User talk:Aschlafly/Archive45

Mr. Schlafly, You might have noticed the debate going on about whether to ban the atheists from the site officially. Your opinion on this would be very enlightening as the owner of the site. Thanks in anticipation. --StanleyB 14:14, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Wow, I need to read through all that before commenting. Thanks for referring me to it.--Aschlafly 15:02, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Mr Schlafly, I'd appreciate your reply to my comments and questions in the Obama talk page regarding his tenure at University of Chicago. UlyssesNZ 16:23, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

It's strange that the impersonator showed up during a time when my computer suddenly and inexplicably went on the fritz. Jinxmchue 15:54, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

When was the last time you shut-down or defragged your computer? o.O Nate^{my opinion matters?} 16:35, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Andy,

I looked at the list of universities on your user page and noticed Notre Dame University had a red link. I thought we had an article on that as well as some others that aren't wikilinked. Here's a few that work and you can transfer to your user page (if you wish). --DeanS^talk 12:30, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Emory University
Notre Dame University
University of Florida
Vanderbilt University
Villanova University

That's fantastic, Dean! Thanks much and Godspeed to you.--Aschlafly 13:49, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Hey, I'm reading up on the problem you told me about the other day. I'll try some things if I can today; if not, then I won't be able to "help" until at least next month. I still have 6 more pages to read--a lot of other users are having that same problem.
o.O Nate^{my opinion matters?} 15:26, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Thanks. Microsoft is so wonderful, isn't it???--Aschlafly 15:37, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Well, if this is great way to prepare for my major.

I know they [Microsoft] are... they release their products without fine-tuning it first. o.O Nate^{my opinion matters?} 15:42, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

On August 23rd, 2008, 3:37 Ed Poor blocked me as the user DiEb with an expiry date of infinite. The reason Ed Poor gave was disruption, personal remarks. As Ed Poor didn't revert any of my contributions to this site, the disruption seems to be quite clandestine, rather not-existent. As for the personal remarks: I searched my mind - and my contributions - but couldn't find anything which was disrespectful. So, I followed the instructions under the headline 'Your user name or IP address has been blocked.', i.e., 'You can contact Ed Poor or another administrator to discuss the block. ' But this is futile, if no one reacts to my emails. I created this new account - in accordance with the Christian name + 1st letter of surname rules - as the procedure of appealing a block is obviously flawed. Ed Poor seemed to have fallen for the JasonH/jinxmchue hoax, a hoax I became a victim of. A sober reflection should result in an unblock of my account - and an apology. That would be the decent and courteous way to act.

But what will happen? I'm afraid that

• Ed Poor will say that I was disruptive here (Radioactivity) (ever heard of ne bis in idem?)
• I'll be banned for creating a second account.

Please, prove me wrong! --DirkE 16:37, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

(BTW, there seems to be a problem with Ed Poor's talk-page)

Yes, your email was trapped by my spam filter. Sorry about that, but the block stands. There was nothing in your email justifying an unblock. Please submit a writing plan if you have any idea of helping our project. --Ed Poor ^Talk 11:30, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

I'm trying to help by cleaning up some typos, making sentences read a bit more smoothly. I've just been hitting "random page" and making changes if I see anything. If you have any suggestions for a better approach, would you let me know? Michelle. --MHayes 12:50, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Your approach works well. I use it also. Others may have their own suggestions.

We have a high density of informative entries here, so hitting "Random Page" is far more educational to the user here than on, for example, Wikipedia.

Thanks for your edits.--Aschlafly 12:58, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Duplicate pages

Mr. Schlafly--

There are two articles for the SR-71 Blackbird aircraft: one SR-71, the other Blackbird. What should I do about this? If a page should be deleted, could you delete the Blackbird page?

--DuncanB 13:55, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

I think it's OK to have two different entries about this, especially since the term "Blackbird" refers to other things also. Perhaps the SR-71 entry could be improved to state that its nickname is the "Blackbird".--Aschlafly 14:09, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

I believe you should take a look at Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse#DeanS_abusing_power for at least two reasons: First, the case involves a somewhat heated discussion between sysops and almost-sysops(?) that could use the input from a higher-up. And the second point is that the core issue (compassion among editors) is something that is portrayed as a negative thing (leading to "Mind your own business", which doesn't seem to be a rule, but is apparently enforced like one?), which I personally don't agree with. Compassion is a virtue, and we should be proud to have users who care about the well-being of other users. --DirkB 17:38, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

As you can see from my talk page, I am on "probation". Can you explain just what that means? I see no reference to it in the commandments or related policies. Are there pages I'm not supposed to edit? Or times? Or am I supposed to have everything vetted by a sysop prior to editing? (I hope not, since I've been doing a lot of editing.) SamHB 23:20, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

The term is self-explanatory. Be productive and you shouldn't have any problems.--Aschlafly 10:06, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

I notice in some recent edits you referred to triangular trade as a myth. I've not heard that before and wonder what you're basing it on. You say Africa wasn't a market for finished goods, but, in your 8th History Lecture, it says "Slave trade across the Atlantic (the Trans-Atlantic slave trade) became a booming business for Europeans and Africans alike, by which African rulers sold their people to Europeans for goods such as iron, alcohol, tobacco and most importantly, guns." There are also some pretty good paragraphs on slavery within Africa itself, and where the slaves originally came from. Is the lecture wrong? And if it is, how did Europeans and Americans acquire slaves if they had nothing to trade them for? You also mention no trade route has ever been found. Isn't the eastern Atlantic the trade route? Ships sailing down a coast don't leave a real discernible trail. You've piqued my curiosity here. Fyezall 11:27, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Hi Mr. Schlafly - still awaiting a citation here [5]. You've ardently defended the assertion that "public schools... do not teach that deceit is wrong" for months now, but we've yet to see any actual evidence for this. I know you're the founder of Conservapedia and all, but it'd be good to see admins' edits treated with the same rigor as us peasants. :D Underscoreb 20:52, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

You're asking for an absurdity: proof of the negative. Show me a counterexample if you think it's wrong.--Aschlafly 23:28, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Prove that they don't do something. You can prove that someone at 10:35am was not running through a park with a flaming chainsaw because you have, for example, video evidence if him helping an old lady across the street from the camera at the intersection at the time he ought to have been in the park. That isn't proving a negative in the way you're thinking. You can provide evidence by citing evidence from students that teachers do not mention consequences for deceitful behavior such as cheating on tests and homework and projects, plagiarism, and lying to authority figures over school matters. You can do this by scouring school student conduct policies to see if deceitful behavior is never mentioned. But, Mister Schlafy, I do not believe you can do that with even one school as an example. Certainly not enough to use it as evidence for the system as a whole. Jirby 23:45, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

I can certainly provide specific counterexamples, if not general. Plagiarism and cheating both carry stiff penalties in my class. What I have encountered in the past is some parents complaining that their children would suffer such penalties, and attempting to get the penalty waived; however, I don't think you can blame overindulgent parents' attempts to mollycoddle their children on the schools. --Benp 10:44, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Benp, you do not cite counterexamples. If anything, your cite to "stiff penalties" suggest that the schools do not actually teach that plagiarism and cheating are "wrong", but rather that they are punished severely as a deterrent.--Aschlafly 11:21, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

We have public school students here, and it would be easy for them to cite a textbook, handout, or exhortation by a teacher that something is "wrong" if it existed. But public schools don't teach that.--Aschlafly 11:21, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Andy--actions have consequences. Doing wrong has consequences. Teaching that something is wrong and then not following through with consequences is one of the main things that has led to today's overly-permissive society. I refuse to fall into that trap; I teach my students that certain things are right and certain things are wrong, that there are lines you do not cross, and that if they are crossed, then there are consequences for crossing them. I would hope that you don't have a problem with that.

I don't deny that liberalism in the public school system is a problem, but there are those of us working to change it. It can be a frustrating task when we're opposed both by liberals who want to maintain the status quo and by conservatives who believe that public schools cannot teach conservative values and morals.

