to pay my money to see it. Plus, technically, my parents were the ones who told me that I only contribute if I actually paid money, so they suggested a loophole around avoiding seeing any films that involve liberalism. Were it wholly up to me, I'd be a shutin, act like the Founding Fathers when they boycotted tea from the Brits, not even drinking it in any capacity despite making their own. If I were to go by myself, I pay for it myself. As far as Dreams of My Father, to be fair, there's a lot of evidence that Obama only won 2012 due to massive voter fraud. As far as your statements of edits I made, the only actual edit I made on Ayn Rand was on the talk page [the edits I made to the article itself were reverting vandals], and that was merely pointing out she was closer to a leftist than a conservative in overall outlook, and probably was more like a communist DESPITE her hating them. Even Sartre promoted individualism with his Existentialist philosophies, and he was a communist. Same goes for Hideo Kojima and Solid Snake in the Metal Gear series. As far as The Simpsons, I gave that one a fair shake and listed any episodes that fit liberalism, conservativism, or were in the gray area regarding messages. No different than the various Greatest/Worst lists, even expanded on some examples and moved others. The Crucible had me making a minor grammar correction, adding a note about Abigail Williams in reality not being likely to engage in that kind of affair due to the significant age difference between her and John Proctor, and undoing an edit that implied Miller was promoting conservativism when he was really pushing Communism as usual. And for the Socialism articles, I added in one of Marx's titles, "father of socialism", and I undid edits that tried to downplay or remove Hitler and the Nazis' ties to socialism. If you're going to act like I don't care about Communism, you need a lot better evidence than that.
As far as your reference to posts on Hillary Clinton's talk page, I was wondering why your edit was necessary to remove a whole lot of information and relegating them to "spinoffs" when it really didn't seem to be necessary (not to mention removed a few sources altogether that if anything even further exposed her ties). If you're going to do that, at least explain in full why you want to remove them other than to "make room."). And are you going to call ProgressingAmerica a leftist as well? He was against Progressivism, even having a blog dedicated to it and was instrumental in exposing Fake News. Pokeria1 (talk) 08:15, 28 January 2021 (EST)
If you're going to accuse me of being from RW, at least state the full name of whatever it is you're alluding to, because I frankly don't know what you're talking about. If it's Rational Wiki, I never made a single edit on that site at all, let alone prior to joining Conservapedia (in fact, I never even heard of RationalWiki until AFTER joining this site), nor do I plan to since they're a bunch of scumbags who want to destroy Christianity, not to mention are most likely Biden supporters. Pokeria1 (talk) 06:25, 28 January 2021 (EST)
RobS, congrats on again proving my point with your second unjust block of me for removing a template that you used to try to hide truthful statements by Pokeria1 (while also inserting incivility - a violation of CP guidelines, BTW - into your reasoning for the further abuse of power you're now engaging in of late). Are you intent on trying to make an example of me for standing up to that abuse of power on your part? And incidentally, your use of the term "rightwing extremist" - a derogatory term of abuse used by the Left to refer to conservatives - when referring to me further up in the section[27] indicates right there that you just exposed yourself as a leftist who only pretended to be "conservative", and your recent behavior here in the last day or so is only making that clearer and clearer. Northwest (talk) 07:54, 28 January 2021 (EST)
How long have you been on this site? You certainly should know undoing the actions of a sysop is a blockable offense. If you didn't, now you know.
Secondly, do you really want me to spell it out for you, again? I will provide links if necessary.
  • The Anti-Defamation League has determined that Birtherism is racism.
  • The Anti-Defamation League has an intelligence sharing agreement with the FBI to provide manuals and training for profiling extremists (as documented here Political profiling).
  • I've asked you twice now to review your edits over the past few years, given that an arrest was made yesterday by the Biden FBI for internet postings made in 2016.
  • Lord knows, I've cleaned up enough of your racist garbage over the past several years, but I know there is still more there. You should thank me.
  • This warning is not only about your current online actions, but probably more importantly about your past activity. RobSFree Kyle! 08:05, 28 January 2021 (EST)
There are ways to communicate information on controversial subjects, but you always insist on spelling out in black and white your minority and extremist point of view. You need to stop. RobSFree Kyle! 08:11, 28 January 2021 (EST)
Congrats, not only have you proven my point for the third time, you're also engaging in exactly the sort of things a leftist would engage in (including accusing conservatives of "racism" when, for starters, racism is actually a liberal trait and it's liberals who project their own racism onto conservatives and falsely attribute it to them, as well as trying to see "racism" where none exists [including criticism of Barack Obama and his legitimacy - which only liberals see as "racist" but really has nothing to do with race]). Furthermore, the ADL is not a credible organization because of its liberal bias and its history of anti-Semitism against conservative Jews and for aiding and abetting in Islamic anti-Semitism.
And to Andy, all that I and Pokeria1 documented above, combined with RobS's own words here and his actions on this site of late (combined with his earlier history of incivility and harassment, for which he has been justly blocked in the past), proves exactly why he cannot be trusted any further as an admin here and why he should be stripped of his sysop powers - because if he can abuse his power here against me based on his false accusations against me, he'll certainly do the same against any other conservative editor (especially now that his true liberal colors have come out). Northwest (talk) 08:19, 28 January 2021 (EST)
You know the ADL, as pointed out by Northwest, is a left-wing agitprop group that sided with actual anti-Semites as of late against Israelis despite their mission statement, right? I wouldn't even consider them valuable information for finding a dog, let alone for the FBI (and if I must be blunt, had the ADL been doing its current actions in the 1950s and 1960s, J Edgar Hoover would have ended up flagging them as a subversive Communist threat for justifiable reasons). As far as Birtherism, I actually found a document online showing Obama's birth certificate to some African country back around 2012, founded it on PJTV back when it was still around, and even tried to cite that document. It was definitely around 2010-2012. There was in fact sufficient evidence from that that he was not born in America or even an American-owned plot of land. And don't think that his being black had anything to do with it. He could have just as easily been a white Frenchman or Brit for all I care, and I STILL would have adhered to it for that reason. Pokeria1 (talk) 08:20, 28 January 2021 (EST)
Both of you guys need better arguments than "I'm right, the rest of the world is wrong." RobSFree Kyle! 09:03, 28 January 2021 (EST)
Which is exactly what you're showing yourself guilty of being here. Northwest (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2021 (EST)
Congrats NW, you got an RW troll who supports you. One that crept onto the site right under yours and Karajou's nose. RobSFree Kyle! 08:42, 28 January 2021 (EST)
And all you've done, Northwest, is proven that you do not know the difference between a conservative and an extremist. Worse yet, you don't care to know or learn. RobSFree Kyle! 08:47, 28 January 2021 (EST)
Not caring to learn. know, and understand. is in itself extremist behavior.
Why did you undo and ignore the actions of a sysop? You're stupid? You're self-righteous? You know better than the rest of humanity what the rules are? or what you think they should be? C'mon. We've heard enough of your frothing at the mouth. Now explain yourself. RobSFree Kyle! 08:55, 28 January 2021 (EST)
Prove that he's an "RW troll" as you falsely claim. What you're doing (as you did to me) is defamatory at the very least when you have nothing to back up your false claims, and all it's doing is causing you to dig yourself in deeper. Plus, all you're doing with every post of yours is further prove why you're no longer trusted here because of your 180 turn, your incivility (in violation of the CP rules), your false accusations and your abuse of power (as well as accusing me of what you yourself are guilty of). Northwest (talk) 08:57, 28 January 2021 (EST)
Nice try, NW. Answer the question, explain your reasons for undoing a sysop. Do not troll me. RobSFree Kyle! 09:05, 28 January 2021 (EST)
Actually, the one really doing the trolling here now is you yourself, based on your recent behavior. Someone has to stand up to you and call you out for the power-abusing ego trip that you're now on. Northwest (talk) 09:09, 28 January 2021 (EST)
I said we heard enough of your frothing at the mouth, and asked you to explain your actions. You didn't. You trolled me instead. Enjoy a 2 hour block this time. RobSFree Kyle! 09:13, 28 January 2021 (EST)
As long as you continue to be uncooperative, we can keep ratching up the blocks. The next one is 24 hours. I don't hand out multi-day, week, and monthly blocks lightly. When you return, we expect an explanation (or apology, if such were in you) for your actions. No more, "Mom, he's being mean to me," or "he's a closet lib." RobSFree Kyle! 09:21, 28 January 2021 (EST)

Can you modify CP's oversight powers in the database?

Hi Andy, can you see if you can change the CP oversight ability in the database so that its actions can be reversible by anyone with the tag? The problem with the way it is currently is that apparently no one has the permission (not even administrators) to change the visibility of revisions whose associated users have been banned by oversight. Special:Log/suppress, which I would think is a private log of all oversight actions, also seems to be completely inaccessible. Our oversight powers with the way they are currently are too risky. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Thursday, 18:19, 28 January 2021 (EST)

I don't know how to do this, and frankly don't see the relevance of this issue to building an educational encyclopedia here. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2021 (EST)
Since you set up CP, wouldn't you know how to modify some of the functions? Besides, there are some inappropriate revisions I'm trying to get deleted that can't be done so due to the way the oversight abilities are set up. For instance, are you able to access Special:Log/suppress? From what I've heard, even those with the "Administrator" and/or "oversight" tags don't have permission for that. Some of these actions related to oversight that even admins don't have permission to do really should be made otherwise. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Friday, 20:12, 28 January 2021 (EST)
Andy, (please don't take this the wrong way) if you can't figure out how to operate the CP database and haven't learned about such in all these years, what makes you think you can single-handedly run CP well? If you haven't paid attention to and/or don't understand how the info in the database works, why should other CP users expect that you would fully pay attention to and understand everything that goes on CP and be able to resolve problems? This is a matter that some other users would probably feel in the same way that I do after you, for example, have refused to intervene in arguments. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Friday, 20:44, 28 January 2021 (EST)

The need for leadership

Make me a bureaucrat. I'll demand accountability from editors, asst sysops, and sysops, put a stop to nonsense, and whip this ship into line. RobSFree Kyle! 21:07, 28 January 2021 (EST)
After the above's recent behavior (which, BTW, Karajou undid your earlier block towards NW and even referred to your action as abusing your power), I'd suggest against making him a bureaucrat. Pokeria1 (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2021 (EST)
Thanks for the endorsement, I'm sure it will help. RobSFree Kyle! 23:58, 28 January 2021 (EST)
Andy needs a buffer against all the criticism for day to day management of the site. Somebody willing to work with editors and develop talent. I am that man/person/whatever. RobSFree Kyle! 00:02, 29 January 2021 (EST)
No, you're not. Based on your recent behavior (including your incivility and false accusations and your three unjust blocks of me for standing up to you), if you got what you wanted, you'd only end up getting worse as you drive away decent (i.e. conservative) editors and turn CP into your own personal playground. Incidentally, what Pokeria1 said of you was not an "endorsement", it was a criticism of said abuse of power by you (which even Karajou agreed on as he unblocked me). Northwest (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2021 (EST)
Here's an idea: RobSmith can be promoted to bureaucrat, and CP also enacts a board of administrators/assistant sysops that holds equal power. For any major disputes in the future, there must be a cooperation between the bureaucrats and the board of users in reaching a solution. In order for decisions to be less biased, the board must consist of different types of users to balance things out; for example, maybe including me, Northwest, DavidB4, and DMorris? —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Friday, 00:40, 29 January 2021 (EST)
You got it half right. There is a need for a structured organization with committees. A technical group. An editing and quality control group. And a dispute resolution group/accountability group. These committees will vary in size, depending on need. CP has never recognized the necessity of a division of labor, that people's talents lie in different areas. Nor has it made any effort to recruit and train editors in a world where wiki editors are actually fewer in number than the average number of internet users. CP needs active leaders to guide, encourage, and instruct people. I'm the man. RobSFree Kyle! 01:15, 29 January 2021 (EST)
Andy's like the team owner. He hires a head coach who works with the personnel and is responsible for the team's success or failure. Andy get's to sit up in the press box and wave at the crowd. The head coach rolls up his sleeves and gets down and dirty with players, shows them what they're doing right and what they're doing wrong, provides encouragement, devises a game plan and sees that it's executed. RobSFree Kyle! 01:26, 29 January 2021 (EST)
We got a whole world of young people out there, teenagers on up. They are the future of the conservative movement and the future of this project. Nobody is doing a thing to recruit them and get them involved. RobSFree Kyle!
Ah so, what's our choice here? To continue as a cannibalistic echo chamber or move forward and grow this website with more users in a non-hostile, professional environment? It just needs leadership. The choice is up to all of you. RobSFree Kyle! 01:42, 30 January 2021 (EST)
I am ideally suited for that position of responsibility and leadership. I have a dream someday, we have a rendezvous with destiny; ask not what CP can do for you, but what together we can do for the future of humanity. RobSFree Kyle! 01:50, 30 January 2021 (EST)
Again, no, you're not. You've already shown based on your recent behavior (i.e. incivility, false accusations and behaving more like a liberal) toward me and Pokeria1 in the last couple of days that you can't be trusted in a position of leadership without abusing your power (which Karajou put a stop to right off), and from the way you're talking here, it sounds like you want to seize this website from Andy and remake it to suit a more liberal POV. You've gone rogue and you can no longer be trusted as an admin here. Northwest (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2021 (EST)
Really? Karajou abused his blocking rights by not consulting the blocking Administrator.
We don't need these pointless personality disputes and personal vendettas. CP needs leaders who are willing to help editors, asst sysops, and sysops to become better in their roles, by pointing out when they make errors and encouraging them when they do a good job.
There is a big difference between a simple mistake and malicious vandalism. Both are often treated with the banhammer without warning. Why? Because this is how Admins were trained in the early days and its become habit now. This is a problem that has plagued CP for 14 years and has limited its user base. Not all CP's problems can be blamed on outside influences; many of these self-defeating habits have also limited CP's appeal and userbase. These longterm problems can be corrected with guidance and instruction to blocking assistants and admins. The problem is, no one listens to anyone else other than Andy, and Andy doesn't talk much. Andy needs to empower a foreman to whip this crew into line. RobSFree Kyle! 02:52, 30 January 2021 (EST)
With malice toward none, with compassion toward all. Restricting a user's access to the server is a serious matter, and no one with blocking rights should ever take pleasure in it. But I'm afraid we have too many sadists who get an adrenaline rush everytime they exercise that power. RobSFree Kyle!

