User talk:Aschlafly/Archive15

Mr Schlafly, I have been enjoying participation in this site of yours, and though I do not share your ideology, I respect what you are trying to achieve. However, I did take offence to the comment made by CoulterMan which was on an edit of his to the page on Canada. He referred to a section I added as a "nazi rant". I am sure as an academic you understand that language of that nature is completely uncalled for, and unnecessary. Would you be so kind as to deal with that user, or have somebody deal with him. I can accept being called a great number of things, especially surrounding my religion or sexual orientation, but something that carries that sort of implication is crossing the line. --TrueGrit 20:48, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I blocked him for the edit on your user page --CPAdmin1 20:57, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

• Do we have a rule allowing blocks for that? --~ TK ^MyTalk 21:01, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

CoulterMan and I had it out because he was writing editorials on Canada, and I then went and sourced a huge chunk of information he copied to his user page. He accused me of vandalism for making this large portion of his user page a block quote, and adding a link to the original page on another Wiki. I suppose I could have acted more maturely, but under the circumstances, I have to accept part of the blame for fueling the fire. If I too should be blocked for that, then so be it. But, I don't care about what he wrote on my user page, it was the implication that I am a Nazi that offended me. --TrueGrit 21:20, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

The block was appropriate, but the duration (2 weeks) without warning seems excessive to me. However, I don't think Sysops should waste lots of time second-guessing each others' blocks. Our time is better spent building the encyclopedia. The procedure should be to suggest to the Sysop who did the blocking to shorten or lengthen it. Almost always the Sysop who did the blocking reconsiders.--Aschlafly 21:23, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I retract my statement above. That block was inappropriate. A 30-second review of CoulterMan's edits show some valuable contributions. It was a mistake not to take that into consideration. He should have been warned for the "nazi" comment, which is used often even in polite discourse in the United States (e.g., Rush Limbaugh), rather than blocked.--Aschlafly 21:30, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Did you see this edit which is clear vandalism? --CPAdmin1 22:30, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

That's own user page. One can't vandalize his own user page, any more than someone can vandalize his own home. Here (unlike Wikipedia), a man's user page is his castle. See Differences with Wikipedia.--Aschlafly 22:34, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

AHA! Andy, I get it now! I think that you've been confusing the user talk page with the user page! Indeed, User page vandalism is a blockable offense at Wikipedia. Userpages are like "profiles" on MySpace or Facebook, and user talk pages are like email addresses. Just on the off-chance you might be confused :/. --Hojimachong^talk 22:39, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

That's TrueGrit's user page and it was vandalized by CoulterMan. And valuable edits don't always mean a good editor, think about Richard or BORF. ColinR^talk 22:55, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

• Hoji, Andy knows the difference. He has posted that both pages are the User's "Castle". The fact that we have the main "finger-wagger" Sysop here posting that someone should be banned for doing what they like with their own page, without pornography or cursing is troubling. Maybe if everyone agreed to communicate with the whole group, more of these needless eruptions could be avoided? --~ TK ^MyTalk 22:50, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Hoji, your comment doesn't change my view. Wikipedia acts like everything is government property, like its complex copyright license. It thinks someone's own user page is like government property too! Not us. Users' pages are their castles. Thank God for principles of private property.

However, I think ColinR is now suggesting that CoulterMan vandalized someone else's user page. That would be a serious infraction.--Aschlafly 23:05, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Ooops, my mistake. I see that the above link was to the vandalizing of someone else's user page. All my arguments now go in the direction opposite to my conclusion!!!! --Aschlafly 23:10, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Would you be opposed to the reblocking of CoulterMan --CPAdmin1 23:21, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm still trying to argue against the locking of user talk pages, as they are not part of a users userspace, are not intended to be, and should not be locked; how else is someone supposed to contact this user? It makes no sense. It's been locked for 11 days, with a summary of "AmesG pestering me". --Hojimachong^talk 23:07, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Good point, Hoji.--Aschlafly 23:10, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

• I think Hoji is confused. No one's user page is ever locked, except by them. I started locking the pages of users who had been blocked to head off vandalism, and socks using them to foment trouble. Surely no one objects to that? --~ TK ^MyTalk 23:15, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Hoji said "user talk pages", not "user pages". And there are several user talk pages locked (yours included), which makes communication more difficult. --Jtl 23:22, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Colin, can you post the diffs? MountainDew 23:22, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Here is the diff. --CPAdmin1 23:26, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

FYI Here is the "vandalism" by TrueGrit on CoulterMan's user page. It was formatting. IMO, if it's on a USER page it's sacrosanct, they don't want it formatted, that's up to them. Cracker_talk

• I agree with you Rob. But since the postulation of the idea of a users page being his "Castle" was only agreed to/posted here by Andy within the past two weeks, one isn't "right" or fair, to demand someone be blocked for formatting. This is yet another matter of mis-communication, by a Sysop who has never wanted any communication, and most of his actions as a Sysop have been unilateral ones, reversing another's actions on his own, without asking or informing. What the problem is here, as in many places, is people not communicating, directly with each other, and "reading into" a persons actions all kinds of evil and bad motives for them. They are in essence tried and convicted without anyone ever asking for their reasoning in doing whatever they did. We all need to insist on people being allowed to give everyone the benefit of their thinking before assuming the worst. Especially another member of the small number of Sysops. --~ TK ^MyTalk 00:32, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Are you refering to me? what did I do now? --CPAdmin1 00:35, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

You wanted to block someone for "vandalism". You posted you did block them. It was formatting! Instead of messaging the perp, you bring it here, embarass people, and make them look bad! We didn't even consider user/talk pages as a "castle" until a week or so ago. Maybe you need to stop throwing rocks at me, and others, until your own glass house is repaired. --~ TK ^MyTalk 02:02, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

