User talk:Aschlafly/Archive17

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Goal setting and Conservapedia and internet traffic

I know that when President Kennedy stated that the United States was going to land a man on the moon before the decade was out was a great example of goal setting and what goal setting can achieve. I also know that Wikipedia has about 6% of the global internet users currently viewing their site (See: Wikipedia internet traffic ). I also know that goal setters achieve much more than non-goal setters and the same is true for organizations. I think we should set goals in terms of internet traffic based on sound goal setting principles (see: Goal setting principles). Conservative 17:28, 20 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

That 6% is the WP daily reach, by the way. Much as Limbaugh has, I think, about 5 million regular listeners, but they aren't all listening at the same time. Anyway, enough pedanticism. CP peaked at just over 0.02% a couple months ago, due to some premature (in my opinion) publicity. I agree with your premise. First, I think an internal goal of quality should be set, like having some number of articles that could be considered "featured", in some minimum number of fields of interest, like, say, all the major courses likely to come up in seconday education. Second, when there really is something here to "introduce" to the world, some intentional publicity should be generated. I think in the mean time, the best way to grow CP is via "quiet evangelicism" - suggesting to, say, frustrated editors on WP, that they could come here. Letting the homeschool community know about it. Why quiet? Because this place is not "ready for prime time" yet.
But that time will come, and I think you are right in that goals for that time should be set, and worked towards. Perhaps good editors could be given "wish lists" of backbone articles to create and work on that will improve the site. Maybe a requirement for active sysopness could be to create one a week. By "backbone" I mean the sort of general article (like Classical music) that naturally leads, via links created, to more and more detailed articles. Human 21:48, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
Given the amount of vandalism and given the fact that this is a volunteer effort, I think that a requirement to write one article a week to stay a Sysop/admin is not a good idea. Conservative 21:54, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
Given that it takes from five minutes to an hour to create a good article or twelve, what's the problem with actually working on the site's content? I think it provides needed perspective. Human 22:27, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Response to accusations of ideology

This is quite an interesting accusation. I thought that I was simply pointing out that the entry as written was deficient, in that it contained no references and seemed to present an unjustified diatribe against what the author perceived to be 'liberals'. Not knowing any liberals, myself, I would like to know where i can find such information, so as to read about them, and convince myself that the statements are true. As to defacing, I did not change ONE ITEM of text that you wrote, hence I do not consider that defacement. --CatWatcher 18:05, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't think she was being sarcastic.Jaques 18:47, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
Are you serious? You don't think CatWatcher knows a single liberal???--Aschlafly 18:52, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
If so, I would like her to tell me her "secret"!! --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 19:14, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Legal Theory

Your answers are still requested at the stereotype article talk page. As an educator, you have a duty to teach your students - and all users - what the actual authority of a Supreme Court decision is. I can't believe I have to tell this to a lawyer.-AmesGyo! 20:23, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Ames, I'm building an encyclopedia. "Opinions" are just that: "opinions". The legal opinion you cite is not an authority about "stereotypes". It is merely an opinion.--Aschlafly 22:21, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
Actually, we're building it for you, mostly (though I guess "running" it keeps you pretty busy!). Are you telling us that a Supreme Court decision is just an "opinion" in the layman's sense? I thought they were binding law until overturned by constitutional amendments, or avoided by rewriting objectionable parts of the legislation in question. Human 21:52, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

And yet the fact that the opinion addresses stereotypes is a fact. A fact that you deleted without cause.-AmesGyo! 22:22, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Ames, you're wasting too much of my time with nonsensical arguments. Encyclopedias do not repeat opinions as though they are facts. Don't post any more comments about this to my talk page. Build a half-dozen good, non-biased entries and then let's chat again.--Aschlafly 22:32, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, you're refusing to meet any of my points. See the full response in your archive. Before I go build these half-dozen articles, am I not allowed to state that a legal decision happened, and what the decision entailed? Because that's all I did, and you deleted it. So what can I possibly contribute?-AmesGyo! 22:41, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Insufferable! Surely a judge's opinion is valuable! It's a little more than my opinion! Should I delete all case citations on this cite, to further purge "opinion"?-AmesGyo! 01:13, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
  • A "Judge" in most cases is a political hack, whose only contribution to anything was gathering lots of donations for his political benefactor, the Governor, you know....... --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 01:36, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

/shudder! Have to disagree with you there... Article III deliberately insulates against that in federal judges, since, once they're appointed, they're not politically accountable.-AmesGyo! 01:39, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Yeah, and he, Clinton didn't inhale, either. ;-) --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 04:17, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

CP Lore

I've begun writing about Conservapedia history at User:Hojimachong/CP Lore. It is an attempt to catalogue the stages Conservapedia has gone through, in a familiar format. Please tell me what you think. --Hojimachongtalk 01:12, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

I got a chuckle out of that. Post under "Fiction"???--Aschlafly 01:17, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
I thought you might :-). But my ultimate goal is to get something that could possibly resemble what actually happened, though metaphorically; Richard makes a great Lucifer (sitting next to God, falling to evil, etc.) --Hojimachongtalk 01:19, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
Who is the archangel Michael? Conservative 01:21, 21 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

I wanna know who Richard is represented by.-AmesGyo! 01:22, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't think we've gotten that far into CP history yet. Maybe we could last until the real AA Michael came. --Hojimachongtalk 01:23, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

I think we should ask for donations like Wikipedia does on their front page.

