Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Donut

2011-08-02T00:37:34Z

JarradD: Removing apparent relic of the Donut Wars

[[Image:Mmmsprinkles.jpg|right|250px|thumb|A [[toroid]]al donut, with a [[chocolate]] frosting.]]
'''Donuts''' (or doughnuts) are [[pastry|pastries]] (usually fried), sometimes coated with sugar, glaze, or frosting. Their shape is either tire shaped, rounded (a 'filled doughnut') or elongated (a cruller). Today they typically have a hole in the center of them, which ensures even cooking, however originally, donuts did not have holes.<ref>http://www.takeourword.com/TOW158/page2.html</ref>

==Raised donuts==
A raised donut is one made from a yeast dough. Once the dough is rolled and cut , the donuts are placed in a proofer, which helps the yeast dough rise in a high humidity and temperature of around 110 degrees farenheight. Once the dough has risen, the donuts must be fried fairly quickly. The hole in the center of the donut allows for more even cooking when fried. Raised donuts can be baked but it takes much longer.

==Cake donuts==
A cake donut is made from a batter, and dropped into the hot fryer from a dispenser which has a shaped form to make the required shape. The shape of the nozzle determines if the donut is a donut ball, ring donut, french donut or crueller. The dough can also be used from a pastry bag or even a small pitcher for making sticks or cakes.

Cake donuts are sugared when warm , or frosted after they have cooled slightly. The slight amount of hot oil on the surface helps the sugar stick.

==Frying==
Donuts are fried at a temperature of around 325 F and it typically takes less than a minute per side. The dough or batter will absorb very little oil during the frying process. Too low a temperature and the dough doesn't seal and the donut will absorb oil like a sponge.

Frying of raised donuts is done on a mesh screen which is placed into the fryer and used to remove them when done. The donuts are turned manually with a small wooden stick, somewhat like a drumstick.

Fully automatic lines are available for frying very large uantities of donuts. There is also a small machine for making cake donuts , often seen at county fairs.

==Types==
Donuts are grouped into four different categories, depending on their composition and the manner in which they are cooked. These are a few examples of how donuts are properly categorized.<ref>http://www.timhortons.com/en/menu/menu_info.html</ref> Tim-Bits, or donut holes, are categorized in much the same way as the standard donut. Donuts can be unadorned, or coated with unbelievably delicious and delectable [[chocolate]] frosting. Other frosting choices include [[maple]], powdered [[sugar]], and [[sprinkles]].
;'''Yeast Donuts'''
:ring donut
:bismark (the classic filled donut)
:longjohn (can be filled or simply frosted)
:Apple Fritter (A Tim Horton's Original)
:Dutchie
:Chocolate Dip
:Honey Dip
:French Cruller (Though the rising agent is egg.)
;'''Cake Donuts'''
:Old Fashion
:Chocolate
:[[Sour Cream Doughnut|Sour Cream]]
;'''Filled Donuts'''
:[[Berliner Pfannkuchen]]
:Blueberry
:Strawberry
:Boston Creme
:Canadian Maple
;'''Other'''
:Honey Cruller
:Walnut Crunch

==See also==
*[[Bagel]]s
*[[Pastry]]

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Baked Goods]]

Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?

2011-08-02T00:28:26Z

JarradD: Restore page after removal of material by John01

<center>'''Uhhh, this really isn't a debate. It's a poll. In response to [[User:Conservative]] pressuring the site owner to abandon established site policies and invoke [[mob rule]], please indicate your votes below.'''</center><center>''Note:User participation here will be exempt from the 90/10 rule, however there's no guarantee you may not suffer a reprisal block for participating. I will however do whatever I can to help if that were to happen.''</center>
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

(To make the vote count accurate, I'm adding some votes that have been cast [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly&action=historysubmit&diff=895426&oldid=895420 elsewhere]. I invite anyone I've listed to add a comment by their name. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:11, 31 July 2011 (EDT))

(I have removed those votes. If people want to add their names then they can do so themselves. It is highly presumptuous for you to add someone else's name to this list. They may not wish to take part in this vote at all. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 17:19, 31 July 2011 (EDT))

(Note also: Only actual signed votes by actual registered users carry any weight. Statements that some unidentified person has privately supported one's position by email carry no weight. Note also that sockpuppets are strictly forbidden at Conservapedia, and that "checkuser" is used to discover violations. --[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 15:18, 31 July 2011 (EDT))

==Yea==

# Yes, this page is not being honest. I am not against refinement of Conservapedia's rules and suggested a [[User:Conservative/blocking-board-framework|blocking review board framework]]. This is about RobS: being disloyal to his fellow Conservapedians, not wanting to apply rules to himself, playing pointless power games, whitewashing Ashlafly's talk page and often behaving unreasonably. The dishonesty of this web page has probably caused Karajou and TerryH not to vote. Plus, Karajou believes sockpuppets are being used to vote and this page is a sham. Furthermore, I did find it telling that RobS watched my vote and Karajou's vote being removed and did not bother to ask TerryH if he thought he should lose his Admin rights since I maintain this is TerryH's position. Given the dishonesty of this web page, I would not be surprised if others did not vote either and are not going to bother with this web page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:25, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
#:'''Comment''' When did you vote and who altered your edit? Show diffs, please, before throwing around reckless, wild accusations. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:28, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
#::'''Comment''' Does Karajou have any proof to show that people are just socking up? Let him run checkuser and weed them out. [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 19:00, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
#::*Karajou can speak for himself. This is just more [[hearsay]] and [[innuendo]]. We're still waiting for User:Conservative to back up his claim 5 sysops support his scheme. Where are they? I count one. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:08, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
#Yea. User:RobSmith's plans will not be good for this website. [[User:Bclough|Bclough]] 16:10, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Yea. I never had a problem with RobS until he went after [[User:Conservative]]. [[User:Conservative]] is the lifeblood of this site. Without him, CP dies. [[Essay: User:Conservative, what is best in life?|What is best in life?]] Getting rid of RobS. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 16:30, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Conservative made good points about RobS's affiliations with an Atheist site. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 01:21, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