The opponents of organization, structure, and leadership respond

You're not it; you won't get the job. Karajou (talk) 03:15, 30 January 2021 (EST)

Truth be told, Rob, no, Karajou did not abuse his blocking rights by unblocking me because he correctly saw that you were abusing your power (and said so in his summary). You also say that there are "too many sadists who get an adrenaline rush everytime they exercise that power", yet you were all too quick to do exactly that in the three times you blocked me for speaking my piece regarding your behavior here in the last two days (starting when you left that message on my talk page falsely accusing me of "trolling"). Those actions of yours speak for themselves and it's as simple as that. Northwest (talk) 03:18, 30 January 2021 (EST)
You were warned three times. That's a whole lot more than most Admins and assts are in the habit of doing. And is the proper way blocking should be applied. RobSFree Kyle! 05:13, 30 January 2021 (EST)
What? You think by birthright you are entitled to revert sysops, ignore warnings, and violate rules? I asked you before to explain your actions, and you haven't yet. RobSFree Kyle! 05:15, 30 January 2021 (EST)
When I'm a bureaucrat, you will explain your actions. The threat of blocking and revocation of use rights is much more powerful than ever pressing the banhammer. Accountability is what is lacking and sorely needed. RobSFree Kyle! 05:20, 30 January 2021 (EST)
And those comments of yours, in effect, sum up perfectly why there are at least three people here (an admin and two editors) who don't think you should have the kind of power that you're demanding - and your ignorance of why that is isn't helping your case any. Northwest (talk) 06:11, 30 January 2021 (EST)
It never ceases to amaze me the processes in your mind by which you convince your self of facts, facts that no one else agrees upon. RobSFree Kyle! 07:44, 30 January 2021 (EST)
If no one else agreed with Northwest, then why did Karajou unblock him and call you out for abuse of power? Why is it that I ended up disagreeing with you and instead agreed with Northwest? At least one other person agreed with him, so it couldn't possibly be that no one agreed with the facts that he presented. Besides, Church Militant, Gateway Pundit, and various other sources make clear that Northwest was if anything correct. Pokeria1 (talk) 07:49, 30 January 2021 (EST)
I don't know. Maybe because he's a sock? RobSFree Kyle! 08:02, 30 January 2021 (EST)
Careful, Rob, you're treading dangerously close to libel there. Plus, regarding your comment further up between mine and Pokeria1's ("It never ceases to amaze me..."), it looks more like you're projecting what you are doing yourself in this case. Northwest (talk) 08:06, 30 January 2021 (EST)
According to you, editors and admins can violate rules at will. And CP doesn't even have a rule about calling out socks, as far as I know. RobSFree Kyle! 08:14, 30 January 2021 (EST)
And you're still resorting to libel in saying what you posted here while ignoring the behavior that you've engaged in here over the past couple of days. Northwest (talk) 08:17, 30 January 2021 (EST)
Warning: Stop your trolling. RobSFree Kyle! 08:19, 30 January 2021 (EST)


(ec) Pokeria, are you in agreement with Northwest that Conservpaedia editors, admins, and assts do not need to be accountable for their actions? Are you in agreement with Northwest that he can violate rules by birthright? cause that is exactly what Northwest just claimed above. RobSFree Kyle! 08:10, 30 January 2021 (EST)
I made no such claim, Rob - that's merely assumption and twisting of facts on your part. Northwest (talk) 08:13, 30 January 2021 (EST)
Now you are lying and trolling. I told you yesterday when you return, we need an explanation for YOUR actions, not "he's being mean" or "he's a closet lib". Do not troll me again. RobSFree Kyle! 08:17, 30 January 2021 (EST)
Now not only are you still libelling me, you're also accusing me of what you're doing here yourself. If you attempt to unjustly block me again for telling the truth about your behavior and the abuse of power you've engaged in here of late, that's not going to reflect well on you and will only end up turning more editors against you (and could even end up costing you your sysop powers here). Northwest (talk) 08:22, 30 January 2021 (EST)
You think blocking is the only solution? Where did you learn that? From Karajou? RobSFree Kyle! 08:24, 30 January 2021 (EST)


Agreed, and that's exactly the reason why I'm downright AFRAID of becoming a mod, especially when I've had far too many experiences with mods behaving exactly like that in the past. Pokeria1 (talk) 04:58, 30 January 2021 (EST)
You all can do with a little training and instruction on how to be good editors and sysops and how to interact with other users. But you won't listen until you are forced to listen for your own benefit. Andy, this crew needs leadership. RobSFree Kyle! 05:11, 30 January 2021 (EST)
We already have leadership as it is, since Andy, Karajou, and Conservative are all mods, as is David. And quite frankly, your suggestions are basically indicating that in order for Conservapedia to become more "mainstream", it needs to be more like Wikipedia. Conservapedia was specifically created to AVOID becoming a leftist site like Wikipedia, and neutrality is by default leftist. I am NOT supporting turning Conservapedia into yet another left-wing dominated site. I've already had to sit through a lot of leftist brainwashing in school and media, too much to allow for ANY reconciliation with leftists. And if I must be honest yet again, several of your comments where you implied the Soviet Union was better off than us and truly an innocent victim, as well as refusing to see that Putin is still a Communist despite even Putin himself admitting as much is PRECISELY the reason why I'm not fond of anti-Deep State stuff, despite having no love for the Deep State myself and believing it to be just as bad as Communism. Pokeria1 (talk) 06:30, 30 January 2021 (EST)
Conservapedia has obvious management problems - lack of communication between sysops. blocking without warning and collateral damage to good faith new accounts among other problems. We all know this and we know why. Andy has a day job. I'm not asking for nor looking to win a popularity contest. Conservapedia is not a democracy, as you three seem to think. Me personally, I was raised by a Korean War drill sargeant, so that drill sergeant attitude is in my blood. I'm not looking for your love or admiration, I'm looking to equip each user with the tools and skills they need to survive and be useful for a cause larger than themselves.
Focus on the problem, not on the man. RobSFree Kyle! 06:46, 30 January 2021 (EST)
For the record, I don't want Conservapedia to be a democracy, either. A democracy if anything makes it MORE vulnerable to becoming leftist, as I've had to witness first hand with various sites I've gone to before and after this. It's also why I with all due respect for LT I do not support the creation of a board based on consensus. That's exactly the line of thinking that created the Politburo and also the Committee for Public Safety. Conservapedia, as indicated by the name, is to be first and foremost a Conservative encyclopedia, absolutely conservative/right wing, no room for liberalism/leftism. If we adopt neutrality measures, it will be a guarantee that it will end up lurching to the left. And while I agree it does need better management at times, I'm not going to risk getting it to become Wikipedia-lite and making it liberal just to get better management. Pokeria1 (talk) 07:15, 30 January 2021 (EST)
Those are interesting sentiments, and we all thank you. However, that is not the topic under discussion.
The topic under discussion is, what is better, chaos, disorganization, and editors working at cross purposes, or some kind of organization and accountability being instilled into editors? And of course because of the chaos, with each man doing what is right in his own sight, as Northwest seems to advocate, is the reason why we have no editors. We need organization, structure, and direction. It's simply not there. It has to be imposed from the top down, cause it has not and never will grow from the bottom up. RobSFree Kyle! 07:35, 30 January 2021 (EST)
What NorthWest is advocating for is actually pushing for the conservative message over any politically correct statements that help liberal messaging more than conservativism. He's if anything advocating to make sure it's purely FOR Conservativism, and not another "Wikipedia-lite." And we do have editors. Who do you think I am? An editor. As is Northwest and various people who come on here to make necessary edits. Pokeria1 (talk) 07:46, 30 January 2021 (EST)
We're not discussing an ideological bent. We're discussing order versus chaos. Conservapedia, in the state it's in right now, more resembles anarchy than conservativism. Trolls have written a significant portion of CP's content, right under the nose of these supposed advocates of conservative content. Why? Because the anarchical nature of Conservapedia forbids any open discussion and self-examination of these problems. RobSFree Kyle! 07:56, 30 January 2021 (EST)

Libel, trolling, and sockpuppetry

So now you're calling me into question with your latest irrational post on my talk page for doing the job I'm supposed to do as a sysop by blocking troublemakers who show up on this site to vandalize and make trouble? It's also not "libel" either to call them what they are either, socks and trolls - whereas what you're falsely saying about me on my talk page and on other talk pages is libel. By doing this, it sounds like you're actually siding with said troublemakers and continuing on your recent abuse of power caused by the irrational behavior you've been engaged in over the last four days. What you're doing is not only incivility, it's also downright harassment because you don't like that I'm simply trying to do my job as an editor and sysop here, and this is disgraceful behavior on your part. Northwest (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2021 (EST)

You're trolling nonsense right now. In one breathe you claim accusing a user of trolling or sockpuppetry is libel, in the next you claim some special privilege as an exemption for yourself for the same actions. This makes about as much sense as Karajou saying that User:Amorrow was not blocked for doxxing, he was blocked for publishing the name and address of somebody. RobSFree Kyle! 20:52, 31 January 2021 (EST)
All you're doing with that reply is proving me right about you once again and why you're losing the respect of editors (and at least one admin) with your irrational behavior here of late - and what you're claiming here makes no sense whatsoever because the issues you wrote about are completely different. Northwest (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2021 (EST)
And Andy, since you're here editing now, you really should do something about RobS and how he has been acting here lately, as seen by the posts he has been leaving making attacks and false accusations and engaging in incivility and harassment against me. Northwest (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2021 (EST)
So,
  • (A) tell me what doxxing is; and
  • (B) tell me when suggesting somebody is trolling or a sock is libel, and when it is not.
And please answer the specific questions, don't just repeat what a bad guy I am. RobSFree Kyle! 21:22, 31 January 2021 (EST)
You're only continuing to prove my points about you with each post you make, you know (and by the way, I already know what doxing is, and what you're falsely accusing me of is libel, but calling troublemakers what they are for the damage they try to do to Conservapedia is not because it happens to be the truth - something which, based on your recent accusatory posts, you seem to have lost understanding of). Northwest (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2021 (EST)
Now you are trolling again. Filling up the page with hundreds of bytes trashing me personally and refusing to answer specific points and questions is trolling. RobSFree Kyle! 21:40, 31 January 2021 (EST)
You're still making false accusations against me, harassing me and being uncivil - and that in itself is trolling. Northwest (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2021 (EST)
Then answer the specific quesions. RobSFree Kyle! 21:44, 31 January 2021 (EST)
I already answered them further up, in case you missed it. If that's not to your satisfaction, that's your problem alone. Northwest (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2021 (EST)
Well, I missed it somehow. RobSFree Kyle! 22:11, 31 January 2021 (EST)