Benp, you're denial does not help anything. Cite anything in writing -- anything -- that is used in public schools and which teaches that deceit is wrong, and we'll take full notice of it. But you won't be able to.--Aschlafly 12:02, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Minor correction: "your," not "you're." What would you like me to cite? Our school agenda, which is given to all students? I can do so, but will you accept it, given that it's not an online document? The handouts I use in my own classroom? I can certainly put copies of those online, but, again, will you accept them, or simply say that they're not from a trustworthy source? I'm certainly willing to provide citations, but I suspect (and hope!) that the standard of proof you're looking for is actually a bit higher than "anything in writing."

If you could answer these questions in order to clarify what you expect, I'd appreciate it:

1. Where would you like the citations posted? Here, or elsewhere?

2. Would the references have to be to dishonesty in general, or would references to specific forms of dishonesty (cheating, plagiarism, and so forth) be acceptable?

3. Would the word "wrong," specifically, need to be used, or would words like "unethical" be acceptable?

I'm more than willing to back up my claims--just as I was when you expressed skepticism about the existence of a rifle club at the school where I teach--but I prefer not to waste your time and mine with evidence that will not be acceptable. Thanks in advance, --Benp 12:12, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Benp, we've seen this before: endless questions by someone when they can't provide simply proof for a claim, when simple proof would be readily available if the claim were true. Post your proof wherever you like, but it better show that some public school teaches that deceit is morally wrong. "Unethical" is not equivalent and identical to morally wrong, obviously.--Aschlafly 13:30, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Andy: I can't provide "simple proof" because I don't know what you'd consider proof. If I could find a public school that said "Cheating is wrong because it's a lie," would THAT be clear enough? It's very unlikely that I'm going to find a source that's online, easily accessible, and uses precisely the same phrasing you do. If you are only willing to accept a source which says, word-for-word, "Deceit is morally wrong," then I will acknowledge that I probably can't find such a source. I think I could probably find some public school documents which talk about specific forms of deceit--like cheating--and say that THEY'RE morally wrong. --Benp 13:57, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Benp, stop wasting my time with endless questions when the burden of proof is on you. Provide the best proof you can, and admit it if you can't. Thanks.--Aschlafly 14:24, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

(Unindent)

Fair enough. In the interests of brevity, I'll leave off public school sources that talk about honesty as a moral virtue, and focus on those that condemn dishonesty. I'll also try to stick to sources from within the last year.

1. [6] Clearly states that cheating is wrong because it's a lie. (Pages 24-25)

2. [7] plainly states that "Cheating is morally wrong." (Page 6)

3. [8] also plainly states that "Cheating is morally wrong." (Main page)

Granted, these focus on a specific type of dishonesty (cheating,) but I think that's reasonable given that cheating is the type of dishonesty most frequently encountered in a school environment. --Benp 14:44, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

I've looked at your first cite so far. Its explanations for why someone should not cheat include everything EXCEPT an explanation that it is morally wrong.--Aschlafly 15:28, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

The point for me is that those cites only tell how to behave in school environment. What Conservatives wish is more: schools should teach how to behave in life after/out of school. A public school saying "please don't cheat at school but otherwise do whatever you want in your life, we don't care" has no values and makes this world a worse place. Forgive me for this rant. SilvioB 15:45, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Thanks SilvioB. For my own part, I wish the school would simply explain the truth: cheating is morally wrong, and you won't get away with it even if the school doesn't catch you. But in the atheistic environment of public school, there is no moral right and wrong, and hence the truth is not taught. The result is half-truths and distortions, and tons of mental illness in the kids, not to mention the rampant cheating, crimes and violence.--Aschlafly 15:56, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

More examples for the discussion. --Hsmom 21:00, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

• "Cheating is morally wrong" - Owosso Public Schools (MI) ^[1]

• Transylvania County Schools (NC) - "Cheating is morally wrong". ^[2]

• Centura Public School (NE) "Do not cheat. It is morally wrong..." ^[3]

• Highland High School (UT) "It is the policy of Highland High School that cheating in this high school is morally wrong... We believe that the traditional values of honesty and ethics not only improve character but also improve the quality of each student's education. It is therefore the responsibility of parents, students, and faculty to teach morality and the values of our culture." ^[4]

OK, I looked at the first example. The quote is the last of five reasons given against cheating, and no elaboration is provided. Moreover, this is apparently not taught in public school, but rather it is included in an application for a special international program.--Aschlafly 21:09, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, I'm surprised you haven't heard of the International Baccalaureate program. It's a standard program of study designed to be recognized worldwide. IB programs are very rigorous and highly regarded. They are sometimes found in public schools, as well as in private schools, in the US and elsewhere in the world. This particular program is in a public middle school in Michigan. The quote is from a section of the program's application referring to the honor code. I'm not sure one needs to elaborate on "cheating is morally wrong". I mean, that pretty much sums it up. --Hsmom 22:11, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

I've heard of it. I think it has programs in New Jersey also. But it's an international program, not a public school program. Moreover, the quote is from the application. There may be religious programs and scholarships available to public school students also, but the issue here is what public schools themselves teach.--Aschlafly 22:29, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

I'm not sure what you mean by "not a public school program"? In this case (and others) the program is taught in a public school, by public school teachers. Students in this public school who want to be included in the program are asked to sign the Academic Code of Honor as part of the requirements for being admitted to the program, which is why it's in the application. --Hsmom 22:49, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

What you cite is likely established by someone other than public schools. I don't know who sets the Academic Code of Honor for the IB program, but I doubt it is a public school. It's an international program, for starters. Public schools may distribute the application forms, but they don't write them or teach them.--Aschlafly 22:57, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Fair enough. That makes sense to me. --Hsmom 23:00, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

So are you saying that for a Public School to teach that deceit is wrong it must: 1)Use the specific words "morally wrong" 2)Use these words first in a list of reasons not to cheat 3)Specifically say that "morally wrong" covers behaviour outside school and 4) Use materials produced in that school and not by an external agency that supplies teaching materials to schools? --Toffeeman 03:58, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Ah, another resort to endless questions! No, don't pretend this is complicated. If you think that public schools teach that deceit is morally wrong, then show us your best example. That wouldn't be difficult if it were true.--Aschlafly 08:01, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Let me re-phrase it without the question then. For a Public School to teach that deceit is wrong it not necessary: 1)to use the specific words "morally wrong" and 2) to use these words first in a list of reasons not to cheat and 3)to specifically say that "morally wrong" covers behaviour outside school and 4) and to use materials produced in that school and not by an external agency that supplies teaching materials to schools. What establishes that a school is “teaching that deceit is wrong” is that communications are made to pupils that deceit is wrong. Having flicked through the examples given above I think that the "best example" comes from the Marietta Highschool[9] Now the Marietta High School requires that all students sign a declaration that (amongst other things) they believe cheating is morally wrong! (page 6 : "We believe...(c)heating is morally wrong") Not only do they tell students: they expect students to sign their assent to it!--Toffeeman 08:23, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Your link is pretty good ... for cheating, which a school has a self-interest in reducing and eliminating. This example is a bit like having witnesses swear by God to tell the truth for the benefit of the court proceeding. It's not "teaching", but it is use of the subject's own pre-existing morality to advance a necessary goal of the institution.--Aschlafly 08:37, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

“it is use of the subject's own pre-existing morality” in other words they don’t “teach” that it is wrong because they believe that the students already know. This would be corroborated by the actions of Jericho High School[10] which states that cheating is wrong because it is a lie (page 25). It is a lie because “it deceives”. There is no further elaboration on deceit, Jericho High School at least, believes that simply saying that a behaviour is deceitful is enough to establish it as immoral. But this was my point about the specific words they may not say "deceit is morally wrong" but it is clearly communicated that the school believes that deceit is morally wrong. --Toffeeman 09:29, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