I think we should ask for donations like Wikipedia does on their front page. Even if we don't need it we could set aside the money for future use or use it to presently promote the site. Conservative 01:27, 21 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Wikipedia's thirst for money will contribute to its downfall, I'm afraid. Already there are stories about Wikipedia increasing its money-gathering activities. We are a labor of love here.--Aschlafly 17:01, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
Aww, how sweet. However, Andy, I don't think that web-hosting companies and server-hosting companies accept "love" as legal tender. Aren't non-profits (I think that's what we are) allowed to ask for donations? --Hojimachongtalk 17:16, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
It's a possibility for this nonprofit effort. But it requires consideration of several factors, much as a decision to go to advertising would (which we would not do). I don't know that Wikipedia has been all that successful with donations, as a percentage of its traffic. Wikipedia seems to be a traffic generator for a for-profit search engine effort. Lately, Wikipedia has been in the press in connection with possibly going to advertising.--Aschlafly 17:27, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
Here's the Wikimedia Foundation's most recent Financial Statement. [1] It's combined from three years operation, and doesn't really give a clear view of what's going on now, i.e. what percentage of their revenue comes from donations. RobS 17:35, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
All of the Wikimedia Foundation's funds come from donations. And they recently raised over a million dollars.
And to which search engine are you referring, Andy? --Hacker(Write some code) 19:31, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
Wikipedia is simply a traffic-builder. The plan, as I understand it, is to have a for-profit company controlled by some of the same people to build a search engine that leverages off that traffic. I think it's called "Wikia" or a similar derivation of the Wiki name. Many millions of dollars have already been raised in the form of investment for this for-profit project. But I expect that the volunteers on Wikipedia will leave when they realize there is a for-profit company utilizing, directly or not, their efforts.--Aschlafly 19:36, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
Andy, do you know anything about this besides what Daniel Brandt says? Wikia is Jimbo Wale's for-profit (you know, he has to have money too), and has nothing to do with the Foundation. --10:43, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
I think Wikia's business model is based on the traffic generated by Wikipedia. So I disagree with the "nothing to do with the Foundation" claim. I think Wikipedia is like a cheap freebie given away to attract business for another venture. I see two problems with that. First, this biases Wikipedia towards traffic-building rather than quality. Things that attract traffic, like gossip and pornography, are preferred over things that increase quality. Second, I feel this business model will have a negative impact on the volunteer-based Wikipedia.--Aschlafly 10:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
Just out of reasonable curiosity, you referred to this as a "nonprofit effort" - is it a legal non profit entity, or are you just covering the bills personally for now? How will they be paid when CP has 100,000 entries and 50,000 hits a day? Human 22:31, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

AmesG's [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#AmesG|RfA]]

User:AmesG has had a successful RfA. His request has been in place since April 16, and the voting community has overwhelmingly given their support. Therefore, the consensus would seem to be to grant him sysop status, so, please do so. Thanks! --Hacker(Write some code) 16:53, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

AmesG account has been blocked for weak, for reasons explained in the block. So he is not even an active user at this time, and thus not qualified to become a Sysop. Note, by the way, that Conservapedia is run by rules, not by democracy or mobocracy.--Aschlafly 17:00, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia is run by rules? Is that why my original account 'Macronking' was deleted by TK a few days ago under the flase pretense that I requested account deletion? I didn't request my account to be deleted, yet TK still thought fit to delete it and ban my IP address. All I did was post comments that disagreed with him on the main talk page. Rules indeed.--Mackronking2 17:24, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

I've reviewed your edits at your old account. They are mostly talk. Substantively, you seemed focused on denying anything suggesting a young earth and little else. No new entries. You may not be in violation of the letter 90/10 rule, but you don't seem to be building an encyclopedia either.--Aschlafly 17:34, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Well Aschlafy, it's hard for me to contribute when the articles that I am most qualified to contribute are protected from editing. And yes, with a Ph.D. from MIT, I am indeed more qualified than Conservative at editing them. --Mackronking2 17:39, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Wow, that's fantastic, Mackronking2! A PhD from MIT? Do you recall what the most popular game in Harvard Square is?--Aschlafly 19:40, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes. Chess.--Mackronking2 19:51, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Sounds like you're legit. Welcome!--Aschlafly 19:55, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
What are the rules governing sysopship, anyway? --Hacker(Write some code) 17:26, 21 April 2007 (ED
I think I mentioned them once on a Sysop page. Obvious things like actually building an encyclopedia here and showing responsibility. Users who come here with strongly predetermined views without any signs of openness to (conservative) alternatives are usually not good candidates. Users who talk more than contribute can forget about it.--Aschlafly 17:34, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
Look, Andy, I'm sorry to be so blunt, but if you can't respect the community consensus, then the whole website is simply your little kingdom. Please rethink your approach to governing it.Hacker
There are other options that simply democracy and absolute monarchy. In my case, I was appointed as a sysop not on the basis of a community vote, and not on Andy's decision, but by the Conservapedia Panel. Something like that is the best way of doing it, as (a) it doesn't depend on the whim of a single individual, and (b) it doesn't depend on a vote that could be stacked by an influx of anti-conservative editors. Philip J. Rayment 23:52, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
Philip's comment is right on target. Major decisions like this are made by the panel now. Right now, however, we're all focused on building entries in the encyclopedia.--Aschlafly 23:59, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
It's not a "major decision", and, unfortunately, the only way to build articles at this time is by being a sysop, so many are locked, and so many have bad titles, which could be rectified if the movepage functionality was available; however, only sysops have it. --Hacker(Write some code) 06:46, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Hacker, here is what "consensus" means"