User:Karajou

Andy, please instruct User:Karajou to cease and desist his harassment of me. [28] Thank you. RobSFree Kyle! 03:13, 2 February 2021 (EST)

Oh, like you were harassing me repeatedly earlier (including those two unjust blocks of me for calling out your behavior and your abuse of power here)? Northwest (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2021 (EST)

About:Nighttime editing

I have been able to edit at night for the past few months, when I tried editing last night it wouldn’t let me. --Yeschayi ~ Talk (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2021 (EST)

Thanks for letting me know. Problem solved!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:09, 2 February 2021 (EST)
Thanks Andy, it was confusing as to why. --Yeschayi ~ Talk (talk) 20
47, 2 February 2021 (EST)

Re: Thanks

Sure thing, Andy. Just did what I could to help. Northwest (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2021 (EST)

Hello Andy

I would like to have a picture for the pages Greggs, Poundbakery and Sayers however image perks are limited to trusted people, so I was wondering if someone with image perms could upload them onto the pages as I am unable to do so. --Yeschayi ~ Talk (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2021 (EST)

Do you have links to the images? Uploads need to have attribution and license info, unless in the public domain. Thanks--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2021 (EST)

Not right now since I’m on mobile and it’s 6:04am. --Yeschayi ~ Talk (talk) 01:04, 7 February 2021 (EST)

Go to the website Flickr, search for the images in question, then click the upper left of the screen to set it for Creative Commons. It will show you all the images you can use. Karajou (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2021 (EST)

Question

So to recap:

  • RobSmith was desysoped.
  • RobSmith was blocked for a month
  • I had gotten blocked for a year
  • I still retained my user rights

Can anyone explain what offenses RobSmith and I are responsible for, and under what process/guidelines these blocking actions occurred under? —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Tuesday, 14:32, 9 February 2021 (EST)

Why I made a proposal for a process to handle complaints

  • User:Northwest made a complaint on Andy's talk page against User:RobSmith alleging "abuse of power".
  • The facts clearly show that User:RobSmith was acting within Administrative Guidelines, first issuing warnings, then issuing short term blocks for User:Northwest's unrepentant violations of site policy and guidelines.

I proposed a discussion on establishing a regular process where a user with a complaint against an Admin could have their allegations vetted by other users to establish the facts of a case. Under my proposal, only an Admin could bring a complaint against another Admin to Andy, while users and assistant sysops would need to have their allegations vetted by other users first.

Under the current process, anybody's sockpuppet can harass and troll Administrators and troll User:Aschlafly's talk page with unmeritted allegations. RobSFree Kyle! 18:53, 10 February 2021 (EST)

Careful what you wish for, Rob - here's what really happened:
The fact is, the whole "kangaroo court" thing (as Rob called it) is Rob's idea, not Andy's - and the only reason he wants it is to try to grab more power here and abuse it the way he has since January 27. Over that time:
  • Rob started out by falsely accusing me of "trolling" for posting the truth about the illegality of the Democrats' election fraud and theft of the 2020 election, then proceeded to falsely accuse me of "racism" and "birtherism" for contributing to the questions about the legitimacy of Barack Obama's "presidency" because of him not being a natural-born citizen (which other editors here have also written about here and which has nothing to do with race - the only one seeing "racism" in the issue where there is none was Rob himself and he projected what he thinks he sees) - and that stemmed from a post he left on my talk page[29] which included a link to a Democrat-created DHS page making false implications and threats against those who question the illegal election fraud and the resulting illegitimate results, which I think may have caused him to snap and to correspondingly bend a knee to the Biden regime.
  • He falsely accused both me[30] and Pokeria1[31] of being "RW trolls", even though neither of us have ever had accounts on that site and avoid it like the plague as the crackpot liberal site it is.
  • He unjustly blocked me five times for questioning what he did, for standing up to him and calling him out on his abuse of power and for advising him to drop the issue (one of those blocks was undone by Karajou, who correctly called Rob's actions what it is[32]) and he engaged in insubordination by unblocking himself every time Karajou blocked him for incivility and insubordination; when Karajou told him on his talk page to behave himself and to stop with his power grab, Rob responded by again engaging in incivility (an issue he has a history of and which often got him blocked earlier in his editing career here[33]) by making a snarky edit targeting Karajou.
  • He falsely accused me of "flaming"[34] when, in fact, he started the flame war himself by leaving his original post on my talk page and escalating it when I questioned him about that post. He also falsely accused me of being a "right-wing extremist"[35] - a term of abuse against conservatives that only liberals use.
  • As part of his abuse of power, he continually hid my comments calling out his actions with the warning template to prevent others from seeing them in plain view, ignoring that by hiding my comments, he engaged in censorship because he does not like what I had to say - and only liberals engage in censorship of comments they don't like (as they do on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube). Plus, by his hiding my comments, it makes it look like Rob has something to hide - but in doing so, it only makes himself look bad. He also continued to falsely accuse me of "trolling" for calling out his recent actions and behavior (and as a means of getting a dig in on me, he made an edit on the Conservapedia:Trolling page, then locked the page immediately afterward to prevent its reversion).
  • While bringing attention to his "kangaroo court" idea, he resorted to making appeals to other posters to try to get them on his side about his idea, yet he saw fit to revert a post I made to Yeschayi explaining Rob's actions and behavior of late, [36] them claimed it was "flaming" and threatened to unjustly block me for it.
  • He falsely accused me of being a "sock" of another admin on this site[37][38] and he also engaged in snarky, childish and uncivil comments against me in his edits[39] and locked his talk page immediately afterward as a means of last wordism while he played the "victim" when he got called out on his abusive behavior after provoking me and other editors.
  • When called out on his actions and behavior, he pretended ignorance of same.[40][41]
  • He has been unjustly critical and snarky about those admins and sysops who go out of their way to prevent trolls and their sock accounts from doing damage to this site with their vandalism[42] and he does not take the sysops' efforts seriously.[43]
And that, Rob, is why you got stripped of your admin and sysop powers and why you were initially blocked from editing here after that. Northwest (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2021 (EST)
  • Did you revert a sysop? Simple question. Did you violate site policy in reverting a sysop?
  • And how many times did you revert a sysop after warnings not to? RobSFree Kyle! 20:09, 10 February 2021 (EST)
And how many times did YOU revert a sysop? Karajou (talk) 05:09, 11 February 2021 (EST)
You were engaged in abuse of power and you also engaged in accusing me of what you yourself were guilty of (in addition to everything else listed above). I saw that, so did Karajou - that's why your edits were undone, which you then went out of your way to revert in defiance while you engaged in insubordination, and that's part of why you were stripped of your powers by Andy. Add to that your incivility edits against Karajou after that[44][45] and that's also why you got blocked (and should've stayed blocked). Northwest (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2021 (EST)
  • No more bluster. The fact that you feel you can violate site policy with impunity leads me to believe you are a sockpuppet and not a bona fide user. RobSFree Kyle! 20:20, 10 February 2021 (EST)
False accusations aren't going to do you any good here, Rob. I'm not the one violating site policy here either, you did (which I made sure to document in my original reply to your first post here). Northwest (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2021 (EST)
  • You are not an Admin. Did you or did you not violate site policy by edit warring with an Admin? RobSFree Kyle! 17:31, 11 February 2021 (EST)
YOU engaged in edit warring with an Admin. Karajou (talk) 05:09, 11 February 2021 (EST)
A deceptive and misleading statement. Never once did I edit war with an Admin as a non-Admin. RobSFree Kyle! 17:31, 11 February 2021 (EST)
  • My proposal would restrict non-bona fide users from trolling Andy's talk page with bogus complaints against Admins. Period. If User:Karajou alleges I abused my sysop rights, User:Karajou can make a complaint to Andy, not someone who amply demonstrated contempt for CP site rules such as User:Northwest RobSFree Kyle! 20:32, 10 February 2021 (EST)
And that's exactly what I did, against an individual who amply demonstrated contempt for CP site rules. Karajou (talk) 05:09, 11 February 2021 (EST)
That's what YOU did? [46] Are you admitting now that Northwest is your sockpuppet and you are using sockpuppets to troll other CP Admins? 17:34, 11 February 2021 (EST)


You're ignoring the points that I made in my previous posts, Rob, and it's not going to do you any good here. Northwest (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2021 (EST)
  • You evidently don't understand the difference between a content dispute and policy or process discussion. RobSFree Kyle! 20:59, 10 February 2021 (EST)
Tread lightly, Rob - sounds more like that's exactly what you're doing here yourself, confusing the two. Northwest (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2021 (EST)
I'll take your bait. The subhead reads "process", you posted a few thousand bytes related, not to a process, but the substance of a dispute. Why can't you address the process issues here? Does a non-Admin ever have a right to edit war with an Admin? If so, what is the non-Admin's recourse if they feel abused? RobSFree Kyle! 21:20, 10 February 2021 (EST)
Does an Admin feel like he can edit war with another Admin, and treat that Admin with utter contempt, as if he was a newly-minted Bureaucrat? Karajou (talk) 05:09, 11 February 2021 (EST)
Funny that you mention that when that's exactly what you did (i.e. start an edit war as well as a flame war, starting with your original post at my talk page) during your power trip, your abuse of power and your own display of contempt for Conservapedia site rules here over those few days before you were stripped of your powers. All that does is make what you're posting here now look hypocritical, as well as being disruptive of the normal work to be done here. Northwest (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2021 (EST)
An Admin's job is not to be merely a hall monitor with a hand gun. RobSFree Kyle! 21:30, 10 February 2021 (EST)
Dismissive of you to make such a comment, considering that's exactly what you did against me during those few days with those five unjust blocks and your abuse of power in doing so. Northwest (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2021 (EST)
Now you're getting redundant again again. You showed no bona fides in your edit warring with a sysop and blatant site violations. RobSFree Kyle! 22:01, 10 February 2021 (EST)
YOU showed no bona fides in your own edit warring with a sysop and your own blatant site violations. Karajou (talk) 05:09, 11 February 2021 (EST)
An Admin's job in addition to protecting the site from trolls and vandals is to work with editors to make them better editors. I don't see you working with editors, me or other editors to help term. I see a hostile attitude creating a hostile editing environment. RobSFree Kyle! 22:09, 10 February 2021 (EST)
And your own hostility doesn't matter? Karajou (talk) 05:09, 11 February 2021 (EST)
The trolls and vandals in question who come here have no interest in being "better editors", they're only interested in vandalizing this site and making mischief every time they show up here. By you claiming otherwise and ignoring what they do, you're basically siding with those same trolls and doing nothing to stop them while you falsely attack those who actually try to keep this site from being taken over and ruined by racist, anti-Semitic, foul-mouthed and generally immature trolls and vandals.
Moreover, you yourself fostered the hostile environment with your own hostile attitude here (including incivility and abuse of your power), and you're not doing yourself any favors either with your false accusations, your projection of your own actions and your refusal to take responsibility for them. Northwest (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2021 (EST)
Now your making false allegations, again. Your bluster and hijacking a process proposal to deal with complaints, again, is trolling behavior. RobSFree Kyle! 22:29, 10 February 2021 (EST)
You're not making yourself look good here with your own false allegations and projection of same (as well as your projection of your own trolling behavior and your dismissive reply to what I told you before), Rob. You'd do well to quit now while you're behind. Northwest (talk) 22:37, 10 February 2021 (EST)
(ec) And what a joke your claims are. I have evidence just since my de-sysopping of YOU working with at least two trolls from said vandal site. There's probably more if I reviewed your editing closer. The trolls have done a tremendously effective job in their deception of you. But it appears you have little interest in evidence and facts. RobSFree Kyle! 22:40, 10 February 2021 (EST)
And we have plenty of evidence that before you were de-sysoped that you were more interested in protecting RW-created socks on this site - socks YOU identified as such - then you were in getting rid of them. Karajou (talk) 05:09, 11 February 2021 (EST)
I gave you a list. You unblocked one and are currently collaborating with another. You have not blocked a single user account on that list, as you promised or boasted that you would. 17:39, 11 February 2021 (EST)
Give it up, Rob, you're only digging yourself in deeper with your false accusations and your rants. Northwest (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2021 (EST)