The [which was blocked for] wasn't formatting, TK; it was made on April 9th. As far back as March 29th, [called user's talk pages their 'castle']. Technically speaking, that's immaterial since this wasn't a user's talk page, but a user page, but surely nobody is going to claim that a user talk page is _more_ protected than an actual user page? --Jtl 02:41, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, why have some complained about blocking anyone, for anything not in the Commandments? To me, User and User Talk pages should be treated the same. It is the users castle, as Andy said. But I hardly think doing formatting changes is serious enough infringement to be blocked for without warning. And deleting stuff, as Ames, Myk have argued with me, still isn't reason enough because things can be reverted. You guys can't have it both ways. If you want warnings, before blocking, it has to apply equally to everyone. Was Coulterman given a warning, before being blocked or not? --~ TK ^MyTalk 03:28, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

IT WAS NOT A FORMATTING CHANGE. Did you follow the link? --Jtl 03:35, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

• Yes, and I clearly said, even if editing, a warning should preceed a blocking. What he added wasn't obscene, or deleting anything. While I consider it serious, I would not instantly block someone for it. Obviously another Sysop had sense and removed the block. Do you argue with that common courtesy? Or are you calling for blood based on the user's idealogy? --~ TK ^MyTalk 03:40, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

I have no dog in this fight other than trying to get you to stop saying untrue things. If you understand it wasn't just formatting, why do you keep saying things like "I hardly think doing formatting changes is serious enough infringement to be blocked for without warning" and "Tonight he blocked a user for formatting another users page,"? The first step to dealing with differences of opinion is agreeing on what the facts are. --Jtl 03:46, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

• Another step is reading what I said fullly. Obviously the formatting comment was a mistep of mine, because I go on to say "even if something was deleted.....". Taken in context, and without you assuming bad faith to others, deletion would be more serious than what he added, and even then I think a warning more appropriate than blocking. I am happy Andy and MountainDew agreed. --~ TK ^MyTalk 03:55, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Whatever, TK. Are you going to correct the other places you've said things like "Tonight he blocked a user for formatting another users page,"? --Jtl 04:03, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

• Are you really this spiteful a creature, Jtl? Why does this place attract mean spirits to it? I was going by Cracker's statement, which is usually correct. And I think an argument could be made that adding that headline was indeed, formatting. It certainly was "vandalism" in a real sense. Now, please post some nasty/flip/snide remark, and have the last word. --~ TK ^MyTalk 04:15, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

If it makes you feel better to think I'm spiteful, that's fine with me. You misunderstood Cracker's statement: FYI Here is the "vandalism" by TrueGrit on CoulterMan's user page. It was formatting.. Read that carefully: he was linking to something TrueGrit did on CoulterMan's page, that CoulterMan considered vandalism. That edit was formatting, but isn't the one that was banned over. CoulterMan then edited TrueGrit's userpage, adding a large headline accusing TrueGrit of being a vandal. That is the edit that was banned over. I don't know how to say this that won't sound snide, and I'm sorry for that, but I really am trying to be helpful: you need to slow down and read what people say. I can't count how many dust-ups have been caused by you misinterpreting or misunderstanding someone else's words. --Jtl 04:21, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

The dust-ups come from mean spirited people like you. You keep ignoring what I actually said, and concentrating on formatting. I also said, even it it had been DELETING, it would still merit a warning first. Adding a headline is not heinous. Get over it. He isn't banned now, and was, unfairly, for about an hour. Just let it go. --~ TK ^MyTalk 04:25, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Huh? How am I concentrating on formatting? Everything I've said has been about your words. Here are some more of your words that come to mind -- these I think actually have some accuracy, although presumably not quite how you intended: "What the problem is here, as in many places, is people not communicating, directly with each other, and "reading into" a persons actions all kinds of evil and bad motives for them." --Jtl 04:36, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, I've heard about the UFO claim. I actually have a book that lists interesting facts about the personal lives of all of the US presidents, and it discusses that. I actually grew up being told by my mother that Carter was one of the best presidents ever, and I didn't learn the truth until I started reading about history for myself. MountainDew 21:45, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm astonished I never knew that. And I am a huge critic of the scientific embrace of "life in outer space." See, e.g., Carl Sagan. We need an entry on that liberal, if we don't have one yet. In fact, this life in outer space stuff should be a "liberal falsehood" of the day.--Aschlafly 21:48, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Amen to that. In fact I discovered last week when reading some of Hitler's Table Talk, Hitler believed in extraterrestrial life on other planets. I had no idea these whacked ideas went back to the 1940s and probably earlier. I could find the quote again if needed or your interested. RobS 22:17, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Maybe this should be developed as an essay. I'll start one know just to get it going. I would like to post this on the front page as a liberal falsehood. So far we have three: Hitler, Carter and Carl Sagan. I hope that grouping is not too inflammatory!--Aschlafly 22:27, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

As long as we make it clear that we're not actually comparing Carter to Hitler. I don't think that should be hard, though. MountainDew 22:29, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

But you are calling Hitler a "liberal"? LOL. BTW, I think you can add Ronald Reagan [3] and Newt Gingrich [4] to the list of wacky Liberals who believe in aliens. --BobD 04:34, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

RobS might have seen it, but I did read once, Hitler had written a letter to someone, where he noted that these "advanced societies" were as they were because they had kept their race "pure". How whacked is that? --~ TK ^MyTalk 22:29, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I have to admit that when I was in high school, I was an extraordinarily liberal person. I would even go online and slander conservatives and argue them. I worked at a library then and read a lot of magazines and books about politics, and I read both sides' arguments. Eventually, I saw the light and was won over. MountainDew 23:28, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

MountainDew, I bet we've all gone through similar experiences. We all went to high school, read the same books, learned from similar teachers, etc., etc. It's a liberal culture. I'm now convinced that at least half of what I learned in school was false. I question everything that I use to think.--Aschlafly 00:26, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Another thing people don't know is the connection between racism and Eugenics, and how eugenics led to forced sterilizations and (even) the Holocaust.