"Consensus is a group process where the input of everyone is carefully considered and an outcome is crafted that best meets the needs of the group. It is a process of synthesizing the wisdom of all the participants into the best decision possible at the time. The root of consensus is the word consent, which means to give permission to. When you consent to a decision, you are giving your permission to the group to go ahead with the decision. You may disagree with the decision, but based on listening to everyone else’s input, all the individuals agree to let the decision go forward, because the decision is the best one the entire group can achieve at the current time."

  • I don't see all agreeing to move forward, and it has only been there a matter of days, many logon here once a week. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 18:21, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

I have to say, what is the point of having a community vote unless it is honored? This is like having all the people of a nation turn out to vote for a congress, and then having some autocrat appoint the ones he like. Bottom line, Andy, is that, unless you respect the community, you are going to engender more and more hostilit, and the site devolves into your personal soapbox. I hope you realize that. --Hacker(Write some code) 06:40, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Sorry about the edit summary, I bumped a 'commit input' key. --Hacker(Write some code) 06:42, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Vote for Horace

Aschlafly, I have put myself forward for sysopship and would very much appreciate your vote. I have no doubt that you would be very excited to have me amongst the sysops, bringing my unique talents to bear. Please don't be shy and feel free to leave a glowing endorsement as well if you feel so moved. --Horace Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship#Support_2|Vote Horace for sysop]/sup> 22:21, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Douglas MacArthur

This article is just about done. All it needs are a couple pics and some tweaking. Karajou 15:19, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

That will be great to have, and review. Lots of interesting issues there. Lord bless you!--Aschlafly 16:05, 22 April 2007 (EDT)


This article has been vandalised by RSchalfy, and having reverted the article to contain his own ridiculous view of adultery to be only committed by women, locked the article. If this isn't proof that this ludicrous "Trustworhy Encyclopedia" is a farce, I don't know what is. I doubt you'll ban your own brother, but this deserves it. 50something. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 50something (talk)

So the Washington Post trumps the Book of Leviticus, [2] is that the argument? RobS 16:17, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

I did not add the Washington Post reference. I added one from the Catholic Encyclopedia [3], and Christian Answers [4], both of which agree with me. 50something

Ok, It's not certain exactly what happened, you appear to have replaced Lev. & Duet. references with the Catholic Encyclopedia, and I can't find where you put in Christian Answers cite; it's uncertain who put in the Washington Post, and I see you made no reference to Spiritual adultry as defined from the Christian Answers site. Is this about right? RobS 16:33, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

No, that's not about right. Read the History. I added nothing to this article, and I wrote practically none of it either. I have simply been trying to make it gender netural. I didn't need to add the bit about spiritual adultery, since it was already IN the article. RScahlfy asked me for references, which I provided (Catholic Encyclopedia and Christian Answers), but he removed them, reverted the page to his edit, and locked it. Why is no-one concerned about this SysOp abuse? 50something

OK, two questions, (1) you removed the Lev & Duet cites, and (2) where did you insert Christian Answers cite? RobS 16:42, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
50something, unfortunately I have to recuse myself from your dispute with RSchlafly, who is one of my brothers (and the only Sysop to whom I am related). I welcome arbitration of the dispute by RobS and/or other Sysops. Thanks and Godspeed to you.--Aschlafly 16:46, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
I looked at 50something's edit, and I saw nothing wrong with it. He had it written in which it was clear as to both Biblical and secular views. Karajou 16:49, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
We should continue at Talk:Adultery. I'll be happy to assist in sorting out issues. RobS 16:53, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