Congrats, Rob - not only are you again making false accusations and libelling (as well as just plain lying), you yourself are showing no interest in facts or evidence and displaying interest only in being disruptive here. Every time you do this, you keep showing why Andy was right to de-sysop you and you're acting bitter over it. Northwest (talk) 22:45, 10 February 2021 (EST)
(ec) Reverting trolling vandalism and blocking the j.d. is the easy part. Ferreting out bad information contributed by alleged "good faith" users over many years nobody but me pays attention to. How did the Senate Hit List, which made national news occur? No.1, I was inactive at the time; No.2 those who boast of protecting the site paid ZERO attention to a page that was created and edited over many months, when the page title itself was a giveaway of trolling activity. RobSFree Kyle! 22:47, 10 February 2021 (EST)
You're still not making a case for yourself here, Rob, and you're only trying to distract and deflect from the bad behavior that you yourself engaged in during that past week before your de-sysoping (which looks akin to what the Democrats have done and been doing to distract from their own crimes over time). Northwest (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2021 (EST)
(ec) The Senate Hit List was 10 years ago when efforts to paint conservatives and conservative internet users as rightwing extremists nobody took seriously, but me. You think the problem has improved since? RobSFree Kyle! 22:56, 10 February 2021 (EST)
And yet you saw fit to falsely call me exactly that in one of your posts[47] (which, as I pointed out, only liberals use as a term of abuse against conservatives), so you're not exactly standing on solid ground here. Northwest (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2021 (EST)
Are you defending the Senate Hit List now?
Did anyone raise on the talk page or in the private sysop discussion group what the point of a page "Democrat senators with Republican governors" was? Who would monitor and update it every two years in perpetuity? Did anyone engage the trolls to ask? Did anyone monitor the trolls other activities? Did anyone ever express a hint of suspicion?
I guess not. CP Admins were just relieved they weren't writing profanity or doing j.d. trolling, they didn't have to block and revert, so they allowed them to go about their activity. RobSFree Kyle! 23:12, 10 February 2021 (EST)
IOWs. RW trolls knew 10 years ago CP Admin were never properly trained to defend against trolling activity, and they exploited the opportunity. What has changed since? RobSFree Kyle! 23:15, 10 February 2021 (EST)
I wasn't even around at the time of that article in question, so you're asking the wrong person here. Sorry, you missed again. Northwest (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2021 (EST)
I personally confronted Mr. Trent Toulouse about his involvement in Rationalwiki in the Spring of 2010 in various Wikipedia forums after the Senate Hit List with enough evidence to get him permabanned from Wikipedia. He has been relatively inactive in Wikipedia ever since. Am I looking for thanks? Am I looking for glory? No. But you can kiss off with your bogus bulltwinkies. RobSFree Kyle! 23:24, 10 February 2021 (EST)
As I said, I wasn't even here on Conservapedia at the time of that article (I didn't join until 2012, shortly after I first heard of this site) and I never heard of RW until first finding out about it via its since-deleted article here some time after, so you're really not doing yourself any favors (or making yourself look rational) with your false accusations or your incivility. Just drop the issue and let it go, Rob - you'll be doing yourself a favor in the long run. Northwest (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2021 (EST)
Thank you. Did you hear that everybody? User:Northwest admits he doesn't have a clue what he is talking about. We'll chalk it up to a lack of information on your part rather than a violation of site policy and trolling a CP Admin. 23:39, 10 February 2021 (EST)
Congrats, Rob, you're only making yourself look worse and worse each time you post now (and you're still accusing me of what you yourself are doing and still acting uncivil). Northwest (talk) 23:48, 10 February 2021 (EST)
Inserted for the record: Talk:Conservapedia/Archive 15#Some form of mediation. RobSFree Kyle! 17:13, 11 February 2021 (EST)

Vetting sources in a content dispute

Northwest, you wrote about Obama: "because of him not being a natural-born citizen".

At Conservapedia, you cannot definitively state that Obama was not a natural born citizen because there is no definitive/absolute/direct proof to that effect. The best you can do is point out that certain sources/people suspect that Obama was not a natural born citizen for X, Y, Z, etc. reasons. If you are definitively insisting that Obama was not a natural born citizen in articles, please stop. In many cases, historical claims are probabilistic. This is one of those cases.Conservative (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2021 (EST)

Right, there is a thousand ways to insert disclaimers, "evidence suggests", "some people say", "according to unnamed sources" etc. RobSFree Kyle! 20:43, 10 February 2021 (EST)
Oh, really? Take a look at this[48] and this[49] (starting at 5:49) and you tell me. Northwest (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2021 (EST)
"According to the Washington Standard". What is so difficult about that? RobSFree Kyle! 20:56, 10 February 2021 (EST)
So in other words, you want to do exactly as Pokeria1 does not want to see happen[50][51] by taking Conservapedia in a more leftist direction via "neutrality". Sorry, no dice. Northwest (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2021 (EST)
Duh, look at the subheading above. We are discussing vetting content in this section, not policy or ideology. If you care to discuss you false accusations (a blockable offense according to you), create a new discussion subheading. Disrupting this thread with impertinent allegations is called "trolling". RobSFree Kyle! 21:13, 10 February 2021 (EST)
And again, you're falsely accusing me of what you yourself are guilty of doing. That and your further incivility in your replies isn't getting you anywhere here. Northwest (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2021 (EST)
bla bla bla. RobSFree Kyle! 21:21, 10 February 2021 (EST)
Watch it, Rob - your incivility and your attitude toward other editors who call your behavior out got you blocked by other admins before, what makes you think this time will be different? Northwest (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2021 (EST)

I am not promoting some kind of faux neutrality. I am merely saying that we cannot state something with certainty where there is no certainty. For example, a computer expert examined the allegations that Obama's online long form birth certificate was a fraud and concluded it was likely not a fraud.[52]

So what I am advocating is not cherry picking evidence and excluding evidence/conclusions arbitrarily because it goes against our wishes. See: Fallacy of exclusion.Conservative (talk) 07:08, 14 February 2021 (EST)

Theory about RobS

Just a theory: RobS has a fixed idea to either rescue someone who's in trouble or fix a mistake he made. If that's true Rob, there's no need to charge ahead against us; you're among friends.

There's an oracle that reads:

If you are sincere, you have success in your heart,
And whatever you do succeeds.

Richard Wilhelm explains:

Through repetition of danger we grow accustomed to it. Water sets the example for the right conduct under such circumstances. It flows on and on, and merely fills up all the places where it flows; it does not shrink from any dangerous spot nor from any plunge, and nothing can make it lose its own essential nature. It remains true to itself under all conditions. Thus, likewise, if one is sincere when confronted with difficulties, the heart can penetrate the meaning of the situation. And once we have gained inner mastery of a problem, it will come about naturally that the action we take will succeed. In danger all that counts is really carrying out all that has to be done--thoroughness--and going forward, in order not to perish through tarrying in the danger.
Properly used, danger can have an important meaning as a protective measure. Thus heaven has its perilous height protecting it against every attempt at invasion, and earth has its mountains and bodies of water, separating countries by their dangers. Thus also rulers make use of danger to protect themselves against attacks from without and against turmoil within.

VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 22:43, 10 February 2021 (EST)

The presence of RW trolls

The presence of what now is called "RW trolls" in Consevpadia has been ongoing since before RW was founded. I was blocked by one of its chief organizers from the Wikien-1 mailing list in 2004 when he was Moderator there. From 2007 to 2012 I spent much time investigating and identifying its founders and chief organizers. In doing so, I was accused of colluding with them.

In that same span of time, whenever I have tried to bring what information I discovered to the CP private mail list, I was accused of being sympathetic or in collusion with them. So I remained silent on much of the broad outlines. Meanwhile, their activities have gone unchecked.

The RationalkMediaFoundation in fact is in violation of U.S. tax laws, with trustees residing outside the United States elected by non-transparent and rigged elections. But who cares? If I attempt to share this information with User:Karajou I am only accused of being an RW troll.

Meantime, their activities such as was seen in the Senate Hit List, have gone unabated. But evidence now suggests User:Karajou is using sockpuppets to troll CP Admins, rather than focus on Rationalwiki which made a fool out of him with the Senate Hit List. RobSFree Kyle! 17:55, 11 February 2021 (EST)

"Evidence" which you falsely claim, along with the other false accusations you've been throwing around, in order to smear Karajou and other editors here out of vindictive bitterness as revenge for your being de-sysoped for your abuses of power and corruption. The more you post in connection with what you're doing to deflect from your own actions, Rob, the worse and more desperate you only make yourself look. Northwest (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2021 (EST)

Conclusion

Within the past two months the following has happened:

  • The revelation was made of RW-created socks within the site.
  • User Amorrow was blocked for malicious behavior; RobSmith called the block unjust, and based it on "asking for additional privileges".
  • RobSmith was asked to release the names of these socks. He was asked to removed these socks. He refused, calling it a case of "whack-a-mole".
  • RobSmith acted as an Admin with a bully club, beating down any who opposed his authority, threatened others with blocking if they cited his abusive behavior, and blocked Northwest for exactly that reason.
  • Treated user Karajou as someone less than a sysop and Admin, seeing fit to issue a warning on his talk page about "interfering in sysop communications".
  • Sought additional powers for himself, to include bureaucrat privileges.
  • Proposed a dangerous kangaroo court for the site, whose purpose is the passing of a verdict against anyone, the "trial" being a mere formality.
  • Stated directly to me in a private email that his purpose for all of the above was to get rid of me from the site.

As I stated before, the only thing that made any sense for this whole episode is a power grab, with RobSmith directly controlling the site his way, and not by policies laid down in 2006. The protection of these RW sock accounts gives credence to the theory that RobSmith may have been acting in concert with one of them, with the possibility of a hostile takeover away from the site's owner. Andy was informed of all of the above from the beginning, and made the appropriate moves necessary to prevent such from taking place. Karajou (talk) 05:27, 11 February 2021 (EST)

Response:

  • The revelation of RW-created socks may be a Revelation to User:Karajou, however User:RobSmith has been trying to call this to CP leadership's attention now for 10 years, in which I enjoyed a 3 year block for attempting to do so, in addition to being called an RW troll.
  • User:Amorrow was blocked for doxxing, at which User:Karajou first denied and now admits. Conclusion: User:Karajou didn't know what doxxing is until I forced the issue.
  • RobSmith gave a list of known active RW trolls to Karajou; Karajou proceeded to unblock one and collaborate with others. He hasn't blocked a single account on that list.
  • "beating down any who opposed his authority", on its face a false statement. One asst sysop received 2 one hour blocks and a few other blocks not exceeding 2 hours; by contrast, User:Karajou unjustly blocked Liberlatears for a year without any cause whatsoever and blocked me for a year when his arbitrariness was called into question.
  • "threatened others with blocking if they cited his abusive behavior" - a totally false statement with no evidence.
  • User:Karajou did in fact interfere in communications between two CP Admins.
  • User:RobSmith asked for bureaucrat powers to rein in abuses by Karajou - a decision User:RobSmith has no power over whatsoever and totally up to Mr. Andy Schlalfy. And Mr. Schalafly has in fact handed out user rights by request in the past. There is absolutely no prohibition against asking for enhanced user rights on Conservapedia, and asking for the rights is not a policy violation or cause for blocking, as User:Karajou contends.
  • User:RobSmith has no power or authority to establish a Kangaroo Court. A decision to do so is Mr. Schlafly's. User:Karajou inhibited discussion on presenting a proposal to Mr. Schlafly.
  • I told Karajou I deemed his arbitrary judgment to be detrimental to the site, and that he personally needed leadership and training on how to exercise the powers of a Sysop. Only in his paranoid imagination did he read that as "get rid of me". RobSFree Kyle! 17:00, 11 February 2021 (EST)
Forget it, Rob. Again, you're trying in desperation to deflect from and cover for your own wrongdoing (while refusing to accept responsibility for same) by throwing accusations at anyone else you see fit (including more false accusations by you of me being another admin's "sock") in a desperate act of whataboutism - and you also lie and deny when you claim that there is "no evidence" that you unjustly threatened me with blocking for calling out your abuse of power - this[53], this[54], this[55] and this[56] prove otherwise. Northwest (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2021 (EST)
Don't try to deflect. Your trolling edits on my talk were reverted. RobSFree Kyle! 17:41, 11 February 2021 (EST)
No actually, you yourself are the one doing the deflecting with your false accusations against other editors and admins and your projection of what you yourself are doing. Calling out your abuse of power is not "trolling", but what you're doing here (including your snide and uncivil remarks), even now, is. Northwest (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2021 (EST)