==Nay==

#I vote '''nay'''. RobS is trying to bring accountability to the site. There is something admirable in that, and it's a move in the right direction. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 14:56, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#RobS should keep his rights. If anything, Conservative should lose his. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 15:00, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. I can't see a reason why RobS should lose his rights, especially when there are others who seem to actively be harming the site through their actions.--[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 15:03, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Obvious '''nay''' for obvious reasons. We need to put an end to arbitrary block times and the constant history deletion of pages (such as the ''Community Portal'') at the very least. As long as the sysops have the right to do whatever they please (while subjecting regular users to rules that are much stricter than for example Wikipedia's policies), the community won't grow and will forever be a paradise for parodists. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:04, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#I vote no. I haven't been around in quite some time, but I used to be a fairly active user (with block rights etc) and left in part because of some of the same issues RobS has addressed. I too believe these "reforms" are necessary for the site to move forward, and may return to active participation if something along these lines is enacted. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:08, 31 July 2011 (EDT) (editing while traveling, please don't ban me for the IP change!) (PS: can some sysop fix the spelling of this page?)
#Obvious '''nay''', for all the reasons that have been discussed, by many people, here and elsewhere. --[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 15:18, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. I'm not well versed in this discussion nor this site, but even after wading through the community portal, it's not clearly expressed what RobS has done incorrectly that violates the policy of the site. If anything, this seems more a grudge match, something in between a tit-for-tat and a vendetta. Is Conservapedia really at a point at which ideas for the site can't be discussed? [[User:IanR|IanR]] 15:22, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#As strong of a '''nay''' as one could possibly nay [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 15:22, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay, in the strongest possible terms. If those in power are held to the rules that others must follow then a just society will always emerge. If, however, those in authority are allowed to run rampage unchecked, then [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=327929 this] is the inevitable result. Chaos, corruption and an organisation that can no longer function.--[[User:IeuanApGriffith|IeuanApGriffith]] 15:34, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. The only thing that will save this wiki as a conservative sight on the internet is Robs's proposals. Lose them and this wiki will go the way TK wanted. Rein in conservative and karajou and this project may JUST be saved. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 15:37, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#RobS is a reasonable fellow and is only trying to improve the wiki. He is the only sysop campaigning in the face of User:conservative's abusive habits of shutting down discussion by
#*locking talk pages (including his own)
#*deleting and using oversight on talk pages to remove criticism of him
#*blocking people that disagree with him
#:As a result of this, User:conservative has become quite upset at being called out and instead of changing his ways is lashing out at RobS- which normally works fine except that RobS is also a sysop and thus can unblock himself and restore commentary. Worst of all RobS is capable of committing the horrific crime of posting on User:conservative's talk page.
#:It is in Conservapedia's best interests to let Rob keep his rights and march by his side as he strives to improve the community and its interactions.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 15:59, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. RobS is working to improve the site (while keeping its conservative POV), Conservative to protect his petty fiefdom. [[User:GuidoF|Guy]][[User_talk:GuidoF|message me]] 16:09, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. This has gone too far. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 16:59, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. If Rob were to lose his rights it would be a victory for the parodists and the bullies. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 17:14, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#There needs to be some sysop accountability. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:25, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Definitely not. RobS: Reasonable sysop who is trying to bring some accountability and respect. Conserative: An internet bully, who populates the site with substandard quote mined insults written in crude inelegant language. --[[User:Orsay|Orsay]] 17:54, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. I know I said I wouldn't edit this site again following its exploitation of recent events, but for this purpose I will briefly renege on that. RobSmith is the only sysop who is making a concerted effort to improve this site by implementing a set of coherent policies. His opponents are those who have most frequently abused their rights as sysops. Most notable among these is User: Conservative, whose numerous talk page comments and 'essays' are, if not parody, then a genuine cause for concern, and I would in all seriousness advise his fellow sysops to discretely speak with this user regarding this matter. The other vocal opponent of RobSmith is FergusE, who is very clearly a parodist here only to stir things up. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 18:41, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#I think it is wrong for one sysop to openly campaign against another, especially when it is based on the other only wanting to help the site. As conservatives we should expect accountability and transparency from those who run the site in the same way that we expect it of our government. The wielding of anonymous and unaccountable power is what one expects from Marxists. [[User:KarenWu|KarenWu]] 19:40, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. As far as I can see, Rob hasn't done anything to merit losing his Sysop rights. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:53, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. This site needs more like Rob. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 20:12, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. RobS is one of the few people on here in power who is consistently calling for sysop accountability, something that is vital to a collaborative project like this. While I certainly do not support everything he does on here, not including this current issue, it is night and day compared to the nothingness that Conservative and his "articles" bring to this encyclopedia. This is a case of sour grapes from Conservative since he is the main culprit of sysop abuse currently. [[User:Ameda|ameda]] 21:58, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#No. He is a diligent and attentive administrator, as far as I am aware.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:13, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
#No. RobS seems to be primarily promoting discussion about the Rules and Guidelines of this site and the accountability of administrators to those guidelines. [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 09:08, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
#No. This started out as a simple request from one admin to another for the latter to be more accommodating in the spirit of a wiki. user:Conservative has acted in a manner unbecoming of a sysop, dragging the debate across several pages, including - ironically - Mr. Schlafly's, whilst insisting that people cannot post on his talk page. If anybody deserves censure out of this, it is user:Conservative - he blows a simple request totally out of proportion, divides the sysop body and suddenly runs away - again! - claiming he is "very busy." Somebody this irresponsible should not be in a position of authority. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:12, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
#No. {{personal remark removed}} User:RobS is correct in attempting to discipline him. {{unsigned|JanW}}

User talk:John01

2011-08-02T00:25:22Z

JarradD: Created page with " == Your edit to the RobS debate page == What was that about? --~~~~"

== Your edit to the RobS debate page ==
What was that about? --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 20:25, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Istanbul

2011-08-02T00:23:29Z

JarradD: /* Constantinople merge */

This is a bit of a work in progress so bear with me.

I am planning on adding a bit about the Seat of The Eastern Orthodox Church as well as a bit of information on Istanbul during the Ottoman Era, maybe a bit about the Fourth Crusade and Latin Kingdom. Also of course some info on Modern Istanbul, the Bospherous Straight and Hagia Sofia I am open to any suggestions on improving this page and if anyone knows how to do a fancy city box or something please do.
--[[User:Rlpond|Rlpond]] 21:45, 9 June 2011 (EDT)

== Constantinople merge ==

Shouldn't we combine this article with the [[Constantinople]] article? --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 20:13, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
:Upon reflection, perhaps I should have put the notice on the [[Constantinople]] article so that we retain the article in the current city name. IN any case are there any dissenters? --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 20:23, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

Istanbul

2011-08-02T00:21:44Z

JarradD:

<div style="border: 1px solid #c0b8cc; background-color: #f0e5ff; width: 80%; margin: 0 auto 1em auto; padding: .2em; text-align:center">It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with ''[[Constantinople|Constantinople]]''. ([[{{{2|:{{NAMESPACE}} talk:{{PAGENAMEE}}}}}|Discuss]])</div>

[[File:Saint Sophia Turkey.jpg|thumb|Hagia Sophia.]]

'''Istanbul''' is the largest city in [[Turkey]] and amongst the largest of cities in the world, with a population nearing 13 million. For the most part, Istanbul is located in the European part of Turkey, Thrace, but extends into parts of Asia-Minor. While [[Ankara]] is the formal capital of Turkey, Istanbul is largely considered the cultural and financial capital of the nation. Since the Fourth century, Istanbul has been a major city, known by names such as Byzantium and Constantinople.