No, the argument that cheating is morally wrong is the last of many reasons provided by the document, and use of this argument merely implies that some (not all) students may be persuaded by it. It's not "teaching" in any real sense of the word.--Aschlafly 12:45, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

If "cheating is morally wrong" is the last of many statements made by the school then "cheating is morally wrong" is a statment made by the school. (Simplification rule (Logic)). "(A)nd use of this argument" (my emphasis) has the same effect, the school is still telling students that cheating is morally wrong. That some, but not all, students may be persuaded by the truth still has no effect. The school may be doing it because it thinks that cheating is morally wrong: the students are told that cheating is morally wrong. The school may not believe that cheating is morally wrong but may cynically say so because it makes their life easier: the students are told that cheating is morally wrong. Either way (and that dichotomy holds) the school is still informing students that cheating is morally wrong and checking that they get feedback to assure them that the students have understood what they have been told. Sounds like teaching to me and, as a parent with school-age kids, it's what I want for them. --Toffeeman 13:33, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

(Unindent)

Okay, Andy--fair enough. I acknowledge that there is no evidence I can present that will be convincing to you, and will therefore bow out of this discussion. I hope that you can respect that I cannot agree that public schools universally lack teachers who strive to impart morality and conservative values, as agreeing with that premise would mean agreeing that I don't exist. --Benp 11:05, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Benp, you're in denial now. Atheists control public school curriculum, and let's not deny the obvious. The average public school student spends 1500 hours a year in school without once learning that anything is morally wrong. Anyone familiar with public schools today knows that.--Aschlafly 12:45, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

1. ↑ [1]
2. ↑ [2]
3. ↑ [3]
4. ↑ [4]

Check his edits to the MLK article, please do something about him. DLerner 10:14, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, Is making grammatical changes to the American History and World History Lessons permitted? KimEide 13:45, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

Please do!--Aschlafly 14:34, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

Hi, this is BlahPigsBlah. You blocked my account and told me to use a real name. This goes against Conservapedia's own policies when it says a real name is NOT required and when it says your email is required for members to contact you WITHOUT having to reveal your identity. I would appreciate it if you unblocked my account.

Your chosen name is obviously unacceptable, and hence the need to use your real FIRST name and last initial. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 15:56, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Sorry then. I've created a new username (CRez). But that was blocked for the reason "blahblahblock." I've tried contacting the person who blocked me with no response. I've tried sending an email to website administrator, but I keep getting a message back saying the email could not be sent. My IP was also blocked by Bugler. Could you help out? -CRezAgain

Start contributing and that will make this easier. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 16:45, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

How can I contribute when my IP and accounts are being blocked?? CRezAgain

You're contributing to me talk page, and it's no different contributing to other pages. Other than that, try persuading the person who blocked you to lift the block.--Aschlafly 17:11, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Except I have to use a proxy to write here which is extremely annoying (slow, tons of popup ads). I don't even care anymore. If this is the user-experience you want me to have, I'll find another conservative wikipedia to use.

Oh right. Parthian Shots are usually better than that!--Aschlafly 18:09, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, I have amended Conservapedia:Blocking policy as follows: (see diff here)

I believe, with due respect, that this reflects your wishes. If I have made an error in judgment, please correct me. --Ed Poor ^Talk 09:05, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Looks good. Thanks.--Aschlafly 10:01, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

I would like to formally ask that CP considers its 90/10 rule. I think, if used correctly, talk pages can give useful information about why a change was made, what changes need to be made that an editor is not comfortable making (like I can see on the Grammar Page, that someone who speaks Japanese would be helpful, rather than relying on my altavista translation), or showing areas that might benefit from separate pages. But as it stands right now, I am concerned to use "talk" too much, cause if i make a comment per talk page on each of my edits (which is what i tend to do), I'm at 50/50 which is in clear violation. I'm not saying your numbers should be changed, just that maybe you (we?) revisit the usefulness of quality talk edits.--MHayes 15:20, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

No, MHayes, I think you're misunderstanding the rule. The 90/10 rule is against more than 90% talk per 10% substantive contributions. We're not a forum or a blog. We're here to teach and to learn. It's not too much to ask that people be at least 10% productive in their time here. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 15:31, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

oops, sorry. i thought it was 90% productive edits and 10 % talk. Thanks for clarity and a quick response to assure me that i'm ok so far.  :-) Michelle.--MHayes 15:37, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Can Niels Bohr please be moved to Neils Bohr? The redirect should probably be left in place.--Recorder 12:52, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Err, sorry, I mean, can Neils Bohr please have a redirect to Niels Bohr.--Recorder 12:54, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Thanks! Obviously I'm one of the people with a tendency to put 'e' before 'i' :)--Recorder 13:07, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

see recent changes and block that idiot! ClarkeD 20:28, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Thanks. HenryS blocked him.--Aschlafly 20:54, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Seeing the new entry on Constitution Day led me to wonder on which date Conservapedia was launched, and whether we might celebrate the anniversaries with a 'Conservapedia Day'. Bugler 11:03, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Great idea! Conservapedia began in late November 2006. I'm looking for the first entry but have not yet been able to find it. Perhaps others can!--Aschlafly 11:15, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

November 21, 2006, 22:49 UTC [11][12] --Interiot 11:23, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

You're a whiz, Interiot!!! Very well done. Some day I hope you can put your tremendous skills to good use in improving the mental health of teenagers by providing them conservative values.--Aschlafly 11:28, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Andy, last month I started a new job, and I've been too busy to contribute more than one short article - Reign Over Me - and some stubs and notes like Wolfram, Pedophile, Hello Kitty, Don Cheadle, Jeffrey Nachmanoff, Archbishop Milingo, and Open sea at north pole. But I've blocked a lot of troublemakers and contributed to discussions with writers and sysops. --Ed Poor ^Talk 21:43, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Ed, thanks for the significant contributions!--Aschlafly 23:35, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

I have access to this computer only a t night--I'm a night owl anyway and would like to be alloweed to do editing at night. Thanks RJJensen 23:26, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

That's a privilege that is earned and I look forward to reviewing your contributions. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 23:34, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Do you know how to create links to Am. History pages in the sidebar on the left?? I can't figure it out...but if this was possible it would make it easier to access. ~BCS^Talk2ME 21:39, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Check your talk page.. use the vertical rule. o.O Nate^{my opinion matters?} 21:46, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

As I am completly new here, I would like to find some of the regulations and ideals followed here. As you are one of the only users I know of, I decided to ask you. Could you lend me a bit of help? JohnI 22:07, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Hi JohnI! I am new myself and found this helpful Conservapedia:Commandments. ClarkeD 22:19, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Ah, yes, I did find them due to help from NathenG. Thank you for responding, ClarkeD. JohnI 22:20, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Thanks much. That's correct. We've tried to keep the rules as simple as possible. Look forward to your edits, JohnI!--Aschlafly 22:22, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Much simpler than the Wikipedia rules (of which there are far too many.) Again, thank you to both of you for your help. I just have one more small question, who is in charge of this wiki? JohnI 22:24, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Your question reminds me of a funny scene in the classic Monty Python movie. "Who is your lord? Who lives in that castle?" Answer: "No one!" Meritocracy rules here. JohnI, one day you may find yourself in charge if your merit deserves it!--Aschlafly 22:43, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Just don't insert nonsense about parentheses and multiplication. When you're ready to apologize for that, I'll consider undoing your block. --Ed Poor ^Talk 20:17, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

I added the Am. History lectures and homework to the sidebar for easier access. thanks ~BCS^Talk2ME 11:26, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

Wow, that's great! In fact, you could remove the sidebars to the Supreme Court course that is above it, so that people find the American History links first. Thanks!--Aschlafly 12:27, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

OK!! Will do... ~BCS^Talk2ME 12:55, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly--

Can you put the F/A-18 Hornet on the Conservapedia: Featured Articles page?