Gathering the facts

Why did RobS call for a Kangaroo court? Was he being sarcastic? And why is it expected that RobS has to use propositional speech to make his case, but Northwest is only required to post links? Do better, Northwest. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 08:38, 12 February 2021 (EST)

I guess I'm no longer a part of Conservapedia. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 00:15, 13 February 2021 (EST)

We'll see. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 06:30, 13 February 2021 (EST)

RobS gave the proposed court a proposed name which was problematic. Anyways, it is a moot point. Andy does not like the court idea.Conservative (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2021 (EST)

Please give RobSmith his "edit" tag back

Hi Andy, can you at least please give RobSmith back his "edit" tag? Sometimes all CP editing right now is restricted to "Administrators, edit", and you removed that user right when desysoping him. Thanks! —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Monday, 15:13, 15 February 2021 (EST)

Done. Please let me know if that fixes the problem. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2021 (EST)
Thank you very much! —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Monday, 15:42, 15 February 2021 (EST)

I am back.

I ended up going semi inactive for a few days to do stuff, I’m back now. --Yeschayi ~ Talk (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2021 (EST)

Welcome back!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2021 (EST)

I thought you would be interested in this

An American, conservative, Christian law school won a international moot court contest.[57] They receive no federal funding. And they beat the American Ivy League law schools.Conservative (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2021 (EST)

That happened back in 2016. But thanks for mentioning it.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2021 (EST)

About:Royalty Templates

I think there should be a template for royals/kings. --Yeschayi ~ Talk (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2021 (EST)

That's a great idea! Perhaps this is something I can help with collaborating on since I've used/improved infoboxes and mostly understand the {{#if:}} and {{#ifeq:}} parser functions. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Saturday, 23:50, 19 February 2021 (EST)

Northwest and Karajou

How long do I have to put up with this trolling by the tag team of Northwest and Karajou? Exhibit 1

How long to we have to put up with your lies, your false accusations, and your contemptible behavior? You sit there and accuse the rest of us of doing that which you yourself have engaged in on this website, twice, and you want to paint yourself as the victim in all of this. I for one, am not going to have you point a finger of blame at me or anyone else for that which you have caused. Karajou (talk) 05:57, 20 February 2021 (EST)
Exhibit 2. RobSFree Kyle! 06:30, 20 February 2021 (EST)
You're only making yourself look more and more foolish every time you do this, Rob - as well as proving what I said about your actions right (which was why you deleted my posts that you linked, a sign that you still don't like what I have to say regarding your behavior and that you refuse to take responsibility for your wrongdoing). What I don't get here is why User:Conservative keeps unblocking you after you get blocked for your incivility, because Conservative himself has also been victimized by unjust blocks by you in the past[58] (including one from 2011 for a false claim of "trolling" made by you, based on a post he first made to Andy on his talk page[59] regarding your well-documented history of the behavior you're currently engaged in, going back to that time and before). Northwest (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2021 (EST)
We've heard enough of your Stalag 17, Hogan's Heroes, and Three Stooges Hollywood Values; look what it's done for Conservapedia just since February 5. [60] RobSFree Kyle! 12:08, 21 February 2021 (EST)
The fights and division and hatred YOU CAUSED are responsible for that. No one wants to come to a website and see that kind of behavior. Karajou (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2021 (EST)
Don't you have a game of Donkey Kong to attend to? RobSFree Kyle! 15:36, 21 February 2021 (EST)
You're going to have to deal with some aspects of life, RobSmith. One of them is you cannot blame others for your own problems. Karajou (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2021 (EST)
Thank you. RobSFree Kyle! 15:54, 21 February 2021 (EST)
You're only proving Karajou's point, Rob. Don't push your luck here. Northwest (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2021 (EST)

Similarweb, which is more reliable than Alexa, says traffic is up for Conservapedia since December 20, 2020.[61]

People primarily go to wiki for mainspace content. Talk page disputes receive a small sliver of page views compared to mainspace content.

Andy does not want RobS blocked as he creates a lot of content that people want to read.Conservative (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2021 (EST)

What's missing at the moment are links from MPR to new, fresh, and timely content. RobSFree Kyle! 15:52, 21 February 2021 (EST)
Only problem with that, Conservative, is that RobS is now causing more problems for this site with his incivility, disruptiveness and bad behavior here than he is contributing anything of worth here. By refusing to allow RobS to be blocked to punish him to send a message about his conduct here, all that does is further encourage his behavior and send a message that he's being "protected" no matter how bad his behavior is, which is a bad message to send - and of all people, you (also a victim of unjust blocks by RobS in the past) should know not to encourage that from him - just saying. Northwest (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2021 (EST)
I've been involved in my share of internet disputes over the years, but this is the most ridiculous ever. I'm accused of being Peter Graves in Stalag 17. Honestly, I don't even know how to respond, so I haven't really paid much attention. RobSFree Kyle! 19:12, 21 February 2021 (EST)
And Northwest. Please, stop trolling me with another ridiculous response. RobSFree Kyle! 19:14, 21 February 2021 (EST)
Karajou compared his role as a Conservapedia Admin to that of a prisoner in a Nazi concentration camp. Honestly, and I address this to you, Andy, how do you in a sane mind respond to that? RobSFree Kyle! 19:21, 21 February 2021 (EST)
Pointing out the truth to you is not "trolling", Rob - and you were the one who started this whole mess to begin with, so all of this is on you. The sooner you realize that and you cut it with your incivility and snark, the better off you'll be. Northwest (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2021 (EST)
I have no idea what you are talking about. Above I asked you stop trolling me and addressed my question to Andy. Your response here by definition is trolling. Nuff said. RobSFree Kyle! 19:27, 21 February 2021 (EST)
Every time you continue to post regarding this, Rob, you only further prove not only my point, but the points of everyone else here who's spoken out against your behavior and your projection (and simultaneous denial) of same on the rest of us here. You seriously need to smarten up and behave yourself because you can't continue acting like you think you can say whatever you please here with impunity, then play the "victim" when you get called out for it. Northwest (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2021 (EST)
Is that your view, too, that you share with Karajou? that CP Admins are locked up in a Nazi concentration camp? RobSFree Kyle! 19:37, 21 February 2021 (EST)
Your opinion and yours alone, Rob - and you're only further proving my point about how you're acting here. Northwest (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2021 (EST)
Karajou shared his Hollywood values on the email list. Want me to quote it verbatim? RobSFree Kyle! 19:42, 21 February 2021 (EST)
Karajou compared life in Conservapedia to life in a Nazi Stalag. When I said he blew a gasket,. Andy de-sysoped me 2 minutes later. This is a problem for Andy to deal with, not you. RobSFree Kyle! 19:45, 21 February 2021 (EST)
And you brought that on yourself, so you have only yourself and your behavior to blame for that. Deal with it. Northwest (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2021 (EST)
(ec) I can't think of a better example of Hollywood values corrupting a person's mind than Karajou's own admission on the private email list of making moral judgments about other human beings inspired by a Hollywood movie. RobSFree Kyle! 19:50, 21 February 2021 (EST)
Seriously, you're not doing yourself any favors here (and it sound like whatever it was Karajou said, you're intentionally twisting it out of context to suit your purposes because you're still acting bitter about being desysoped - which only makes yourself look bad here). Northwest (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2021 (EST)
From: <karajou[redacted]> Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 1:48 AM

To: [All]

There is a scene in one of my favorite movies. Halfway through "Stalag 17" a sergeant named Sefton has been accused of working for the Germans as a stoolie, and got his ass beat by the other POWs. So he finds out just who the real culprit was, and as he sits with a possibly former buddy, he asks a very serious question:

"Suppose he's not an American at all. Suppose he's a German the krauts had planted here? Eating our food, sharing our bunks, in with those who beat me up, only he beat hardest."

You, RobSmith, based upon your behaviour this past month, in which everyone can see within the Slack group and Conservapedia itself, are not a conservative at all. You're a liberal...."

Pure comedy. RobSFree Kyle! 20:02, 21 February 2021 (EST)

Let me continue: Then I am repeatedly accused of "making demands" and blocked for "false accusations", yet not once have I ever "made a demand", and I dare anyone to find a diff from ANYWHERE of me "making a demand". Will Karajou block himself for "making false accusations"? RobSFree Kyle! 20:12, 21 February 2021 (EST)

More comedy. RobSFree Kyle! 20:13, 21 February 2021 (EST)

And you just proved my point again (as well as his). You're not doing yourself any good by continuing to pursue this instead of dropping it and letting it go, because you're only making yourself look bad in the process. Northwest (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2021 (EST)
Yeah, and besides, last I checked this sounds like a demand. Pokeria1 (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2021 (EST)
That is a Sysop Warning (which incidentally is the job of a Sysop). I am speaking specifically about making alleged "demands" to Andy and other Conservapedia Admins. RobSFree Kyle! 20:24, 21 February 2021 (EST)
<digression>Just for the yuks, I watched that clip from Stalag 17; they all have what my parents called "Beatle's haircuts" and looked like dang hippies. So much for historical accuracy. The same sort of Hollywood inspiration that comes from watching reruns of Hogan's Heroes starring that amateur pornography producer who was mysteriously murdered. But if my old man, who fought in the 2nd Marine Division at Iwo Jima calls it a "Beatle's haircut", I'll take his word for it over Karajou's. If this is the sort of evidence Karajou presents in a kangaroo court of anti-American and treasonous activity, and the sitting magistrate renders judgment, so be it. RobSFree Kyle! 23:37, 21 February 2021 (EST)
Three things: one, everyone saw my email regarding Stalag 17, and the comparison I made was to Rob being an RW mole within the site, much like the Peter Graves character being a Nazi mole in the movie. Two, the film was made long before the Beatles got their silly haircuts, let alone the rockstars they became. Three, you're not an admin anymore, for reasons which you have been told many, many times. Karajou (talk) 04:27, 22 February 2021 (EST)
So is it your testimony that CP Admins are like prisoners in a Nazi Stalag based upon a Hollywood movie, and their actions and suspicions should be guided as such. And secondly, the rights of the accused should be afforded the same due process that Jamie Raskin, Erik Swalwell, and Nancy Pelosi afforded to President Trump? Let's clear the air on these issues. RobSFree Kyle! 05:05, 22 February 2021 (EST)

Donald Trump

The Donald Trump page has been the target of trolling for the past 24 hours. [62][63][64][65][66] Perhaps a short term page protect is in order. RobSFree Kyle! 22:55, 23 February 2021 (EST)

Here's my proposal: anyone with the "protect" tag should create a user subpage with "/Donald Trump" in the end with the content being "{{:Donald Trump}}" and protect it so that the "cascading" option is turned on. That way, if I understand correctly, the "Donald Trump" page can be edited by those with the "protect" tag and not just administrators due to cascading protection settings. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Wednesday, 23:13, 23 February 2021 (EST)
Here's your list [67] At least 1 is LANCB. RobSFree Kyle! 23:19, 23 February 2021 (EST)
While clever, LT's suggestion wouldn't give any different tier of protection...it would just attach the protection on that user's subpage to the Trump article. The only protection level I can currently apply does absolutely nothing, as currently configured.
Short-term protection might be a good idea, but it would need to be at the Admin level (which I can't do). However, vandalism on that page hasn't been too bad. --DavidB4 (TALK) 23:57, 23 February 2021 (EST)