Liberals don't like to have it mentioned (it was censored from Wikipedia), but Eugenics also figures in radical Environmentalism, the DDT ban, and so on. I'll be writing about these things in the near future, although not 14 hours a day of course. My time may be severely limited after next week. --Ed Poor 23:39, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Yep, I've done a lot of reading on those topics in the past few years. You're quite right, although I can't confirm the radical environmentalism part of it. The connection between that and eugenics is new to me.--Aschlafly 00:26, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

AmesG keeps asking about the Darwinism/Nazism connection, but I've been too busy. Hitler's Table Talk is loaded with it. Here's one, Conversation of 10th of October 1941 Midday:

"war is nothing but a struggle for the riches of nature. By virtue of an inherent law, these riches belong to him who conquers them....The law of selection justifies this incessant struggle, by allowing the survival of the fittest. Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. RobS 00:53, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Here's the cite, Hitler's Table Talk, Conversation of 14th of October 1941 Midday:

"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.

I'll get complete cite with page number tomorrow. RobS 00:08, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Here's the Carter docs. [5] RobS 00:19, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Wow. I hope this is legit, because I'm going to put it on the front page.--Aschlafly 00:26, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

• Even more amazing, people, to this day, insist Hitler was right-wing. Another left-wing smear. --~ TK ^MyTalk 03:24, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Here's the full cite to the Hitler quote about life on other planets,

• Hitler's Table Talk, 1941-44; Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens, Introduction by H. R. Trevor-Roper, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1973, 2nd ed., p. 60. RobS 15:57, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Can I reblock him now that you understand that he vandalized a different user's userpage? --CPAdmin1 00:56, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

I wouldn't without first reviewing his overall edits and the context of his edit war. I looked at his overall edits and he has contributed a lot to this site. Also, blocks based on heated ideological disputes should only be long enough to cool off, such as one day. It doesn't make sense to block a serious contributor 2 months for getting into a heated argument.

You might check with MountainDew for a third opinion.--Aschlafly 01:05, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

• I thought Tim was one of those who have previously posted, that people should get a warning? There wasn't any big damage done, and he was already blocked for an hour. I think all that has been posted on this page should surely satisfy even the most blood thirsty. If not, maybe CPAdmin1 can post a "stern" reprimand on his page. --~ TK ^MyTalk 04:28, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

sir, am i allowed to copy an article that i contributed to wikipedia?Bohdan 01:41, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, you can always copy your own work. If the copy includes edits by others, then it becomes necessary to credit the other editors, as done at the bottom of this entry Joseph McCarthy.--Aschlafly 01:59, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank you

Just wanted to know if you received my letter and if you wish to respond. Thanks, PAL.

No, I haven't received it. Can you email it to me at my account at aol? I did appreciate your entry on the Hepatitis B vaccine and how it increases the risk of MS.--Aschlafly 13:09, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Um, that was NOT my version. Sorry.--PalMD^talk 13:21, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Congratulations Andy Schlafy.

This is a great idea.

--Joaquín Martínez 20:59, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

I tried uploading several images to Conservapedia but it isn't working. Ribbix 22:14, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Please keep trying. We seem to have sporadic problems with uploading images.--Aschlafly 22:57, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

First things first, Andy - that guy has once again crossed an editorial line. He has submitted a page (macroevolution) to the panel, which is of course permitted. He has then protected the page, which is also permitted. However, he then removed everything with which he personally disagreed, on the page. I thought that pages submitted to the panel were sent in their current state. That's how it worked with Evolution, and we all played by the rules. Now, I want to make sure that Conservative plays by the rules. Will you please see to it? Also, I would like a cite for the allegations on the main page, about how the "abortion lobby" is forcibly stalling stem cell research on more successful, non-embryonic lines. In fact, I'd like a cite about how non-embryonic lines are more successful. Thanks.-AmesG_yo! 22:32, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

You never showed me "the rule" AmesG. Conservative 23:12, 14 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

I would like to engage you in debate on the Adult stem cells issue. However, in the meantime, I have submitted it to the Panel. Please abstain from making substance-edits in the interim between now and their decision.-AmesG_yo! 23:04, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Ames, maybe medication would help? I am truly concerned. --~ TK ^MyTalk 23:14, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

TK, personal remarks are not appreciated, and have gotten me banned in the past. Why are you still here?-AmesG_yo! 10:42, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Ames, joking aside, I am concerned that you persist with such strongly one-sided, preconceived views. We're not here to make you feel better about your predetermined views. That's not our goal. Expect to learn things on this site that will challenge your views. Please be more open-minded in the future.--Aschlafly 23:25, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, joking aside, I am concerned that you persist with such strongly one-sided, preconceived views that you fail to back up with any material at all. Such a failure to engage in basic encyclopedic editing is a failure of this site, and of your own ideology. The only thing I have learned thus far on this site is that, when challenged, creationists are not strong enough to step up to the plate and debate their ideas - rather, they run and hide with whatever powers they have at their disposal (blocks, et al). I am deeply saddened by this - I had hoped to learn something of your viewpoints, but instead, I have only learned of their weakness.-AmesG_yo! 10:42, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Where did Andy go? He seems to have gone quiet all of a sudden (again). It never ceases to amaze me how he can behave in such a hypocritical manner. He says one thing and does just the opposite. I particularly like: "We're not here to make you feel better about your predetermined views". Does the man have absolutely no sense of irony? --Horace 19:37, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Horace, it is Sunday and not to appear self-righteous, but it doesn't hurt to spend a little time in prayer. It's healthy, too. But I'm back online now.