Duncan

Great idea! Done!--Aschlafly 16:05, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

Hi, I really enjoyed reading your Emotional gambling entry. Its so true. Nice work! ClarkeD 18:03, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

Thanks much. I really got a lot of that entry today. Articulating something makes it much easier to identify and solve.--Aschlafly 20:34, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, I have a question about the "Use your real name" rule. Does it apply to anyone who uses a pseudonym, or only to those whose pseudonyms are inappropriate? Eoinc 20:06, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

Enforcement is discretionary, and applies when the pseudonyms are inappropriate or there are other signs of potentially illegitimate activity.--Aschlafly 20:33, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

Andy,

I suggested this as a news story, but it's an interesting read unto itself and might be a useful starting point for a related CP article. "Don't Marry A Career Woman." Notice how Noer supports his positions with copious references to research, whereas the "counterpoint" contains no research at all--merely denials and suppositions. --Benp 20:46, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

An anonymous critic of me and my blog pointed something out to me (though that wasn't his intention). What the times posted on that blog was, in fact, not a retraction. A retraction would've involved the Times admitting error (like not vetting their source better) and apologizing to Gov. Palin. Neither of those things happened, so it wasn't a retraction. Could you make the appropriate change to that paragraph? No need to give the Times more credit than they deserve. Jinxmchue 21:30, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

You might like to look at this article (Fashion industry values) by Foxtrot. I think he's done a really top notch job. Bugler 04:22, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

The "conservative parables" article is currently displaying the error "the database did not find the text of a page that it should have found". This is probably because someone used oversight (or a similar tool) to delete the most recent revision — on the history tab, every "cur" link is broken. It should be possible to fix this by deleting the page, creating the page new with the latest wikitext, and then undeleting the other versions. --Interiot 10:28, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for spotting that. I've replaced it as you suggest.--Aschlafly 10:36, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, I saw your comment about namespaces on the Student Chivalry talk page. Conservapedia has quite a few namespaces which are left over from previous editing competitions. Perhaps it is time to remove them as many of the editors who previously had access to them have now left and the competitions are well in the past. If I may be so bold, I would also venture to suggest that Essays and Debates should be moved out of mainspace. If you feel that they should be included in searches then perhaps those could be added to the default search parameters that are specified in a user's profile. This is the way I have organised it at work for our lecture courses and it works well. BrianCo 16:57, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

You might want to take a look a what Jareddr has been up to lately. I think he should be blocked by now. - Nerd 17:03, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Please be more specific about what you think justifies blocking. We do not block based solely on ideology.--Aschlafly 17:10, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I understand that, but he's been dismissing your warnings as "pollution" and thinks no one has the right to edit his talk page. Nerd 19:54, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

We usually don't block for rants someone makes on his own talk page.--Aschlafly 19:58, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, I don't know if you have read about the deaths of 14 children in Argentina but it appears to be linked to a clinical trial of a vaccine run by GlaxoSmithKline. The Seattle Times has details. BrianCo 13:39, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

Thanks much. Such experimentation -- and harm -- in under-developed countries happens more than one might think.--Aschlafly 16:56, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

Quick coding question, how does one change the name of an article? Please leave response on my talk page, thank you. JY23 15:22, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

User Jirby is a self-professed devout follower of the Heavy Metal ideology and is censoring its harmful effects from the Heavy Metal article. I don't have the power to block him myself, so I thought I'd inform someone who wouldn't tolerate censorship. I'm tired of these Metal fans trying to paint Heavy Metal as a pro-Christian genre of music when its harmful effects are self-evident. -- Jose83

http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Ed_Poor#Censorship_in_Heavy_Metal_article. Jirby 15:55, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

Might you consider having Conservapedia be used to generate money for charity? Right now Conservapedia might be able to generate about $69 a day for charity via advertisements. The Conservapedia website is worth about $50,000 right now perhaps. Please see: http://www.websiteoutlook.com/www.conservapedia.com Perhaps, it might be motivating to people if they knew their edits would be contributing to a worthy charity or charities. Also, you might generate less money but perhaps putting the advertisements at the bottom of the pages might be a good way to generate money for a charity or charities. conservative 18:57, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

No thanks. I do personally give to charity but this site is for learning and sharpening the mind. Godspeed and thanks for your efforts.--Aschlafly 19:19, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

Hey, after I block myself for 81 days to fill a promise I made to someone, can you remove all my rights? Ask PhyllisS for further details. o.O Nate^{my opinion matters?} 21:43, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

Whatever you like is fine.--Aschlafly 21:44, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

When making reverts like this, please explain why so I know what to fix. I'd greatly appreciate the input you could provide with an edit summary, and it'd let me know what specifically was wrong. Thanks very much! --Ampersand 20:50, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

I would, except that reversions do not permit edit summaries.

I meant to revert only your last edit, which removed factual information about Biden being from the (low-population) northeastern corner of the state. That won't sell well in Pittsburgh.

The reversion also removed some of your prior factual edits, which were fine but likewise your edits should not have deleted information.--Aschlafly 21:12, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

Ah okay, I didn't know they didn't allow edit summaries. I'll re-add most of my earlier edit (the one you didn't mean to revert) to rectify the situation. Thanks! --Ampersand 23:12, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

Actually, looks like someone already did. --Ampersand 23:13, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

Andy, if you only want to revert one edit, you can use "undo" instead of "rollback". "Undo" also allows you to leave an edit comment. Just so you know. Human 12:52, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

I was hoping you could change my user name to the recommended format. JLauttamus would be more than satisfactory. Thank you. --Jeffrey W. Lauttamus_Discussion 08:47, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

Done as requested.--Aschlafly 08:54, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

Wow, I barely had time to make an edit! Thanks a lot. --Jeffrey W. Lauttamus_Discussion 08:57, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

Hey Mr. Schlafly, I'm not quite sure how but I unblocked User:#36459 and do not see how to re-block this user. Could you re-block him? sorry, ~BCS^Talk2ME 16:36, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

That isn't a "user" per se, Bethany, it would have been an IP block corresponding to a username block. I'm looking to see if I can find the corresponding block earlier in the log. The reason such blocks are shown that way is to keep the editor's IP address private. Human 17:01, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

That was User:BobbyW. His block was for only one day so an early unblock is fine. Hopefully he'll improve. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 18:17, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

User:Willard, a mysterious new person, reverted a mysterious blanking of the Obama page and added his own line: " an uppity Negro, " -- a subtle bit of deliberate vandalism. RJJensen 20:18, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

Right, and I blocked him for 5 years for it. He was probably a liberal vandal trying to discredit this site.--Aschlafly 20:44, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

Hi Andy, Benp created this Liberal Myths About Education and then I added a bit about boys and girls having different learning abilities. I remember awhile back you had a cite stating something similar. Do you remember? Would like to add it as a source. Thanks! ClarkeD 20:46, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

Mia culpa. I just didn't think visiting troops should fall under the heading of military experience. CraigC 23:24, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

I agree it's not a perfect fit, but deletion (censorship) is not the remedy. Perhaps the heading could be improved instead.--Aschlafly 01:45, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

HelpJazz is continuing to revert edits to the Islam article. The statement that Barack Obama is a prominent Muslim was removed, and that edit was undone by you. HelpJazz has contravened your edit, and I have been attempting to restore it, but he continues to unilaterally revert it. Can you take action to assist? QWest 01:46, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Andy, if you would first look at the discussion here, you will see that I was trying to follow the Commandments of this site. If you think I was in the wrong I will stand by your decision. Thanks, HelpJazz 01:49, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Hey Mr. Schlafly,

I finished my homework! Could you please grade it when you get a chance?

thanks, ~BCS^Talk2ME 11:45, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Hey, I know you're busy and I don't want to waste your time, but there are two things that I'd like addressed by an administrator and I haven't met any besides you yet. One is a request for an edit in a locked template and the other is a category deletion. If you don't have time, can you pass it on to another administrator? Thanks. --GunsandaBible 20:43, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

