Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:CPWebmaster

2007-05-14T04:25:24Z

Favor: Problem with spam filter

<div style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; margin-bottom: 0; width: 100%; background-color: #4f402b; height: 200px; color: white; padding: 0;">

<div style="-moz-border-radius-bottomright: 16px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 16px; float:left; background-color: #97c000; width: 85%; height: 160px; margin-top: 20px; padding-left: 0.5em;">
<div style="font-size: 200%; text-align: center; padding-top: 0.1em;">Welcome to CPWebmaster's (aka: [[User:AmesG/PanelEvolution|Fearless Leader]]) talk page</div>
<div style="font-size: 70%; text-align: center; padding: 0.2em;">This talk page is best viewed in Mozilla Firefox.</div>
</div>

<div style="-moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 16px; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 16px; float: right; background-color: #74c0fa; width: 10%; height: 160px; margin-top: 20px; text-align: center;">
<div style="font-size: 120%;">[[User_talk:CPWebmaster/Archive1|Archive1]]</div>
</div>
</div>

<div style="width: 100%; background-color: #4f402b; height: 100%; color: white; padding-bottom: 20px;">
<div style="-moz-border-radius-bottomright: 16px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 16px; background-color: #fff; width: 85%; margin-left: 0; margin-right: auto; padding: 0.5em; color: black;">

==Intelligent design lock==
hi, I tried making a suggestion for the structuring of the ID page about a month ago and listed my comments on the talk page. I haven't received any replies indicating problems with my suggestion (see Evidence -> Support). Can you update the main article please? --[[User:Propro|Propro]] 14:03, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

== Uploads ==

Dude, what is the deal with [[Special:Upload]]? I can ''never'' cause it to function appropriately. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 18:58, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Pic==
LOL! Love the banner on your user page. Ames will be pleased :P. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:58, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

== User Boxes... ==

Do I understand yours to mean you have something against Poultry? I'm shocked! Were do you stand on Turkey and Chicken, Mr. Webmaster? Exactly. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:00, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Love==
I think the new look of your user page is simply ''fabulous!''.[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 21:35, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Sysop Pledge==

As my good deed of the day I am requesting that you place this template on your userpage. Participating sysops will earn my respect and gratitude. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:55, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

{{Sysop Pledge}}

Ben... you're a riot [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 10:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==Proposed Block Policy==
There has recently been some disagreement over blocks, so I have created a [[User:CPAdmin1/Proposed Block Policy|proposed block policy]]
Tell me what you think. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 23:23, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

: Responded via email... dislike it. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 10:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::Gosh, that is so "un-wiki" like, a private response, I would have been insulted for doing that, lol. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:01, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Philip, could you please explain what you have against my policy. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 09:32, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Tim, I believe that this Wiki is something like a free-market. You have the supply (us editors) and the demand (people who want to use the site). What usually happens when a free-market becomes regulated? It is no longer free. Rules and regulations destroy the system. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 09:44, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::So you prefer Anarchy? --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 14:35, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: No Tim. Rules that are essential to the site such as no obscenity, etc. are the only rules that are needed. In the real world this would be comparable to laws against murder, stealing, etc. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 17:05, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

==Unblock Myk==
I have agreed to unblocking Myk. Is there a function with which to do so? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:09, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

*Thanks, Karajou, I was supposed to message you too, but so much is happening it was delayed. I will do it for you, the unblocking.--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:23, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== Change to the T-Rex page==
CPwebmaster, why the change on the T-Rex page? The research was cited and just released. Did you happen to read it before reverting?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:04, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:I don't agree with TimS' edits (and I will explain why on the talk page tomorrow), but neither do I agree with the amount that you removed. In cases like there where there is obviously or likely to be disagreement, couldn't you at the very least explain your rationale in the edit comment or on the talk page? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:27, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:: Yes... I did remove too much information... fixed [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 12:43, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== Missing Links ==

For the computer illiterate, like me, would you consider restoring the link to "Special Pages" on the left? It is missing on several pages I was just on, but shows here on your own page...... --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 06:33, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== Good block ==

Good block this morning. The contributor has made many valid edits, so the one week time period is appropriate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:24, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== request ==

I sent a letter of assistance regarding our abortion articles to right to life groups and I sent about 40 emails. Keep an eye on my user discussion page for people saying they are interested in being Admins/SYSOPS. Look at their edits and promote them to Admins if you think it is warranted. Here is my discussion page: http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Conservative [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:35, 14 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Could you please revert the [[macroevolution]] article to the way it was before it was submitted to the panel? I left you a diff on the talk page. I understood that this was the policy regarding the panel - at least that's how it was with [[evolution]].-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:52, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::I really don't see why this should be done. The article in its present state is perfectly acceptable. Also, I don't know of the policy you speak of. Can you point it out? Thanks [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 12:12, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== [[CP:RFA]] ==

Someone needs to periodically update this, and take the appropriate course of action for the applicants, and you seem to be a likely canidate. Thanks. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 21:53, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== Anti Gun ==

I'm anti-gun, however I like to play devil's advocate sometimes. I do not believe that academic discourse can progress without competing ideas. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 20:30, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

: That is awesome! It's great to see some thinkers around here. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 20:33, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Edit War with Conservative ==

CPWebmaster, I was upholding the decision of the panel. See the discussion on Philip J. Rayment's talk page [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Philip_J._Rayment#question_regarding_pro_evolutionary_books_being_added_to_TOE_article here]. The Panel approved a version of the article ''with'' the free online text of "The Origin of Species", though Conservative removed the link merely eight minutes before the Panel made it's decision (Conservative removed book at 18:21 April 9, decision made 18:29 April 9); clearly too short of a time, as the panel had been deliberating for quite some time. Andy has also made his anti-censorship view very explicit. Other sysops had also supported the inclusion of the book, as it is the single most relevant book on the topic that exists. The pro-inclusion sysops provided their reasons and justifications, though Conservative kept reverting without ''any'' justification, or discussion (except for an attempt to draw the conversation off topic at [[Talk:Theory of evolution]]). Perhaps you should warn [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] to not work against what has been made explicitly clear. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

: Where does the Panel's decision state that the ref's cannot be changed? It doesn't. Please do not get into any more revert wars with Conservative or any other user. Thank you. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 19:58, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=96144 Here] is where the panel says that addition of references and further reading books is acceptable. And please, warn the other party in this edit war as well, as he is equally guilty. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:02, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::: I'm talking about the revert wars in general, not so much this specific case. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 20:06, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:::: Forgive me, but it is hard to avoid an edit war when you cite justifications for your edits, ''prove'' that you are undoubtedly correct, and the [[User:Conservative|other user]] provides no justification and runs from answering any kind of question. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:07, 18 April 2007 (EDT) 
::::What other revert wars is [[User:Hojimachong| Hojimachong]] engaged in?[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 20:14, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::None, at the moment. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:16, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::: You're dodging the bullet. Please just don't get into any revert wars. They waste everyone's time. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 20:17, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::: I fully understand that edit wars are bad to engage in, and should be avoided. But I think you are missing my point as well; There was evidence to back up a specific view, posted on the talk page, and told to Conservative even ''before'' he removed the books (He ''asked'' Philip J. Rayment about removing the books. Philip said he shouldn't; Conservative did it anyways). I think Conservative needs to be reprimanded in some way, shape, or form; I don't see him being warned for the edit war. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:19, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: Once again, Conservative made a change against the panel, consensus, and Andy. When is this ''vandalism'' going to be taken note of? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:02, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

CPWebmaster, I want to highlight two things that you said:
* "''I'm talking about the revert wars in general, not so much this specific case.''"
* "''You're dodging the bullet. Please just don't get into any revert wars. They waste everyone's time.''"
Okay, perhaps Hojimachong has been involved in other edit wars; I haven't checked. And if true, and if that is not true of Conservative, then perhaps you do have a defence for what is otherwise a prima-facie case of favouritism. But you also seem to be "dodging the bullet" yourself. On Wikipedia, ''both'' editors would have been given blocks twice over for this particular incident, and ''both'' editors are "wasting everyone's time". You also said:
* "''Where does the Panel's decision state that the ref's cannot be changed? It doesn't.''"
That's precisely the point. I "changed" (added) some references (books for further reading), and Conservative started the revert war (in the sense that he made the first reversion) by removing them on the grounds that they were against the Panel's decision. You have here acknowledged that they are not against the Panel's decision, indicating that it was Conservative who was in the wrong, yet it is Hojimaching that you are warning.

Just to avoid any misunderstanding, I agree with Conservative's worldview, and disagree with some of Hojimachong's. And it was Conservative that first suggested that I be a sysop. It pains me to have to take a stand against him on this, but I believe that truth and justice  warrants it in this case.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:10, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well spoken, Philip. For me, this all fell under the "two wrongs don't make a right" consideration. Those who have been around more than a month know I have publicly disagreed with Sysop Conservative many times. Not on ideological or political grounds, but because of this absolute unwillingness to engage others, or even answer their questions. And I don't agree with blocking people without some explanation, if only to fellow Sysop's. He has gotten much better at responding, however. All of the points above, raised by everyone don't make engaging in a squalid public fight over editing, conducted by Sysop's, right. It is hard to preach to editors not to do something Administrators are constantly doing, eh? No matter if it is reverting each other's edits, or reverting blocks, it is the same principle; "Do as I say, not as I do". I think that is more what the Webmaster's point was, knowing full well the danger of supposition. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 03:10, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

== Problems with my watchlist ==

I appear to be having problems with my watchlist. Occasionally I notice articles that are changed are not appearing on my watchlist. It appears to be articles which have been protected. Protected articles that I put on my watchlist, or that I edit, are okay, but articles that I already have on my watchlist that are then protected don't appear, at least sometimes (until I edit them again). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:18, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== small favor ==

I permanently blocked someone and it was by mistake. I think I fixed it but I am not sure. Please make sure Bill_M can edit. 00:04, 22 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

: He's not blocked. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 00:06, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

== Please vote for me ==

Please vote for me here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Request_for_Bureaucratship [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:38, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

== Changing User Name ==

I'm wondering how I can change my User Name. Can it be done? If so, how? Please let me know. --[[User:Jtpaladin|Jtpaladin]] 21:47, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
: It would probably be best to just create a new account. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 23:10, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Any bureaucrat can handle a name change for you. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 02:09, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== My contributions ==

I think there's something wrong with my contributions, all edits prior to today seem to have vanished [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Aschl%D0%B0fly link]. Would you be able to look into it for me? Thank you and God bless. [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:17, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
: No there isn't. Look back in the recent changes for the creation of a new 'User:Aschlafly'. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]
:: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Log/newusers Here]. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

So is it possible to ban the fake ASchlafly and the fake Conservative before they do more damage to the site and to the reputations of the real things?--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 13:25, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:Sure, as long as the person doing it know what they are doing and pays attention. Oh................well...........it would normally be possible but after all SYSOP promotion here has little to do with understanding what the heck you are doing. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:28, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:: I don't know. No mods seem to be currently active. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

==thank you==

thank you for fixing my talk page. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 10:34, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

: you're welcome [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 11:31, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== Edit to wombat ==

Please see the talk page and explain your reversion. Thanks. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:16, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

== Image libs ==

Are we using GD or ImageMagick? --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:33, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

==Merge==

Thanks for this merge. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&curid=6394&diff=155595&oldid=155117]
What other maintenance tasks can we do together? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:04, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

: It seems that there are a '''lot''' of templates that are not being user and/or are worthless. Going through those would be good. Thanks for the help! [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 12:07, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::I deleted 4 unused templates. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:17, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Could you also remove them from [[help:templates]] please? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:38, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::::I was addressing that request to Ed, but thanks anyway. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:26, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Actually, a few of those deleted templates were either in use (although in only one or two pages). Also, a few were designed to be used with Subst:, which means that they aren't "in use" but may still be required. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:43, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

== MediaWiki stuff ==

I have two suggestions:

# You really should install [http://mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Interwiki_linking interwiki links] to Wikipedia, it would make life easier.
# [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:%24wgExtraNamespaces Extra namespaces], i.e. "Debate:" would also be helpful. Currently, all debate pages reside in the Project namespace, which, to a techie like myself, is physically painful :).