I have an open mind about everything and my views change a little every day I'm on this site. I'm serious. Ames, and perhaps yourself, seem determined to reinforce your predetermined views. That's not going to happen from this site. This site is to challenge all of us, you and Ames also, about what we were taught and what we think. Try it. You'll thank others here if you do.--Aschlafly 20:40, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Do you know what would demonstrate your open mind more than anything? Why don't you make me a sysop? I'm serious. --Horace 20:46, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Oop... He's gone again. --Horace 22:23, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, I maintain an open mind. I used to be an atheist, actually, but I consider myself more agnostic, now. That's a pretty big change. The fact is, though, that mired in the poor reasoning of most of the "controversial" articles as I am, I have yet to see *anything* to change my mind. Example - the evolution page. No-one who looks beyond the surface (but I guess literalism doesn't encourage that) could fail to see the gaping errors in your anti-evolution attacks.-AmesG_yo! 23:56, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

The site works fine for me, but I've reported problems by others to the hosting company and it is already processing this trouble ticket.--Aschlafly 23:54, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank you I've been having some strange stuff going on-lately when I've been trying to edit it logs me out instead. Sulgran 00:22, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Problem fixed. The host moved a partition. Thanks for your patience.--Aschlafly 00:26, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Whatever was done also seemed to have fixed my problem uploading pictures that I've had for a very long time. Sulgran 00:50, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Dear Andy,

Please read this eloquent pro-life material: http://prolifeprologic.townhall.com/ It was written by the person who has the discussion page of: User talk:Runeglia. I am guessing he is a conservative pro-lifer soon to be editor of Conservapedia. You might consider asking him if he wants to be a Sysop and watch his edits. Conservative 00:37, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

That's what I get for 4 years of chess.--Elamdri 00:55, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, btw, I'm still working on it, in case you wanna feature it or something.--Elamdri 01:03, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

A feature on chess is a great idea! I'll add that to my list for this week, after you've had some more time to improve it. The Titanic is the feature for tomorrow.--Aschlafly 01:08, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, I would like to know how big a city needs to be to warrant an entry. I would suggest the city needs to have either:

• A population of 250,000 in the city proper/metro. area
• Significant historical importance (Persepolis, Carthage, etc.)

Tell me what you think. --Hojimachong^talk 01:00, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Having grown up in a small town, I'd hate to see population as the criterion. Let's let everything in that meets our rules and we can always trim back later.--Aschlafly 01:02, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, Andy and Conservative :P --Hojimachong^talk 01:08, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

How do you feel about edit such as this: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Adultery&diff=108019&oldid=100436 How do you want situations like this handled? Conservative 01:40, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Forget I even asked. I saw his next edit. Conservative 01:42, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Right. But the edit you questioned violates our rules that entries be verifiable, and you were right to change it.--Aschlafly 01:43, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Should i delete fornication and sodomy? Geo.Talk 01:54, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

That's a great idea, Geo! Thanks for enforcing our rules.--Aschlafly 01:55, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I deleted Fornication. Should I also delete Sodomy? Geo.Talk 02:31, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

According to commandment 3, you should delete Sodomy and Homosexuality. --Hojimachong^talk 03:07, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, I found a way to make sure that the articles in "Category:Protected deleted pages" don't show up when you click "random page";all of the pages in that category should redirect to a single page, with the current {{Deletedpage}} on it; redirects do not show up when "random page" is clicked on. --Hojimachong^talk 03:10, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Wow, that's fantastic, Hoji! Thanks!!! I'll change over some of the pages now to redirects.--Aschlafly 07:10, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

You might want to take a look at this, decide policy. [[6]]

Deleted that particular image because the source of file not disclosed; copyright issues; adds nothing to the article about Mohammed. --Aschlafly 07:54, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Reuploaded as [Image:Maome.jpg], author, copyright, and source disclosed. --Hojimachong^talk 15:59, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

By the way, TK, I was just on Stirling Addison's show on Australia radio: "Restoring the Balance" [7] --Aschlafly 07:54, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I will pray for a whole night's sleep for you! --~ TK ^MyTalk 08:00, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for that! I need it indeed!--Aschlafly 08:01, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

The audio for Sunday's show there isn't up on the site yet, but I assume it will be soon. --~ TK ^MyTalk 08:03, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Unfortunately, there was some static on the line when I spoke due to a storm here. I need to get Skype to do these interviews over the internet, which might result in clearer transmission.  :-( --Aschlafly 08:06, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Arrrgh! I knew I'd forget to listen (I was watching CSI with my better half). Oh well, at least they (will) have it on the web-site. How did it go? Philip J. Rayment 08:56, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

It is now on-line. Try http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/restoringthebalance/mod_real/restoring.ram (Real player) or http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/restoringthebalance/mod_windows/restoring.asx (Windows player), or go to http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/restoringthebalance/ and click either "REAL" or "WINDOWS" under "Listen : stream last program" in the left column. I'll shortly post how far into the program Andy comes on. Philip J. Rayment 10:02, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

It starts at time mark 34:33 and goes to 41:00. Note that the program is a pretend right-wing (conservative) program on a radio station that is actually very left-wing (liberal). Philip J. Rayment 10:05, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

NOTE: The direct links above will only be valid for one week. The indirect link will probably be valid for about three weeks. Philip J. Rayment 10:20, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks much, Philip. I knew it was satire and expected the worst. But any time there is publicity, there is always a good chance of exposing someone to conservative ideas they have never heard before. Conservative ideas are censored in schools, mainstream media and Wikipedia.--Aschlafly 10:53, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Got a guy who keeps trying to make sysop similar names. Can you IP ban him?--Elamdri 08:00, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, let me take a look now.--Aschlafly 08:01, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't think it took. He may have a static IP.--Elamdri 08:11, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

It's fairly easy to block the entire group of IP addresses. It's easier for us to block than it is for him to establish a new account. It's his loss because these blocks are infinite.--Aschlafly 08:14, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

He's just replacing links with links to a ipod scam site or something of that nature. Its broken anyway, so jokes on him.--Elamdri 08:17, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

His last attempt, which was easily blocked, revealed his ISP location, so now we can file a complaint.--Aschlafly 08:19, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Mkay, sounds good to me. I'm taking a nap, I've been up all night, haha. Talk to you later Andy.--Elamdri 08:20, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks much. The new user who just registered is legitimate, by the way.--Aschlafly 08:26, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

what exactly is his real ip?--Fg 08:58, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

As an experienced programmer/analyst, I recommend against discussing security strategy in public like this. How about using private email? Or instant messaging? --Ed Poor 09:20, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

what do you mean by his last attempt was it the time he impersonated jimbowales?--Fg 09:28, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I suggest that a page, under the title of [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship]] be created to provide a centralized location for users to requests varying levels of administrator permissions. If you don't object, I'll go ahead with this. Thanks! --Hacker^{(Write some code)} 09:31, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I beleive there is already such a page, Hacker. --~ TK ^MyTalk 09:37, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