...is still posting juvenile practical jokes on the main page talk page. Any possibility of a block? The joke is less funny the five thousandth time, a fact which seems to have escaped him. --Benp 16:42, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

...and you blocked him while I was posting this. Too fast for me. Thanks! ] --Benp 16:44, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

There are numerous red links on the Wanted Pages list that are blocked for creation. Is it okay to remove those wikilinks from the articles that link to the page? Some of them are in talk page archives with inappropriate language, which sets off the spam filter. Jeffrey W. Lauttamus_Discussion 18:41, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, you reverted my post on Talk: PNAS Response to Letter. Why was that? I can see that you have added “Substantive comments only, please” to the page and would assume that the deletion was because you felt my post was not substantive. However my post was a response to that of Jpatt, a post that still stands. Jpatt accused science of having been “corrupted” and implied that the reply was as a result of defending that corruption rather than being a genuine, considered and expert response. If an accusation of, for want of a better word, “denial” is substantive then so is an explanation of why it may not be denial. --Toffeeman 12:12, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

No, Toffeeman, your posting was a long-winded and non-substantive diatribe that ended with the false and unsubstantiated claim that the Letter to PNAS itself was somehow unjustified.--Aschlafly 12:36, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

It was not a “diatribe”. Neither was it “long-winded”, being less than 400 words in length. Nor was it “non-substantive”, that has been dealt with above. Finally, it made no unsubstantiated claims. It clearly referenced why the letter should be considered flawed. --Toffeeman 13:12, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

No, you ended your rant with an unsubstantiated and baseless attack against the original letter.--Aschlafly 14:13, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

I will take it that the questions of my post being a diatribe, long-winded and insubstantial are all resolved in my favour. There is a new accusation appearing, that my post was a “rant”. I need hardly include a link to an online dictionary for the reader to be convinced that that particular accusation is wide of the mark. As for “an unsubstantiated and baseless attack”:

1. “the letter had little merit” is hardly “an attack”

2. The post referenced the earlier comments of “Stitch75, Brossa, Kallium, Argon, Wisdom89, Murray, Gerlach etc” all of which give good bases for considering the original letter flawed.

3. These comments, taken with the dearth of substantive support for the criticisms given in the letter pretty well substantiates that the original letter had little merit. --Toffeeman 14:36, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Saying the letter had little merit is indeed an attack when said about this letter, which has considerable merit, as does the cause it espouses. And the 'dearth of substantive support' tells volumes about the nature of the 'scientists' running PNAS and NAS and nothing about Mr Schlafly's letter. All that is substantiated is your naivety, Toffers. Bugler 14:48, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Hi Bug…(I can’t reword your user name like you do mine on a family-friendly encyclopedia!)

That a criticism is “an attack” is a statement about the criticism and the manner in which it has been expressed. It is not a statement about what has been criticised. Thus your discussion of merit of the letter, rather than the nature of the criticism and the merit of the cause for which the letter was written, rather than the manner of expression of the criticism, simply misses the issue. Without a good number of people who are both Conservapedia editors and scientists running PNAS and NAS, the “dearth of substantive support” from Conservapedia editors says little to nothing about the scientists running PNAS and NAS.

I am deliberately acting in a way that may seem naïve: forgoing sophistry and rhetorical tactics for reasoned debate. --Toffeeman 16:41, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

About the letter from PNAS. Can you place the letter under fair-use. I see CP completely agrees with this part of the copyrigh law, so I don't think there should be any problem. Raul 15:40, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Dear Mr. Schlafly, are you aware of the fact that the Ontological argument was refuted over 700 years ago? I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but this I can say puts the project in a very, very bad light, for those who already have a certain level of knowledge.

An equally as false argument is the Presuppositional Apologetics one. There is a similar method in math. Very true, however in math it is used to disprove something, not to prove it. An example is the famous mathematical proof that √2 is not rational, which I'm sure you at least remotely know, or know what I'm talking about, so I'm not going to write it here.

Obviously I'm talking about the article on Atheism. Now to make this clear, I believe in God, however I also believe it is extremely humiliating, I would even say pathetic, to misuse methods, or to use methods which were refuted almost a millennium ago, in order to support something. But not only that, it also is very unprofessional, and could stop CP from gathering prestige.

This is only friendly criticism, which I would gladly receive, instead o waking up with a bunch of people that have a higher level of knowledge than the average reader acuusing CP of something like this. Fred1776 17:35, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Hi Mr. Schlafly.

Sorry for asking this on your talk page. I'm new here on Conservapedia, and I read something about you being in charge, so I figured you would be able to answer my question.

I've been randomly looking around, writing a little and cleaning a little, and I kind of ran into a snag. How do you move a page to another title? In case you're interested, the page I am speaking of is Nuclear weapons, and my argument for the new title is on that page's talk page. I do not think that my proposal is controversial, I just don't know how to implement it.

Also, I am mostly used to Wikipedia, so I am not quite sure how things are run around here. I glanced at some existing policy pages here, and they answered some of my questions about the differences between the two sites, but unfortunately, they raised almost as many questions as they answered. Would you be interested in answering a lot (OK, a lot) of questions I have about differences between that site and this one?

Thanks for your time.

Samtheman 00:02, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

I'll look into your suggestion to move that entry. As to your having a "lot" of questions, how about being concise and prioritizing first?--Aschlafly 00:19, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

OK. I guess the thing I'm primarily worried about is being blocked for doing something wrong that I did not know was wrong. Is that likely to occur if I use common sense? (i.e. don't vandalize, make attacks on editors, or do other stuff that is very obviously wrong) Samtheman 00:23, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

We have strict rules limiting the blocking to vandalism and other obvious rule violations. You'll be fine if you're hear to teach and learn. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 00:32, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

If they're so "obvious", how come I have trouble seeing the violation at times? For example, blocking for "violation" of non-existent rules, such as not "minding your own business"? Philip J. Rayment 11:11, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Seeing my previous sugestion for a construcctive debate is ignored, I decided to point out a few other ironic 'declarations' of CP, in hope of an eventual response.

CP says WP is twice as liberal as the American public (twice? there's a formula?), however the ironic thing is CP is "twice" as conservative as the American public. I don't think you want a reference for this info, as you didn't provide (or didn't ask for it to be provided) one either when this statement about WP was made.

Also though Mr. Wales isn't a lawyer, he seems to better understand the neccesity of clear copyright terms, than other veritable lawyers. I'm not willing to make a personal attack, but you'd expect from a site ran by a lawyer to be legaly thorough, and CP frankly, isn't. You don't really know under which license the images are released (those that aren't fair-use, as stated above, the copyright of the name and logo of CP), and the text license isn't very clear either.

Moving unto other matters, the Example of bias on Wikipedia page isn't exactly wonderful either. I though CP is biased towards conservatism (perfecly normal and understandable, it's a conservative encyclopedia), but it says that this won't determine you to alter info, or publish untrue info, in order to put conservatism in a good light. This again, is very good, and if it were true, CP would be a very good encyclopedia... But it isn't true. And that can be seen in the Example of bias on Wikipedia page. I'll just list a few of the pieces of altered info:

• WP user banned because he declared himself Christian - I mean come on! Wp has userboxes with "I'm a Christian". what kind of impression about CP do you think this gives?
• WP is sexist - The presumption is a little far fetched. If there was any sexism in the definitions of those words it would have been because of the author, not the site. But there isn't even any mistake in the definition of those two words - matriarchy - women lead; patriarchy - men lead; where's the mistake?