ask usdr Vossy if he/she wants to be a Sysop

Dear Andy,

Ask User:Vossy if he or she wants to be a Sysop. Vossy's Semite article is good and Vossy seems to have a very good temperament. Vossy also believes that there should be a conservative alternative to Wikipedia and thus supports Conservapedia's central mission. In addition, Vossy is on Conservapedia a fair amount.Conservative 19:18, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Will you recommend me too if I also write a fawning note on your talk page? --Horace Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship#Support_2|Vote Horace for sysop 19:21, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
I looked at Vossy's edits and they seemed good. Vossy appears to support the idea of an alternative to Wikipedia which is the whole purpose of this project.Conservative 21:10, 22 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
Anyone who writes an article on this site supports the idea of an alternative to wikipedia.--TimS 22:01, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
Do you know, at least it makes a nice change to have you repsond to my posts. I suppose it's all a result of your campaign to become a bureaucrat. Once that decision has been made I guess that you will retreat back into your shell and refuse to engage anyone. I wont comment on the quality of Vossy's edits other than to say that I can see why you would like them. The challenge for you is not to like edits by someone who is ideologically aligned but to like the edits of someone who isn't. --Horace Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship#Support_2|Vote Horace for sysop 22:04, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks again for the vote of confidence, Conservative. To be clear, I don't know that I would be engaged on the same level as some sysops here. My focus tends to center on article creation, wikification, and links. While I'd most appreciate the ability to move pages, I don't think I'd ever block anyone, unless it was clear vandalism. Regardless, I submit to the wisdom of those higher up. Vossyspeak 23:48, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Stub City

Andy, I started a few more articles. I know they are mostly stubs, but they should get you going in the Conservative direction.

I'll be pretty busy this week, but I hope to see you soon. --Ed Poor 00:35, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Wow, that's fantastic, Ed! It's great to get a start on something, and then we can all improve it. Godspeed and hope to see you soon. By the way, the biblical story about the woman caught in adultery is not authentic. See Essay:Adultress Story--Aschlafly 00:43, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
If I can disagree with you, the adulterous story is authentic, and that due to the humanistic changes to the Bible made in Alexandria; people changed passages back then that they didn't like, just as they do it today. Karajou 00:58, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
That it wasn't authentic is one of the central theses of a bestselling book on biblical errancy by a skeptical author. If this site does present the view that it is not authentic, we need to be clear that we can still fit this into the scheme of biblical inerrancy. DanH 01:01, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
The NIV, which is the evangelical translation of the Bible, also says that particular passage is not authentic. In fact, it seems unanimous among biblical scholars and devout Christians that the passage is not authentic. Ironically, it is liberals (like Wikipedia) who defend the passage, due to its liberal meaning.--Aschlafly 01:06, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Not to mention the liberal interpretation of "Do not judge":

  • It seems that whenever one person confronts another person over an issue, the statement "Do not judge!" comes up. Christians are often accused of "judging" in contradiction to what the Bible says whenever they speak out against a sinful activity. However, that is not the meaning of the Scripture verses which state, "Do not judge." When Jesus told us not to judge (Matthew 7:1), He was telling us not to judge hypocritically. (Matthew 7:2-5) [5]

Shall we regard "Do not judge" as an absolute prohibition, a warning against hypocrisy, or what? (Could be one of our Debate topics maybe.) --Ed Poor 07:02, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Don't forget those hints that Christians are to turn the other cheek...which usually comes about here when our critics slap us around first. The gist is that we must sit back and take it. Karajou 07:44, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
I finally figured that one out the other day. I think in practice, the "turning of the other cheek" is to get a better sight line down the barrel of one's weapon. I can't think of any other way to explain what I see in this world. Human 00:23, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

John 7:53-8:11 is in the Textus Receptus (Recieved Text) [6], but as the NIV points out, not in earlier texts. Actually Wikipedia has an interesting article on this [7] but it would all have to be checked out for veracity. As I understood, some of the earlier texts actually left a blank space where John 7:53-8:11 would fit, the theory being the scribes and scholars were uncertain if this was to be included. They found it absolutely astounding that Jesus sort of overruled Moses on this particular point. RobS 17:07, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

The Wikipedia entry is badly misleading about this. Its bias really shows through in its entry, and I almost added it to our list (but found this too difficult to explain). Basically, liberals like Wikipedia defend the passage because it is so useful in arguing against the death penalty and implicitly in favor of promiscuity. In fact, all biblical scholars agree and the early texts confirm that the passage is not authentic.--Aschlafly 17:33, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
Except, of course, for those biblical scholars that are also mentioned in the Wiki article. --AKjeldsen 17:46, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm not going to waste a lot of time on what Wikipedia says, because it is so biased. I did read its entry about this and it implies that biblical scholars are evenly split on this issue. They aren't. My recollection is that at least one of the scholars cited by Wikipedia as being unsure is actually on record as being quite sure the passage is not authentic.--Aschlafly 18:10, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
Possibly, I'm only familiar with a few of them. But at any rate, it is not correct to say that "all biblical scholars agree ... that the passage is not authentic," because there is debate over the question. The fact that the passage is in fact still included in Bible editions, although tentatively, seems to be an indication of this. --AKjeldsen 15:48, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
It's not certain who Boslooper is; [8] one site says he's a "Reform Biblical Scholar", others quote work he writes on the Moonies and the Unification Church. [9] Perhaps we can get some other editors to look at this stuff. RobS 17:11, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
This is the claim we gotta check out from WP, The pericope is not found in any of the earliest surviving Gospel manuscripts; neither in the two 3rd century papyrus witnesses to John - P66 and P75; nor in the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. [10] RobS 17:53, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
What, Andy, you're suggesting that the Bible is not to be taken literally?!? All sarcasm aside, why do you believe that this passage is falacious? I certainly don't. --Hacker(Write some code • Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA) 18:12, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
Liberals love the adultress passage, Hacker. I think your comment proves my point! Chalk it up to the same type of deception and vandalism we see in wikis today. Evil and deceit existed then too.--Aschlafly 22:09, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
Sinaiticus and Vaticanus shouldn't be a problem, I can get published editions of both from my university library. The papyruses might be a bit more difficult - I've never worked with those, but it should be possible to track them down, if they're published. Still, there is also the question of whether the oldest manuscripts are necessarily the best evidence for the textual history of this passage, as the Wiki article points out. [11] Going for the oldest MSS is the traditional philological way of going about such problems, but it does have its problems. --AKjeldsen 18:14, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
There may be one or two other smaller passages also in doubt; the site I gave early has a few other passages in the Textus Receptus that are controversial. [12] RobS 23:09, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
That's pretty interesting too. I think I'll just focus on one thing at a time, though. Just to avoid cluttering up ASchlafly's talk page, should we move this discussion over to Woman caught in adultery, or maybe make a whole new page - Textual reception of the Bible or something like that? --AKjeldsen 15:48, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