You mean Talk:Admin? First of all, it's in the wrong namespace. Secondly, it's defunct. --Hacker^{(Write some code)} 09:50, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Gee, I wonder if it was always defunct and in the "wrong" namespace, or someone made it so? On edge this morning, Hacker? I just remembered seeing it, and people posting there. --~ TK ^MyTalk 09:52, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

No one has touched Talk:Admin since… March 18 ( see here). That seems to make it defunct. And the article talk namespace is the wrong place for pages of this description. --Hacker^{(Write some code)} 13:42, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

• I am trying to educate myself, so please forgive me for asking, but why is it in "the wrong place" and who decides? --~ TK ^MyTalk 16:21, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Which pages should go where is dictated at the code level. Pages about the administration of a MediaWiki wiki go in the Project: (Here Conservapedia:) namespace, and discussions about articles go in the article talk (Talk:) namespace. --Hacker^{(Write some code)} 22:22, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

So the page you say is defunct is in talk, not right? --~ TK ^MyTalk 00:40, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Hey, problem solved. I've moved the Talk:Admin page to [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship]], leaving the redirect, thus no red links and it's in the correct namespace now. If there's a problem with this, I can always move it back, though I don't know why anyone would want to do that. ColinR^talk 00:45, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, can you delete Talk:Admin? No cross-namespace redirects shoud exist. --Hacker^{(Write some code)} 13:54, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Dear Mr. Schafly,

Here is a email I just got from a very conservative organization:

"It will be interesting to see how this pans out. i can imagine the libs will attack this 24/7. not only that, i wouldn't want my children to see this info. The "what links here" page is rated x as it is & is a link right on the front page.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Whatlinkshere/Main_Page "

Can we get the "what links here" link off the front page? It is discouraging people to visit and edit our website.

Conservative 16:19, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

That's being addressed here. If all of those pages are redirects, then they will not link to the main page. I'll go clean it up. --Hojimachong^talk 16:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks much, Hoji. I fix nearly a half-dozen starting from the bottom of the list. With your prior insight, that should also take those pages out of the "Random Page" selection also! It's a double win!--Aschlafly 16:35, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I think I would like to change my user name. I've been called out by several members and accused of being a liberal troll on a few blogs because it's supposedly not serious enough. If I change it, could I have the new name sysopped? MountainDew 16:23, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Sure. I'll Sysop you immediately.--Aschlafly 16:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Registration is closed right now. I'll have to do it later. MountainDew 16:33, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Ah, sorry. It usually is closed Sundays, and I don't know how to open it. No big deal, and I don't have any objection to your user name, by the way. But others have changed theirs (including Sysops) so please feel free.--Aschlafly 16:37, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

'crats can change usernames, with everything intact. --Hacker^{(Write some code)} 19:12, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Here is a second email from the same conservative organization:

"btw, it's "Trustworthy", not "Trusworthy" - main page, top-left"

Conservative 16:24, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

I can't find this. Can you?--Aschlafly 16:41, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes. The top left corner of every page, under the logo, it says "The Trusworhty Encyclopedia." MountainDew 16:42, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh, I see. That's embarrassing. I use the old skin so I don't usually see that, except when I'm logged out. I can't believe I didn't notice that. Our webmaster will need to fix it, I suppose. I'll send him an email now.--Aschlafly 16:46, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

MountainDew, I just realized that I can create a new account for you manually if you want this today. You can email your new id and password at my aol account (same user name for me).--Aschlafly 16:48, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. I did that. MountainDew 16:52, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

You're all set. I Sysop'd your new id. and de-Sysop'd MountainDew. You have a huge following here so you might want to let people know your new name.--Aschlafly 16:59, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Hi Andrew, I am working on a high quality Conservapedia logo:

I have an SVG version, but for some reason it won't upload correctly.
Do you have any suggestions?
Ribbix 16:54, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Wow, that's nice! The flag is centered better too!--Aschlafly 16:38, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I like it. The font is more contemporary, and there isn't a red border around the flag. --Hojimachong^talk 16:39, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

ColinR, is this improved version from you? Conservapedia is a nonprofit, educational project and could you confirm that turn over all rights to your improvements in this designed logo to this project, even if for any reason there is a falling out with you in the future? Hate to make it sound that way but let's cover all our bases here. Thanks and God bless you.--Aschlafly 16:53, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I made it but I wish to keep the rights on the picture. Ribbix 16:56, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

By the way, Andy, I reuploaded the Muhammad (PBUH) image as [Image:Maome.jpg], with copyright data, author, and sources disclosed. --Hojimachong^talk 16:39, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks much Hoji but I still need to think about this further. Maybe all Sysops should consider and establish a policy about images of Muhammad.--Aschlafly 16:53, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

IMHO, we can try to respect Muslims, but showing images of Muhammad is akin to following their Shari'a rules. As a historical figure, Muhammad existed; there isn't a dispute over this. --Hojimachong^talk 16:55, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm with Hoji on this one. We live in America, where we have religious freedom. That means no religion's laws are enforced upon us. I understand that Islam has a law that says no images of Muhammad can be made, but we do not have this law, and it is not forced upon us.--Elamdri 16:57, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. --~ TK ^MyTalk 16:59, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, you make good points, but the image is not authentic. Would an encyclopedia contain fictional images like this? I'm skeptical. I don't think we even have a painting of Jesus!--Aschlafly 17:04, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

By the definition you imply you are using, then all paintings are "fictional". Could we include it in the article, and have the caption read "An artist's depiction of Muhammad"? --Hojimachong^talk 17:07, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

But the artist presumably never saw Muhammad, and probably wasn't even Muslim!--Aschlafly 17:14, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Al-Biruni? You've got to be kidding! He is one of the most famous Islamic scholars ever! And of course he didn't see Muhammad; nobody who did painted a picture, and Biruni lived in the 10th and 11th centuries AD. But that doesn't change the fact that Muhammad himself was a historical figure, existed as a person, and Al-Biruni used descriptions in approved hadith to compose this image. --Hojimachong^talk 17:19, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