Fred1776 13:37, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly- I am still confused by your insistence that comments made by me and BenHur are not substantive. In my post I made several points that I wished you to address. 1)Please define substantive. I mentioned the example that jp's comments remain on the page, but have nothing to do with your five points, PNAS' reply, or Lenski at all. It is itself a non-substantive rant bashing the modern scientific world. Thus I was confused by your definition of substantive, and asked for clarification. How is asking a question worthy of blocking? 2)I supported the questions and statements made by BenHur. Both he and I would like to see your independent statistical analysis and an explanation as to why the statistical methods used by Lenski are invalid. As I said before, one can hardly expect to be taken seriously if one refuses to show his evidence (which is exactly what you accused Lenski of doing). It would serve only to your interest to publish your independent statistical analysis and reasoning behind your denial of Lenski's work. Godspeed --AndrasK 20:35, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

AndrasK, if you don't know what a substantive comment is, then you're wasting your time here. A substantive comment adds information, insights, knowledge, analysis, etc. It's obviously not something silly like an anonymous person saying "I agree" or merely asking a dumb question.--Aschlafly 21:09, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

I think you both have me mixed up with others. AndrasK - I am not the user who asked for specific details of Aschlafly's methods. Aschlafly - I did not say "I agree" or ask a dumb question - that response was when I was trying to understand what a "substantive response" actually is. I simply asked if you were 100% certain that your own statistical arguments were rock-solid, and then I declined to state my own opinion on the entire matter. I don't want this to get out of hand, so I thought I'd step in here for clarification. BenHur 21:18, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

BenHur- I apologize for my mistake. I did not mean to misrepresent you in anyway. ASchlafly - I know what a substantive comment is in my mind, but I am trying to figure out your definition of it. I cite my previous example, how is it that jp's comment still stands? His comment provides no insight, information, or analysis specific to the topic of the PNAS letter. I am trying to understand what you classify as substantive, because thusfar I cannot define it as based on your edit history. I will try and make more "agreeable" comments in the future. --AndrasK 21:34, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

AndrasK, this will be my last response to you on this, because either you do understand and won't admit it, or this site is beyond your depth. I never claimed to have removed all the non-substantive comments from Talk:PNAS Response to Letter, nor is that necessary in order to enforce the rule of that page and minimize frivolous or misleading remarks.--Aschlafly 21:39, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Would it be possible for you to rename my account to User:Sam? The existing account named User:Sam was created in early 2007 and was indef-blocked on 13 March 2007 for inappropriate edits.

"Samtheman" just seems immature to me now that I actually think about it. I only chose it in the first place because I couldn't think of anything else after I discovered that "Sam" was already taken. Thanks. Samtheman 22:51, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

How about giving me a last initial? E.g., SamR.--Aschlafly 23:06, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

OK, my last name starts with a "D", so "SamD"?. Samtheman 23:31, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

"SamD" was taken, so I gave you "Samd". Hope that's OK! All the transfers are done.--Aschlafly 23:37, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Sorry to keep bothering you....

I made a diagram of a water molecule using Inkscape, and I would like to upload it for use on our page about water. However, the diagram is saved as a scalable vector image. Does Conservapedia accept images saved as .svg? If not, I can save it as a PNG or a JPG, but SVG images look better when they are scaled, so I wanted to see if it was possible to upload it it that way. Thanks, and thanks for renaming me. I forgot to tell you that earlier. Samd 21:00, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Don't know. Perhaps others can comment here.--Aschlafly 21:25, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, not that I've done this or am considering doing this, but what is Conservapedia's policy on making minor edits to user pages with out there permission? Chippeterson September 16 2008

No, I wouldn't recommend making changes to other person's user pages.--Aschlafly 21:26, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

I have suggested on Talk:Main Page that the evolution article be opened for editing by editors other than Conservative. What are your thoughts? --Horace42 18:41, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

The evolution entry is open to over a dozen Sysops, a privilege that is earned. I would favor opening it to everyone if you could devise a way to deal with evolution syndrome.--Aschlafly 08:08, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Since User:Conservative seems to be the biggest sufferer of evolution syndrome in the world (Also, homosexuality syndrome, I suppose) I'm surprised you view this as a problem. --Taciturn 08:25, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

No, obviously the concept doesn't work if someone works on multiple different topics. If you can't appreciate that obvious distinction then you might be a good candidate for evolution syndrome.--Aschlafly 08:28, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

As a sysop, I am able to edit the article, but because of the Student Panel's decision, I am not allowed to make substantial changes to the article. Philip J. Rayment 08:51, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Hehehe. As they say, that was then, this is now. Barely a word remains from when it was "decided that the article will not be changed in any major way." I guess rules are meant to be broken, eh? --Grumbledook 09:25, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

I just have to say that evolution syndrome seems to fit the evolution article here rather disturbingly. -DrSandstone 12:30, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

I've set up the following project as an essay page, and would like your opinion on it: Essay: Conservapedia Questions for the 2008 Presidential Candidates. In summary, the idea is to compile a list of questions to submit to the presidential candidates on behalf of the Conservapedia community, and publish whatever response is received as a voter resource. Thanks. --DinsdaleP 21:50, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Hi, I couldn't but notice this quote of you: "Malarkey. I've taken and excelled in upperclass statistics courses, and there were not biology students, college or graduate, in them. If Lenski has expertise in statistics then let's see it. His own "biographical sketch" doesn't even disclose what his undergraduate major was at Oberlin or what his PhD concentration at the University of North Carolina were in.[1]--Aschlafly 19:26, 16 September 2008 (EDT)".

I see that our mathematics articles are becoming very good thanks to the excellent job by project director Ed Poor. Given your experience and excellence in upperclass statistics, would you please help with the statistics articles, which unfortunately haven't yet reached the same quality. Feel free to improve the mathematics articles as well (but refer to the project director first first). Thank you in advance, --CrossC 17:09, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

I am involved with wikiproject:religion. I am trying to enhance a main category as a single point for Catholicism [cat: Catholic Church]. There seems to be an unwritten policy that if a subcategory is listed, no need to add main cat to sub-cat articles. Agreed? Also, as a single point, I am told I cannot add the category 'Catholic Church' to books like the Gospels or other Christian areas. I feel handicapped within the project to make it better. Please provide recommendations because I do not get feedback from the project other than- remove what I have done.-- jp 08:42, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Andy, since you post to the "In the news" section of the Main page, I'm requesting your help with the [[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions#New_Suggestion|News suggestions]]. So far, 54 of these suggestions have already been posted to the Main page and moved to the [[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions/Archives|suggestion archives]]. With your help, we can continue to receive and post positive suggestions from our editors.

Please review the [[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions#New_Suggestion|suggestions]]. If you like one (or more of them), please post the article(s) on Template:Mainpageright and add a note that you posted their suggestion. If you don't like a suggestion, add a comment and the suggestion will be moved to the suggestions talk page. I will take care of the rest (archiving, updating counts, etc). Thanks for your assistance. --DeanS^talk 11:05, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Can you please block Maggot? See here for reasons.

Duncan ^{Bawl me out!}

Forget it--DeanS already fixed him.