JP Holding says it's probably authentic, even if it doesn't necessarily belong in the Bible. DanH 18:07, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Patriotic songs

I've added a few of these, but could we have a whole category? Dorpfeld 07:03, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Category:Patriotic Songs Geo.Talk 13:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

French Presidential elections

I would like to point out that the elections in France have only gone into a second round, there are still two candidates left, no one has won as of yet.

Middle Man

The line has been corrected to reflect that it is the first round of the elections there...round two (with brass knuckles inside the gloves!) will commence shortly over there. Karajou 12:46, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks much! Godspeed.--Aschlafly 13:07, 23 April 2007 (EDT)


The user showed back up as "ArtMcEvoy" and immediately voted against everybody in the bureaucrat straw polls. I immediately ran an IP trace, and guess who it showed up as?

By the way, I apologize for nominating him for sysop awhile back. I had no idea he was a fake. I should have ran an IP trace first. DanH 14:05, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Nothing to apologize for, Dan.--Aschlafly 15:09, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Two more news articles

So, two more bits that mention Conservapedia. I wonder if either of these will be listed on the front page. --Mtur 16:17, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, the second article is now posted. I had posted the first article yesterday. Note, the second comment on the first article by a Mr. Hughes (whom I do not know).--Aschlafly 16:57, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

The user showed back up as "ArtMcEvoy" and immediately voted against everybody in the bureaucrat straw polls. I immediately ran an IP trace, and guess who it showed up as?

By the way, I apologize for nominating him for sysop awhile back. I had no idea he was a fake. I should have ran an IP trace first. DanH 14:05, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Nothing to apologize for, Dan.--Aschlafly 15:09, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Two more news articles

So, two more bits that mention Conservapedia. I wonder if either of these will be listed on the front page. --Mtur 16:17, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, the second article is now posted. I had posted the first article yesterday. Note, the second comment on the first article by a Mr. Hughes (whom I do not know).--Aschlafly 16:57, 23 April 2007 (EDT)


I've compiled some questions to clear up some elements of Conservapedia's social structure which I find ambiguous. Please do me the kindness of answering them.