==Byzantine Era==
As Constantinople the city served as capital of the [[Roman Empire]] after Constantine I and later capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, later called the [[Byzantine Empire]]. Located on the site of the city of [[Byzantium]], under [[Constantine]] a massive city was planned and built named Nova Roma (New Rome) it was later officially named Constantinople by Emperor [[Theodosius II]] ( a name derived from of "Constantinopolis" Greek for Constantine's City) in A.D. 330, the name Constantinople was. It was designed to be the Rome of the East, and served that purpose for nearly 1000 years after the fall of Rome to Odoacer.

==Ottoman Era==
In 1453 It was conquered by the [[Ottoman Empire|Ottoman]] Sultan [[Mehmed II]]. It served as the capital of the [[Ottoman Empire]] until the Empire was destroyed by the [[World War I|First World War]].

[[Category:Turkey]]
[[Category:Asian Cities and Towns]]
[[category:Merge candidates]]

Istanbul

2011-08-02T00:20:59Z

JarradD:

<div style="border: 1px solid #c0b8cc; background-color: #f0e5ff; width: 80%; margin: 0 auto 1em auto; padding: .2em; text-align:center">It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with ''[[Constantinople|Constantinople]]''. ([[{{{2|:{{NAMESPACE}} talk:{{PAGENAMEE}}}}}|Discuss]])</div><includeonly>[[category:Merge candidates]]</includeonly><noinclude>

[[File:Saint Sophia Turkey.jpg|thumb|Hagia Sophia.]]

'''Istanbul''' is the largest city in [[Turkey]] and amongst the largest of cities in the world, with a population nearing 13 million. For the most part, Istanbul is located in the European part of Turkey, Thrace, but extends into parts of Asia-Minor. While [[Ankara]] is the formal capital of Turkey, Istanbul is largely considered the cultural and financial capital of the nation. Since the Fourth century, Istanbul has been a major city, known by names such as Byzantium and Constantinople.

==Byzantine Era==
As Constantinople the city served as capital of the [[Roman Empire]] after Constantine I and later capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, later called the [[Byzantine Empire]]. Located on the site of the city of [[Byzantium]], under [[Constantine]] a massive city was planned and built named Nova Roma (New Rome) it was later officially named Constantinople by Emperor [[Theodosius II]] ( a name derived from of "Constantinopolis" Greek for Constantine's City) in A.D. 330, the name Constantinople was. It was designed to be the Rome of the East, and served that purpose for nearly 1000 years after the fall of Rome to Odoacer.

==Ottoman Era==
In 1453 It was conquered by the [[Ottoman Empire|Ottoman]] Sultan [[Mehmed II]]. It served as the capital of the [[Ottoman Empire]] until the Empire was destroyed by the [[World War I|First World War]].

[[Category:Turkey]]
[[Category:Asian Cities and Towns]]

Istanbul

2011-08-02T00:17:46Z

JarradD: Undo revision 896045 by JarradD (talk) Oops. Still learning to use the template.

[[File:Saint Sophia Turkey.jpg|thumb|Hagia Sophia.]]

'''Istanbul''' is the largest city in [[Turkey]] and amongst the largest of cities in the world, with a population nearing 13 million. For the most part, Istanbul is located in the European part of Turkey, Thrace, but extends into parts of Asia-Minor. While [[Ankara]] is the formal capital of Turkey, Istanbul is largely considered the cultural and financial capital of the nation. Since the Fourth century, Istanbul has been a major city, known by names such as Byzantium and Constantinople.

==Byzantine Era==
As Constantinople the city served as capital of the [[Roman Empire]] after Constantine I and later capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, later called the [[Byzantine Empire]]. Located on the site of the city of [[Byzantium]], under [[Constantine]] a massive city was planned and built named Nova Roma (New Rome) it was later officially named Constantinople by Emperor [[Theodosius II]] ( a name derived from of "Constantinopolis" Greek for Constantine's City) in A.D. 330, the name Constantinople was. It was designed to be the Rome of the East, and served that purpose for nearly 1000 years after the fall of Rome to Odoacer.

==Ottoman Era==
In 1453 It was conquered by the [[Ottoman Empire|Ottoman]] Sultan [[Mehmed II]]. It served as the capital of the [[Ottoman Empire]] until the Empire was destroyed by the [[World War I|First World War]].

[[Category:Turkey]]
[[Category:Asian Cities and Towns]]

Istanbul

2011-08-02T00:17:15Z

JarradD:

<div style="border: 1px solid #c0b8cc; background-color: #f0e5ff; width: 80%; margin: 0 auto 1em auto; padding: .2em; text-align:center">It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with ''[[:{{Constantinople}}:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]''. ([[{{{2|:{{NAMESPACE}} talk:{{PAGENAMEE}}}}}|Discuss]])</div><includeonly>[[category:Merge candidates]]</includeonly><noinclude>

[[File:Saint Sophia Turkey.jpg|thumb|Hagia Sophia.]]

'''Istanbul''' is the largest city in [[Turkey]] and amongst the largest of cities in the world, with a population nearing 13 million. For the most part, Istanbul is located in the European part of Turkey, Thrace, but extends into parts of Asia-Minor. While [[Ankara]] is the formal capital of Turkey, Istanbul is largely considered the cultural and financial capital of the nation. Since the Fourth century, Istanbul has been a major city, known by names such as Byzantium and Constantinople.

==Byzantine Era==
As Constantinople the city served as capital of the [[Roman Empire]] after Constantine I and later capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, later called the [[Byzantine Empire]]. Located on the site of the city of [[Byzantium]], under [[Constantine]] a massive city was planned and built named Nova Roma (New Rome) it was later officially named Constantinople by Emperor [[Theodosius II]] ( a name derived from of "Constantinopolis" Greek for Constantine's City) in A.D. 330, the name Constantinople was. It was designed to be the Rome of the East, and served that purpose for nearly 1000 years after the fall of Rome to Odoacer.

==Ottoman Era==
In 1453 It was conquered by the [[Ottoman Empire|Ottoman]] Sultan [[Mehmed II]]. It served as the capital of the [[Ottoman Empire]] until the Empire was destroyed by the [[World War I|First World War]].

[[Category:Turkey]]
[[Category:Asian Cities and Towns]]

Talk:Istanbul

2011-08-02T00:13:04Z

JarradD: /* Constantinople merge */ new section

Minotaur

2011-08-01T23:33:10Z

JarradD:

The '''Minotaur''' was a creature in Greek mythology. Half-man and half-bull, it was the offspring of Pasipha, the wife of King [[Minos]] of [[Crete]], and a bull<ref>http://www.pantheon.org/articles/m/minotaur.html</ref>. [[Poseidon]] had given a bull to Minos to sacrifice to the god, but it was so beautiful, the the king could not sacrifice it and kept it instead. As punishment, Poseidon made the queen, Pasipha, fall in love with the bull and their offspring was the minotaur.
At first the minotaur wreaked havoc throughout Crete, but eventually Minos caught it and imprisoned in the labyrinth, a maze designed by the architect Daedalus that was so complex that no one could escape from it. For food, the minotaur was given fourteen Athenians every year who were put in the maze and hunted by the minotaur. After a time, however, the Athenian hero [[Theseus]] came to Crete to be fed to the Minotaur. Instead he was helped by Minos's daughter, [[Ariadne]], who supplied him with a ball of thread which he used to find his way out of the labyrinth, having killed the Minotaur with his bare hands.