Protected it for a week. Thanks for the suggestion.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2021 (EST)

re: Michael Farris Debates Andy Schlafly in New Jersey

I saw your opening argument in the Michael Farris vs. Andy Schlafly debate.[68]

You laid out superb arguments against having a constitution convention. After you laid out your main arguments, I didn't even both to watch the entire debate. What could Farris possibly say in reply to your opening arguments that could overcome them. Nothing!Conservative (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2021 (EST)

Thanks!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 13:18, 26 February 2021 (EST)

Templates

I've just been informed that only Admins can create Templates. After watching Josh Hawley's CPAC speech, the idea came to create an Template:Oligarchy Template. Without action from you, this may be a lost opportunity. Thanks. RobSFree Kyle! 18:23, 27 February 2021 (EST)

Fixed this issue for you. It should work now.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2021 (EST)
Now hold on, why is editing templates suddenly restricted? This never occurred before. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Sunday, 22:01, 27 February 2021 (EST)
Templates can create trolling content over many pages, so their editing needs to be watched closely. Typically, the Template page itself is locked after creation, while others still can make changes or additions to the Template displayed on pages, which needs monitoring. RobSFree Kyle! 22:11, 27 February 2021 (EST)
In response to Liberaltears, editing Templates works now.--Trumpsupporter (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2021 (EST)
I believe that's because Andy gave you the tag; I don't have it. The problem now is that a whole bunch of editors who aren't administrators won't be able to create/edit templates. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Sunday, 22:34, 27 February 2021 (EST)
Can you try to create a template now? I think it should work.Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2021 (EST)--
I can't think of any particular templates that need to be created right now, but editing them works now. Thank you Andy! —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Sunday, 23:59, 27 February 2021 (EST)
I want to do an Oligarchy Template. Josh Hawley laid out a good line of attack with that term today. RobSFree Kyle! 00:02, 28 February 2021 (EST)

Hello.

What is the upload permission? Is it an earned role? --Yeschayi ~ Talk (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2021 (EST)

Yes, it is an earned privilege. Your account is getting close to that additional privilege!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:55, 28 February 2021 (EST)
Thank you for letting me know, you are always a good helper. --Yeschayi ~ Talk (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2021 (EST)
By the way, until you get there, you can request image uploads here: Conservapedia:Image upload requests (CP:IUR). It might be a slow process, but at least it gives you options. --DavidB4 (TALK) 23:22, 28 February 2021 (EST)

hi

how are you --Yeschayi ~ Talk (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2021 (EST)

Building traffic

This site ranks: 150,892 In global internet traffic and engagement over the past 90 days

Country Alexa Rank United States 61,140

New multi-year lows. All the traffic I built up in January, when the US rank rose to 33,000, has been wiped out. There is no incentive to produce as long as I can continue to be harassed and trolled. RobSFree Kyle! 18:12, 28 February 2021 (EST)

Dear Rob; You are not being harassed. You are however, according to what I have read, bringing up an old bone. The last time was the 22nd, today is the 28th, a week later. Let it pass.Cazle (talk) 19:09, 28 February 2021 (EST)
I'm done. I have been harassed and will continue to be harassed. There's no sense in continuing under these circumstances.
It took all year last year to get CP as #20,000 in the U.S. by election day, with 33K unique daily visitors. It fell off afterwards, which was to be expected. It fell to #63,000 by New Years with the loss of 6K unique daily visitors over those two months, November and December. In January, throughout the Capitol riot and impeachment, I fought back to raise it to #33,000. Once the trolling began, and five days after my desysoping, CP lost an additional 4K unique daily visitors in 5 days. I built that audience of readership through MPR.
This is not the first time I've witnessed changes in numbers like this. The idiotic assertion that I'm some character in a Hollywood movie about World War II, and the absolute refusal of me being able to defend myself or state my case is more than enough. RobSFree Kyle! 19:37, 28 February 2021 (EST)
  • 1. I had nothing to do with any of that, if you haven't checked, I'm new here.
  • 2. You don't need to quit. I don't want you to quit, and as a Christian, thinking of other Christians, I don't think the others really want you to leave either.
  • 3. I am not harassing you, I was simply asking that you invoke some forgiveness, as is the Christian manner; to let the issue pass, and trouble not your soul.Cazle (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2021 (EST)
No. It's not you at all. I didn't mean to create any impression like that. I'm speaking of the trolling of me which has made me incapable of responding to the assaults on conservatives and conservativism at this crucial moment in time. My time and influence can be better spent elsewhere rather than watching trolls being rewarded while the site itself decides to do more dumpster diving. RobSFree Kyle! 20:26, 28 February 2021 (EST)
If you're leaving, I guess I'll soon leave as well... —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Monday, 20:36, 28 February 2021 (EST)
I was permabanned from a certain website the begins with R because allegedly tolerating my presence there was chasing away what they considered "good" editors (I did a good job of that for 14 years). While having such a policy of trading off "good editors" for "bad editors" is debatable, it's something Andy should look into. RobSFree Kyle! 21:55, 28 February 2021 (EST)
Our traffic statistics are posted, unlike Wikipedia, and the numbers haven't changed much recently. Alexa measures traffic by people who use Alexa. But I don't want quarreling among editors and I've added a ban on editors disparaging themselves to the Commandments. Should I take any further action to try to reduced the bickering?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2021 (EST)
The bickering began with bogus, redundant complaints on your talk page, which you have never allowed me to respond to. RobSFree Kyle! 22:10, 28 February 2021 (EST)
Conservapedia:Trolling is defined as:
  • employing redundant arguments intended to occupy and waste the time, efforts, or energies of other users or to distract them from productive editing and making mainspace article contributions.
Read this thread from your own talk page [69] and tell me if it doesn't consist of "employing redundant arguments" over and over again, spread over at least two other pages by the same accuser? And where have I ever been allowed to respond? RobSFree Kyle! 22:16, 28 February 2021 (EST)

Will we get any new infobox’s soon?

We need something like an infobox royalty for Kings/Queens/Tsars. --Yeschayi ~ Talk (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2021 (EST)

What caused upload perms to be an earned permission.

Was it the trolls and vandals? --Yeschayoise the editor (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2021 (EST)

That's been the longtime policy for more than ten years. It is similar to and consistent with other privileges that are earned.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2021 (EST)
Ok. --Yeschayoise the editor (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2021 (EST)

Hi.

Hi Andy. --Yeschayi (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2021 (EDT

Your joke about Bruce Springsteen in your Conservapedia article "Mystery: Does God have a sense of humor?" was very funny.

Your joke about Bruce Springsteen in your Conservapedia article Mystery:Does God Have a Sense of Humor? was very funny. It made me laugh.

Politics: within weeks after Barack Obama was sworn in as president in 2009, Obama-supporter Bruce Springsteen was the half-time performer at the Super Bowl. His most famous song is "Born in the U.S.A.," but he did not even perform it, presumably because that is an unwanted controversy about Obama.Conservative (talk) 08:15, 25 March 2021 (EDT)

Thanks!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 13:15, 25 March 2021 (EDT)

Please give your feedback on my updating of the civility portion of the Conservapedia guidelines

Andy, please give your feedback on my updating the civility portion of the Conservapedia guidelines.

"For content disputes, be reasonable and make every effort to use an article's talk page to have a cordial and constructive dialogue. Stick to the facts in content disputes and back up your facts with a source or sources. If you are proposing alternative content, it must be sourced. Avoid bringing up irrelevant past disputes with editors and stick to the content dispute at hand. Do not engage in personal attacks. If you have a content dispute with another editor, do not immediately post to the other editor's personal talk page. The article talk pages is where the vast majority of discussion should take place. Avoid unnecessary content disputes by sourcing your article content."

I believe this will help Conservapedia be a more civil place. In addition, it gives ground rules for discussions that will help resolve disputes between editors more amicably.

Do you agree that my addition to the civility portion of the Conservapedia guidelines is useful?Conservative (talk) 04:28, 29 March 2021 (EDT)

Excellent. Thanks!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2021 (EDT)

Request to Aschlafly (Talk page edit)

Hello Aschlafly. I have been in contact with one of the other admins, DavidB4 , via email and he referred me to you. I am fairly new to editing Conservapedia, with only a few days of experience, however, I have a lot of experience in editing websites like Conservapedia. I am actually a well known Wikipedia editor (mentioned by Breitbart News, Law Enforcement Today, and recently WiseScience.info). My user page has some more details on my Wikipedia editing history and why the news organizations made stories on me. My timezone is Eastern Standard Time, and normally I don't get a chance to edit a lot until the night time due to my irl life (High School student). So far on Conservapedia, I have started a dozen articles and started a project (See Conservapedia:Project Current Events.) and I only started editing Conservapedia less than a week ago. I hope you can see that I only want to improve Conservapedia, so I would like to request the nighttime editing user-right permission. Thank you for your time and consideration into my request. --Elijahandskip (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2021 (EDT)

Thank you. I am not sure if you saw this or what the situation is, but DavidB4 emailed me and said I was granted the nighttime editing permission. So thank you (to you or Davidb4 or to whichever admin read this and decided to grant me the request). --Elijahandskip (talk) 06:45, 31 March 2021 (EDT)
That was user:Aschlafly. --DavidB4 (TALK) 01:01, 1 April 2021 (EDT)

Permission to block

Andy,

Do I have your consent to block this user for any length of time beginning at 10 minutes for persistent trolling and edit warring? He has stalked my page creations and contributions for 6 or 7 years, inserting some of the most outrageous nonsense.

When I issued his first official Warning in January after years of trolling, I was de-sysoped. Had I simply blocked him for 5 years sometime ago as most Admins do, he never would have been around to complain about me. Only you can lay down the law on proper interaction between users.

Per the link above, the user never addresses the content issue and makes redundant arguments three times, which is the definition of trolling per CP Guidelines. RobSFree Kyle! 01:13, 31 March 2021 (EDT)

And once again, you're playing the "victim" and attempting to appeal to authority to get your way while making your usual false accusations of "trolling" (which originated after what you instigated back in January) over my attempts to improve the articles on this site while clearly ignoring all the wrong that you did, refusing to take responsibility for same and instigating trouble. You're clearly ignoring why Andy stripped you of your admin powers and you're also ignoring what User:Conservative proposed regarding content disputes, as you're acting thoroughly unreasonable and uncivil as well as engaging in personal attacks. Seriously, you need to drop this because the rest of us have better things to do than to deal with your issues. Northwest (talk) 01:31, 31 March 2021 (EDT)
Go address the content issue which is simple: Are traffic tickets criminal offenses?
You have yet to address the content issue.
You have nonetheless expended 1,700 bytes and two hours of trolling on the Talk/Bill Gates page after edit warring.
RobSFree Kyle! 01:41, 31 March 2021 (EDT)
And once again with the false accusations and the projection of your own behavior after you were told to drop it and let it go. Your disruptive behavior here (and history thereof) is causing trouble in this site and is exactly why you can't be trusted in a position of authority and multiple editors, as well as Andy and User:Karajou (who you insubordinated after you were told to behave yourself and put the brakes on your power trip), have made that clear. Northwest (talk) 01:48, 31 March 2021 (EDT)

It's a choice Andy must make which will affect the future of Conservapedia. If content creators are stalked and trolls piggyback on their work with outrageous contributions, and the content creators have no recourse, they will stop creating content. RobSFree Kyle! 01:55, 31 March 2021 (EDT)

Seriously? Again, you're engaging in false accusations against those actually trying to improve the content of this site (and some of whom, BTW, have been far more active in eliminating actual trolls who come here to vandalize this site with lies, vulgarity, etc. than you have). You're only continuing to make yourself look bad with your continuing disruptions, attacks on others and playing of "victim" and that is of your own doing. And another thing - the content I put into the Bill Gates article which you later hid, then removed on the false "trolling" claim actually met the criteria which Conservative set out (including being sourced) and was relevant, which you chose to disregard. Northwest (talk) 02:02, 31 March 2021 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Inappropriate/trolling behavior - Examples Guidelines defines trolling as:

  • employing redundant arguments intended to occupy and waste the time, efforts, or energies of other users or to distract them from productive editing and making mainspace article contributions.