  1. Is Conservapedia supposed to be non-biased?
    Conservapedia is biased towards the truth, and the facts. Conservapedia does not repeat liberal lies simply because someone has, or pretends to have, such "point of view."--Aschlafly 18:33, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
    So "conservative" lies are okay? ColinRtalk 00:03, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
    Colin, there is no incentive for "conservative lies." There is no money to be made (in contrast with abortion and evolution), there is no power to be gained (in contrast with political power), and there are no other rewards. For many conservatives, standing up for the truth ends up getting them ridiculed (e.g., Anita Bryant, Rick Santorum) or crucified (e.g., Jesus). Why would someone lie for such fate? What examples of conservative lies do you have in mind, and what possible incentive could there be for it?--Aschlafly 01:25, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
    One, it's debatable that Jesus can be claimed as a "conservative" in today's political terms (great debate topic, exists). Two, of course there is money in "conservative lies". I cite Halliburton and Blackwater profiting from teh war in Iraq - hugely. Your future tax dollars at work, sadly. Human 01:28, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
    Well, OK, you can debate whether Jesus was a "conservative". But his church-going followers are, and many of his followers throughout history were crucified or otherwise tortured and murdered. Why lie for that? Halliburton and the Iraq War are not "conservative". Neoconservative, perhaps, and arguably there is some money in that. But there is no money in conservative principles, and no reason to lie.--Aschlafly 02:06, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
    Not all church-going Christians are conservative (even more so if you define neocons as non-conservative). The Eagle Forum claims 80,000 members[1] at at least $20/year; that's $1.6milion/year right there. Then there's the minimum $444,000 in grants the Eagle Forum has received in the past 20 years [2]. The AAPS claims 12,000 members[3] with membership rates ranging from $30 (for students) to $135 (regular members) per year; that's probably more than $1million/year. As far as I can tell, neither organization makes its finances public, so there's no telling how much else is coming in through other means. And there are, as I'm sure you're aware, other conservative groups. --Jtl 04:44, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
    Dude, you've got the wrong "AAPS" there. Also, look at the salaries that conservative groups pay. On average, it's less than what McDonalds pays. The average Catholic priest makes only $19,000 a year, I think. There's a billion dollars in money and much political power on the side of abortion. On the pro-life side, it's volunteering at a pregnancy center or getting arrested for protesting a clinic. Oppose embryonic stem cell research and expect to get nothing or be fired; support it and grab a share in millions of dollars of government-paid research. And on, and on.
    But look, I have an open mind here. What are some examples of real conservative lies (for which there was no incentive)? Doesn't make sense for there to be any. The lies are where there are incentives to lie.--Aschlafly 09:48, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
    Oops, absolutely right about the wrong AAPS -- sorry about that. Your AAPS apparently has approximately 4000 members[4] at $325/year for a normal membership[5], for maybe $1.3million/year. And it's neither fair nor sensible to compare an average priest's salary with the (supposed) full income of the 'abortion side'; compare full movement-wide revenues or individual incomes (and do you not understand that there are lots of liberal volunteers?), but not one to the other. As to individual lies, I'll let others imply motives, but the claim that there's "no incentive" for conservative lies is a falsehood. --Jtl 14:37, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
  2. Is Conservapedia a monarchy, a dictatorship, an autocracy, an oligarchy, a democracy, a mobocracy, or something else?
    As I've repeatedly said, Conservapedia is a meritocracy.--Aschlafly 18:33, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
  3. Are liberal editors supposed to be treated in the same manner as conservative editors?
    See answer to question one above.--Aschlafly 18:33, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
    As a profoundly liberal editor, I have encountered no apparent bias in my treatment. Of course, I'm pretty good at "doing as Romans do", I just don't tilt at the windmills that are obvious CP shiboleths. Been having fun with math, music, building trades, among other things. Human 01:30, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
    That doesn't really answer the question... ColinRtalk 00:03, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
  4. Why haven't the problems caused by a certain individual been addressed?
    See answer to question one above.--Aschlafly 18:33, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
  5. Why is everyone referred to the Panel, when they're apparently defunct?
    They aren't defunct. Substantive work must be done from time to time.--Aschlafly 18:33, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
  6. Why are allegedly conservative editors treated better than allegedly liberal editors?
    They aren't.--Aschlafly 18:33, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
    Yes, they are. I got in to a revert war with Conservative over the Theory of evolution article, because he removed a link to the full text of "The Origin of Species" from the page. I put it back in, and Philip J. Rayment and Ed Poor and pretty much everybody else posted in support of keeping the book in. Conservative continued to revert, providing no rhyme or reason. After that, CPWebmaster posted this warning on my talk page, but gave no similar warning to Conservative, who was equally (if not more) at fault. That's favoritism. It allowed Conservative to get off unscathed; he always gets off unscathed. It gives the impression that ideological similarity is more important than abiding by the rules. --Hojimachongtalk 23:10, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
    The lack of any semblance of response is very reassuring. --Hojimachongtalk 01:15, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
    Dont be so quick to judge, as there may be factors you are unaware of. Geo.Talk 01:50, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
    Oh right, the ideological favoritism; it's pretty clear. And I did tell CPWebmaster to warn Conservative several times, and he always skirted the question. --Hojimachongtalk 01:52, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
  7. Why are people like AmesG refused sysop permissions, when the individual above was given them apparently on request, allegedly for a single purpose?
    We look at the percentage of substantive work versus talk, talk, talk.--Aschlafly 18:33, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
    What about sysops who fall short of the 90/10 rule? ColinRtalk 00:03, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
    As Andy has said this encyclopedia is a meritocracy, users are promoted based on merit. Geo.Talk 01:50, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
    I'm talking about sysops (users already promoted on "merit") who violate the 90/10 rule. Shouldn't they be blocked as per the Commandments? ColinRtalk 01:56, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
That is a rhetorical question. Some may not be able to help it as Sysops need to assume many hats which can involve a lot of talk Geo.Talk 02:03, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
  1. Earlier on this page (under Goals) conservative said a sysops job was not to write or edit articles, but to police vandalism. I'd like to hear/read your opinion of this. Human 22:38, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
    I think that conservative is right. I think that if sysops would stick to their job as a sysop it would make this site much better. Sysops should police articles and polish the articles up to make it look more encyclopedic. They shouldn't waste their time as a sysop by writing new articles or expounding on articles. Aschalfly, as an economics teacher, would have to agree that division of labor creates more productivity. If sysops specialize and focus their time by preventing vandals/ cleaning up articles(removing unwanted bias, making articles look encyclopedic, etc.) it would create more productivity on the conservapedia website. It is a waste of a sysops powers if they are busy creating new articles when there are so many articles on here that need to be cleaned up. Oh by the way, this is my first post!--Staple 23:01, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
    You didn't previously post as Infiltrator did you? And perhaps as someone else before that? And who is LT2Fan? Philip J. Rayment 23:35, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
    Conservative has a great statement there, though he chooses to ignore abiding by it. --Hojimachongtalk 23:03, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
    I never said a Sysop should not create articles. I merely stated that it needn't be a requirement. Some people like to do little edits to articles, etc. etc. Conservative 23:44, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
    My point is that such a person really should not be a sysop - unless the job of sysop is simply to prowl around enforcing ideolological correctness. I think the rooting out of vandals "task" does not also require one to enforce ideology and point of view. people who do not substantially contribute to the creation and improvement of articles do not develop the cooperative skills required to resolve conflicts. Human 01:25, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
    OBSERVATION: The traffic on this site is not significant enough yet that if we were to have sysops NOT write articles, then the amount of articles created would decrease substantially.--Elamdri 01:39, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
  2. Why do you adopt such a consistently confrontational tone, i.e., constantly challenging people's credentials, and, as in the case of CWilson, essentially calling people liars?
    I didn't call anyone a liar. But, unfortunately, I think liberals (not in reference to CWilson) have lied to us.--Aschlafly 18:33, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I hope you're not violating out 90/10 rule. I'm going to check next.--Aschlafly 18:33, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I’ve repeatedly seen you respond to, what strike me as, legitimate questions (it seems to me that most, if not all, of the above questions are legitimate – or at least come from an honest place of confusion about the policy here) by saying the questioner is violating the 90/10 rule, or that you are going to check their compliance with that rule. To me that seems likely to stifle constructive speech. If the poster is just poking at you, or other editors, just trying to cause problems, I think it’s a highly reasonable response, but when the questions are worthy of a response, it seems to me that immediately turning to the 90/10 can only send the message questions are not welcome here. I say this because I am under the impression that this is not the message you are trying to send, and would want to be aware that this was how what you are saying is being perceived—if on the other hand you are trying to send that message, please feel free to ignore this comment.--Reginod 18:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
Reginod, that is not the first time I've responded to Hacker, and the wasted time adds up. It is impolite for someone who is violating our 90/10 rule to consume more of real editors' time (like mine) with a laundry list of questions. That takes my time away from productive contributors, and from contributing myself. Check out the concept of opportunity cost.--Aschlafly 18:54, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
Thank you for the reply. I’m sure it is not the first time you’ve had to respond to that particular poster and I applaud your restraint in letting him/her hang out here as long as you did—my concern was about the message that it sends to those who may be reading and not be aware of your past history with a poster (as I wasn’t). I just wanted to alert you to the possibility that what you were saying may be misread.--Reginod 18:59, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, Hacker(Write some code • Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA) 18:03, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Review of Hacker's edits: slightly less than 500 edits, of which only about 6 are new entries and only about 10 are substantive edits of existing entries. One of the new entries was "Geek". Unless this improves quickly, I'm going to propose blocking this account. I will post this on Conservapedia:Abuse also.