==Notes==
{{Reflist}}
[[category:Greek Mythology]]

Dugout

2011-08-01T22:11:48Z

JarradD:

[[Image:Baseball Ball a.jpg|right|120px]]
'''Dugout''': The seating area for team members of a baseball team not currently on the playing field.

The term can also refer to a boat made by hollowing out a large log, or to a shelter dug in a hillside.

== References ==
*[http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/baseball/beginners/glossary.html Baseball Glossary] WETA.
*[http://www.nocryinginbaseball.com/glossary/glossary.html Baseball Glossary OF TERMS]
*[http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/pitch_glossary.shtml Pitching Glossary]
*[http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/bat_glossary.shtml Batting Glossary]
*[http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/index.jsp Hall of Fame] National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, Inc.
== See also ==
*[[Baseball]]
*[[Major League Baseball]]

== External links ==
*[http://mlb.mlb.com/index.jsp The Official Site of Major League Baseball]
*[http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/index.jsp Minor League Baseball]
*[http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/features/alumni/article.jsp?article=history BASEBALL HISTORY] Major League Baseball Players Alumni Association.
*[http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/features/alumni/stats.jsp Stats]
{{baseball}}

Talk:Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?

2011-08-01T21:36:08Z

JarradD: /* Jcw edits */ new section

== Rename headlines ==

I'm almost tempted to rename "Yea" and "Nay" to "I want to be promoted!" and "I want to be banned soon!" respectively. Some truth in advertising would be refreshing ;) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:06, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

== Time Limit ==

Should there be some sort of time limitation on how long this vote lasts? [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 15:09, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:Given how this vote is more about making a point than actually deciding Rob's fate, does it matter? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:11, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::I suppose not. I feel like we're all part of the Charge of the Light Brigade...[[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 15:12, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

== spelling ==

The spelling "loose" for "lose" is one of my pet peeves. Sorry, Rob, but you spelled it wrong. Please fix. Rob should not lose his sysop rights, and Conservative should not be allowed to loose his inane ramblings over this website. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 15:09, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:If you feel that way SamHB then add your vote to the main page. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 15:11, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

== Yea votes ==

I don't think we can trust User:Conservative's assertion that there are five sysops against RobS. If these sysops want to cast a vote they cannot cast a vote through Conservative acting as a proxy. They should have to come to the page and vote themselves. Only seems fair. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 15:17, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:This is true; also, there are site policies regarding the use of [[gossip]], bullying, and innuendo. It should be noted User:RobSmith edits under his real life identity. Some untempered, inflamitory comments made by unrestrained sysops, such as User:Conservative, about real life persons have the potential to be problematic. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:50, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

== Comment ==
[[User:Conservative]] brings a great deal of traffic and quality publicity to this site. In my opinion, that is too important to risk over a silly squabble. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 20:15, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:Running naked onto a baseball field brings a lot of attention, too. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 20:19, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
===A slightly more pressing comment===
So.. a bunch of you think that the power structure here is broken and corrupt... and even a few think andy is working against you all... So what do you expect to get done here? Somehow convince Synops that you say abuse power to not do so anymore cause a bunch of people made a vote? I'm just curious, because you know, from your own point of view your wasting time. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 20:28, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:We're just trying to make a point before User:Conservative inevitably wins. This is a Charge of the Light Brigade..."Into the valley of ban rode the 600..." [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 20:40, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::The nay voters are just making it easy for the sysops to know who to block when the dust settles. We don't need disloyal users here. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 20:49, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::We also don't need socks, of which many users (including myself) suspect you are. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 20:51, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Have you seen my [[Talk:Main Page#Conservapedia Android App|Android app?]] or my [[Portal:Essays|essay portal]]? Why would a sock puppet make contributions like that? Maybe you're a sock. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 20:54, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Simple reasoning here, FergusE...if I were a sock '''I would be agreeing with the current direction of the site, not disagreeing with it.''' There is no benefit to dissenting at Conservapedia. Most socks follow your path, where they constantly parrot what the other sysops are saying to create an illusion of more support for that sysop's preferred positions than actually exists. As for the app and the portal, if someone went through the effort to create socks (like many sysops here) and log in and out of the site to respond on numerous issues than I don;t find it unreasonable that they'd have their sock take credit for other work on the site. If that sock got promoted, then the person behind it would effectively have 2 votes in site matters, and more power. Pretty simple really. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 21:00, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Check the description on the App's page again. And check the edit history of the portal. It's me. This is a typical tactic: discredit my position by discrediting me. Did you ever stop to think that maybe I really do support [[User:Conservative]]? --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 21:08, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::It's rather easy to use an alias online, FergusE. I wouldn't doubt that a dedicated sysop with a sock would go through such effort. And to be honest with you, I did briefly think about the possibility that you do support him, but then it occurred to me that '''except for you and one other user, no one has spoken up publicly for User:Conservative.''' Not Karajou, not TerryH, not the two mystery sysops Conservative claims support him, no one. I just find it highly unlikely you are an independent user who is not a parodist. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 21:14, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Karajou and TerryH have voiced their support for [[User:Conservative]] on other pages. Their votes were listed in the Yea section but were [[censor]]ed by User:RobS. I've offered my support and I'm now done here. You can believe what you want. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 21:30, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::But they haven't voiced their support here. It's like voting in a Presidential election- you can say whatever you want before election day but if you don't show up to the polls your vote won't count. If they really support Conservative they'd vote here. And I know you're not going, just like Conservative said he was "putting Conservapedia on the back burner" and then continued editing. Also, another reason why I think you're Conservative...the wikifying of various usernames and phrases in a debate or talk page comment is one of his traits. We're not dumb. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 21:34, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::Andy Schlafly has yet to make a statement. No one thinks he's "working against us."--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 20:56, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
-
::::::I was referring to comments people made when he removed checkuser from Rob--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 21:00, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

:No, the vote won't magically fix anything. If the site can still be fixed, it's going to start with a long process of hammering out centralized and less vague rules, and of holding everybody to the same standards. Yes, even (*gasp*) the sysops.
:And that's just the thing - this is about policy and not about stripping Rob or Conservative of their powers. That's just the lazy way out. If Rob is thrown out, the policy reform is dead, and the community will continue at its usual low point. If Conservative is thrown out, somebody else will take his place because the system is still broken.
:Conservative pushed hard to get Rob thrown out by invoking a sort of ''ad populum'' argument with his "4 Sysops support me! Now 5 Sysops support me! Maybe soon 6 Sysops will support me!" posts on Andy's talk page. That's mob rule, and Rob simply demonstrated that this can go both ways. That's why we voted. It was never about the actual outcome, it was to show that Rob has plenty of support from the community and isn't the lone antagonist Conservative tried to paint him as.
:Maybe now we as a community, normal editors and sysops, can work together on the actual issues. CP won't turn into an evolutionist atheist liberal site (duh), but maybe it can turn into a site where new editors don't have to worry about being banhammered for violating some obscure rule such as "Reverting a sysop even once can get you blocked without warning!". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:02, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