Done. Thanks for the alert. --DeanS^talk 19:11, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Is there some sort of specific site that targets this wiki? It's just constant, every single day, idiotic vandalism from 12 year olds (sorry, that might just be a complement to their maturity). Sam 20:33, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

That there's a page that calls attention to potential abuse on users and sysops, including yourself? And you have zero edits on that page... Sam 20:33, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

After reading this I thought of you battling Mr. Rayment about the Catholic views on Evolution. Perhaps you should apologise to him now? MrMike 21:04, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

No, AceMcWicked, you should apologize yourself for the damage that you tried to cause to this website. Karajou 23:42, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

User:Trlolinator has been inserting nonsense into 3 separate articles. I believe they're all been reverted. Also, User:Ulti inserted a fictional character into the Hollywood Values article. I don't know if the latter is a blockable offense, but deal with it as you see fit. You're the first sysop that I saw active. Jeffrey W. Lauttamus_Discussion 22:15, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Andy, I would like to add on to the article on Jesus Christ but am unable. Is the article closed to new edits?Bert Schlossberg 02:38, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Unprotected, as requested. I look forward to seeing your insights. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 11:18, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Thanks. will begin in a couple of days. I actually take that "Godspeed" as a prayer for successBert Schlossberg 14:00, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Andy, you might recall that I recently proposed opening up the evolution article. I am aware that there are concerns that such a move might attract vandalism. I see, however that Samd has made an excellent suggestion. He suggests limiting edit rights to those who have been here for a certain time. I would think that anyone who has been here for six months would have to be an acceptable editor and there would be no prospect of vandalism. What are your thoughts? --Horace 20:12, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

My concern is with evolution syndrome, as I think I indicated the last time you brought this up. Your suggestion does not address that concern. Moreover, I'm not aware of any software feature that would even implement your suggestion.--Aschlafly 23:53, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

When you protect a page, you have the options of "No protection", "Block unregistered users", and "Administrators only". Conservapedia doesn't use the second one, but if I understand it correctly, it allows protecting a page from edit by unregistered users (which Conservapedia doesn't have) and newly-registered users. Wikipedia has this set to about four days, if I recall correctly (which means that pages protected this way cannot be edited by users who have registered within the last four days), but I also believe that this time period is settable, so presumably we could set it to six months if we chose. So if I'm correct, the software feature is not a problem.

As far as "evolution syndrome" is concerned, that doesn't address that there are also administrators who would like to edit it, but who feel constrained by the Student Panel ban on major changes. If that could be lifted, then perhaps something could be worked out. For example, perhaps it would initially remain protected, but administrators and others could discuss how it should be changed before it is unprotected. At the moment, with the Student Panel ban, there is a disincentive to even exploring possible changes.

Philip J. Rayment 02:55, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm not familiar with the software feature of protecting against newly registered users, but you could be right. Let's learn more about it.

The problem of evolution syndrome remains a deterrent to opening the page, and limiting to older registered users does not solve it.--Aschlafly 09:34, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

It may be worthwhile looking into the autoconfirmed protection level. As per here and here, it is possible to protect problem pages from newly registered users and users who have not made a collection of edits. It seems as though Andy or the webmaster could tweak some input values to these parameters, then we would just have to recognise the autoconfirm group in the protection list. I'll see what's available. Jallen 20:12, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Another editor posted the links on the Main Page talk page, but here they are again:

• This one explains how to specify that an editor must have been registered for a certain amount of time before editing restricted articles.
• This one explains how to specify that an editor must have done a certain number of edits before editing restricted articles.

Editors have to achieve both requirements, but one or the other can be set to zero.

As for the problem of "evolution syndrome", that still doesn't address the administrators who would like to edit it.

Philip J. Rayment 10:08, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Andy, if it would allay your concerns, I am prepared to keep a close watch on the article to ensure that only appropriate edits are allowed to remain. We could see how things went and then reassess the situation in a week or so. --Horace 18:36, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Andy? --Horace 17:55, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

Andy? --Horace 17:38, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

I can't edit the agnosticism article. There's no edit button. I noticed that there's uncited information is the article. JSJames 7:18pm (PT) 22 September 2008

I've unlocked it. Philip J. Rayment 10:24, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Thanks JSJames 6:57pm (PT) 22 September 2008

Im new to this website, but I have to say that I am very dis-heartened with it. You criticize Wikipedia for "liberal deceit", but Ive found tons of articles on Conservapedia full of uneducated, unverified assumptions and half-truths. An example of half-truths are the that all the negative aspects of republican and/or conservative politicians are ommitted to make them look better, or that information for democratic/liberal politicians is set to make them look bad. I dont think that political propaganda should be on any website that claims to be trustworthy. The george w bush page is a perfect example as well. It talks about how the economy has been successful under Bush, yet that is an obvious lie. In 2006, Bush was almost impeached for his poor handling over the Iraq War and the economy. I think that this site really needs to change. The content on this site makes Christians everywhere look bad, and I am ashamed at what I have seen. JSJames 7:12pm 22 September 2008

Well, first learn how to spell "disappointed" and then you might have more credibility. Do yourself a favor and learn before you criticize. You might figure out how to spell "omitted" also.--Aschlafly 22:53, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Well im speechless. The best response you could make to my criticizm is that I had minor spelling errors. Thats just sad. JSJames 8:38pm (PT) 22 September 2008

Why is evolution page locked for edit? It has major problems. SyedO 14:26, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Why is my edit reverted? Is this US ONLY blog? I thought this wikipedia that anyone can edit. SyedO 15:34, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Evolution page is still locked. I see very clearly there are errors. Please fix. Thank You. SyedO 15:11, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

I've set up the following project as an essay page, and would like your opinion on it, hopefully accompanied with your approval: Essay: Conservapedia Questions for the 2008 Presidential Candidates. In summary, the idea is to compile a list of questions to submit to the presidential candidates on behalf of the Conservapedia community, and publish whatever response is received as a voter resource. Thanks. --DinsdaleP 19:23, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

If a username is blocked and then subsequently deleted, does the IP block also get deleted or does it remain active? Jinxmchue 02:28, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

The V-2 rocket has two pages: V-2 and V-2 rocket. The real one should be V-2. Can you fix this?

DuncanB 15:50, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

Fixed as requested, before I could get to it. Thanks for catching this.--Aschlafly 17:19, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

I know that accuracy is not the goal of the main page, but I question whether you should describe Joe Biden as both lying and being ignorant. Lying is usually characterized as saying something that you know isn't true." Being ignorant is usually implies that you don't know something. I find it hard to believe that even Joe Biden knows and doesn't know American history at the same time. Meridian 17:51, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

Biden knows he made up his statement, and that's called lying. It was ignorant lying because it is so plainly absurd.--Aschlafly 20:44, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

Requesting unlock to update.-- jp 00:05, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Done. Philip J. Rayment 04:10, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Thank you! -- jp 15:45, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Would like to add a little conservative criticism, please unlock. -- jp 15:45, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Done as requested!--Aschlafly 16:26, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Andy, I have some good news. Conservapedia's evolution article has been climbing up the search engine rankings. The evolution article article has momentum and will likely continue to improve its search engine rankings. The history of Conservapedia articles that have become more popular among conservatives and more well known by liberals strongly suggest that Conservapedia article will likely keep climbing up the search engine rankings. The Conservapedia evolution article will likely see a significant uptick in traffic. Given that the evolutionary position is slowly losing support in the United States which is one of the scientific powerhouses of the world, the Conservapedia article gaining more and more exposure certainly is not helpful in regards to evolutionists propagating their evolutionary dogma on the internet. conservative 01:54, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

Congratulations!--Aschlafly 11:32, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, I would like to request that you review the blatantly racist remarks by Bugler in the Talk:Main Page under the section "Protest at Censorship by PJR." Mr. Bugler stated, and I quote, "I must say, I didn't expect to have to actually demonstrate what discourtesy is, but I suppose you are Australian." This is an obvious slur against the people of Australia and is not appropriate for a family-friendly site. I do hope that you will take the necessary action to make sure such vile comments do not contaminate this site again. Thank you --AndrasK 11:49, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

There is a long history of playful banter between Brits and Aussies of which AndrasK is perhaps unaware. I am sure that Philip will take it in the spirit it was meant. Bugler 12:51, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

In different circumstances Bugler's comments could indeed be considered "playful banter". But given that it was in a discussion in which he was making various accusations against me, including calling me "arrogant", "high handed", "discourteous", indulging in "liberal tricks", and having "manifest shortcomings", excusing this one as "playful banter" is stretching credulity somewhat. Philip J. Rayment 19:01, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

One can have a vigorous argument, yet finish with a joke in an attempt to lighten the mood. Clearly this fell flat with Philip, which I regret. Bugler 04:28, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

I would like to echo AndrasK and his sentiments about Bugler. I do not try to start trouble, but Bugler's threats, intimidation, harassment and extreme misconduct is intolerable, and I am baffled as to why he has any authority on this site at all. --IanG 12:33, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