OK, I'm learning here. What's going on, then. Some Muslims oppose depictions of Muhammad but others allow it? The same is true for Jewish people with respect to depictions of people, I do know that.--Aschlafly 17:22, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

The image is from a book entitledTa'rikh al-Hind ("Chronicles of India"), which Al-Biruni compiled. He included this image (which is historically Uzbek or Tajik) because he had found it somewhere else; This makes it the oldest known image which depicts Muhammad. And he did not create the image, which is the big no-no; he collected it from elsewhere. It would be hard to find sources to back these claims up, but I'd look for them if you requested. I have given you the name of the book, though, and hope you learned something! Did you know that Biruni also mathematician, physicist, philosopher, and astronomer? He proved that irrational numbers existed! --Hojimachong^talk 19:02, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

OK, so the plot thinks further. Al-Biruni didn't draw it after all. Most likely a Muslim did not draw it, so why would we cite it as authoritative? We wouldn't be citing Buddhist interpretations of the Bible, would we?--Aschlafly 19:07, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

A Muslim most likely did draw it; it was probably Uzbek or Tajik, and in the century before Al-Biruni, these areas were under complete and utter Muslim control (The Abbasid Caliphate). And comparing this to a Buddhist depiction of the Bible is a bit extreme; Buddhists were a ways away from Christian influence, though the artist of the Maome image was probably a Muslim, or under heavy Muslim influence. I have another image if you don't like the Maome one. --Hojimachong^talk 19:15, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't know why you say a Muslim drew it. Apparently such depictions are against Islam. With the halos, the drawing looks distinctly Christian. The bottom line is that is not authentic, and it would be misleading to include it an entry on Muhammad. No encyclopedia would include it.--Aschlafly 19:19, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Actually, Shi'a Islam does not prohibit images of Muhammad. I'll go find another, more authoritative image. As a historical figure, Muhammad existed, and a picture of him should definitely exist here. --Hojimachong^talk 19:24, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

FYI, Bibliotheque nationale de France has verified it here as authentically Al-Biruni. --Hojimachong^talk 19:34, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Here is a small version that could work as the logo:

Ribbix 17:05, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Ribbix, I greatly appreciate your effort and your release, but I am more than a little skeptical about your commitment to this project. Please accept my apologies if I'm wrong, but I've reviewed your edits and they include troubling statements like this, "I am a very conservative when it comes to editing Conservapedia." User:Ribbix. The files you've edited also have another characteristic: they have been "page viewed" an inordinate number of times. Curious, isn't that?--Aschlafly 17:11, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I understand why you would be skeptical. In all honesty I am a libertarian and some might call me conservative while others call me liberal. I am struck between the quality of some of these pages. Some are very high quality and cite valid sources, while others are poorly written and do not cite sources at all. I do not know what to do. I am afraid if I edit some pages, people will revert them or block me because they do not share my viewpoint. I think it would be beneficial to state what issues Conservapedia stands by and which issues it does not. Conservative is a very broad term and there are different types of conservatism. My talk page isn't supposed to be an article, and so I don't think you should judge me by what I have on it. I am new to this whole Conservapedia thing. Ribbix 17:35, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

If you please, the logo on the main page needs to be corrected now. A user spotted the word "trustworthy" was misspelled. Karajou 17:58, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, Karajou. I've already let our webmaster know, but I don't think he's around right now. I imagine most of us use an old or custom skin so we don't see that logo often.--Aschlafly 18:02, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I just wanted to let you know. Ribbix 17:57, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, thank you. I suppose. English class??? My mom hasn't written any novels. I'm curious what the context was.--Aschlafly 18:05, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Ribbix, is the end of the line for your parody here? I'm still awaiting your explanation of how you learned about my mom in English class.--Aschlafly 20:37, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Do you find it irritating when people don't have the courtesy to respond to you? --Horace 20:41, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

You got me there. Touche.--Aschlafly 20:46, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, it would have been more effective if you hadn't been replying to my post above at the time I was writing it. Touche yourself. --Horace 20:51, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Is your mom Phyllis Schlafly? Sorry, I didn't see your previous messages until now. Ribbix 21:21, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

(needless Wikipedia link removed)

Ribbix, I think you're a parody. Yes, that's my mom and, for the third time, please answer my question.--Aschlafly 21:26, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

We were reading a book and it referenced the ERA and so we watched this film about the 80s in general and it talked about how your mom played a major role in the Anti-ERA movement. Ribbix 21:36, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Really? Reading about ERA in English class??? The 80s in general???--Aschlafly 21:42, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I just knew your name sounded familiar and then I remembered that we learned about her in school. Ribbix 21:38, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Ah, you are starting to contradict yourself. It's not English class anymore, it's "in school". Ribbix, I've looked at your edits and I've looked at the inordinate page views on your edits. I'm convinced you're a parody. Your account will be blocked at 10 pm ET tonight. Wikipedia will welcome your edits. Feel free to apologize here before you're blocked.--Aschlafly 21:42, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

As long as the English class was in school, there is no contradiction in claiming both "in English class" and "in school". It's like saying "in Iowa" and "in America"; they could both be true without contradiction. Secondly (and this is a weaker point because you would know more about the American situation than me), when I was in school (decades ago in Australia), our English classes at times amounted more to "social studies" than the English language. Philip J. Rayment 02:52, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I think you are confused, but I seriously learned about your mom in English class. I don't want to explain it any better because I will probably just make it more confusing. I do not know what you mean by a parody but it seems like I am not welcome here, so I will stop editing. Ribbix 21:48, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Furthermore, if you think Wikipedia is too biased, why don't you edit it to make it unbiased? Ribbix 21:49, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Ribbix, that's not an apology. I repeat: I've read your edits and I've reviewed the traffic. Wikipedia will welcome you. It distorts and erases my edits.--Aschlafly 21:50, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Goodbye cruel conservative world! I hope the libs will be more kind to me. Ribbix 22:05, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Great job, Andy. Another good, friendly editor gone. You're doing an excellent job of creating hostility, you know, thus further separating Conservapedia from Wikipedia. Congratulations! --Hacker^{(Write some code)} 22:21, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Our loss is Wikipedia's gain! :-) --Aschlafly 22:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Of all people, I would think you wouldn't want to encourage WP's gain. --Hojimachong^talk 22:26, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

(discussion continued on Conservapedia:Sysops page).