--[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 20:23, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:What's the point of the interwiki links if we are normally not supposed to link to Wikipedia anyway?
:I agree with the second suggestion.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:29, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, I agree with Philip. Another Sysop on Friday found several pictures linked to article pages here, from WP. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:53, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Kewl. Thanks. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:05, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Once more thing: for a wiki of this description, [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Oversight Oversight] might be quite useful. For instance, if Icew*dge decides to use an edit summary of "F*** F*** F*** F*** F***", it can be hidden, so people won't stumble across it. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 17:47, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Oh yes, and you should add a [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/ImageMagick#Licensing licensing menu] to the upload page. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 16:20, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== Spam Filters... ==

My talk page, somewhere on it is the ice name, and spam filter is not allowing me to save my changes with it on there.....--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:05, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:Fixed it. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:44, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

*Now, now, you fixed it on my page, but don't the filters need tweaking really? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 12:01, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Just put I**W*****. We really don't want them to be able to post that anywhere on the site. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 12:19, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Unless that is case-sensitive and excludes spaces, I can easily imagine that having too many false positives. By the way, you beat me to ban the latest incarnation of said vandal by a very few seconds! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:36, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

*Our two Philip's are like dynamos today! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 13:45, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::I used Unicode… --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 16:19, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

*Something has indeed changed, for I cannot remain logged in as I used to. I didn't change my comp settings, but now being idle for 15 + minutes, I must log in again. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:01, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== Changing Signature ==

I can't figure out how to change my default signature and decided you would be the most appropriate person to ask.--Favor 19:41, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== Problem with spam filter ==

It is now impossible to post in a section that contains the signature of a certain vandal who's signature I cannot post because the spam filter wont let me.--[[User:Favor|Favor]] 00:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Alaska

2007-05-14T02:10:45Z

Favor: /* Modern Alaska Government */

[[Image:Alaska_State_Flag.gif|thumb|right|The state flag of Alaska.]]

'''Alaska''' became the forty-ninth state to enter into the [[United States of America]] in 1959. Alaska is not contiguous to the rest of the United States, bordering [[Canada]]'s [[Yukon Territory]] to the east. Its capital is [[Juneau]].

Alaska's territory was purchased from [[Russia]] in 1867 by the Johnson administration for 7.2 million [[USD]]; its vast oil and gold reserves have more than repaid the investment that was once ridiculed as "Seward's Folly." (William H. Seward was the Secretary of State that negotiated Alaska's purchase from Russia.)

Although it is the largest state by area, it is one of the smallest states by population. Because of its lack of population, Alaska has only one representative in the House (Republican Don Young), and thus three votes in the [[Electoral College]]. Its current governor is [[Sarah Palin]].

==Alaskan Flora==
Alaska is highly forested. [[Trees]] found in Alaska include [[Birch]], [[Aspen]], and many [[conifers]] including [[Spruce]] and [[Firs]]. Alaska is home to many [[berries]]. Alaskan [[bushes]] yield [[Blueberries]], [[Raspberries]], [[Cranberries]], [[Salmonberries]], and the less flavorful [[Crowberries]]. There is also an abundance of wild [[rose]] hips in Alaska. Almost all plants in Alaska have at some point been used as a kind of [[medicine]]. The most notable medicine plants in Alaska are “Stinkweed” and Willow, which have both been used to treat many ailments. Many plants have been traditionally used to make tea. These include Birch, Willow, Alder, and Labrador Tea. The natives used Birch for other purposes, including building. Most famously, the Natives used Birch Bark to make baskets and Canoes. Willow switches were often used as an alternative to sinew for string.

==Alaskan Fauna==
[[Image:Moose.jpg|thumb|right|An Alaskan Moose.]]
Many animals in Alaska are hunted for their meat. These include large game such as moose, bear, and caribou, small game such as hares, grouse, and fowl. A large quantity of wild fish is also eaten especially salmon, trout, and halibut. Alaskan seas are inhabited by whales, seals, walruses, and of course fish. Native Alaskans hunted some whales, walruses, seals, and many kinds of fish for food and, in the case of seals, for furs. Spring brings large flocks of migratory birds to Alaska. Such birds as Canada geese, cranes, ducks, and many song birds inhabit Alaska during spring and summer. Mosquitoes, horseflies, and several other biting bugs thrive here.

==Natural Resources==
Alaska is home to vast quantities of oil, mostly along the north coast. Development of this resource has led to many environmental disasters and political issues. Gold was one of the first industries to be established in Alaska. When word reached the lower 48 of a gold strike in Alaska there was a “gold rush.” Thousands of miners rushed into Alaska in the hopes of striking it rich. Few did, but the gold rush forever changed Alaska. Gold is still a major industry in modern Alaska. Formerly one of Alaska’s largest industries, commercial fishing no longer supplies a significant amount of capitol to Alaska. However, in the early years of Alaska’s history, this resource was vastly exploited. The Lumber industry in Alaska is not purely a success story. When the industry was first established, massive sections of forest were clear cut and sold and low prices. At first this industry hardly made a profit, but improved in success through better use of the lumber they cut.

==Beringia==
The Bering Land Bridge was a strip of land that formerly connected Russia and Alaska. It is assumed that most Native North American and at least some Native South American tribes are descended from Asians that immigrated over that bridge. The seas now separating Alaska and Russia are mostly quite shallow. This means that during periods of global cooling, when the oceans water molecules condensed, the sea level receded and revealed land that connected Asia and America. It is suspected that the bridge was crossed by humans who then inhabited the Americas. Beringia also enabled the migration of other mammals between the two continents. Ancient ancestors of camels, which evolved in North America, migrated to Asia, and the American camelids eventually became extinct.

==Native Culture==
Alaska Native Culture varies greatly from tribe to tribe. On the whole, culture tends to be most directly linked to the environment in which a certain tribe lived. The majority of Interior Alaskan tribes are Athabascan. The Athabascans are a widespread people who lived mainly along rivers, since they provided food and easy transportation. The people of the south coast were mainly comprised of the Tlingit and Haida, tribes with a rich spiritual culture who primarily lived on fish and sea lion. These tribes occasionally also ate whale. The Tlingit and Haida had a complicated tribal system to prevent accidental incest. The people of the northern coasts, often called the Eskimos, are the people that practiced the famous blanket toss. This was originally developed as a method of looking over a large area for potential game. These tribes also hunted whale.

==Native Subsistence==
Subsistence is a term that means “living off the land.” Alaska Native Subsistence includes many varieties off hunting, fishing, and gathering.
Alaska is abundant in big game, with many creatures such as moose, walrus, bears, seals, and sea lion. Alaska is also home to a somewhat more limited selection of small game including water fowl, grouse and hares. Many small creatures could be hunted but most are not very good for eating, and so they were usually not hunted by humans. The rivers and oceans in and around Alaska provide many types of fish and other aquatic life. Most important to traditional Native subsistence is the salmon, which is a marine creature through most of its life but travels upstream to spawn.
This life cycle makes the salmon a fish that appears in many different areas of Alaska, and it is very good for eating. Shellfish was also frequently eaten, and other types of fish such as trout, halibut, and burbot are abundant in Alaska. Some tribes, mainly “Eskimo” peoples also ate whale meat. Aside from fauna, Alaska is home to many types of delicious berries, such as blueberries, raspberries, cranberries, and salmonberries.

==Contact with Europeans==
Contrary to what is often taught in younger grades, Columbus was not the first European to reach America. The first European to set foot in the Americas was Norse Explorer Leif Erikson. Although he may not have directly affected Alaska Natives, the Norse arrival brought Europeans into Native American culture. The first Europeans to see Alaska were James Cook, his crew, and certain Russian Explorers. The Russians took over Alaska and introduced European
concepts to the Native Alaskans. However they also brought with them a wealth of European diseases. These diseases drastically effected the Native population of Alaska. Disasters stemming from the introduction of alcohol and tobacco into Alaska later arose. It took a very long time for relationships between Caucasians and Alaska Natives to be repaired.

==Early Exploration==
Even after Alaska was discovered, the cold weather and extent of the land made it a long time before it was thoroughly explored. One of the earliest explorers was Knud Rasmussen. Rasmussen was a Greenlandic explorer whose main job on the explorations was to learn about and document information regarding Alaska Native culture and spiritual beliefs. He was the leader of several expeditions and brought with him other specialists. When the U.S. purchase became a factor, more serious exploration began. The goal of these explorations was to find the true value of Alaska. It proved to be very high. Alaska turned out to be rich in many different natural resources.

==The Early Russian Era==
The First Europeans to reach Alaska were Russians. Small groups of fur traders soon started sailing from Siberia to the Aleutians. Later, Traders began to establish trading posts. By the 1790s some trading posts were permanent establishments. By 1804 Alexandr Baranov, the manager of the Russian–American Company, had strengthened Russia’s hold on the Alaskan fur trade. Starting in the 1860’s, Russia began to consider selling Alaska. After
some decades, the over hunting had begun to take its toll on Alaska’s wildlife, especially fur-bearers.

==The Alaskan Purchase==
In 1867, Russia finally sold its land in America to the United States. The purchase was driven by then Secretary of State William Steward. The 6,000,000 square mile territory was purchased for a sum of 7.2 million US dollars, or 5.9 cents an acre. The price was not nearly as low as it sounds, due to inflation, but was still quite cheap. The territory was sometimes referred to as Seward’s folly, Seward’s Icebox, or Andrew Johnson’s polar bear garden. Many people believed that spending so much money on such a remote region was foolish.

==The Klondike Gold Rush==

In the late 19th century, gold was discovered in Alaska, sparking a gold rush now called the Klondike gold rush. The main gold strike that fueled the gold rush in the interior was that of Felix Pedro. The gold rush brought the initial rise in Alaska’s population, which has continued to rise steadily over the years. During and following the gold rush communities in Alaska were established. Fairbanks was one of these communities. Many gold rush towns were later deserted, becoming “Ghost towns.” The rise in population, however, remained, and Alaska soon had several small cities.

==Sustainable Developement of Alaska==
[[Image:Lynx.jpg|thumb|right|A lynx, one of Alaska'a many fur-bearers.]]
Sustainable Development is a term used to refer to developing resources at a rate that allows them to be replaced. In the early days of Alaska sustainable development was not practiced to any extent, and some resources were nearly destroyed. One such industry was commercial fisheries. Commercial fishing was one of the first Alaskan resources to be vastly over-used. Fisheries nearly destroyed Alaska’s population of salmon and some other species of fish. Later the timber industry clear-cut many acres of forest and destroyed much of Alaska’s natural habitat. Other early industries in Alaska included the Gold mines, which were in general not very harmful to the environment, and the trapping industry, which was mostly used up by the time of the Alaska purchase, but was very harmful during its time as a major industry.

==Early Alaskan Fisheries==
A fishery is a place where fish are caught and processed. In Alaska, fisheries presented a major problem at some points in the past. many people worked in dangerous conditions and were underpaid in early Alaska’s commercial fisheries. Child labor was often used in these fisheries, and recent immigrants were also put to work there. Commercial fisheries were able to produce huge quantities of fish at very low prices, but in doing so horribly over-fished the rivers of Alaska. Some salmon fisheries damaged native communities by taking the bulk of one of their main food sources. The over fishing of Alaskan rivers continued for many decades, but in modern Alaska the concerns of fishermen and others are turned to farmed fish, rather than over-fishing of wild fish.

==1918 Flu Epidemic==
In 1918 a deadly flu epidemic swept across the globe, killing more people in a shorter amount of time than anything else in the history of mankind. The total death toll was around 20 million, and the flu left its mark everywhere. In Alaska thousands died in communities such as Ketchikan and Nome. these small towns were hit hard by the deaths. Natives, who had no natural resistance, were the hardest hit. In and around Nome, about 75% of the adult Native population was killed by the epidemic.

==World War II in Alaska==
On June 3, 1942, Japanese planes attacked Dutch Harbor, in the Aleutians. Dutch Harbor was bombed for two days, leaving 100 dead and many structures destroyed or on fire. On June 4 U.S. aircraft deployed from a nearby air base disguised as a cannery met the attack. Taking the Japanese by surprise, they destroyed five planes. They soon began to search for the Japanese aircraft carrier(s), but out of 6 planes that saw it, 4 were shot down and one was lost in the fog. Between June 6th and 7th Japanese forces invaded the Attu and Kiska, in the Western Aleutians. This invasion represented the first battles on American soil in nearly a century, and the first foreign battles on American land in about 130 years. On May 11, 1943, 12500 US soldiers landed on Attu, invading from both sides of the Island. Though they outnumbered the Japanese by more than 5 to 1, the Japanese were well entrenched and the southern US forces did not work their way out of Massacre Bay until 8 days of heavy fighting had passed. After working to the mainland, the Japanese were quickly defeated, and all except 30 of the 2300 troops were killed by US forces or themselves. The American death toll was 549. After securing Attu the American forces, now numbering 15000 with the arrival of reinforcements, moved on to Kiska, where about 5100 Japanese troops were stationed. In the dense fog, the Japanese managed to slip through a US barricade undetected, a move so bold and difficult that US commanders would not believe it occurred. The invasion proceeded and over 300 American soldiers were killed.