How is it that anytime someone disagrees with what you consider conservative, they're a liberal? I'm completely serious about this question, since every time something comes up you disagree with, it's "liberal." ColinRtalk 00:03, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly As I've repeatedly said, Conservapedia is a meritocracy and who decides what's merituous? Auld Nick 12:22, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Request unprotection?

My apologies for posting here, but where is the page to request unprotection for a page? I have repeatitly asked for sysop comment/action on talk:pseudoscience, but have had no feed back there. As the page is protected and I cannot make the edits otherwise, I thought it best to request unprotection for the article, but I can't find the page to do so. Can anyone point me to it? --Mtur 19:08, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Simply check the page history for the content page and it says who protected it and why. In this case, User:Conservative protected it apparently because someone was trying to insert ideological material into the entry. I'm guessing someone was trying to embarrass a conservative position in some way, but you'd have to check with Conservative by posting his User Talk:Conservative. Thanks.--Aschlafly 19:11, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
I already did with this edit, a few days ago though he chose to ignore it. --Mtur 19:15, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Evolution two

This is going to be a proposed article about the theory of evolution, to be worked on over time by myself and Horace, and it is intended to provide more neutrality on the subject vs creation; the student reading it will be more informed as to both. The title will be changed upon finish, and it will be graded by the panel for quality before publishing. Since I insist on good source material (books especially!) this is going to take sometime from start to finish. I also laid down some ground rules on the talk page, so everything remains cool. Karajou 00:42, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