In the past 72 hours here are three instances of nonsensical, unencyclopedic trolling edits in three different mainspaces.[70][71][72] None of these unencyclopedic, nonsensical trolling edits exist today, AFAIK. No one has risen to defend this trolling nonsense. This trolling in the past 12 hours alone has inhibited good faith users from productive editing and making mainspace article contributions for the entirety of today. RobSFree Kyle! 16:38, 31 March 2021 (EDT)

That definition applies to you more than it does to NorthWest. Besides, you want ACTUAL trolling? This is trolling (which, BTW, I had removed the "edit" made by that person). If NorthWest truly was trolling, he'd behave exactly like the jerk whose post I removed. And quite frankly, I had to deal with similar comments to yours from blatant leftists on places like fourcolormedmon and discord. Pokeria1 (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2021 (EDT)


First - I dropped the Bill Gates arrest matter because I couldn't find record of that at a more reputable source. Second - that edit I'll admit could've been written better (and with the addition of sources), but it was a legit edit otherwise, not "trolling". Third - that edit is legitimate and sourced, not "trolling"; plus, you know as well as everyone else that Kamala Harris is not the legitimate or legal "vice-president". Finally - if you'd stop with the attacks, false accusations and projection of your own behavior, I wouldn't even have to respond, you see? Northwest (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2021 (EDT)

In the Kamala Harris context - User:Northwest did the same thing he did on the Jihadism page - he changed the context of the cited source to say something opposite of what the cited source says. In all three instances, NW did not follow CP Guidelines by engaging in civil discussion. RobSFree Kyle! 21:01, 31 March 2021 (EDT)

And I already explained the situation in my previous post above - plus, I have attempted to be civil, but you repeatedly refuse to do so (and you're also proving the point I made regarding you). Northwest (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2021 (EDT)

Re: edit war between NorthWest and RobS

As far as NorthWest's latest edit war with RobS, if NorthWest is going to source material, he must do better than Quora or sites like it such as Yahoo Answers. Anyone can put material on sites like Quora or Yahoo Answers. The fourth footnote for the Conservapedia Commandments indicates, "Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others. No sources advocating or supporting unlawful activity of any kind are allowed."

Quora is not an authoritative work.

Under the new civility rules update that you approved, it does state editors have to properly source material in content disputes. NorthWest is not doing that in this current content dispute.

When people go to wiki websites, they want articles to be sourced with reliable sources.Conservative (talk) 09:08, 31 March 2021 (EDT)

Also, my update to the civility rules says that editors cannot bring up past conflicts and must stick to the issue at hand. NorthWest wrote above: "You're only continuing to make yourself look bad with your continuing disruptions". NorthWest also wrote: "And once again with the false accusations". NorthWest is dredging up the past and not sticking to the content dispute at hand.
Andy, think about it like this. If a couple is having a dispute about a current and specific matter, how helpful is it if the wife/husband brings up something matters from the past? In most cases, it is not helpful at all. If we are going to solve the civility issue between NorthWest and RobS, both of them are bound by the reasonable update I made to the civility rules which you gave your approval to.
I made a very reasonable, clear and easy to understand updates to the civility rules. There is no excuse for violating them. Being a lawyer, I know you agree with having reasonable rules/laws in a community. The alternative is chaos which is unacceptable.Conservative (talk) 09:34, 31 March 2021 (EDT)
I know and realize that (and after not being able to find info from reputable sources regarding the Bill Gates arrest, I'll just let that matter drop). I've done my best to be civil, but RobS has repeatedly refused to abide by the civility guidelines (particularly the second section) that you laid out, was himself the one to first dredge up the false accusations of "trolling" (and projection thereof by him) against me (which forced me to defend myself) and has refused to let the issue drop. I don't have a problem with those rules, but it's RobS who more clearly needs the reminder about that. Northwest (talk) 10:19, 31 March 2021 (EDT)
Good behavior is a matter of habits. Like using good sources, not dredging up things in the past, personal attacks, etc. It can be resolved if the parties consciously endeavor to learn new habits.
I see a lot of the past disputes between you and Rob involving preciseness. It is important to be precise in articles. Like there is a difference between something that might be true and something that is true. If a source says something might be true, we cannot cite it as saying something is true.
Also, in matters of history, things are often probababilistic. For example, there is a difference between Obama might not have been born in the USA or he definitely was not born in the USA or he definitely was not born in the USA. There are arguments that can be made on both sides concerning Obama's birth using various pieces of evidence. For example, there are computer experts that make arguments both pro and con that the online long form birth certificate is legitimate or a fraud. Like one has to interpret data. After all is said and done, we cannot be dogmatic about matters when certainty is not there.
NorthWest, the other issue is you and RobS being willing to compromise in matters. If you read the Obama's religion article, Andy and I had different positions and we compromised by having sections giving the pro/con evidence/arguments. I don't see you and RobS having the same spirit of compromise. I will frankly say that in my interactions with you and RobS that you both can passionate in your opinions, but you are more often to not be willing to try to see the possibility that the other person could be right about a matter and that you are wrong about matter. But at the same time, I am encouraged by our latest interaction where you acknowledge the sourcing issue (Quora). Now am I saying that RobS is perfect in hearing the other person out and considering that the other person may be right and that he may be wrong? No, he is not. Few people are perfect as far as being overly opionionated and not being stubborn or unreasonable at times. The important thing is to resist pride, be reasonably open-minded and to have a spirit of cooperativeness. Again, it is just a matter of learning new and better habits and this applies on the willingness to compromise when it is reasonable to do so.Conservative (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2021 (EDT)
  • If an editor does not wish to be cited for trolling behavior, simple solution: Do Not Engage In Trolling Behavior.
  • Conservapedia Guidelines defines trolling behavior as redundant arguments.
  • The user in question has amply demonstrated in this discussion thread alone trolling behavior.
  • Conservapedia will continue to hemorrhage genuine content creators and its readers and userbase if Andy continues to reward trolls, and penalize Admins who follow Conservapedia Guidelines to the letter.

RobSFree Kyle! 12:59, 31 March 2021 (EDT)

You still don't want to let this go, do you? Continuing to falsely accuse me of what you yourself have engaged in against me (trolling) is intentionally provocative, is itself trolling and is an exact example of why you got cracked down on for that behavior and for your refusal to do as you're told regarding the rules here. Northwest (talk) 13:27, 31 March 2021 (EDT)

Should update the captcha

The one with the question "What was the last Republican's last name", I thought I was meant to answer "Trump" because he was the last Republican president currently in office. T. Factoid (talk) 10:10, 31 March 2021 (EDT)

RobS and Northwest content disputes involving historical matters

I see a lot of disputes between RobS and NorthWest involving historical disputes. Below I give some great rules of weighing historical evidence.

Recommendations related to historical claims made by this article and information related to historiography

"Fischer, David Hackett, Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (New York: Harper Collins, 1970). In only approximately 300 pages, Fischer surveys an immense amount of background historical literature to point out a comprehensive variety of analytical errors that many, if not most, historians commit. Fischer points out specific examples of faulty or sloppy reasoning in the work of even the most prominent historians, making it a useful book for beginning students of history. While this book presumably did not make Fischer popular with many of his peers, it should be noted that his contributions as a historian have not been limited simply to criticizing the work of others; since 1976, he has published a number of well-received books on other historical topics."[73]

Fischer's 7 habits of sound historiography

Fischer's 7 rules for historians taken from Josh McDowell's book The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict:

(1) The burden of proof for a historical claim is always upon the one making the assertion.

(2) Historical evidence must be an answer to the question asked and not to any other question.

(3) "An historian must not merely provide good evidence, but the best evidence. And the best evidence, all other things being equal, is the evidence which is most nearly immediate to the event itself."

(4) Evidence must always be affirmative. Negative evidence is no evidence at all. In other words, Fischer is saying that an absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

(5) The meaning of any historical evidence is dependent upon the context from which it is obtained from.

(6) "An empirical statement must not be more precise than its evidence warrants."

(7) "All inferences from historical evidence are probabilistic."

Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict, page 674, 1999, Mark MCGarry, Texas Type and Book Works, Dallas, TX, ISBN 0-7852-4219-8)

Fischer's 6 principles of question framing for historical investigations

I hope this helps. Conservative (talk) 12:47, 31 March 2021 (EDT)

Core principles for determining reliability

Ed. note: Longstory short, I'm going to provide two sections from WP's Historical method article, an issue I was involved lo these many years ago when I was engaged with WP Admin SlimVirgin in discussions on WP's Reliable sources and Biographies of living persons policy pages. The points I advocated for - that WP policy should be bent more toward the historical method rather than journalistic standards - lost out and resulted in the creation of this article.

The following core principles of source criticism were formulated by two Scandinavian historians, Olden-Jørgensen (1998) and Thurén (1997):[4]

  • Human sources may be relics such as a fingerprint; or narratives such as a statement or a letter. Relics are more credible sources than narratives.
  • Any given source may be forged or corrupted. Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability.
  • The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description of what actually happened.
  • An eyewitness is more reliable than testimony at second hand, which is more reliable than hearsay at further remove, and so on.
  • If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.
  • The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.
  • If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in creating bias then the credibility of the message is increased.

Argument to the best explanation

C. Behan McCullagh lays down seven conditions for a successful argument to the best explanation:[12]

  1. The statement, together with other statements already held to be true, must imply yet other statements describing present, observable data. (We will henceforth call the first statement 'the hypothesis', and the statements describing observable data, 'observation statements'.)
  2. The hypothesis must be of greater explanatory scope than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, it must imply a greater variety of observation statements.
  3. The hypothesis must be of greater explanatory power than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, it must make the observation statements it implies more probable than any other.
  4. The hypothesis must be more plausible than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, it must be implied to some degree by a greater variety of accepted truths than any other, and be implied more strongly than any other; and its probable negation must be implied by fewer beliefs, and implied less strongly than any other.
  5. The hypothesis must be less ad hoc than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, it must include fewer new suppositions about the past which are not already implied to some extent by existing beliefs.
  6. It must be disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, when conjoined with accepted truths it must imply fewer observation statements and other statements which are believed to be false.
  7. It must exceed other incompatible hypotheses about the same subject by so much, in characteristics 2 to 6, that there is little chance of an incompatible hypothesis, after further investigation, soon exceeding it in these respects.

McCullagh sums up, "if the scope and strength of an explanation are very great, so that it explains a large number and variety of facts, many more than any competing explanation, then it is likely to be true."[13]

Ed. note: Maybe between User:Conservative's material and some of this stuff we can hack out an article on Historigraphy. RobSFree Kyle! 23:16, 31 March 2021 (EDT)

​ Please check your email ASAP and respond there

Thanks. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Saturday, 17:11, 3 April 2021 (EDT)

RobS - abuse of power and block feature

RobS is back to his old tricks again, as he has twice more unjustly blocked me (bringing the grand total to seven) in response to confronting him on his incivility[74] (which he has repeatedly instigated), his false accusations against me[75] (i.e. falsely claiming my edits are "racist" when he himself is making it about race, not me) and against others[76], projection of his own behavior (including trolling) and attitudes, refusal to take responsibility for same[77][78] and abuse of power (even though he is no longer an admin here) by abusing the block feature[79]. I think that it was a mistake to give Rob back blocking and other privileges after he was stripped of them for abusing them previously, as he has repeatedly demonstrated that, given any kind of power, he will invariably abuse it; because of that, he cannot be trusted with such power anymore and he needs to be dealt with appropriately. Northwest (talk) 13:42, 4 April 2021 (EDT)