==Statehood==
The movement for Alaskan statehood began around the turn of the 20th century, but faced widespread opposition because of worries that the region was too remote, or too sparsely populated. There were also assertions that the economy of Alaska was too unstable to make it a worthwhile addition to the United States. The suggestion of Statehood was taken more seriously after the roll Alaska played in WWII as a strategic point against the Japanese, but the real tipping point was the discovery of oil in Alaska. In 1958, Dwight Eisenhower signed the Alaska Statehood act, and Alaska was admitted to the union on January 3, 1959. William A. Egan, who had played a significant role in the writing of the Alaska constitution, became the first governor of Alaska.

==Modern Alaska Government==
The current government of Alaska is composed of the same three branches as the federal and most state governments. These three branches are the executive, legislative and judicial branches. The executive branch is headed by the Governor. The first Governor of Alaska, as mentioned above, was Democrat Bill Egan, and the current Governor is Republican Sarah Palin, Alaska’s first female Governor. The Governor is elected with a Lieutenant Governor. The current
Lieutenant Governor is Sean Parnell, and the first was Hugh Wade. The legislative branch is made up of a two-part congress, the senate and the legislature. Senators and legislators are elected by popular vote from areas drawn out by the
government.

==Location of Capitol==
The Alaskan Capitol is currently in Juneau, but there is some dispute over the location of the Capitol. One basis for the arguments to relocate the capitol is the fact that Juneau is in the very Southeast corner of Alaska, on an island accessible only by ferry or aircraft. Proposed locations for the capitol have been Anchorage, the largest city, Fairbanks, which is close to the geographic center of Alaska, and Willow, the original capitol of Alaska. The popular vote, however, has so far kept the Capitol in Juneau.

==Exxon Valdez==
The Exxon Valdez oil spill remains one of Alaska’s most tragic incidents. On March 24, 1989, a tanker belonging to Exxon Mobil hit a reef, damaging the ship and causing about 11 million gallons of oil to be spilled into Prince William Sound. The tanker was bound for California carrying 53 million gallons of crude oil when it crashed into the reef. At the time the ship was being driven by the third mate, per orders of Captain Joseph Hazelwood. At 12:04 AM, when the ship hit the reef, it was reported as a minor accident. Chances are, had the spill been properly reported, it could have been contained. The spill, of course, had devastating environmental effects. Estimates are that 250-500 thousand sea birds, 3-5 thousand sea otters, 12 river otters, 300 harbour seals, 250 bald eagles, 22 orcas, and billions of salmon and herring eggs were killed/destroyed immediately. Plants and other animals were also harmed by the spill.

==Official Symbols==
Bird-Willow Ptarmigan 
Motto-North to the Future 
Tree-Sitka Spruce 
Mineral-Gold 

==Trivia==
Alaska has more coastline than the rest of the US combined. 
Alaska has a population density of ~1 person per square mile.

[[Category:US state]]

User talk:CPWebmaster

2007-05-13T23:41:54Z

Favor: /* Changing Signature */

2007-05-10T05:35:02Z

Favor: /* Theory */

good edit to Einstein article.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:14, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Thanks Roger. Whatever I can do to help, let me know. Are there any plans for coordinated projects similiar to like they have over in, you know, that other place? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:48, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Review==
Roger, here's some material you may wish to review regarding "expansion of due process", [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Fourteenth_Amendment&diff=21204&oldid=14972]

:''it can be argued that the legislative intent of the Amendment was especially to grow with the times, which it certainly has done.'' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Gospel of Thomas ==

It is true that the [[Gospel of Thomas]] is not part of the Bible, and not recognized outside the Coptic Christian church; I simply wanted to clarify that it nevertheless is a valuable source of information about early Christian beliefs, and that many Christians today do find great value in it. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 15:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: It is my understanding that Christians have historically regarded these apocryphal gospels as being tainted with heresy. Yes, fascinating, but fascinating in the way that heresy is fascinating. I didn't want the Thomas entry to imply that Thomas is a good source of Christian beliefs. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks for your reply. I have amended the entry, both on the [[Gospels]] and the [[Gospel of Thomas]], to make this more explicitly clear.

::[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 17:42, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== reply ==

I banned him because 3 times in row he posted to my userpage the same cross examination type garbage much of which (if not all) was unrelated to the article in question. I warned him to stop though and he ignored me. Three strikes and your out.

Secondly, are you related to Aschlafly? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

: Yes, Aschlafly is my brother. I had nothing to do with creating Conservapedia; I first learned about it from reading blogs. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:56, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

That is wrong! your own brother didnt tell you! Mr. Schlafly! how could you! j/k :) welcome aboard. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 17:58, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== [[Scientology]] ==

Hello RSchlafly. In your recent modification to the article, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=43627&oldid=43502], you introduced that "not everyone considers it to be a religion". But that would be true of any religion that can be named, some people, somewhere, will consider it to not be a 'true' religion. Are we really trying to present such value judgements to our readers? Can't we simply be brief and to the point and inform readers, then let readers do as they like with their information? If we remain conservative and steadfast and present good, clean information, clear of bias and potential confusions or criticsm, our readers are better served, don't you think ? Yes, there are controversial issues the Church of Scientology has involved itself in but are those actually necessary to a brief, clear description of the religion? Can we discuss, please ? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 14:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I was understating the controversy. I think that it is fair to say that most people do not consider Scientology a religion. IRS did not, until just a few years ago. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Okay. How does one explain news items like this one [http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/business/16921716.htm] ("Scientology Religion") in the Kansas City Star ? Or the 7000+ hits a person gets by googling "Scientology" (its religous locations) at google maps? Or the many website pages about the Scientology Religion? There is nothing like that for a "Scientology Cult" search, with the exception of thousands of pages of criticsm. If an organization presents itself as a religion, is accepted by most governments as a religion, is presented in newspapers as a religion, then shouldn't we present it as a religion, too ? On the other hand, if an article is to be large, then other points of view could be presented ? But if small, then why not as direct and simple as possible ? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 17:14, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I did your test, and I found 113,000 google hits for "scientology religion", and 168,000 hit for "scientology cult". This does indeed suggest that more people call it a cult than a religion. But that is just one controversy. Care to say anything about psychotherapy? The Xenu story? Battles over leaks of the OT documents? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Sure, I'll talk with you about anything you like. psychotherapy sucks, no one who knows the myth talks, the Church defends itself vigorously in court. The critics are loud, the critics can publish cheaply. A simplicity of the situation exists, but how can a person view the simplicity, there's the question, would you say? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 09:39, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==McCarthy==
Much of the material [[User:PF Fox]] is "obsolete and deprecated", as per WP's new WP:ATTFAQ' I fought for this along time ago. Plus there is evidence of trolling on the talk page, as I forecasted. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_McCarthy&diff=next&oldid=32278] I would propose a roll back to my version, with whatever material you may wish to save from the recent editing, and then Page Protection. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:58, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: My inclination is to start a section titled, "Criticism of McCarthy's methods", and start it by saying: "It is often alleged that McCarthy's methods were irresponsible, inhumane, and reckless. Here are some examples of where his committee supposedly ruined lives." Then let PF Fox put in his most egregious examples, as long as they are factual. You want to do it? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::I've protected the page. That sounds like a good idea. Let's have PF Fox place his proposed language on the Talk page while I work on completing the Venona materials. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Newton ==
I have copied the conversation below onto the [[Isaac Newton]] talk page. I think it makes more sense to have it there for future reference. If we need to continue the conversation, let's do so over there. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 07:53, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I bet Isaac Newton cared about his title of "sir." Not to split hairs. Publicly evaluating a person's legacy based on your opinion of it is a bad idea, and sounds like opinion forbidden by the Commandments.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 01:02, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

: Sure, Newton may have cared, in the way that people care about honorary degrees and awards. Maybe he got some privileges from it, I don't know. But nobility status carries no weight with the typical American reader of Conservapedia. Nobody knows what Newton did to get that title, or why the title should make anyone deserving of any respect. It is just stupid and meaningless.
: Newton was a great man, and I am not putting him down. He is great for what he did, not because he was friends with some silly king or however he got the title. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:11, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:'Sir' is a title of respect. Not placing it would be equivalent to removing Doctor from the name of those holding a doctorate. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:13, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: It is only a title of respect among fans of British nobility. Besides, encyclopedias do not normally list people with doctorates under the title "Doctor". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:43, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Okay, can the bold text at least show that he was a peer? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:50, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I assume that you are joking. I don't know what a peer is, except that my dictionary says that it has something to do with British nobility. I think that the average American has very low respect for British nobility. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:A Peer of the Realm is a member of the British nobility. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 03:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:"Nobody knows what Newton did to get that title, or why the title should make anyone deserving of any respect. It is just stupid and meaningless." ... "I don't know what a peer is, except that my dictionary says that it has something to do with British nobility. I think that the average American has very low respect for British nobility." Are you serious? You don't know what Newton did that resulted in his title? I'd guess Calculus? Maybe Gravity? That deserves a heck of a lot of respect. I don't think we need to know the ins and outs of honorary titles in Britain to understand the basics of this one. According to Answers in Genesis, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i3/newton.asp] "His country officially recognized his work in 1705 when he became the first person to receive a knighthood for scientific achievement." Surely this is important enough to include his "Sir"? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 19:51, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Yes, I am serious. No American has any respect for British nobility titles. Apparently you don't know how Newton got the title either, because you are just guessing. You have a source that says that it was for "his work". Okay, that narrows it a little bit. It wasn't for his relatives. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm sorry, I think you misunderstood my comment, as you misunderstood [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]]'s use of the term "peer". I guess we need to back up a bit. In Britian, knighthoods are given for exceptional achievement or service to the nation, much like the USA gives the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal. Newton was the first to be made a knight for scientific achievement rather than prowess on the battlefield. (From doesgodexist.org: "In 1705, Queen Anne knighted him, Sir Isaac Newton. It was the first knighthood for scientific discoveries rather than deeds on the battlefield or in government." [http://www.doesgodexist.org/NovDec01/IsaacNewtonAndGodsLawOfGravity.html]) Thus Newton was given his title for his *body of work*, which of course included topics like gravity and calculus. I understand that *you* have no respect for such awards. Indeed, there is some controversy over modern versions, even in Britian (see [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/23/world/main590022.shtml]). However, I think it's simply not true to say that *No* American has any respect for British nobility titles - see [[User:Robledo|Robledo]]'s examples below. Given that Newton's achievements were so great as to be awarded an honor that had previously been given only for military prowess, I think the "Sir" is worth keeping. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Honorary knighthoods (accepted & thus I'm guessing respected...)

* George Bush
* Ronald Reagan
* Colin Powell
* General Norman Schwarzkopf
* Bob Hope

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1091938.stm

Any more sweepingly daft generalisations to make? :P --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 20:16, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: No, you've made it for me. I've never heard any American call any of those men "sir". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:01, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Naturally....none of them are British citizens. Read the [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1091938.stm source], son....third paragraph. *sighs* --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 21:26, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::That's because it is inappropriate for an American to use such a title.[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1091938.stm] Newton, however, was not American, thus the use of the title is appropriate. I know this stuff is complicated. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Exactly. To put it in context. "Bono" will never be "Sir Bono" (aside from the fact that his real name is Paul Hewson) because he is not a British citizen. So he can never be a "Sir". However, Newton ''was'' a British citizen, or a subject of the queen (or king), if you will. So he should be referred to by his correct title. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 21:33, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:: It's a simple matter of respect. "Sir" is his title in his native country and therefore should be the title that he is addressed by whenever he is addressed, wherever he is addressed. Aside from that argument, he is known the world over as "Sir Isaac Newton".[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 21:08, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

My students are fond of this song about Sir Issac - it's in MP3 format. [http://www.acme.com/jef/singing_science/newton-160.mp3]--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:32, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== Theory ==

I would like to argue [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_Theory&diff=64382&oldid=63053 this] edit. It is an extremely important distinction, because scientifically, nothing can ever really be proven. Gravity, relativity, etc. are all still theories, but are backed up with massive amounts of evidence, and are used regularly as facts. In any usage outside science, "theory" usually means a "hunch", or unsubstantiated guess. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:05, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: I just don't think that it is true that usage of "theory" outside science is significantly different from its usage in science. Do you have any source for that? Theories have varying levels of substantiation, both inside and outside science. I think that the distinction is completely bogus and misleading.
: Why is this so important, anyway? The subject of what can be proven is another topic. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::Any self-respecting scientist would never use the term theory to mean an unsubstantiated guess. Theories do not have varying levels of substantiation, only the true definition and the misuse by everyone else. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 03:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::: That is just not true. Physicists use the term "String Theory", even tho it is just an unsubstantiated guess. Where is the evidence that scientists use the word "theory" differently from others? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Regarding string theory, it has a large amount of "evidence" backing it up. That doesn't mean it's true, but it's certainly not an unsubstantiated guess. Regarding how scientists use the word differently, ask anybody with any sort of involvement in science, it's considered common knowledge that a scientific theory is different than a "guess". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:51, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: No, there is no evidence for String Theory. The disputed section has no cited source, and is contrary to common knowledge. Are you just giving your opinion, or can you cite a source? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:04, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
It's not a disputed fact that theory in the scientific community is not the same as a hypothesis. Sorry. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:08, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: Correct, that point is not under dispute. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:: No, it is definitely not under dispute. A theory in scientific terms can come close to a fact, just like evolution. Actually, evolution is a fact. Do you claim there is no such thing as microevolution?