The above discussion reveals that many liberals have somehow infiltrated this good website. I recommend bans on the dissenters.--[[User:JacobReid|JacobReid]] 21:04, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

:This website has become a collection of jokes masquerading as essays, or even, in some cases, actual mainspace articles. If Conservapedia has been reduced to a collection of 'fat jokes' and articles about flying animals, which are tolerated, if not perhaps actively encouraged, in a cynical drive for pageviews, then what is the point of this website at all? What do any of those things have to do with this website's original intention? [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 21:42, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

=== Move? ===
Should we maybe move this section to the talk page? Might be a better place. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:30, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:ok [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:45, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

===Fundamental reform===
Fundamental reform would be incorporating into Conservapedia's core content policy what already comes up in Google Search results: '''An encyclopaedia with articles written from a conservative viewpoint.''' Let's call it '''[[CPOV]]'''. Then editor's that sign up here, be they obese homosexual liberal atheists or Jesus himself upon return would know article content must adhere to Conservapedia's core content policy of CPOV, "this is non-negotiable", top borrow language from Wikipedia. This would end ceaseless and pointless discussion, sockpuppetry, parody, and trolling that's plagued CP from the early days. This website now, neither has it ever, required an ideological litmus test of contributors. There have been abusive Administrators in the past who have ''illegally'' blocked on ideological grounds. This is why CP is in need of a reform movement. The language administrators used to overstep editors efforts was,
:*'''''Administrators and Bureaucrats are the final authority as to policy and procedures. ''Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed.''' [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Guidelines&diff=prev&oldid=892763]
has been rescinded, per the site owners approval. This opens the door to Community input. Likewise it has fostered a Resistance movement among the CP Old Guard who feel threatened with a loss of power. But now we are all equals, editors and sysops. All must follow the same rules of interaction and civility.

These are only first steps. I encourage constructive editors to get involved in this reform process. It's not about personal disputes, it's about making Conservapedia a healthy, constructive, less threatening and friendly-to-the-newbie editing environment and educational resource. It begins with admitting our failures, moving on past them to making Conservapedia less of a joke, and more of an encyclopedic resource. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:45, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

== the voters ==

I think we should ignore votes by "contributors" that have not made any substantial mainspace edits. This goes for both sides. --[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 08:11, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

== This page is not being honest ==

Yes, this page is not being honest. I am not against refinement of Conservapedia's rules and suggested a [[User:Conservative/blocking-board-framework|blocking review board framework]]. This is about RobS: being disloyal to his fellow Conservapedians, not wanting to apply rules to himself, playing pointless power games, whitewashing Ashlafly's talk page and often behaving unreasonably. The dishonesty of this web page has probably caused Karajou and TerryH not to vote. Plus, Karajou believes sockpuppets are being used to vote and this page is a sham. Furthermore, I did find it telling that RobS watched my vote and Karajou's vote being removed and did not bother to ask TerryH if he thought he should lose his Admin rights since I maintain this is TerryH's position. Given the dishonesty of this web page, I would not be surprised if others did not vote either and are not going to bother with this web page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:26, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
:Quite so, User:Conservative. The [[silent majority]] very wisely don't want to get involved in RobS's power games. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 09:45, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
::Actually, it is about you acting in a childish and unbecoming manner, when you were asked to unlock talk pages and to stop deleting pages at random. However, you saw this as an affront to your power and over-reacted. It is exactly the same reason why you do not use the preview and minor edit buttons - you seem to think you are about such niceties. Your over-reaction to this is ample proof. It was never about RobS, but you being unwilling to work with other people. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 09:56, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
::::Jcw, I do agree with your "RobS power games comment". I don't know if there is a "silent majority", but since I don't believe in mob rule it is a moot point anyways. My guess is that the power structure of Conservapedia is going to change within 5 years and I believe I may have a suggestion within 2-3 years as I think the timing of me offering such a suggestion will be more opportune. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:57, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

Point of clarification: The situation about the removal of votes Conservative is refering to is where another editor added votes from sysops that Conservative has stated support RobS being demoted. The supporting sysops did ''not'' actually place their votes on the page. The proxy votes were removed under the premise of one person/one vote. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:41, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

== Jcw edits ==

Jcw has been removing comments from the Debate page on the grounds of civility. I believe he has gone way too far. A number of those comments were very relevant to the debate and the reason for editors exercising their vote in a particular way. I would ask that they be reinstated. I didn't want to rush back in and immediately reinstate them myself without discussion so I await some input from Jcw. If not I intend to reinstate some of them myself. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 17:36, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?

2011-07-31T21:19:20Z

JarradD: /* Yea */

Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?

2011-07-31T21:15:51Z

JarradD: /* Yea */ People should vote for themselves. If they want to add their names, they will.

Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?

2011-07-31T21:14:52Z

JarradD: /* Nay */

Jeanne Calment

2011-07-31T07:11:08Z

JarradD: Removed non-existent word "authentized"

'''Jeanne Calment''' was the world's oldest person at 122 years who died in 1997. Her birthdate has been authenticated based on official records.

Stockholm

2011-07-31T07:07:04Z

JarradD: /* External links */ URL had changed

'''Stockholm''' is the national capital of [[Sweden]]. Approximately 782,000 people live in the city and it was built on fourteen islands on the Malaren Lake. The city also borders the [[Baltic Sea]].

<center>
[[File:Estocolmo The Royal Official Castle.jpg]]

The Royal Official Castle.
</center>

== External links ==
*[http://international.stockholm.se/ International version of the city's website]

[[Category:Swedish Cities and Towns]]
[[Category:Capital Cities]]

Talk:Strong atheism

2011-07-31T00:41:24Z

JarradD: /* Oxymoron */ new section

This is heady stuff, way above the usual level of our typical articles. Can you make a gentle introduction to this, for the benefit of those having a junior-high or high-school reading level? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:02, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
:The relevant guideline is [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Article level|here]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:20, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
:: Been a while since high school ... how'd I do? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 09:30, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Looks good to me, but then I'm not a good judge either (it's far longer since I've been to school!). Ed? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:48, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, this article is simply confusing. It gives an example of strong atheism which fits the definition of weak atheism.
:"You don't know what you are talking about; therefore your statement carries no meaning; therefore you are not justified in believing it."
Isn't this the same thing as saying, "You didn't prove X, so I'm justifying in calling X false"?