I have posted at Conservapedia talk:Commandments on the 90/10 rule. I would be interested in your views. --Horace 19:55, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I think it would be a good idea for you to link your essay on the Boy Scouts and the ACLU to the ACLU page. I think I've mentioned this before, but I think it would be cool to incorporate individual essays more into the site. I remember you saying that you wanted Conservapedia to be a site for individual intellectual thought. DanH 22:17, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Excellent idea, Dan! Thanks. Go ahead if you have a specific way to do this in mind. If not, then I'll do it a little later.--Aschlafly 22:18, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

It would be good to have more collaboration and assistance on redoing the front page every night. We could set up a page for ideas. Here's what I have in mind for tonight:

Breaking News: Wolfowitz and neoconservatives

Entry of the Day: change to Liberal Falsehood of the Day this time and describe the liberal support of UFOs and ETs, with links to Jimmy Carter and Carl Sagan and a picture of a spaceship.

On this Day: It's pretty thin for April 16, but Lenin returning to Russia might be best.

Ideas?--Aschlafly 22:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Its totally my birthday on the 16th...Thats news right?--Elamdri 22:28, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Ha ha. I like that, Elamdri. Happy birthday, dude!--Aschlafly 22:53, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Ty, my big 2-0.--Elamdri 23:00, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

April 19th is the anniversary of the Oklahoma City Bombing. I've started an article there. Any particular areas which should be fleshed out? --Jtl 00:33, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

That's an important one. On Wednesday, if we got the Paul Revere article up to snuff, we could do that, because April 18 was the Midnight Ride of Paul Revere. DanH 02:01, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

OH thanks guys, my 20th birthday isn't important enough for the Front Page eh? I SEE HOW IT IS!  ;)

--Elamdri 02:02, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Blocked Horace for harrrassing me at my discussion page and 90/10 rule. Please see that the blocking is not overruled as he is a 90/10 flagrant abuser who whines but does not contribute. Conservative 22:47, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Mr. Aschlafly, something needs to be done about this. A: Horace was not harassing Conservative, he only made one post on his talk page; B: Murray posted Horace's editing stats on Conservative's talk page, which showed that Horace is not in violation of the 90/10 rule; C: Conservative has removed both Horace's and Murray's edits to his talk page, something which he is notorious for, yet should not be done, as this creates problems for anyone trying to observe what happened, as they have to browse through page history. A user's talk page is not his to do as he sees fit, instead it is a means of communication between the user and the rest of the community. I understand you seem to think Conservative is a good editor, and while I personally (and a large portion of the community, it seems) feel otherwise, this is beyond personal opinion. This is about the well-being of Conservapedia. His actions do nothing to help this site. There was no reason to block Horace, he needs to be unblocked ASAP. Thank you. ColinR^talk 23:34, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

If this is true, then he should be unblocked --CPAdmin1 23:48, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Obviously I concur in the above. I also have to add that there is one other editor who certainly dips below the "90/10" rule - TK :-P -AmesG_yo! 23:53, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

• I agree Andy should look into it. But I also observe edits were made to the "vote" about the block rule after people had posted which made their comments seem crazy. So, it isn't exactly something not done often. --~ TK ^MyTalk 00:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Harassament isn't fun, or funny. --~ TK ^MyTalk 00:47, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I g2g for the night man... have fun arguing with Conservative, he's being a bit odd tonight. Then again, when isn't he? --Hojimachongtalk 00:02, 16 April 2007 (EDT) Peace Hoji... :-P You'll be missed. I should be studying so I can be a fancy lawyer someday, and not fail my exams & life in general. Hoji, one important reminder - the law is always on our side. Look it up; it's good stuff.-AmesGyo! 00:04, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Not ashamed of those at all, TK. I stand by them. --Hojimachong^talk 01:15, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

• Sad. --~ TK ^MyTalk 02:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm currently working on an article for him, since I'm reading one of his books for a research paper, and In it, I saw he has a complete list of supreme court cases that had a significant affect on the distinction on church and state, as well as their subject and their outcome (Whether or not they favored seperation or accomidation.) Would you like me to post a copy?--Elamdri 23:07, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Sure, assuming it's your work. Would this be in the format "Essay:_______"? Sounds like it.--Aschlafly 23:12, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Might, As I said, I'm working on a research paper right now "Evangelical Christianity and Party Identification in the United States." So I dunno.--Elamdri 23:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Please read this: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2196 I would also recommend this: http://www.privilegedplanet.com/ Conservative 23:58, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Please add material as you think best, Conservative. I want this to go on the front page tonight.--Aschlafly 00:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly, did you not read the Times article you cited? It explicitly states that exotheology is the theology of outer space. Nothing to do with the science of extraterrestrial life. ColinR^talk 01:17, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

What's the difference? You're splitting hairs. I'll do another search in the Time archives to see how the term is used, but it's synonymous with belief in ETs.--Aschlafly 01:20, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Dude, this is supposed to be an _encyclopedia_, remember? If a real encycloped mixed up, say, Greece and Rome, I'd imagine you'd be very unimpressed by their quality-control. --BobD 01:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

What's the difference? Everything. I'm not splitting hairs. Exotheology is the investigation of how things in space can affect religion. NOT belief in ET life. Have you even read the sources you cite? ColinR^talk 01:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I asked you for another term. Give me a suitable replacement and I'll use it. But censorship is not an option.--Aschlafly 01:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I did. I said what exotheology was. "The investigation of how things in space can affect religion." aka the theology of outer space. And I asked if you read the sources you site. Did you? ColinR^talk 01:29, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Colin, I did read the sources. You're going to lose your Sysop privileges if you continue to make liberal edits to this entry. You did not suggest a replacement term, but instead you suggested a diluted definition. Life doesn't exist in outer space and that's the point. It was (and is) liberal to pretend it does. Give me another term for the belief that life exists in outer space and I'll use it. But don't interfere with the facts and theme of this entry.--Aschlafly 01:34, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