== Theory II ==
Is there a reason for [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory&diff=next&oldid=64081]] this edit? What was objectionable? --[[User:Letusratiocinate|Letusratiocinate]] 04:16, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I apologize for the ad hominem attack, but there is nothing disputed about what is said in those entries. And protecting articles only hurts the site. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: Those entries certainly are disputed. I disputed them on the Talk pages, and here. The disputed material has no cited sources. I only protected the page because of the removal of the "disputed" tag. If you are right and I am wrong, then you should be able to give some evidence on the Talk page or here. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::There is no disputing the difference between common usage of theory and the scientific meaning. Look it up in a dictionary and you'll see theory is defined as both. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:40, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::: The disputed section says that a common speech theory is different from a scientific theory, with the former being an "unsubstantiated guess" and the latter having to be "well-supported and accepted". My dictionaries don't say any of those things, and they don't reflect any popular or scientific usage to my knowledge. I'd be happy to use a dictionary definition, but if you want something else, then you should provide some support for it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:58, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Look at webster's online. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 05:13, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: I looked at Merriam-Webster's, American Heritage, Compact Oxford English, Encarta, and a couple of others. They all disagree with you. You are promoting the oddball definition, so you find support for it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:21, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

A theory, as defined by Merriam-Webster:

1 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
2 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action
3 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave ''theory'' of light>
4 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption :CONJECTURE

As you can see, definition 3 is different than the others. This is because a ''scientific theory'' must follow what is known as the ''scientific method''. The Scientific method is "principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses". Of course, gravity, relativity, the theory of light, etc. are all unproven, but they are all backed up by massive amounts of evidence. A scientific theory is supported by evidence, though in modern usage outside of science, "theory" is synonymous with "guess". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:29, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: Your definition shows that your last sentence is wrong on both counts. A scientific theory does ''not'' have to be supported by evidence. In modern usage outside of science, "theory" is ''not'' synonymous with "guess". I am tempted to add a paragraph explaining this point. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:17, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== [[Theory of Relativity/draft]] ==

Please stop. Special and general relativity are separate theories. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 14:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

: What do you mean by that? They are certainly closely related, conceptually and historically. Putting them in separate sections already implies differences. Saying that they are separate without any explanation of the difference is just stupid and misleading. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:38, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::GR describes gravity, SR describes objects relative to each other. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 07:06, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Yes, but they are not separate. SR is just GR without the gravity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Wrong, dude. Please stop pretending that you and Andy are experts on everything. Andy's obviously not even an expert on theories of constitutional interpretation. Nor are you an expert on physics. Anyways, special relativity deals with time & length dilation and the [[Lorentz Transformation]]. GR is an explanation of gravity and spacetime curvature. Completely different except the name.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:20, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

: No, I am not wrong. I can see from your comments that you know very little about either subject. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::These are difficult subjects, and I myself don't understand either one well. I can do the math of the Lorentz transformation - where fast things get heavy, though.

::We need to make this subject accessible to our readership. If this means a simple (basic?) article which mentions both ideas, that will be a good start. We can use the {{tl|main}} template (or something like it: {spinoff} or {more detail}) to refer the reader to an in-depth treatment.

::Who wants to volunteer for any part of this? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Roger is correct; not only are GR and SR not 'separate,' SR is a limiting case of GR, just as Newtonian mechanics is a limiting case of SR. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:29, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::How's that work? I guess I don't understand it.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:32, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I'll try to put in an explanation if no one else does. Currently, there are two relativity pages, and both need a lot of work. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:15, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::GR generally operates in curved spacetime; in SR spacetime is always flat. But if you plug a flat spacetime into the equations of GR, SR is what falls out. The connection is not only quite deep, but very useful too; in any smooth, curved space, one can always pick a sufficiently small patch such that curvature can be safely neglected. In practical terms, this means that any observer can always choose to work within a region of spacetime small enough to make SR an arbitrarily good approximation. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Yes, that is correct. SR approximates GR in the way that a tangent line approximates a curve. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:10, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: They were developed in very different ways and at very different times '''and''' they are taught in very different ways and at very different times in university. They deserve completely separate articles (I am educated to graduate level on both). [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:04, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I believe the latest version of the draft is mine. I'm knowledgeable of Special Relativity and I was trying to explain it in as basic terms as possible. I don't know much about General Relativity other than what I've picked up from other people. However RSchlafly I hope you realise that gravity is a fairly complex force which adds a lot of extra levels of difficulty onto Special Relativity. If anything they should be given different sections simply because they are so abominably different in scale. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 17:11, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, Special Relativity is simpler. That is why it is called "special". I favor one article titled Relativity that tries to give a concise explanation. There are many textbooks on the subject if the reader really wants the full course. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:41, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Personally, I'd favour Relativity as a very short concise "these are the principles of" style article (a sentence or two on each) with links to separate articles for each of the two theories. Also, because it is specialised, "simpler" is not the word. It is "simpler" because the maths is less hardcore, two very different things. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:54, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

== Copernicus ==

Your biased editing is an insult to the subjects you touch, to the site, and to your brother's ideals. Please defend your edits to the Copernicus article stating that those problems ''still exist in modern astronomy today'' (preposterous!) and your blatant POV articles to the Scalia article. Please use new arguments that I have not already refuted.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:23, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

: No, you have not refuted anything. Your edits are false, malicious, misleading, and disrupted. You do not defend what you do on the Talk pages. Please stop, or I'll have to block you.
: I did not say that those problems "still exist in modern astronomy today". Reread it. I even gave a date for resolving the parallax problem. Your change called Tycho one of "previous astronomers". That is not correct, as Tycho lived after Copernicus.
: Your changes to Scalia's article are also completely unacceptable. No encyclopedia would say that. You are trying to put words in his mouth that he never said. If you have proof that Scalia is against desegregation, then document it. Otherwise, don't say it. The article is about Scalia and what he has said and done, not about your personal speculations about what his opinions might have been in the 1950s.
: You are becoming a nuisance. Use the Talk pages to make your points. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:40, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::I blocked him. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:42, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I don't know AmesG's other work. My objection is to these edits: Scalia [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Antonin_Scalia&diff=69941&oldid=69913] Copernicus [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nicolaus_Copernicus&diff=71299&oldid=71288] Theory [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory&curid=7019&diff=71251&oldid=71242&rcid=73770], and to his subsequent edit wars over those edits. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:12, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What's wrong with the Brahe insert? He did solve many of the problems with Copernicus' theory.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:16, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Tycho Brahe did some important works, as did dozens of later eminent astronomers. I think that AmesG's comments were inappropriate because it is peculiar to single out Tycho in this context, Tycho was not a "previous astronomer", and Tycho did not solve any of the 3 problems that were mentioned in the previous sentence. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:27, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::::*Just a little note here, a quick check of the edit history of the page reveals AmesG's edit '''''did not''''' say that Tycho was a "previous astronomer" but in fact, said the exact opposite! http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nicolaus_Copernicus&oldid=71299 . HTH [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 15:03, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::As to the other two, I think Ames could've left out the Brown v. Board part and left it at that. And most of the "Theory" part is good, except for this: " In fact, it is hard to find anyone who makes this distinction, outside those who are promoting the theory of evolution to the general public." That's a flat-out falsehood. It's also unsubstantiated and opinion, not fact.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:19, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: If the statement is "flat-out falsehood", then it should be easy to prove me wrong. Just give me a couple of URLs of pages that make the distinction. I did discuss the matter on the Talk page. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:36, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Are you serious?? If anything, the burden should be on you to prove your statement. I make that distinction all the time, b/c it'd be less than honest to tell people that the word "theory" can't be used in different ways. And again, you can't cite that claim. It should be removed.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:04, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, I am quite serious. If you have some evidence that I am wrong, please post it on [[Talk:Theory]]. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:11, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

==ACLU and Evolution==
Thanks for the revert; however, what is wrong with reverting back to my edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=prev&oldid=76854]. (sourced ref from Ann Coulter).
I think it is wrong for liberal editors to change sourced conservative views and replace them with their own liberal opinions (in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments). This is Conservapedia, and I don't want this to turn into Wikipedia, where the libs edit out what they don't like. They preach about free speech, including burning the flag, but they won't allow sourced comments from Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 12:37, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

: If some edit of yours got lost, go ahead and put it back in. I was merely trying to revert an edit of AmesG. He removed a perfectly good quote, and inserted a sentence in a half that had 3 factual errors in it. Almost every edit of his is erroneous and destructive. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:22, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== My Reply ==
A few things.
# As requested by Ed Poor, I have posted my reply to your "charges" [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG#Why_do_you_stay.3F here]. I feel that my edits to [[Copernicus]] have been vindicated.
# In re the [[Theory]] article, Shlaf, you've been argued into a corner you can't get out of on the talk page. Please answer the comments there before claiming that you're right.
# In re the [[Antonin Scalia]] article, I never intended to imply that Scalia does not support the ''Brown'' decision. I'm sure he comes up with his own way to back it up. However, the [[Earl Warren]] opinion on ''Brown'' did rest on responsivism, which Scalia disagrees with flat out, as you have proven for me. So he disagrees with the popular reason for ''Brown'', which is '''all that I argued''', regardless of what you inferred. And you haven't disproven that thesis except to say, "Wha?! Who!??! Huh!?"
# Thank you to everyone who defended me. I appreciate it.
# I still think you can't be serious regarding the [[Theory]] article.
# Peace.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:41, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

No, your edits to [[Copernicus]] were entirely wrong. In fact, all of you edits have been 100% bogus. I just had to revert this edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=77179&oldid=77166] to [[ACLU]]. You just changed one line and managed to insert three errors. I believe that you should be blocked for persisting in making such destructive edits. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:53, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

: As discussed on [[talk:ACLU]], yours is a bias-laden statement that makes no pretense at neutrality. Mine is legal fact. Look it up, or read the case, if it's just not too much trouble for ya. I would be thrilled to e-mail you a PDF from Lexis so you can have a go at it. I already have.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:39, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

==Good delete==

Good delete on Flat Earth Society. I believe that both of those organizations, while the URLs exist, are hoaxes and do not belong on this site. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 23:19, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, those sites are hoaxes, and so was the article. I just added an article on [[Flat Earth]]. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:48, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

==Pedophilic priests==

I had previously deleted that, but sysop Ed Poor wanted to try to make it into an article. Do you think it would be maybe appropriate to make a more general article called something such as "Catholic Church abuse scandal"? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:40, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: I was thinking of moving it to a more general Pedophila article, but someone deleted that. Not sure why. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:44, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

That could also be done. At the very least, there should be a section on the specific Catholic aspects within that article, because it was obviously a fairly significant news story. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:47, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==Flat Earth==

So, are you going to explain your block of the Flat Earth page? Given that my arguments are valid and need to be addressed I would have thought that an open, and more thoughtful outcome of the situation could have arisen. Also, given that its either my version or yours, the decision to block should be made by a different sysop (i.e. not one of the involved editors!) as to whether or not the page should be blocked. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 11:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