This is really a stupid idea. Forking, and having "liberal" POV on a YEC site isn't the way to get the message across. --Hojimachongtalk 01:08, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
I disagree. If the science is accurate, I want the student to see it. If the science is flawed, I want the student to see it. I insist on authoritative sources from both sides so there is no POV. And since it is a mere proposal, time can be taken when writing it, so the best possible article can come out. Karajou 01:20, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
To Hojimachong: Sarcasm, must we? You ought rather to applaud our colleague Karajou for his willingness to work with, for lack of a better term, an opponent in order that each participant in the debate know exactly what every other participant is really standing for, and by.--TerryHTalk 09:59, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Is Conservapedia a "YEC site?" That is, does it officially endorse young earth creationism? If so, I'd like to see this stated plainly. I'd have thought its official position would have been more like endorsing the inclusion of young Earth creationism in school curricula, and ensuring that this point of view is well and fairly represented here—not that it is to be the only theory that is described and presented. I've interpreted the continuing protection of The Theory of Evolution as a means of ensuring that this point of view is described in a way acceptable to its advocates—not as meaning that Conservapedia is a "YEC site." Dpbsmith 10:33, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm inclined to agree with you. My desire for a good and fair representation of certain POV's informs much of my own writing.--TerryHTalk 10:40, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
We are not a "YEC site" any more than we are wedded to any other position. Hoji excepted, most liberal attempts to label us as a "YEC site" are misguided attempts to smear and discredit us. I suppose I could call Wikipedia a pro-abortion site if I resorted to the same tactics.
That said, we don't labor to include all points of view here either. Pardon the comparison, but we don't include a terrorist's point of view [see below], for example. The pro-evolution view is promoted heavily on Wikipedia, and there is little reason to spend (waste?) time on it here. So I see merit in Hoji's objection, but perhaps for a different reasons. But I'm willing to wait and see what the proposed entry looks like.--Aschlafly 10:52, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
I don't see how you can attempt to call wikipedia a pro-abortion site. If your logic was correct then wikipedia would have an abortionist perspective on a majority of the articles, as CP does with YEC views. In a random article search, many articles attempt to debunk scientific fact with bible quotes or YEC ideology.
I also await the new article and hope the Panel accepts a more balanced POV. Jrssr5 11:13, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Racism would be a better example than terrorism above. We would not include a racist's point of view.--Aschlafly 11:25, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Wikipedia does have an abortionist perspective in its related articles. To take another example, Wikipedia's pro-evolution slant is indisputed.--Aschlafly 11:25, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
TerryH, sorry, I sometime forget that text doesn't carry inflections like the voice does; I wasn't being sarcastic. The only thing worse than having a sub-par evolution article is having two evolution articles. I think it would bring up a whole lot of unnecessary fighting. --Hojimachongtalk 19:54, 24 April 2007 (EDT)


Has been vandalizing pages. Could you check into this?--TimS 11:03, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

You might want to look at tHis file, too. which I can't delete. JPG OF Bush's secretary, sorry-had no idea what I did there. 11:25, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
"06-lrg.jpg" has been deleted. See deletion log for a record of recent deletions.
  • Next time, you can leave out the double brackets - the filename is enough. --Ed Poor 11:29, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Wow, thought I was gonna lose my job there for a second. Flippin 11:30, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
A list of the vandales for today -HenryIV, CaptinCaveman and Itchyasscrack.--TimS 11:31, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for blocking, I was getting tired:)--TimS 11:34, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks to you for catching them!--Aschlafly 11:43, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Welcome:)--TimS 11:44, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Using our time well

Mr. Schlafly, I have created a policy proposal at Conservapedia:90/10 rule and was wondering if you would look it over. Perhaps it could become a guideline. --Ed Poor 11:57, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

New study

Kids with religious parents are better behaved and adjusted than other children, according to a new study that is the first to look at the effects of religion on young child development Study: Religion Is Good for Kids Crocoite Talk 13:27, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks!--Aschlafly 17:27, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Abortion Article

I've started writing an abortion procedure article, which I really feel should be merged with the abortion article if not at least linked to it. Not being overly familiar with the formatting codes of wikis and with the abortion article itself being locked, I was wondering if you could look into this for me? Many thanks, Kitsune.

Well, I think that "family-friendly" business might as well leave then, too. I don't disagree with your point of view that these methods ought to be encyclopedic, however, is there truly a way to that in line with the 3rd commandment? Just seems to me that the old "suction method" is a little dicey for even the home-schooled among us to grasp at a young age. Can you address, simply, why this is "family friendly?" Another quick issue, but no less important, how is it that we can talk about removing the lining of the uterus, but the not the v----a through which it exits? Frankly, I don't see how we can get to the abortion part if no one understands how stuff works in between. That is probably offensive to some (I have no idea why) but earnest and truthful. Flippin 15:49, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
I have mixed feelings about this. Will the article be encyclopedic? Perhaps I should reserve judgment until I see it. We don't want any "how to" stuff here about anything.
We do emphasize conciseness here. The abortion entry is already long enough. It sounds like your new work, if appropriate, would go under abortion procedure. Don't spend too much time on it though, because it may be rejected. Other entries that clearly meet our rules are needed more.--Aschlafly 17:27, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
I think it's important if we're going to have an article on abortion, we should include how it's performed. I don't think it's any less appropriate than an article about Hiroshima linked to an article about how an atomic weapon works. Neither subject is pleasant, but we can't disinvent either and it's important to learn the responsibility and ethics that come with them. Kitsune 11:54, 25 April 2007 (GMT)