All this is remarkably reminiscent of Rationalwiki 1.0 - whose stated objective was to sow discord among CP Admins. Since I've been permabanned from Rationalwiki in January 2021, the battleground has been carried here to Conservapedia once again. RobSFree Kyle! 13:49, 4 April 2021 (EDT)
Which, again, you brought on yourself through your behavior noted above. Northwest (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2021 (EDT)
You will have a hard time making the case that a 10 minute and 1 hour block intended to modify behavior is abuse of power when you routinely hand out 6 month, 2 year and 5 year blocks without cause.
Andy just issued a statement that the probability of a bad faith editor can justify blocking. Your inability to engage in discussion, and relying on programmed responses, such as "only liberals call people racists, therefore you are a liberal" tends to support the allegation of a lack of good faith.
Congratulations - you won enhanced user rights by parroting words and phrases used by Karajou. But Karajou is a real-life, thinking and reasoning person who even acts on emotion once in awhile. You appear to have a programmed agenda to discredit Conservapedia with troll edits (witness Stacey Abrams peddles bizarre conspiracy theories such as election rigging in Georgia, which you justified here [80] "it was accurate and sourced and it didn't need to be dealt with"). IOWs per User:Northwest and Conservapedia, Donald Trump, Sidney Powell, and Lin Wood also spread "bizarre conspiracy theories" about election rigging in Georgia.
RobSFree Kyle!
All you're doing is again proving the points I made in the original post with your incivility, projection and other behaviors (and incidentally, the blocks I handed out, unlike in your case, were not "without cause", as they were handed out to actual trolls who came here only to make trouble - and Andy recognized and acknowledged my efforts, whereas you couldn't even be bothered to deal with said trolls). Do you really want to go down that road again, knowing what happened to you last time? Northwest (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2021 (EDT)
Rationalwiki trolls with blocking rights have been doing that for years to limit CP's userbase, along with inserting subversive racist information. As well as sowing discord among CP Admins. Why can't you engage in rational discussion, other than parroting words and phrases you picked up from Karajou ("starting fights", "lying in email" "making false accusations", etc.)
You have been instructed trolling is making redundant arguments, yet that's all you have done for 2 months.
A 10 minute block is intended to modify behavior - a 6 month or 2 year block risks destroying CP's userbase. And it may even be intentional to do just that.RobSFree Kyle! 14:49, 4 April 2021 (EDT)
Thanks for once again completely missing the point of my previous post (as well as continuing to make dismissive excuses for your own behavior) with your post. And incidentally, Karajou's not wrong about you. Northwest (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2021 (EDT)
Inserting a user name into a subheading on a talk page is a personal attack - a blockable offense you have committed twice now on the owner's talk page. RobSFree Kyle! 15:24, 4 April 2021 (EDT)
You're the one who keeps starting trouble here with your attacks on me for trying to do my job, I'm just trying to bring attention to your repeated wrongdoing (which you're still refusing to take responsibility for - and as I told you before, if you'd quit with the attacks and your projection of your own behavior, I wouldn't have to respond, but you just don't want to listen). Northwest (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2021 (EDT)

Brad Raffensperger

User:Northwest uses Brad Raffensperger no less, to make the claim Stacey Abrams peddles "bizarre conspiracy theories" such as election rigging in Georgia, which "was accurate and sourced and it didn't need to be dealt with":

“Many people think that President Trump’s onslaught on Georgia’s election integrity was new, but outside groups, apparently heavily supported by Stacey Abrams, have been pushing these conspiracy theories for years,” said Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. “In light of the devastation election disinformation caused on January 6 in Washington, D.C., Abrams needs to finally accept her 2018 election loss and stop funding attacks on Georgia’s election integrity.”

Didn't need to be dealt with? The edit is still in the mainspace. RobSFree Kyle! 17:05, 4 April 2021 (EDT)

I looked in the entry Brad Raffensperger and did not see that quote. Is it somewhere else?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2021 (EDT)
It's in the citation Northwest put into the Stacey Abrams article [81] that "didn't need to be dealt with". The user has a history of edit warring with me and refusing to discuss changes to mainspace. RobSFree Kyle! 19:16, 4 April 2021 (EDT)
Here is the offending link he reinserted after my reversion. [82] RobSFree Kyle! 20:04, 4 April 2021 (EDT)
And guess what - you yourself are the one who starts the edit wars by reverting legitimate sourced edits I make. You're still trying to create drama where there had been none and microscopically scrutinize and criticize, without justification, every edit I do to find whatever perceived fault you want to see, no matter what, and that is part of what's disruptive to this site (and incidentally, the evidence that you supplied in your above two posts actually works against you, not for you). Northwest (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2021 (EDT)

Suspected RW infiltration

Hi Andy, I have reasons to believe that a current user on this site is a subversive sock of an infamous RW troll trying to tie Christianity and conservatism to fascism. However, seeing that you demoted me last night to only SkipCaptcha, I feel powerless to do anything about it, especially given the general precedent set by Northwest in the disputes with RobSmith. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Monday, 12:35, 5 April 2021 (EDT)

Don't worry about RW. It's editor base consists of a small group of contentious, snarky, young people who can be very careless in their provocative claims about living people. Many of them have mental illness, asperger's or some personality/character issues. Recently, one of their RW Foundation board members resigned after a bout of cutting himself and going on angry online rampages at the RW website.
They are one lawsuit away from extinction in the short term or midtern possibly. And long term, they will die through a lawsuit, division eating away their editor base or the secular, SJW/woke, political fad dying out. In addition, I have helped a handful of websites very substantially increase their web traffic in a very big way - like millions of page views. And I can tell you there are some clear signs that RW lost a ton of traffic recently and it has signs it will continue to lose web traffic.
I just shortened my RW essay due to your input. And I am going to focus on some professional/personal goals so I will be less involved in the "world of wikis".
To his credit, Andy Schlafly has chosen to ignore RW.
There are a few CP editors, especially one, who needs to be far less RW focused.Conservative (talk) 00:18, 6 April 2021 (EDT)
You're undermining the significance of all of this. They may give you the impression that they are a bunch of punks who can't control their emotions, yet they've managed to fool most CP users for a long while. Their goal is to smear conservatives and Christians, and most of their subversive activity has gone unnoticed and unchanged by the majority of CP editors who just assume they're legitimate contributors. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Tuesday, 00:25, 6 April 2021 (EDT)
Above, I just added this material: "In addition, I have helped a handful of websites very substantially increase their web traffic in a very big way - like millions of page views. And I can tell you there are some clear signs that RW lost a ton of traffic recently and it has signs it will continue to lose web traffic."Conservative (talk) 00:28, 6 April 2021 (EDT)
Then perhaps you can help CP gain web traffic by millions more views? We kinda need it right now, given the current Alexa rankings showing how abysmal we're doing... —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Tuesday, 00:30, 6 April 2021 (EDT)
Yeah, about Alexa, considering that's owned by Amazon, a far-left company, I don't think we'll get higher rankings there even if we dotted our i's and crossed our t's. Not unless we REALLY want to make the same mistake MLB is making by becoming more leftist by pandering to the liberal media. Pokeria1 (talk) 06:30, 6 April 2021 (EDT)
Andy, look at this article. The entire point is to smear anti-establishment conservatives as Nazis because Miller made a bad remark on January 6. The agenda by the author of the page is quite obvious. Will you pay attention? —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Tuesday, 00:32, 6 April 2021 (EDT)
I have some residual/passive income coming in so I am doing a lot better than many during this pandemic, but I want to focus heavily on increasing my income so I can retire early, etc. So doing a very substantial amount of volunteer work as far as CP is not in the cards right now.Conservative (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2021 (EDT)
I just took a look at the Mary Miller article a moment ago - sorry, but I don't see where there's really anything wrong with the article. The smearing of anti-establishment conservatives as "Nazis" by the Left based on the Left's own misguided perceptions, coupled with their projection of their own attitudes and behavior, is entirely their own problem, caused by them listening to the liberal media and their politically-motivated (and politically-biased) lies and fact-twisting for the sake of narrative for so long that they've come to accept it as "gospel" and refuse to listen to anything else that contradicts the "official" narrative. Here's what the Washington Times said regarding the controversy (bolded sections emphasized by me):


Miller’s spokeswoman didn’t respond to multiple requests seeking comment. The Chicago Sun-Times reported Miller responded in now-deleted tweets that she would “never glorify a genocidal dictator” and that her statement “was a denunciation of evil dictators’ efforts to re-educate young people and similar efforts by left-wing radicals in our country today.

The rally hosts defended Miller, saying Thursday that the comments were taken out of context, Miller was owed an apology and, “Truth is truth regardless of the source.”

“Moms for America” President Kimberly Fletcher also referenced the Nazi leader in the group’s defense of Miller.

“Hitler also said, ‘Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it,’ If we mandate people not talk about the insidious actions of Hitler, we dismiss the horrific events he incited and open the door for them to be repeated,” Fletcher wrote. “The media should focus on the truth instead of relentlessly repeating big lies.[83]

I got the gist of the story (and so would have anyone else who heard and understood what Miller was saying), but the liberal media refused to and instead opportunistically used it to create drama where there was none and to smear Miller and, by extension, anyone else who supported her. This is just the latest of countless reasons why the liberal media is no longer trusted by the majority of the public. Northwest (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2021 (EDT)

MPR priorities

Andy, right now with Sleepy Joe installed as acting junta leader, there's the Biden border crisis to the disastrous foreign policy effects to so many other important things to report on. RobSmith would be reporting on this type of stuff, but you never reinstated his sysop powers and now you're letting him remain blocked by a subversive CP user. Since he's now unable to add that, one would expect that someone, maybe you, would do it instead, but it seems that your current priorities are some MLB stuff. Thanks to the Biden junta now destroying all the accomplishments made by the Trump Administration on foreign policy, Russia, the CCP, and Iran are more giddy than ever and our national security is at stake. So why is sports being the main focus when there's all this to focus heavily on? I've read enough articles/reports on The Hill to know some info about the current crises with foreign policy/national security. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Tuesday, 23:38, 5 April 2021 (EDT)

The Biden administration is not a junta. RobS should accept the unpleasant fact that Biden is president and that it is not a junta. How much election fraud there was in 2020 I don't know. I wish Trump had handled the pandemic better, but it wasn't entirely his fault. Under the USA political system, the states have a lot of power. In addition, there is a lot of individualism and personal liberty in the USA so people are free to proverbally and literally give the middle finger to public health policy suggestions that the government gives. On top of this, as far as the media informing the public about the pandemic, the USA media has deteriorated in quality to such a high degree that many people do not trust them. In short, the days of Walter Cronkite, Tim Russert and Ted Koppel are over (while those newscasters did lean to the left side of political spectrum, they had more objectivity/credibility than the bulk of today's journalists). Conservative (talk) 00:41, 6 April 2021 (EDT)
I can't speak for Tim Russert and Ted Koppel, but Walter Cronkite didn't merely "lean left." He was a radical subversive. Heck, he outright LIED on the air about the Tet Offensive, through his teeth, and pretty much was single-handedly responsible for Vietnam eventually being lost. The age of him as an objective news reporter NEVER existed in the first place. Heck, as ProgressingAmerica pointed out, "objective" news never truly existed, since left-wing bias was a fundamental part of what Walter Lippmann tried to create. Also, Biden is an up and out usurper. He's not the president, especially not when we've already got evidence coming out even now that the election was up and out stolen. Want to push the liberal line, join wikipedia, don't have Conservapedia tarnished with left-wing propaganda. Besides, RobS if anything was the one who AGREED with you. Pokeria1 (talk) 06:21, 6 April 2021 (EDT)
As soon as I read this, LT, I figured you were talking about me. I don't know where you get this "subversive" idea, but Rob was starting to cause problems again (which are already documented further up) and, soon after he got blocking privileges back, saw fit to abuse the feature by unjustly blocking me twice for standing up to him for the belligerent attitude and provocative behavior he was displaying (including his false accusations), which is already well-known that he has a history of (and which more than one editor has had to broach with him). Drama is something no one here needs to deal with, and Rob has had to be reminded more than once (and by more than one admin/sysop/editor - including by you) to tone down the attitude and put the brakes on the incivility, but he has repeatedly refused to listen or do as he was told, so he's had (more than once) to be dealt with regarding that, per the guidelines. Simply put, the less drama there is here, the more that can get accomplished on the site with article creation/improvement. Northwest (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2021 (EDT)
Tim Russert was the best mainstream news guy in the last 50 years. He cross-examined political guests and did a decent amount of research before interviewing them. When he died, there was an outpouring of emotion. Ted Koppel indicates the press has slid downward in objectivity and general quality since he was a newsman. Conservative (talk) 10:58, 6 April 2021 (EDT)
I should have qualified my statement about Cronkite since I had heard he very much leaned left (I don't know much about Cronkite). The main thing I wanted to convey is that rightly/wrongly he was a lot more trusted than today's journalists.Conservative (talk) 11:12, 6 April 2021 (EDT)