: So tell me on the Talk page where my version is in error. I posted why your version is wrong. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::Sorry, I had already posted this before I realised you had posted on the talk page! [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 11:49, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I added a lot to [[Flat Earth]] and made some comments at [[talk:Flat Earth]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:04, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Thanks. Conservapedia ought to be one place where evolutionists cannot make fun of Christians as flat earthers. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:14, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Mohammedans? ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Islam&curid=1925&diff=87904&oldid=87876 Mohammedans]? Never heard of it. I guess you learn something new every day... --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:55, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

It's a very old fashioned term, and considered to be offensive. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, it is an old-fashioned term, but it used to be extremely common and it is still in dictionaries. It fell out of favor, but I don't think that it is correct to say that it is offensive. It is no more offensive than "moslem". Some people prefer "muslim" to "moslem", but there is nothing wrong with using "moslem" or "mohammedan". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:03, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Moslem vs. Muslim is a trans-Atlantic distinction. As for "Mohammedan," I studied with one of the nation's best Islamicists when I was at Rice. She specifically told us never to use "Mohammedan," and if you read any formal scholarship (after 1900) on the subject, you'll learn not to do it either. May I suggest Berkey, "the Formation of Islam"? Or, if you still disagree, we might as well revert to the Sayers translation of ''Song of Roland'', and just call Muslims ''Paynims''. It has about the same pejorative meaning.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:24, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Yes, there are those who prefer not to use the term Mohammedan, but their objection is not that it is an ethnic slur or a synonym for paynim. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:57, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Those who "prefer not to use" the term are the Muslims themselves :-/ -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:04, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: And there are terrorists who prefer not to be called terrorists, and Moslems who prefer not to be called Moslems. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:37, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::My understanding is that the reason why it is not used is because it falsely implies that Muslims worship Mohammed. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:38, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Reasons like that are sometimes given, but they don't make much sense. Note that your reason is different from AmesG's reason. I don't think that there is any good reason. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:13, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I suppose the #1 determinant for whether the term goes in should be whether it is, in fact, commonly used or not. I can't speak for others, but I don't hear it used. Maybe in other parts of the country the term is more common, I don't know. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:31, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: It used to be more common. You'll find it a lot if you read old books. I would not be suggesting it if I thought that it was an ethnic slur. It is not. It literally means just a follower of Mohammad. Nothing wrong with the term. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:44, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I think the one place I've seen it is in an old book in my church library, so that makes sense. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:51, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

I think it's bad because it is an ethnic slur, and insulting for the reason that MountainDew stated - it implies that Muslims worship Mohammed, which is insulting in the same way that saying that Jews worship Moses would be insulting. If you can find it in old books, guys, but not in any other books, it probably means that the term is outdated, as I've argued. I'm sure you'll find "colored" in old books describing African Americans, but I'd advise against using it in an article...-10:36, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

It is VERY offensive for muslims to be referred to as Mohammadeans, for the above reasons. They are a very adamantly monotheistic faith, and any implication that they worship a human being is considered blasphemy (and you know how they feel about that). It's like calling Christians John-ians or Luke-ians. Leave it out already. Why would you want to be so offensive. [[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 10:57, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

: I don't think that Mohammedan is an ethnic slur any more than "Abrahamic religion" is an ethnic slur on Jews. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:19, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::You don't think a lot of the time. Apology accepted.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:29, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::: AmesG, I was not apologizing to you.
::: PalMD, calling Christians John-ians or Luke-ians is not particularly offensive. Of course, there are people who are offended by innocuous statements. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:04, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Since you weren't apologizing to me before, I'll accept it now.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 18:08, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

: For what? Are you a Mohammedan who doesn't like to be called a Mohammedan? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:57, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

==Abortion poll==

Dear Ms Schlafly - I did quote the abortion poll correctly, and when you quoted it selectively I expanded your quotation to give details. Please check the link. My subsequent editing of your misleading statement has been reverted. I suggest altering it to the unarguable one that 62% of Americans do not want Roe v Wade to be returned. Unless I hear your reasons why you believe this to be less than factual, I will edit it to that version shortly. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 16:48, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

: Your statement did not match the most recent poll on the cited page with the poll results. Yes, your statement is less than factual. Give support on the Talk page, if you wish. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:12, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::The page I linked to had a whole series of polls. The two most recent polls said that 16% of the American public favored retaining unlimited rights to abortion, and 39% favored abortion being 'legal in most cases'. Of the remainder, 31% favored it being illegal in 'most' cases and 12% illegal in all cases. In other words, 55% favor it being legal in all or most cases and 43% favor it being illegal in all or most cases, with 2% unsure either way. The other poll referred to the retention of the rights granted under Roe v Wade and 62% favored this. This should be reflected in the article because as it stands the article misrepresents the facts. Please tell me why you think we should misrepresent facts clearly laid out in a neutral opinion poll. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 17:37, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::: No, I posted actual facts. I am against misrepresenting facts. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Here is something I put on my userpage. Please spread the word among your friends ==

'''ARTICLES I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WRITTEN AT CONSERVAPEDIA:'''

'''ABORTION RELATED ARTICLES:'''

*[[Abortion alternatives]]
*[[Abortion procedures]]
*[[Culture of life]]
*[[Dilatation and curettage abortion]]
*[[Dilatation and Evacuation abortion]]
*[[National Right to Life Committee]]
*[[Prostaglandin Abortion]]
*[[Partial birth abortion]]
*[[Right to life]]
*[[Right to life books]]
*[[Right to life movement]]
*[[Right to life leaders]]
*[[Saline abortion]]
*[[Suction abortion]]
*[[Sanctity of life]]
*[[Silent scream]]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:07, 9 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

==Sysop Pledge==

As my good deed of the day I am requesting that you place this template on your userpage. Participating sysops will earn my respect and gratitude. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 00:05, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

{{Sysop Pledge}}

==Adultery==
Could we divide the topic of adultery into, for example, the [[Sin of adultery]] and "[[Adultery]]"? I'm not sure what the two types of infraction should be called, but it might make it easier on readers if we did a sort of division. What do you think would be best? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:11, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

: What's the difference between the Sin of adultery and Adultery? What's the latter, the crime? I don't really agree with the recent edits on that page, and I guess I'll say so there. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:31, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== Homosexuality article ==

Hi Roger. Could you please alter the first sentences of [[Homosexuality]] in accordance with [[talk:homosexuality#attraction or activity]] or comment there? I see you altered the Biblical Prohibition section. Thanks. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 10:15, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

==Capital punishment==

What was dubious about explaining the context of Leviticus and Deuteronomy as a covenant between the Israelis and God?

By the way, I wasn't the one who put the stupid comment about the Ten Commandments in there. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 13:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== please vote for me ==

Please vote for me here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Request_for_Bureaucratship [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:50, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== Why do you hate gay people so much? ==
Just curious. I'd love to know the reasons behind your "principled" disagreement.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 10:52, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

: My disagreement is with your edits, as they are frequently erroneous and destructive. It has nothing to do with you being gay or not gay. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:59, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

I never said I was gay or not (!?), but as someone who believes in equality & egalitarianism, I think it offends all of humanity, the level of distaste that your edits level against homosexuals.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:31, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

: I never said that I hate gay people. Your bigotry is noted. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:02, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::Hmm, bigotry is not accepting bigotry now? (butting in where I'm not wanted) [[User:Human|Human]] 21:32, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Apparently AmesG and you want to use this page for ad hominem attacks on me. You will note that AmesG does not mention any specific edits to support his attacks. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

i know i have no part in this, but doesnt it seem like "mr. equality and egalitarianism and tolerance" AmesG is showing an utter lack of tolerance?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:No, AmesG asked Roger a question and he schlaflied it by avoiding the question and making a random assessment of the user. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:51, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I liked this edit. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homophobia&diff=next&oldid=140220] It's exactly what I was trying to say, but couldn't put into words. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:29, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== Question about your beliefs ==

Have you heard how they genetically alter fruit to make new fruits? I strongly disagree with this practice because it messes with the Earth the way it was created. Next it will be human cloning. This is just a stepping stone. Whats your opinion? (By the way I love your user page! It is so exciting. Mine is boring.) Thanks your friend--[[User:BushRules12|BushRules12]] 23:40, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

: I think that the genetic modifications have been for the better, so far. Human cloning is another story. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:25, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== f****t==

Please do not ever use the above-referenced word in an encyclopedia article. It is an offensive and ignorant slur, and does not reflect well upon the user. Thank you. --[[User:JeffersonDarcy|JeffersonDarcy]] 14:47, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: Why do you say that it is "ignorant"? Is it more offensive than "homophobic"? Why? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:39, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

It is more offensive than "homophobic." The parallel is, "n****r" : "racist" :: "f****t" : "homophobe".-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:32, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: So you say, but that is not my experience. Do you have any evidence to back up what you say? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:56, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Call a gay man a "f****t" and see the effect. Ask a homosexual how they feel about that word. If you have any emotions at all, you can see why it's more offensive.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:I hear black men say "nigger" frequently. I have heard homosexual man say "faggot" frequently. Both are obviously "in words". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:02, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Okay, let's clarify the difference. I'm not saying it's okay to say it under any circumstances. But the generally accepted cultural convention is that someone "in" the group may use a derogatory slur, just like you can say, "yeah, I sucked on that exam," but your friend saying, "DUDE, you sucked on that exam," is not okay. That doesn't make EITHER words that are okay when used by someone outside the group, and esp. not to convey malice.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:03, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::shouldnt the "homophobes" only be able to call themselves homophobes?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
NO. There is a difference. But tell you what if you don't see it, and if you don't want to be called a "homophobe," fine. I won't call you that, and I'll not use the word, if you won't use the words discussed above. This is only because I can't seem to make the difference clear to you, although it would be clear to anyone who actually is gay.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:06, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: Yeah, I see the difference. You just happen to like some name-calling better than other name-calling, based on your own personal prejudices. That's all. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:46, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

==Revert==
Hey can you revert my user talk page? --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 14:34, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== [[Geocentric theory]] ==

Roger: Strange as it might seem, I have personally run into people who cite the [[Bible]] in support of the [[geocentric theory]] of the [[solar system]]. I'm not saying that I buy those interpretations. I am saying that there's more to that proposition than someone (like user [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]]) trying to be a "wiseguy." I would say to [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] that she ought to cite her sources for any claims of "evidence advanced to support geocentrism." Then we can cite contrary evidence. But as I say--I don't think those edits really constituted subtle vandalism. I believe that the editor submitted them in good faith, and all that they need are appropriate citations.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:13, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

: I don't know whether she believes that stuff or not, but even if she believes it, that is not reason enough to put it in an encyclopedia. A lot of people believe a lot of kooky things, and we can't list them all. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:25, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::I don't see why you are so opposed to the page stating that some people believe the geocentric theory. Clearly some people do believe it. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 12:30, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::: No, it is not clear. Who? Where? How do you know that the web page is not a joke? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:36, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::::It looks real, as does [http://www.galileowaswrong.com/ This one] --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 12:41, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: I am not going to pay the $27 to try to find out. What if someone else says the Moon is made of green cheese and cites a web site? It is not much evidence that there is any significant belief in a green cheese theory. Maybe it could be mentioned in an article on Internet scams or something like that. I did look at the work that Mmeelliissssaa referred me too, and it is not a serious piece of work. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:49, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::Exactly what i try to tell to creationists time to time, if 99% of biologists think creationism has no merits and is just view held by few people because of their religious beliefs, why waste time and space on encyclopedia for that. But still, most encyclopedias like Wikipedia are willing to add articles that admit that some people still believe earth to be 6000 years old. But i see Conservapedia is taking a stricter attitude here. I'm all in favour of it. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 12:57, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: What is the idea in adding joke pages (for example fixedearth) as references - I don't understand it if this site is trying to be encyclopedic one and not a joke collection!? They are parodies written about Christians. Irony and taunt. And even better joke if someone takes it as earnestly written. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 13:42, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well to be fair, I thought [[YEC]] was a parody of Christian beliefs until I did some research on it. Geocentrism doesn't sound that much more implausible to me. --[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 14:25, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

==Vandalism to Geocentric Theory==
You managed to cut out all of my well-researched and highly-relevant material from the article without any comment whatsoever. I consider this to be vandalism. If this behaviour continues I shall report this to a SySop. [[User:OfficerDibble]].

==Reversions==
WILL YOU DISCUSS THIS INSTEAD OF JUST UNDOING????

Peace Pact. If you want to make reversions, propose them on the Talk page. I know I have one other person who is editing who will support my point of view.