It's a bit dangerous to work under the mindset that the belief cannot be true, and edit from that point of view. That's why CP isn't as concise and clean as it should be. Having said that, there is no issue regarding the edit war. It can be a pseudoscience, or a pseudoreligion, or a belief (a la Scientology). --Hojimachong^talk 01:36, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm not making "liberal" edits. My fact tag was a request for actual cited information, something the commandments require. I've read all the sources you cite, and none of them support what you're claiming. And how do you know life doesn't exist in outer space? Please show me where to find this information! ColinR^talk 01:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Are you seriously going to step all over the Commandments? Others on here work hard to ensure what they post follows the commandments, yet you have repeatedly posted uncited and nonfactual information (speculation and opinion at best in some cases) on the Exotheology page. Moreover, you insist on writing an entry that doesn't even relate to the actual title. ColinR^talk 01:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Colin, the entry is completely factual. Most scientists now reject the existence of life in outer space. You haven't suggested a replacement term despite my repeated requests. I'm not going to waste more time on this, as it is very late here. No liberal edits of this factual entry will be allowed simply to appease a liberal point-of-view.--Aschlafly 01:41, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm sorry, apparently me giving a definition multiple times doesn't cut it. And please show me where multiple scientists reject the existence of life in outer space. I've yet to meet one at Vandy. And again, where is this proof that there is no life in outer space? ColinR^talk 01:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

It's in the cited Time magazine article. I've adjusted the definition to appease you but I'm not going to dilute the point. The term used doesn't matter to me but the entry is not going to be made more liberal. As I said, it's late here and I'm going to sign off soon. Feel free to debate on the talk page but do not change this entry further. Write your own entries if you like.--Aschlafly 01:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Most scientists now reject the existence of life in outer space..

I guess these are the same 'most scientists' who reject Evolution? That's why NASA keeps sending probes to places like Mars and Europa in hopes of finding a few microbes, I guess.

Hm... was Robert A. Heinlein a 'liberal'? I don't think he would have agreed with your description. Not every Conservative treats the Old Testament as a science text, you know. --BobD 01:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I actually posted this allready to the discussion of the article related, but as i see there is discussion about the subject in here too, ill do it again: The article now says, "Today most scientists doubt the existence of life in outer space, yet they support continuing to spend money on searching for it." And the source where its allegedly taken lists few scientists who dont belieave and then states "But such pessimism represents a minority view among scientists, at least those with their eyes on the stars." Mayby something worth fixing? Timppeli 04:29, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, I conducted an impromptu discussion, over the weekend, on the #wikipedia IRC channel and posted the edited transcript at How do Wikipedians see Conservapedia?. The tone of the conversation was largely constructive. --Ed Poor 08:08, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Interesting. I suspect that our growth has been greater than Wikipedia's at a comparable time. I'm confident the quality in our entries has been better also.

Wikipedia is really an anti-intellectual movement, akin to the Cultural Revolution, and I think the smart editors have or will leave it.--Aschlafly 15:36, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I would call it an "anti-elitist" movement, a meritocracy in denial. --Ed Poor 21:27, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I've started this at User:Hacker/Petition to restore move functionality to normal users. I'm terribly annoyed by my inablity to move pages, and I'm sure many others are as well. --Hacker^{(Write some code)} 13:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

No, moves are too disruptive. Maybe one day that feature will return to all users, but not yet. Thanks anyway.--Aschlafly 21:04, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

In the meantime, Hacker, if you're moving to correct mispellings, just blank & redirect to the correct spelling. That's what I do.-AmesG_yo! 21:06, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

The problem with that approach is that it leaves the history at the old address. Philip J. Rayment 22:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

• Oh dear! --~ TK ^MyTalk 22:40, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I am working on a project today and will not be of much help in regards to you getting the article up tonight. However, here are two additional sources for you if you want to build up the article today:

http://www.spotlightministries.org.uk/ufo.htm

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/1791/astronomer-links-ufos-to-occultism

Conservative 15:49, 16 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

I started an article on Congressman C. Michael Thompson. I am hoping to bring it to featured and would like (if it isn't to much of a bother) some advice on what I can do to make it better. Geo.Talk 20:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, it seems to say he was born in 1999. That doesn't sound right....--BobD 20:32, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Looks great, Geo. I made some very minor formatting-type improvements.--Aschlafly 21:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, would review the AFD on Iraq body Count Project; this is an organization, using a particularly insensitive name to the victims and families, is attempting to pass itself off as non-profit and solict funds whereas its website specifically states donations are not tax-deductable.[8] Attempting to capitalize on the deaths of people appears highly questionable, and we perhaps should not link to it or in anyway promote this site. RobS 23:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

• I cannot imagine why it hasn't been deleted. Follow the links, Andy, here: [9] --~ TK ^MyTalk 23:05, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

"is attempting to pass itself off as non-profit and solict funds whereas its website specifically states donations are not tax-deductable"

Ignoring any other issues, what's the problem with this? Is soliciting funds only acceptable to Americans if they can get a tax deduction in return? Does not being able to offer tax deductibility somehow bring into question its non-profit status?

Philip J. Rayment 23:40, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

What evidence do we have the "donations" will be used for this alleged "project"? How do we know the donations" are not going to be used to purchase an air conditioned dog house, payoff somebodies mistress, fund Nicaraguan Contras, or compenstate the families of suicide bombers? RobS 14:38, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

That link does seem self-serving and not authoritative, as required by our rules. Please feel free to delete it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aschlafly (talk)

Hey, how come that Andy Schlafly website gets to have a decent article on evolution and we have to put up with Conservative's nonsense article? --Horace 02:10, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Create your own wiki and you can put whatever you want there. DanH 02:40, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

• Horace, do you hear that bell tolling? I can...faintly right now...off in the distance.....listen, you'll hear it! --~ ^Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 03:28, 17 April 2007 (EDT)