As for the rest, the article is not easily understandable. Please try again. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:24, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:In general at least, I didn't find the article confusing at all. What parts don't you understand? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:00, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Philip, Order messaged me saying Conservative was reverting and threatening blocks for something you, he and some other user hammered out on the talk page. I was on the phone with him, and asked him to help defuse the situation...perhaps he became confused, I don't know. But it was pretty clear to me as well, and I have reverted Ed's deletion, pending his further consideration of it, as I am partially to blame, perhaps in not making clear to him what was going on. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 03:15, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

:Order would have been talking about the discussion under [[Talk:Atheism#Uncited Garbage|Uncited Garbage]] and "Garbage" on the Atheism talk page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:49, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

== strong and weak ==

Ed Poor wrote: ''"You don't know what you are talking about; therefore your statement carries no meaning; therefore you are not justified in believing it."
Isn't this the same thing as saying, "You didn't prove X, so I'm justifying in calling X false"?''

: Interesting point. I think that in the opinion of strong atheists, the allegation that theological language contains no meaning is ''positive'' evidence for disbelief. It's stronger than saying, "You are making a meaningful claim but there's no evidence to support it;" it's saying, "You're not even making a meaningful claim at all."

''As for the rest, the article is not easily understandable. Please try again.''
: I'd greatly appreciate some help in figuring out what is not understandable. I ran it by my girlfriend first, and she helped a lot, but I honestly can't see what's unclear in order to fix it ... [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 12:03, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
==Reword and Grammar==
I hope no one minds - but for consistency I've removed the french spacing in the article, and I've also reworded the intro a bit for accuracy based off a few links I got from dictionary.com--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 17:39, 4 December 2007 (EST)
: What do you mean by "french spacing"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:01, 5 December 2007 (EST)

== Children's Beliefs ==

I think the segment about "children repeating what their parents tell them" is, at best, poorly worded. I would posit that one's belief in a statement which they do not comprehend is, at best, weak and un-tenable, though, as the article states, it is far from a proof that the stated belief is false. A parallel can be drawn to liberal deceit in public schools; children may be indoctrinated into a system of false, liberal beliefs, based on what they've heard from their teachers. While their belief is not going to be absolutely false all of the time, the belief is, at best, misguided, as their belief is effectively based on hearsay, rather than logic and evidence. A person who grows up "believing" in the power of Jesus Christ to save, based only on the observed belief of their parents, does not have a true personal, powerful relationship with Christ, because they never really "chose" to enter into a relationship with Him. Rather, they simply accept that what they are told about His power, which leads to lazy Christianity. This is related to the "appeal to authority" fallacy, in that the words of some other entity are taken as valid, simply because of their position. If a five year-old is walking down the street and a wise-looking person says "Grapes will save your life because they are magical," and the child eats a healthy amount of grapes for the rest of their life, the belief in the magic power of grapes did not protect the child, even though the anti-oxidant properties of grapes may have prevented some harm. Unfortunately, religious beliefs, such as the acceptance of Christ as savior, do not work quite this way. Simply believing that "Jesus Saves" because someone said so will not save one's soul. One has to come to this belief themselves for it to be worthwhile.

Basically, I want to edit that part, but I wanted to post here first. [[user:JakeW|JakeW]]

== Oxymoron ==

I removed the second sentence which asserted that the phrase "strong atheism" was an oxymoron because there was plenty of evidence that God existed. That assertion does not make sense. There may well be plenty of evidence but that does not make the phrase an oxymoron. In order to be an oxymoron a word or phrase must contain apparent internal contradiction. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 20:41, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

Strong atheism

2011-07-31T00:39:17Z

JarradD: Not an oxymoron. No internal contradiction.

'''Strong atheism''' (sometimes called "positive [[atheism]]" by its adherents), is a type of [[atheism]] that asserts the absolute doctrine that [[God]] does not exist. It is different from [[Weak Atheism|weak atheism]], in which the atheist claims only that evidence against the existence of God is stronger than evidence for His existence.

Strong atheists use three types of arguments:
* '''Semantic apologetics''': Arguing that religious language is meaningless, and therefore beliefs based on that language are not justified;
* '''Incoherency apologetics''': Arguing that religious concepts are self-contradictory, and therefore cannot possibly be true;
* '''[[Materialist]] apologetics''': Arguing that because religion contradicts science, science must reject religion;

== Semantic apologetics ==
Semantic apologetics supports strong atheism by criticizing the words employed to describe God as "meaningless".

For example, a strong [[atheist]] might criticize the assertion "God transcends space and time" by asking what exactly the believer means by saying that. If the believer is unable to explain what he means, the strong atheist would conclude "You don't know what you are talking about; therefore your statement carries no meaning; therefore you are not justified in believing it."

As strong [[atheist]] George Smith wrote:
:"To say that an ‘unie’ possesses wisdom in proportion to its nature—while stipulating that such wisdom is different in kind from man’s wisdom and that the nature of an ‘unie’ is unknowable—contributes nothing to our understanding of ‘unie’ or to the meaning of the attributes when applied to an ‘unie.’ ... To say that God is ‘good’ or ‘wise’ is to say nothing more then some unknowable being possesses some unknown qualities in an unknowable way."<ref>George Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1979), Chapter 3.</ref>

A theist might respond to this line of reasoning by challenging as [[non sequitur]] the argument that "because you cannot comprehensively explain what you mean, then you are unjustified in believing it."

For example, [[atheists]] cannot comprehensively explain what the "big bang" was. They have a vague concept that the universe began in a single point. They speculate about what it might have been like. But they cannot comprehensively explain what they are talking about. That does not mean that the "big bang" is a meaningless concept. It is simply one that is poorly defined. But more importantly, their inability to comprehensively define it certainly does not necessarily mean that it did not occur.

As another example, children commonly repeat what they are told by their parents without fully understanding what the sentences mean. That does not make them unjustified in believing that what their parents say is true. And it certainly does not make the sentences themselves false. When a theist holds a position he does not fully understand, he does so based on his [[faith]] that the statement is true, based on the credibility of his source. In other words, if God in all His glory sat down with the believer and said, "I transcend space and time," without fully explaining it, the believer could reasonably accept the conclusion based on the credibility of God, even without understanding it.

Finally, the fact that the believer did not fully understand what the phrase meant would certainly not stand as proof that the statement itself was false.

Thus, while this argument stands as a warning against casually using language without assigning definite meaning to our words, it certainly does not prove that the God about whom these words are spoken does not exist.

== Incoherency apologetics ==
Incoherency apologetics claims that the concepts and attributes surrounding theism are logically incoherent and/or contradictory.

The most common brand of incoherency apologetics is the [[problem of evil]]. The argument states that if God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, then there should be no evil in the world, because God knows of the evil, could stop it, and would want to. Therefore either God does not have one or more of the alleged attributes, or does not exist at all. Either way, the God does not exist as believed.

There are two theistic responses to this argument: [[theodicy]] and [[open theism]]. Theodicy is the effort to reconcile the attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence with the existence of evil in the world. For example, the idea that what we perceive as evil is actually part of God's greater plan that we just don't understand. Open theism is the belief that while God exists, he is not omnipotent, omniscient, and/or omnibenevolent.