==Wiki-Conservapedia?==

Can I point out that the reason the Conservapedia was set up in the first place was that some conservative views were being sidelined by an obviously liberal organ because those views did not concur whith the majority. Your revert of the [[Geocentric Theory]] page then protection of it clearly demonstrates that the are some conservative elements who are quilty of the same crime that Wikipedia is accused of. [[User:OfficerDibble]]

I have made my points, and have to log off now. I shall attempt to reformulate these ideas in a different form. The points i am tying to make in the GeoCentric Article are twofold:
# The view of whether the earth, the sun, the moon, Ceres or for that matter any other body is a starionary object at the centre of the universe is a matter of scientific convention. The Laws of Gravity and relativity can, in principle be reformulated to ake this happen. Thsi is a sceintific FACT, not a speculation. The fact that we don't do this is a matter of convention and parsimony, due to Occam's Razor, combined with the fact that the exlanatory schema imposed by Heliocentrism has a certain elegance. i.e. it makes the math easier. David Deutsch's book confirms this position. It is a PHiliosophiucal View, therefore and not a scientific one.
#There are groups of people who hold that the Bible says that GeoCentricisnm is correct, and is supported by biblical text. An article on Geocentricism should include material about these people, their beliefs and how these are squared with current scientific evidnce.

Ypu are just removing this without discussion, and my point is that this is no way to behave. [[User:OfficerDibble]]

: You are barking up the wrong tree. The article already makes these points. I have protected the article so that any changes can be discussed on the Talk page, and to allow you to calm down. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:46, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Homophobia ==
I'd like to see a comprehensive list of specific reasons why you reverted on the talk page ASAP. --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 19:56, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

: I already did, before you posted your request. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:47, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

==[[Conservapedia:AFD Homophobia]]==
Need some support, please. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:59, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

User talk:RSchlafly

2007-05-10T05:34:42Z

Favor: /* Theory */

good edit to Einstein article.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:14, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Thanks Roger. Whatever I can do to help, let me know. Are there any plans for coordinated projects similiar to like they have over in, you know, that other place? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:48, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Review==
Roger, here's some material you may wish to review regarding "expansion of due process", [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Fourteenth_Amendment&diff=21204&oldid=14972]

:''it can be argued that the legislative intent of the Amendment was especially to grow with the times, which it certainly has done.'' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Gospel of Thomas ==

It is true that the [[Gospel of Thomas]] is not part of the Bible, and not recognized outside the Coptic Christian church; I simply wanted to clarify that it nevertheless is a valuable source of information about early Christian beliefs, and that many Christians today do find great value in it. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 15:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: It is my understanding that Christians have historically regarded these apocryphal gospels as being tainted with heresy. Yes, fascinating, but fascinating in the way that heresy is fascinating. I didn't want the Thomas entry to imply that Thomas is a good source of Christian beliefs. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks for your reply. I have amended the entry, both on the [[Gospels]] and the [[Gospel of Thomas]], to make this more explicitly clear.

::[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 17:42, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== reply ==

I banned him because 3 times in row he posted to my userpage the same cross examination type garbage much of which (if not all) was unrelated to the article in question. I warned him to stop though and he ignored me. Three strikes and your out.

Secondly, are you related to Aschlafly? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

: Yes, Aschlafly is my brother. I had nothing to do with creating Conservapedia; I first learned about it from reading blogs. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:56, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

That is wrong! your own brother didnt tell you! Mr. Schlafly! how could you! j/k :) welcome aboard. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 17:58, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== [[Scientology]] ==

Hello RSchlafly. In your recent modification to the article, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=43627&oldid=43502], you introduced that "not everyone considers it to be a religion". But that would be true of any religion that can be named, some people, somewhere, will consider it to not be a 'true' religion. Are we really trying to present such value judgements to our readers? Can't we simply be brief and to the point and inform readers, then let readers do as they like with their information? If we remain conservative and steadfast and present good, clean information, clear of bias and potential confusions or criticsm, our readers are better served, don't you think ? Yes, there are controversial issues the Church of Scientology has involved itself in but are those actually necessary to a brief, clear description of the religion? Can we discuss, please ? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 14:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I was understating the controversy. I think that it is fair to say that most people do not consider Scientology a religion. IRS did not, until just a few years ago. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Okay. How does one explain news items like this one [http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/business/16921716.htm] ("Scientology Religion") in the Kansas City Star ? Or the 7000+ hits a person gets by googling "Scientology" (its religous locations) at google maps? Or the many website pages about the Scientology Religion? There is nothing like that for a "Scientology Cult" search, with the exception of thousands of pages of criticsm. If an organization presents itself as a religion, is accepted by most governments as a religion, is presented in newspapers as a religion, then shouldn't we present it as a religion, too ? On the other hand, if an article is to be large, then other points of view could be presented ? But if small, then why not as direct and simple as possible ? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 17:14, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I did your test, and I found 113,000 google hits for "scientology religion", and 168,000 hit for "scientology cult". This does indeed suggest that more people call it a cult than a religion. But that is just one controversy. Care to say anything about psychotherapy? The Xenu story? Battles over leaks of the OT documents? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Sure, I'll talk with you about anything you like. psychotherapy sucks, no one who knows the myth talks, the Church defends itself vigorously in court. The critics are loud, the critics can publish cheaply. A simplicity of the situation exists, but how can a person view the simplicity, there's the question, would you say? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 09:39, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==McCarthy==
Much of the material [[User:PF Fox]] is "obsolete and deprecated", as per WP's new WP:ATTFAQ' I fought for this along time ago. Plus there is evidence of trolling on the talk page, as I forecasted. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_McCarthy&diff=next&oldid=32278] I would propose a roll back to my version, with whatever material you may wish to save from the recent editing, and then Page Protection. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:58, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: My inclination is to start a section titled, "Criticism of McCarthy's methods", and start it by saying: "It is often alleged that McCarthy's methods were irresponsible, inhumane, and reckless. Here are some examples of where his committee supposedly ruined lives." Then let PF Fox put in his most egregious examples, as long as they are factual. You want to do it? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::I've protected the page. That sounds like a good idea. Let's have PF Fox place his proposed language on the Talk page while I work on completing the Venona materials. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Newton ==
I have copied the conversation below onto the [[Isaac Newton]] talk page. I think it makes more sense to have it there for future reference. If we need to continue the conversation, let's do so over there. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 07:53, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I bet Isaac Newton cared about his title of "sir." Not to split hairs. Publicly evaluating a person's legacy based on your opinion of it is a bad idea, and sounds like opinion forbidden by the Commandments.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 01:02, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

: Sure, Newton may have cared, in the way that people care about honorary degrees and awards. Maybe he got some privileges from it, I don't know. But nobility status carries no weight with the typical American reader of Conservapedia. Nobody knows what Newton did to get that title, or why the title should make anyone deserving of any respect. It is just stupid and meaningless.
: Newton was a great man, and I am not putting him down. He is great for what he did, not because he was friends with some silly king or however he got the title. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:11, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:'Sir' is a title of respect. Not placing it would be equivalent to removing Doctor from the name of those holding a doctorate. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:13, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: It is only a title of respect among fans of British nobility. Besides, encyclopedias do not normally list people with doctorates under the title "Doctor". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:43, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Okay, can the bold text at least show that he was a peer? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:50, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I assume that you are joking. I don't know what a peer is, except that my dictionary says that it has something to do with British nobility. I think that the average American has very low respect for British nobility. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:A Peer of the Realm is a member of the British nobility. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 03:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:"Nobody knows what Newton did to get that title, or why the title should make anyone deserving of any respect. It is just stupid and meaningless." ... "I don't know what a peer is, except that my dictionary says that it has something to do with British nobility. I think that the average American has very low respect for British nobility." Are you serious? You don't know what Newton did that resulted in his title? I'd guess Calculus? Maybe Gravity? That deserves a heck of a lot of respect. I don't think we need to know the ins and outs of honorary titles in Britain to understand the basics of this one. According to Answers in Genesis, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i3/newton.asp] "His country officially recognized his work in 1705 when he became the first person to receive a knighthood for scientific achievement." Surely this is important enough to include his "Sir"? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 19:51, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Yes, I am serious. No American has any respect for British nobility titles. Apparently you don't know how Newton got the title either, because you are just guessing. You have a source that says that it was for "his work". Okay, that narrows it a little bit. It wasn't for his relatives. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm sorry, I think you misunderstood my comment, as you misunderstood [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]]'s use of the term "peer". I guess we need to back up a bit. In Britian, knighthoods are given for exceptional achievement or service to the nation, much like the USA gives the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal. Newton was the first to be made a knight for scientific achievement rather than prowess on the battlefield. (From doesgodexist.org: "In 1705, Queen Anne knighted him, Sir Isaac Newton. It was the first knighthood for scientific discoveries rather than deeds on the battlefield or in government." [http://www.doesgodexist.org/NovDec01/IsaacNewtonAndGodsLawOfGravity.html]) Thus Newton was given his title for his *body of work*, which of course included topics like gravity and calculus. I understand that *you* have no respect for such awards. Indeed, there is some controversy over modern versions, even in Britian (see [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/23/world/main590022.shtml]). However, I think it's simply not true to say that *No* American has any respect for British nobility titles - see [[User:Robledo|Robledo]]'s examples below. Given that Newton's achievements were so great as to be awarded an honor that had previously been given only for military prowess, I think the "Sir" is worth keeping. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Honorary knighthoods (accepted & thus I'm guessing respected...)

* George Bush
* Ronald Reagan
* Colin Powell
* General Norman Schwarzkopf
* Bob Hope

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1091938.stm

Any more sweepingly daft generalisations to make? :P --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 20:16, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: No, you've made it for me. I've never heard any American call any of those men "sir". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:01, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Naturally....none of them are British citizens. Read the [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1091938.stm source], son....third paragraph. *sighs* --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 21:26, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::That's because it is inappropriate for an American to use such a title.[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1091938.stm] Newton, however, was not American, thus the use of the title is appropriate. I know this stuff is complicated. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Exactly. To put it in context. "Bono" will never be "Sir Bono" (aside from the fact that his real name is Paul Hewson) because he is not a British citizen. So he can never be a "Sir". However, Newton ''was'' a British citizen, or a subject of the queen (or king), if you will. So he should be referred to by his correct title. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 21:33, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:: It's a simple matter of respect. "Sir" is his title in his native country and therefore should be the title that he is addressed by whenever he is addressed, wherever he is addressed. Aside from that argument, he is known the world over as "Sir Isaac Newton".[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 21:08, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

My students are fond of this song about Sir Issac - it's in MP3 format. [http://www.acme.com/jef/singing_science/newton-160.mp3]--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:32, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== Theory ==

I would like to argue [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_Theory&diff=64382&oldid=63053 this] edit. It is an extremely important distinction, because scientifically, nothing can ever really be proven. Gravity, relativity, etc. are all still theories, but are backed up with massive amounts of evidence, and are used regularly as facts. In any usage outside science, "theory" usually means a "hunch", or unsubstantiated guess. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:05, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: I just don't think that it is true that usage of "theory" outside science is significantly different from its usage in science. Do you have any source for that? Theories have varying levels of substantiation, both inside and outside science. I think that the distinction is completely bogus and misleading.
: Why is this so important, anyway? The subject of what can be proven is another topic. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::Any self-respecting scientist would never use the term theory to mean an unsubstantiated guess. Theories do not have varying levels of substantiation, only the true definition and the misuse by everyone else. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 03:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::: That is just not true. Physicists use the term "String Theory", even tho it is just an unsubstantiated guess. Where is the evidence that scientists use the word "theory" differently from others? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Regarding string theory, it has a large amount of "evidence" backing it up. That doesn't mean it's true, but it's certainly not an unsubstantiated guess. Regarding how scientists use the word differently, ask anybody with any sort of involvement in science, it's considered common knowledge that a scientific theory is different than a "guess". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:51, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: No, there is no evidence for String Theory. The disputed section has no cited source, and is contrary to common knowledge. Are you just giving your opinion, or can you cite a source? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:04, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
It's not a disputed fact that theory in the scientific community is not the same as a hypothesis. Sorry. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:08, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: Correct, that point is not under dispute. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:: No, it is definitely not under dispute. A theory in scientific terms can come close to a fact, just like evolution. Actually, evolution is a fact. Do you claim there is no such thhing as microevolution?