I recently had cause to ban IanG for making a grossly insulting remark about a Conservapedia editor (subsequently revoked by Philip J. Rayment). I assume that this is the cause of his animosity towards me. Bugler 13:01, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

This is hardly an isolated incident. His fairly recent description of several editors, including myself, as "dogs" and "maggots", rather than entering into any reasonable discussion with us, springs to mind. This does not strike me as "playful banter". Sideways 12:55, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

Sideways, please be truthful. Those epithets were attached to saboteurs from another site. If, of course, you are one, then own up. Bugler 12:57, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

On the contrary, this comment of yours made no mention of saboteurs or another website, and appears to be addressed to everybody who had commented on the Big Science talk page, calling them such names as "dogs" and "fellow travelers to the cesspit" and describing their opinions as "drivel". Perhaps in future you might exercise some courtesy towards other editors, even if you do not agree with their opinions. Sideways 13:13, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

I have no interest in extending the finer points of etiquette to those who are inspired by atheistic and liberal outside bodies to subvert and attempt to destroy this project. Bugler 13:16, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

I had recently mentioned my disappointment with this site about a week ago maybe, Bugler's derogatory comments didn't help. If this site is trying to become a reliable, family-friendly, online encyclopedia, then I suggest that you, Bugler, quit being backed by your anti-Australian, hate-liberal views. There is no reason to be so derogatory towards people who have different opinions then you. If an editor on Wikipedia said what you said, but towards conservatives, they would be kicked out. JSJames 12:37 pm (PT) 28 September 2008

(unindent)FWIW, I've a)had hardly any interactions with Bugler, and b)been called upon by this site (and by you, Andy, in particular) to moderate other disputes. Not that I'm moderating here, just pointing out that I don't have a bone to pick in this particular situation and, for the most part, have a reputation for even-handedness. All that being said, the very idea that Bugler claims any of his recent comments to Philip are playful banter is ludicrous. A simple navigation of his edits in the last 24 hours would demonstrate that to your, and anyone else's, satisfaction. He'd actually struck me, until now, as an ardent but plain-spoken advocate for his position; this dodge paints him in an entirely new light, unfortunately. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aziraphale (talk)

Bugler is still making inappropriate comments, namecalling and generally being disruptive. Is thereno oversight for the people you have given authority on your site?--IanG 16:57, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

IanG, I've looked at your edits and your account is on the verge of being blocked, unless you contribute something of value soon.--Aschlafly 19:21, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

You know, as a service member I thought I would be welcomed by a conservative encyclopedia. Instead I am bullied and dismissed. Is this how you support your troops, by blowing them off instead of manning up and doing your executive duty, and allowing the people you have given power to bully them about? In the military, when something is brought up to the commander about the misconduct of one of his NCOs, the commander does something about it. And you can't deny that someone you have given authority is misusing it.--IanG 07:11, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

This seemed like a good place to put in a hearty "here, here" and point out that my question below ("Deletion of "Rants"") has not been responded to. --Toffeeman 07:56, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Hi Mr. Schlafly - I noticed that User:Conservative has been using Conservapedia as a means of directly communicating with and taunting members of the "other" website (Just take a look at his contributions - the ones for pages starting with "gentlemen"). It seems rather childish of him, as I think us Conservapedians should be above such petty communications. Furthermore, I don't think Conservapedia is the proper venue for such communications. I tried asking Conservative via his talk page what his motive is, but he went as far as to just permanently delete my questions. What do you think about this issue? --DRamon 22:12, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

As the Merriam-Webster dictionary has been mentioned [13] I’d like to ask about your use of the word “rant”.

You have labelled a number of my edits “rants” and, by implication, accused me of “ranting”. None of these edits remotely fit the Merriam-Webster definition. The latest was a two sentence suggestion that if Conservative wished to converse with editors of another wiki then that wiki might be a better place to do it than here [14]. This was deleted.

What was it about my edits that, in your view, turned them into “rants”?--Toffeeman 12:58, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Joins up just before 3PM ET, makes one edit, and is banned for a 90/10 violation after being here for less than twenty minutes? I doubt anyone could make 10 reasonable substantive edits in the amount of time he was a member. Do you really expect him to come back tomorrow and do good work on your project? Maybe you could be a little more accommodating and encouraging to new members.AliceBG 15:23, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

"Alice", your account is on the verge of being blocked also if you don't start adding value here. Divide 1 by 1 and see what fraction you get. It's over 90%.--Aschlafly 15:33, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Andy, by your logic, anyone whose first edit is on a talk page would have to be banned, without any chance to contribute. --_transResident Transfan^form! 16:00, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Genuine novice users should try to contribute to this encyclopaedia rather than spout off all the time on talk pages. Of course, one should accept and accommodate genuine requests for information or advice, but a great many so-called 'new users' are undercover Liberal saboteurs, out to cause as much trouble as possible, and starting endless, circular, sterile and futile discussions is one of their tactics. Bugler 16:43, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

And today's word of the day is: chutzpah. *salutes* :) --JohnZ 17:04, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Mr. Aschlafly, I have come to you with a request. I have been in Conservapedia for quite a few months. I am from India and use public computer, at present I have to chose a fixed time to edit here. It will be helpful for me if I get night edit rights so that I can better contribute to Conservapedia. Please consider it, thank you. --Dendronicus 19:53, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Are you serious that none of your students broke the #14 mark (Cornell)? o.O Nate ^{my opinion matters?} 10:07, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

Err, the above question sounds offensive. I guess I just had higher respects for homeschoolers. I was expecting someone to breach the top 10. o.O Nate ^{my opinion matters?} 22:42, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

What number do you rank Brown University?--Aschlafly 22:54, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm following the USNews and WorldReport rankings for 2009. Brown University is #16. o.O Nate ^{my opinion matters?} 23:07, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

Wow, Brown is down quite a bit from the old days. It's amazing what years of far left ideology can do to an institution!--Aschlafly 23:11, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

At least Harvard is #1 for 2009. o.O Nate ^{my opinion matters?} 23:20, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

Somehow Harvard, Stanford, and MIT managed to rank 1,4, and 4 respectively despite being some of the most liberal universities in the nation. --AndrasK 20:26, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

I wasn't aware of the restrictions on names, so I apologize for that. Is there a policy against going back to update the names on my old edits? PCarson 10:35, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

You only had a few prior edits. You can update them if you like, but it's not essential. Thanks for changing your name to something better.--Aschlafly 10:38, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Alright, thanks. If I have other questions, do I address them here or are their other trustworthy users I should ask? I'm sure you probably have your hands full keeping the loonies off here, so I'll try to cut down your workload:) PCarson 10:54, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

two recent entries Bob Godlover and Tact should be looked at , they dont seem to me to be appropriate for an Encyclopedia. If they are OK then I aplologise to the authors. Markr 10:43, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

I've deleted the former, and perhaps you could improve the latter? Philip J. Rayment 11:13, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Andy; I request 24 hour access. Normally, my available times for CP are before 8AM and after about 3PM my time. The later time is after you have “closed” for the night. Any access between those times is usually fleeting. If you check my contributions for the last 2 months or so you will find I am averaging over 400 words of ‘’’new’’’ information a day, either on articles I have created, or substantial improvements to others. You will also notice that nearly all my “talk” is creative.

I cannot promise my contributions will increase markedly, but at least it will give me time to browse randomly and fix those errors I find in my areas of expertise – something I just don’t have time for these days - and where in the past I have frequently found and deleted old pieces of vandalism.

Prior to my going off ill in September 2007 I had 24 hour access and blocking rights. My attitude to this project has not changed since then.

Please see my user page for a summary of recent edits. AlanE 18:45, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly - I have been trying to further elaborate on John McCains education on his page, but I have been told, via the John McCain talk page, that you have made some sort of decision to not include such material. Do you think you could weigh in on that page, so we can understand what type of information is to be censored? --JonPdh 23:42, 2 October 2008 (EDT)