== Materialist apologetics ==
Materialist apologetics supports strong [[atheism]] with arguments like the following:
* Science necessarily presupposes that matter and energy are all that exists;
* Theism asserts that more than matter and energy exist;
* Therefore, since theism rejects a necessary presupposition of science, science must reject theism.

A theist could respond by challenging the first two points. Why must science presuppose that matter and energy are all that exist? If a scientist were to find evidence that something else existed, wouldn't scientists be obliged to acknowledge its existence? Further, why must theism assert that more than matter and energy exist? What if God's Spirit is simply a unique form of energy?

For another example, strong atheist Michael Martin wrote:
:"Consider science. It presupposes the uniformity of nature: that natural laws govern the world and that there are no violations of such laws. However, Christianity presupposes that there are miracles in which natural laws are violated. Since to make sense of science one must assume that there are no miracles, one must further assume that Christianity is false. To put this in a different way: Miracles by definition are violations of laws of nature that can only be explained by God's intervention. Yet science assumes that insofar as an event as an explanation at all, it has a scientific explanation--one that does not presuppose God [2]. Thus, doing, science assumes that the Christian world view is false."<ref>Michael Martin, ''The Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God'', New Zealand Rationalist & Humanist, Autumn 1996.</ref>

A theist could respond by challenging his assumption that miracles must be seen as ''violations'' of the laws of nature. A theist might just as easily see them as ''interactions within'' the laws of nature. Just as a human's ability to drive a car may appear miraculous to a monkey, God's ability to cause virgin births may appear miraculous to a human. Yet in neither case was there necessarily a ''violation'' of the laws of nature. Perhaps God simply understands the laws to such a degree that he is able to manipulate them in ways we cannot grasp. Our knowledge of the laws of nature is far too limited for us to make the bold claim that events in the universe that defy our explanation are violations of the laws of nature. If they occur, they are best understood as reflecting laws of nature we do not yet understand. It would be the duty of science, then, not to exclude these miraculous events as impossible, but rather to acknowledge their occurrence, and seek to understand them.

== Criticism ==
Jacques Maritain wrote:
:"By positive atheism I mean an active struggle against everything that reminds us of God -- that is to say, anti-theism rather than [[atheism]] -- and at the same time a desperate, I would say heroic, effort to recast and reconstruct the whole human universe of thought and the whole human scale of values according to that state of war against God. Such positive atheism was the tragic, solitary [[atheism]] of Nietzsche; such is today the academic, fashionable atheism of existentialism; such is the revolutionary atheism of dialectical materialism. The latter is of special interest to us, because it has succeeded in getting a considerable number of men to accept wholeheartedly this new kind of faith, and to give themselves sincerely and unquestionably to it."<ref>Jacques Maritain, ''On the Meaning of Contemporary [[Atheism]]'', The Review of Politics, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 267-280, July, 1949.</ref>

==References ==
<references/>

==See also==
*[[Atheism]]
*[[Atheist Paradox]]
*[[Weak atheism]]
{{Nb Atheism}}

Talk:Mother ship

2011-07-30T22:59:38Z

JarradD: Created page with "== Move suggestion == It seems to me, having regard to the article's content, that this article should be moved to "Mothership". --~~~~"

== Move suggestion ==

It seems to me, having regard to the article's content, that this article should be moved to "Mothership". --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 18:59, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

Mother ship

2011-07-30T22:52:32Z

JarradD: Consistency with article title

A '''Mother ship''' is a science fiction craft, usually capable of space travel. Typically it contains smaller space fighters and serves as a mobile base. Usually they are used by [[Extraterrestrial life|aliens]].

In the popular film ''[[Independence Day (film)|Independence Day]]'', the invading aliens used a mother ship.

*"I'm going back to the mother ship." Jack Campbell, in [[The Family Man]].

When used outside of a Science Fiction setting the word is spelt mother ship, being two distinct words. In such cases the word refers to a larger vessel (usually sea-going) that is home and launching point to smaller craft (such as aircraft). However, the words mother ship are rarely used when describing such vessels in English, instead specific names are assigned to the type of vessel in question.

''i.e. An aircraft carrier is a mother ship, but is almost always referred to as a carrier or aircraft carrier.''

[[Category: Science Fiction]]

New York Times v. Sullivan

2011-07-30T22:49:12Z

JarradD: Fix references

'''''New York Times Company v. Sullivan''''', 376 U.S. 254 (1964), arose from a chief of police suing the [[New York Times]] for libel in reporting on civil rights protests. The [[U.S. Supreme Court]] ruled that a ''public official'' seeking [[libel]] damages for a matter relating to his official conduct must prove that the false statement about him had been made with ''actual malice'' that is, with conscious knowledge that the statement was false or with ''[[reckless disregard]]'' for whether it was or not. The Court held that, otherwise, the press or other critics would be restrained from speaking or writing for fear they could not readily demonstrate that what they had said was true.

==Background==
During the [[Civil Rights Movement]] in the 1960's, the "Committee to Defend Martin Luther King and the Struggle for Freedom in the South" published a paid advertisement in the New York Times, describing how Chief of Police Sullivan had suppressed a civil rights demonstration in [[Montgomery]]. Sullivan sued for [[libel]]. While US law has held that true statements cannot be libelous, Sullivan argued that the advertisement contained a small error - saying that the protesters sang "[[My Country 'Tis of Thee]]" when in fact they sang "[[The Star-Spangled Banner]]" - and therefore could be libelous.

==Ruling==

The court unanimously ruled in favor of the New York Times. Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] wrote the opinion of the court, saying that, lest the press be restrained, even false statements must be protected by the [[First Amendment]] as long as they are not made with ''actual malice'' that is, with conscious knowledge that the statement was false or with ''[[reckless disregard]]'' for whether it was or not.

This was the first Supreme Court case to squarely address freedom of speech, so it was a groundbreaking opinion. For instance, this was the first time the Supreme Court officially said that the [[Sedition Act of 1798]] was unconstitutional.

A showing of actual [[malice]] requires proof that the defendant knew that his statement was false or spoke with reckless disregard for whether it was false or not.<ref>376 U.S. at 279-80.</ref>

== External links ==
* [http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0376_0254_ZO.html Majority opinion of Chief Justice Warren]
* [http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0376_0254_ZC.html Concurring opinion of Justice Black]
* [http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0376_0254_ZC1.html Concurring opinion of Justice Goldberg]

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
[[category:defamation]]
[[category:First Amendment]]

Hercule Poirot

2011-07-30T22:16:58Z

JarradD: Clarify

[[Image:Poirot.jpg|left]]
'''Hercule Poirot''', the famous and long-lived character, is a fictional retired [[Belgian]] detective created by [[Agatha Christie]] (1890-1976). Christie, "The Duchess of Death", admitted that she was writing in the "Sherlock Holmes" tradition, referring to the famous fictional detective created by [[Arthur Conan Doyle]].