== Theory II ==
Is there a reason for [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory&diff=next&oldid=64081]] this edit? What was objectionable? --[[User:Letusratiocinate|Letusratiocinate]] 04:16, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I apologize for the ad hominem attack, but there is nothing disputed about what is said in those entries. And protecting articles only hurts the site. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: Those entries certainly are disputed. I disputed them on the Talk pages, and here. The disputed material has no cited sources. I only protected the page because of the removal of the "disputed" tag. If you are right and I am wrong, then you should be able to give some evidence on the Talk page or here. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::There is no disputing the difference between common usage of theory and the scientific meaning. Look it up in a dictionary and you'll see theory is defined as both. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:40, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::: The disputed section says that a common speech theory is different from a scientific theory, with the former being an "unsubstantiated guess" and the latter having to be "well-supported and accepted". My dictionaries don't say any of those things, and they don't reflect any popular or scientific usage to my knowledge. I'd be happy to use a dictionary definition, but if you want something else, then you should provide some support for it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:58, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Look at webster's online. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 05:13, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: I looked at Merriam-Webster's, American Heritage, Compact Oxford English, Encarta, and a couple of others. They all disagree with you. You are promoting the oddball definition, so you find support for it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:21, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

A theory, as defined by Merriam-Webster:

1 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
2 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action
3 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave ''theory'' of light>
4 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption :CONJECTURE

As you can see, definition 3 is different than the others. This is because a ''scientific theory'' must follow what is known as the ''scientific method''. The Scientific method is "principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses". Of course, gravity, relativity, the theory of light, etc. are all unproven, but they are all backed up by massive amounts of evidence. A scientific theory is supported by evidence, though in modern usage outside of science, "theory" is synonymous with "guess". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:29, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: Your definition shows that your last sentence is wrong on both counts. A scientific theory does ''not'' have to be supported by evidence. In modern usage outside of science, "theory" is ''not'' synonymous with "guess". I am tempted to add a paragraph explaining this point. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:17, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== [[Theory of Relativity/draft]] ==

Please stop. Special and general relativity are separate theories. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 14:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

: What do you mean by that? They are certainly closely related, conceptually and historically. Putting them in separate sections already implies differences. Saying that they are separate without any explanation of the difference is just stupid and misleading. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:38, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::GR describes gravity, SR describes objects relative to each other. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 07:06, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Yes, but they are not separate. SR is just GR without the gravity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Wrong, dude. Please stop pretending that you and Andy are experts on everything. Andy's obviously not even an expert on theories of constitutional interpretation. Nor are you an expert on physics. Anyways, special relativity deals with time & length dilation and the [[Lorentz Transformation]]. GR is an explanation of gravity and spacetime curvature. Completely different except the name.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:20, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

: No, I am not wrong. I can see from your comments that you know very little about either subject. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::These are difficult subjects, and I myself don't understand either one well. I can do the math of the Lorentz transformation - where fast things get heavy, though.

::We need to make this subject accessible to our readership. If this means a simple (basic?) article which mentions both ideas, that will be a good start. We can use the {{tl|main}} template (or something like it: {spinoff} or {more detail}) to refer the reader to an in-depth treatment.

::Who wants to volunteer for any part of this? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Roger is correct; not only are GR and SR not 'separate,' SR is a limiting case of GR, just as Newtonian mechanics is a limiting case of SR. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:29, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::How's that work? I guess I don't understand it.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:32, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I'll try to put in an explanation if no one else does. Currently, there are two relativity pages, and both need a lot of work. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:15, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::GR generally operates in curved spacetime; in SR spacetime is always flat. But if you plug a flat spacetime into the equations of GR, SR is what falls out. The connection is not only quite deep, but very useful too; in any smooth, curved space, one can always pick a sufficiently small patch such that curvature can be safely neglected. In practical terms, this means that any observer can always choose to work within a region of spacetime small enough to make SR an arbitrarily good approximation. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Yes, that is correct. SR approximates GR in the way that a tangent line approximates a curve. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:10, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: They were developed in very different ways and at very different times '''and''' they are taught in very different ways and at very different times in university. They deserve completely separate articles (I am educated to graduate level on both). [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:04, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I believe the latest version of the draft is mine. I'm knowledgeable of Special Relativity and I was trying to explain it in as basic terms as possible. I don't know much about General Relativity other than what I've picked up from other people. However RSchlafly I hope you realise that gravity is a fairly complex force which adds a lot of extra levels of difficulty onto Special Relativity. If anything they should be given different sections simply because they are so abominably different in scale. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 17:11, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, Special Relativity is simpler. That is why it is called "special". I favor one article titled Relativity that tries to give a concise explanation. There are many textbooks on the subject if the reader really wants the full course. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:41, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Personally, I'd favour Relativity as a very short concise "these are the principles of" style article (a sentence or two on each) with links to separate articles for each of the two theories. Also, because it is specialised, "simpler" is not the word. It is "simpler" because the maths is less hardcore, two very different things. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:54, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

== Copernicus ==

Your biased editing is an insult to the subjects you touch, to the site, and to your brother's ideals. Please defend your edits to the Copernicus article stating that those problems ''still exist in modern astronomy today'' (preposterous!) and your blatant POV articles to the Scalia article. Please use new arguments that I have not already refuted.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:23, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

: No, you have not refuted anything. Your edits are false, malicious, misleading, and disrupted. You do not defend what you do on the Talk pages. Please stop, or I'll have to block you.
: I did not say that those problems "still exist in modern astronomy today". Reread it. I even gave a date for resolving the parallax problem. Your change called Tycho one of "previous astronomers". That is not correct, as Tycho lived after Copernicus.
: Your changes to Scalia's article are also completely unacceptable. No encyclopedia would say that. You are trying to put words in his mouth that he never said. If you have proof that Scalia is against desegregation, then document it. Otherwise, don't say it. The article is about Scalia and what he has said and done, not about your personal speculations about what his opinions might have been in the 1950s.
: You are becoming a nuisance. Use the Talk pages to make your points. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:40, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::I blocked him. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:42, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I don't know AmesG's other work. My objection is to these edits: Scalia [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Antonin_Scalia&diff=69941&oldid=69913] Copernicus [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nicolaus_Copernicus&diff=71299&oldid=71288] Theory [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory&curid=7019&diff=71251&oldid=71242&rcid=73770], and to his subsequent edit wars over those edits. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:12, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What's wrong with the Brahe insert? He did solve many of the problems with Copernicus' theory.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:16, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Tycho Brahe did some important works, as did dozens of later eminent astronomers. I think that AmesG's comments were inappropriate because it is peculiar to single out Tycho in this context, Tycho was not a "previous astronomer", and Tycho did not solve any of the 3 problems that were mentioned in the previous sentence. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:27, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::::*Just a little note here, a quick check of the edit history of the page reveals AmesG's edit '''''did not''''' say that Tycho was a "previous astronomer" but in fact, said the exact opposite! http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nicolaus_Copernicus&oldid=71299 . HTH [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 15:03, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::As to the other two, I think Ames could've left out the Brown v. Board part and left it at that. And most of the "Theory" part is good, except for this: " In fact, it is hard to find anyone who makes this distinction, outside those who are promoting the theory of evolution to the general public." That's a flat-out falsehood. It's also unsubstantiated and opinion, not fact.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:19, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: If the statement is "flat-out falsehood", then it should be easy to prove me wrong. Just give me a couple of URLs of pages that make the distinction. I did discuss the matter on the Talk page. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:36, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Are you serious?? If anything, the burden should be on you to prove your statement. I make that distinction all the time, b/c it'd be less than honest to tell people that the word "theory" can't be used in different ways. And again, you can't cite that claim. It should be removed.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:04, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, I am quite serious. If you have some evidence that I am wrong, please post it on [[Talk:Theory]]. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:11, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

==ACLU and Evolution==
Thanks for the revert; however, what is wrong with reverting back to my edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=prev&oldid=76854]. (sourced ref from Ann Coulter).
I think it is wrong for liberal editors to change sourced conservative views and replace them with their own liberal opinions (in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments). This is Conservapedia, and I don't want this to turn into Wikipedia, where the libs edit out what they don't like. They preach about free speech, including burning the flag, but they won't allow sourced comments from Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 12:37, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

: If some edit of yours got lost, go ahead and put it back in. I was merely trying to revert an edit of AmesG. He removed a perfectly good quote, and inserted a sentence in a half that had 3 factual errors in it. Almost every edit of his is erroneous and destructive. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:22, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== My Reply ==
A few things.
# As requested by Ed Poor, I have posted my reply to your "charges" [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG#Why_do_you_stay.3F here]. I feel that my edits to [[Copernicus]] have been vindicated.
# In re the [[Theory]] article, Shlaf, you've been argued into a corner you can't get out of on the talk page. Please answer the comments there before claiming that you're right.
# In re the [[Antonin Scalia]] article, I never intended to imply that Scalia does not support the ''Brown'' decision. I'm sure he comes up with his own way to back it up. However, the [[Earl Warren]] opinion on ''Brown'' did rest on responsivism, which Scalia disagrees with flat out, as you have proven for me. So he disagrees with the popular reason for ''Brown'', which is '''all that I argued''', regardless of what you inferred. And you haven't disproven that thesis except to say, "Wha?! Who!??! Huh!?"
# Thank you to everyone who defended me. I appreciate it.
# I still think you can't be serious regarding the [[Theory]] article.
# Peace.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:41, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

No, your edits to [[Copernicus]] were entirely wrong. In fact, all of you edits have been 100% bogus. I just had to revert this edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=77179&oldid=77166] to [[ACLU]]. You just changed one line and managed to insert three errors. I believe that you should be blocked for persisting in making such destructive edits. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:53, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

: As discussed on [[talk:ACLU]], yours is a bias-laden statement that makes no pretense at neutrality. Mine is legal fact. Look it up, or read the case, if it's just not too much trouble for ya. I would be thrilled to e-mail you a PDF from Lexis so you can have a go at it. I already have.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:39, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

==Good delete==

Good delete on Flat Earth Society. I believe that both of those organizations, while the URLs exist, are hoaxes and do not belong on this site. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 23:19, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, those sites are hoaxes, and so was the article. I just added an article on [[Flat Earth]]. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:48, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

==Pedophilic priests==

I had previously deleted that, but sysop Ed Poor wanted to try to make it into an article. Do you think it would be maybe appropriate to make a more general article called something such as "Catholic Church abuse scandal"? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:40, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: I was thinking of moving it to a more general Pedophila article, but someone deleted that. Not sure why. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:44, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

That could also be done. At the very least, there should be a section on the specific Catholic aspects within that article, because it was obviously a fairly significant news story. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:47, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==Flat Earth==

So, are you going to explain your block of the Flat Earth page? Given that my arguments are valid and need to be addressed I would have thought that an open, and more thoughtful outcome of the situation could have arisen. Also, given that its either my version or yours, the decision to block should be made by a different sysop (i.e. not one of the involved editors!) as to whether or not the page should be blocked. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 11:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

: So tell me on the Talk page where my version is in error. I posted why your version is wrong. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::Sorry, I had already posted this before I realised you had posted on the talk page! [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 11:49, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I added a lot to [[Flat Earth]] and made some comments at [[talk:Flat Earth]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:04, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Thanks. Conservapedia ought to be one place where evolutionists cannot make fun of Christians as flat earthers. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:14, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Mohammedans? ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Islam&curid=1925&diff=87904&oldid=87876 Mohammedans]? Never heard of it. I guess you learn something new every day... --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:55, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

It's a very old fashioned term, and considered to be offensive. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, it is an old-fashioned term, but it used to be extremely common and it is still in dictionaries. It fell out of favor, but I don't think that it is correct to say that it is offensive. It is no more offensive than "moslem". Some people prefer "muslim" to "moslem", but there is nothing wrong with using "moslem" or "mohammedan". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:03, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Moslem vs. Muslim is a trans-Atlantic distinction. As for "Mohammedan," I studied with one of the nation's best Islamicists when I was at Rice. She specifically told us never to use "Mohammedan," and if you read any formal scholarship (after 1900) on the subject, you'll learn not to do it either. May I suggest Berkey, "the Formation of Islam"? Or, if you still disagree, we might as well revert to the Sayers translation of ''Song of Roland'', and just call Muslims ''Paynims''. It has about the same pejorative meaning.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:24, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Yes, there are those who prefer not to use the term Mohammedan, but their objection is not that it is an ethnic slur or a synonym for paynim. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:57, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Those who "prefer not to use" the term are the Muslims themselves :-/ -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:04, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: And there are terrorists who prefer not to be called terrorists, and Moslems who prefer not to be called Moslems. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:37, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::My understanding is that the reason why it is not used is because it falsely implies that Muslims worship Mohammed. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:38, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Reasons like that are sometimes given, but they don't make much sense. Note that your reason is different from AmesG's reason. I don't think that there is any good reason. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:13, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I suppose the #1 determinant for whether the term goes in should be whether it is, in fact, commonly used or not. I can't speak for others, but I don't hear it used. Maybe in other parts of the country the term is more common, I don't know. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:31, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: It used to be more common. You'll find it a lot if you read old books. I would not be suggesting it if I thought that it was an ethnic slur. It is not. It literally means just a follower of Mohammad. Nothing wrong with the term. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:44, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I think the one place I've seen it is in an old book in my church library, so that makes sense. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:51, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

I think it's bad because it is an ethnic slur, and insulting for the reason that MountainDew stated - it implies that Muslims worship Mohammed, which is insulting in the same way that saying that Jews worship Moses would be insulting. If you can find it in old books, guys, but not in any other books, it probably means that the term is outdated, as I've argued. I'm sure you'll find "colored" in old books describing African Americans, but I'd advise against using it in an article...-10:36, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

It is VERY offensive for muslims to be referred to as Mohammadeans, for the above reasons. They are a very adamantly monotheistic faith, and any implication that they worship a human being is considered blasphemy (and you know how they feel about that). It's like calling Christians John-ians or Luke-ians. Leave it out already. Why would you want to be so offensive. [[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 10:57, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

: I don't think that Mohammedan is an ethnic slur any more than "Abrahamic religion" is an ethnic slur on Jews. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:19, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::You don't think a lot of the time. Apology accepted.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:29, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::: AmesG, I was not apologizing to you.
::: PalMD, calling Christians John-ians or Luke-ians is not particularly offensive. Of course, there are people who are offended by innocuous statements. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:04, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Since you weren't apologizing to me before, I'll accept it now.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 18:08, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

: For what? Are you a Mohammedan who doesn't like to be called a Mohammedan? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:57, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

==Abortion poll==

Dear Ms Schlafly - I did quote the abortion poll correctly, and when you quoted it selectively I expanded your quotation to give details. Please check the link. My subsequent editing of your misleading statement has been reverted. I suggest altering it to the unarguable one that 62% of Americans do not want Roe v Wade to be returned. Unless I hear your reasons why you believe this to be less than factual, I will edit it to that version shortly. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 16:48, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

: Your statement did not match the most recent poll on the cited page with the poll results. Yes, your statement is less than factual. Give support on the Talk page, if you wish. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:12, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::The page I linked to had a whole series of polls. The two most recent polls said that 16% of the American public favored retaining unlimited rights to abortion, and 39% favored abortion being 'legal in most cases'. Of the remainder, 31% favored it being illegal in 'most' cases and 12% illegal in all cases. In other words, 55% favor it being legal in all or most cases and 43% favor it being illegal in all or most cases, with 2% unsure either way. The other poll referred to the retention of the rights granted under Roe v Wade and 62% favored this. This should be reflected in the article because as it stands the article misrepresents the facts. Please tell me why you think we should misrepresent facts clearly laid out in a neutral opinion poll. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 17:37, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::: No, I posted actual facts. I am against misrepresenting facts. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Here is something I put on my userpage. Please spread the word among your friends ==

'''ARTICLES I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WRITTEN AT CONSERVAPEDIA:'''

'''ABORTION RELATED ARTICLES:'''

*[[Abortion alternatives]]
*[[Abortion procedures]]
*[[Culture of life]]
*[[Dilatation and curettage abortion]]
*[[Dilatation and Evacuation abortion]]
*[[National Right to Life Committee]]
*[[Prostaglandin Abortion]]
*[[Partial birth abortion]]
*[[Right to life]]
*[[Right to life books]]
*[[Right to life movement]]
*[[Right to life leaders]]
*[[Saline abortion]]
*[[Suction abortion]]
*[[Sanctity of life]]
*[[Silent scream]]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:07, 9 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

==Sysop Pledge==

As my good deed of the day I am requesting that you place this template on your userpage. Participating sysops will earn my respect and gratitude. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 00:05, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

{{Sysop Pledge}}

==Adultery==
Could we divide the topic of adultery into, for example, the [[Sin of adultery]] and "[[Adultery]]"? I'm not sure what the two types of infraction should be called, but it might make it easier on readers if we did a sort of division. What do you think would be best? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:11, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

: What's the difference between the Sin of adultery and Adultery? What's the latter, the crime? I don't really agree with the recent edits on that page, and I guess I'll say so there. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:31, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== Homosexuality article ==

Hi Roger. Could you please alter the first sentences of [[Homosexuality]] in accordance with [[talk:homosexuality#attraction or activity]] or comment there? I see you altered the Biblical Prohibition section. Thanks. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 10:15, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

==Capital punishment==

What was dubious about explaining the context of Leviticus and Deuteronomy as a covenant between the Israelis and God?

By the way, I wasn't the one who put the stupid comment about the Ten Commandments in there. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 13:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== please vote for me ==

Please vote for me here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Request_for_Bureaucratship [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:50, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== Why do you hate gay people so much? ==
Just curious. I'd love to know the reasons behind your "principled" disagreement.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 10:52, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

: My disagreement is with your edits, as they are frequently erroneous and destructive. It has nothing to do with you being gay or not gay. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:59, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

I never said I was gay or not (!?), but as someone who believes in equality & egalitarianism, I think it offends all of humanity, the level of distaste that your edits level against homosexuals.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:31, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

: I never said that I hate gay people. Your bigotry is noted. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:02, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::Hmm, bigotry is not accepting bigotry now? (butting in where I'm not wanted) [[User:Human|Human]] 21:32, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Apparently AmesG and you want to use this page for ad hominem attacks on me. You will note that AmesG does not mention any specific edits to support his attacks. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

i know i have no part in this, but doesnt it seem like "mr. equality and egalitarianism and tolerance" AmesG is showing an utter lack of tolerance?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:No, AmesG asked Roger a question and he schlaflied it by avoiding the question and making a random assessment of the user. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:51, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I liked this edit. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homophobia&diff=next&oldid=140220] It's exactly what I was trying to say, but couldn't put into words. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:29, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== Question about your beliefs ==

Have you heard how they genetically alter fruit to make new fruits? I strongly disagree with this practice because it messes with the Earth the way it was created. Next it will be human cloning. This is just a stepping stone. Whats your opinion? (By the way I love your user page! It is so exciting. Mine is boring.) Thanks your friend--[[User:BushRules12|BushRules12]] 23:40, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

: I think that the genetic modifications have been for the better, so far. Human cloning is another story. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:25, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== f****t==

Please do not ever use the above-referenced word in an encyclopedia article. It is an offensive and ignorant slur, and does not reflect well upon the user. Thank you. --[[User:JeffersonDarcy|JeffersonDarcy]] 14:47, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: Why do you say that it is "ignorant"? Is it more offensive than "homophobic"? Why? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:39, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

It is more offensive than "homophobic." The parallel is, "n****r" : "racist" :: "f****t" : "homophobe".-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:32, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: So you say, but that is not my experience. Do you have any evidence to back up what you say? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:56, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Call a gay man a "f****t" and see the effect. Ask a homosexual how they feel about that word. If you have any emotions at all, you can see why it's more offensive.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:I hear black men say "nigger" frequently. I have heard homosexual man say "faggot" frequently. Both are obviously "in words". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:02, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Okay, let's clarify the difference. I'm not saying it's okay to say it under any circumstances. But the generally accepted cultural convention is that someone "in" the group may use a derogatory slur, just like you can say, "yeah, I sucked on that exam," but your friend saying, "DUDE, you sucked on that exam," is not okay. That doesn't make EITHER words that are okay when used by someone outside the group, and esp. not to convey malice.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:03, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::shouldnt the "homophobes" only be able to call themselves homophobes?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
NO. There is a difference. But tell you what if you don't see it, and if you don't want to be called a "homophobe," fine. I won't call you that, and I'll not use the word, if you won't use the words discussed above. This is only because I can't seem to make the difference clear to you, although it would be clear to anyone who actually is gay.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:06, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: Yeah, I see the difference. You just happen to like some name-calling better than other name-calling, based on your own personal prejudices. That's all. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:46, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

==Revert==
Hey can you revert my user talk page? --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 14:34, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== [[Geocentric theory]] ==

Roger: Strange as it might seem, I have personally run into people who cite the [[Bible]] in support of the [[geocentric theory]] of the [[solar system]]. I'm not saying that I buy those interpretations. I am saying that there's more to that proposition than someone (like user [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]]) trying to be a "wiseguy." I would say to [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] that she ought to cite her sources for any claims of "evidence advanced to support geocentrism." Then we can cite contrary evidence. But as I say--I don't think those edits really constituted subtle vandalism. I believe that the editor submitted them in good faith, and all that they need are appropriate citations.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:13, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

: I don't know whether she believes that stuff or not, but even if she believes it, that is not reason enough to put it in an encyclopedia. A lot of people believe a lot of kooky things, and we can't list them all. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:25, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::I don't see why you are so opposed to the page stating that some people believe the geocentric theory. Clearly some people do believe it. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 12:30, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::: No, it is not clear. Who? Where? How do you know that the web page is not a joke? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:36, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::::It looks real, as does [http://www.galileowaswrong.com/ This one] --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 12:41, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: I am not going to pay the $27 to try to find out. What if someone else says the Moon is made of green cheese and cites a web site? It is not much evidence that there is any significant belief in a green cheese theory. Maybe it could be mentioned in an article on Internet scams or something like that. I did look at the work that Mmeelliissssaa referred me too, and it is not a serious piece of work. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:49, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::Exactly what i try to tell to creationists time to time, if 99% of biologists think creationism has no merits and is just view held by few people because of their religious beliefs, why waste time and space on encyclopedia for that. But still, most encyclopedias like Wikipedia are willing to add articles that admit that some people still believe earth to be 6000 years old. But i see Conservapedia is taking a stricter attitude here. I'm all in favour of it. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 12:57, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: What is the idea in adding joke pages (for example fixedearth) as references - I don't understand it if this site is trying to be encyclopedic one and not a joke collection!? They are parodies written about Christians. Irony and taunt. And even better joke if someone takes it as earnestly written. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 13:42, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well to be fair, I thought [[YEC]] was a parody of Christian beliefs until I did some research on it. Geocentrism doesn't sound that much more implausible to me. --[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 14:25, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

==Vandalism to Geocentric Theory==
You managed to cut out all of my well-researched and highly-relevant material from the article without any comment whatsoever. I consider this to be vandalism. If this behaviour continues I shall report this to a SySop. [[User:OfficerDibble]].

==Reversions==
WILL YOU DISCUSS THIS INSTEAD OF JUST UNDOING????

Peace Pact. If you want to make reversions, propose them on the Talk page. I know I have one other person who is editing who will support my point of view.

==Wiki-Conservapedia?==

Can I point out that the reason the Conservapedia was set up in the first place was that some conservative views were being sidelined by an obviously liberal organ because those views did not concur whith the majority. Your revert of the [[Geocentric Theory]] page then protection of it clearly demonstrates that the are some conservative elements who are quilty of the same crime that Wikipedia is accused of. [[User:OfficerDibble]]

I have made my points, and have to log off now. I shall attempt to reformulate these ideas in a different form. The points i am tying to make in the GeoCentric Article are twofold:
# The view of whether the earth, the sun, the moon, Ceres or for that matter any other body is a starionary object at the centre of the universe is a matter of scientific convention. The Laws of Gravity and relativity can, in principle be reformulated to ake this happen. Thsi is a sceintific FACT, not a speculation. The fact that we don't do this is a matter of convention and parsimony, due to Occam's Razor, combined with the fact that the exlanatory schema imposed by Heliocentrism has a certain elegance. i.e. it makes the math easier. David Deutsch's book confirms this position. It is a PHiliosophiucal View, therefore and not a scientific one.
#There are groups of people who hold that the Bible says that GeoCentricisnm is correct, and is supported by biblical text. An article on Geocentricism should include material about these people, their beliefs and how these are squared with current scientific evidnce.

Ypu are just removing this without discussion, and my point is that this is no way to behave. [[User:OfficerDibble]]

: You are barking up the wrong tree. The article already makes these points. I have protected the article so that any changes can be discussed on the Talk page, and to allow you to calm down. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:46, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Homophobia ==
I'd like to see a comprehensive list of specific reasons why you reverted on the talk page ASAP. --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 19:56, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

: I already did, before you posted your request. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:47, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

==[[Conservapedia:AFD Homophobia]]==
Need some support, please. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:59, 9 May 2007 (EDT)