From ''The Mysterious Affair at Styles'' (published 1920) to ''Curtain'' (published 1975) the public loved Poirot's adventures, and Christie's work. The Belgian police officer, with his waxed ''mustache'' and his ''little grey cells'', was to become one of the most enduring characters in all of fiction.
[[Image:Poirot, Hercule.jpg|right|200px]]
Agatha Christie, English, wrote more than 30 novels featuring Poirot. Among the most popular were ''"The Murder of Roger Ackroyd"'' (1926), ''"[[Murder on the Orient Express]]"'' (1934), ''"Death on the Nile"'' (1937) and ''The Labours of Hercules'' (1947) (In all, she wrote over 66 novels).

[[Image:Poirot Nile.jpg]]

== External links ==
*[http://emmanuel.curis.online.fr/Christie.html Agatha CHRISTIE] In French.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Poirot, Hercule}}

[[Category:Fictional characters]]

Atomic radius

2011-07-30T22:15:25Z

JarradD:

The '''atomic radius''' is a rough measurement of the [[distance]] from the center of an [[atom]]'s [[nucleus]] to one edge of the atom (defined by its outer ring of electrons). As atoms do not have well-defined shapes this measure cannot be exact.

[[Category:Chemical Properties]]
[[Category:Physics]]

Protestant Irish

2011-07-29T03:41:37Z

JarradD: /* Presbyterians */

The '''Protestant Irish''' or '''Scots-Irish''' or '''Scotch-Irish''' were immigrants from Ireland to America of Protestant background. Most were Presbyterians whose ancestors moved from Scotland to Ireland, especially the northeastern part that is today [[Northern Ireland]]. About 250,000 migrated in the period 1710-1770, heading especially to the frontier regions in the South where they were herders and farmers.<ref>Some of these had been Catholic in Ireland but became protestants in America.</ref> They were often called "[[Yeomen|Yeomen]]". From 1800 to 1860 another 100,000 came to America, while others went to Canada.

They called themselves "Irish" --the term "Scots Irish" came later--and produced such notable politicians as [[Andrew Jackson]] (President 1829-37) and [[James Knox Polk]] (President 1845-49). After 1850 or so they lost a sense of ethnicity and blended into the general population.

About 45 million Americans are of Irish descent--and a majority are Protestants. Originally most were Presbyterians. Today the largest number are [[Southern Baptist Convention|Baptists]], followed by [[United Methodist Church|Methodists]].

Although the [[Orange Order]] was strong among Protestant Irish in Canada, it never caught hold in the United States. There were relatively few instances of violence between the Catholic Irish and the protestant Irish--the most notable being riots in Philadelphia in 1844 and New York City in 1870 and 1871. [[File:Scots-irish.jpg|thumb|290px]]
==Presbyterians==

Noll et al (2006) identifies some of the beliefs and practices that are distinct to American Presbyterians, such as their adoption of democratic principles and pluralism. The article is divided into three sections, each of which examines an aspect of American Presbyterianism that sets it apart from Presbyterianism in other parts of the world. The first section identifies what Old and New World Presbyterians have in common, and where they have diverged. Section two points to the 1788 revisions to the Westminster Confession - which recognized separate spheres for church and state - as the significant departure that defined American Presbyterians. The final section suggests that strong Irish influences from Ulster helped establish the distinctive American identity.

==See also==
* [[Catholic Irish]]
* [[Colonial America]]

==Further reading==
* Blethen, Tyler ''Ulster and North America: Transatlantic perspectives on the Scotch-Irish'' (1999) online at ACLS History e-book project
* Fischer, David Hackett. ''Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America'' (1991), major scholarly study tracing colonial roots of four groups of immigrants, Irish, English Puritans, English Cavaliers, and Quakers.
* Glazier, Michael, ed. ''The Encyclopedia of the Irish in America,'' (1999), a good place to start--the most authoritative source, with essays by over 200 experts; covers both Catholics and Protestants.
* Griffin, Patrick. ''The People with No Name: Ireland's Ulster Scots, America's Scots Irish, and the Creation of a British Atlantic World, 1689-1764''. (2001)
* Kennedy, Billy. ''Scots Irish in Pennsylvania & Kentucky'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Scots-Pennsylvania-Kentucky-Scots-Irish-Chronicles/dp/1840300329/ref=pd_sim_b_2#noop excerpt and text search], popular history
* Lee, J. J., and Marion Casey, eds. ''Making the Irish American: History and Heritage of the Irish in the United States'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Making-Irish-American-History-Heritage/dp/0814752187/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255940745&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Leyburn, James G. ''Scotch-Irish: A Social History'' (1989), scholarly survey; good starting point.
* McWhiney, Grady. '' Cracker Culture: Celtic Ways in the Old South'' (1989), scholarly interpretation
* Meagher, Timothy J. ''The Columbia Guide to Irish American History.'' (2005). [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=15575 online review]
* Noll, Mark; D. G. Hart, and Marilyn J. Westerkamp. "What Has Been Distinctly American about American Presbyterians?" ''Journal of Presbyterian History'' 2006 84(1): 6-22.
* Webb, James. ''Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America'' (2004) by a popular novelist who is now Senator from Virginia; not considered reliable by scholars.
====references====
<references/>

[[category:Ethnicities]]
[[category:Protestantism]]
[[category:Presbyterians]]
[[category:Baptists]]
[[category:Methodism]]
[[category:The South]]
[[Category:Irish-Americans]]

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2011-07-29T03:30:03Z

JarradD: /* Deletion */ This appears to have been accidentally left out upon recreation of the page.

<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
[[Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive1|Archive 1]]

== quick note about talk page protection being removed from comedy/satires ==

I thought about RobS wanting to make it a more open wiki and so I decided to remove the talk page protection for the comedy/satire pages on atheism and evolution

I put the redirects and page protection to add to the humor of the comedy/satire pages. Wired magazine made the observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men (see: [[Atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women]] ). The thought of quarrelsome militant atheists hitting the talk page buttons of those comedy/satire pieces and getting redirected to another page had a element of humor to me. Like getting the last laugh to often humorless persons in humorous way. Plus, I just don't see the point of it. I don't foresee me participating in the talk pages of these comedy/satire pages in the future. The idea of debating comedy/satire/humor does not hold any interest to me. If any liberals want to debate humor, I suggest they contact their locale papers about their political satires or send any angry letter to some stand up comics. In addition, I don't see the point of bothering with the posts of whiny atheists with thin skins who want to make picayune and inane comments.

With the above said, obviously there are cost and benefits to decisions and I wanted to assist RobS in his aforementioned effort.

However, I don't want anyone unlocking the comedy/satire pages themselves. Some have a lot of viewership and if they are not broke, I don't want them "fixed" - especially by atheists/evolutionists. Within reason, I personally think essay pages should be like a person's talk page and be their castles. The thought of someone altering essays seems odd to me except for minor proofreading. Of course, I would be against the essays promoting immorality such as engaging in bank robberies, etc. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 06:53, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I returned to tie up a loose end with editor Nate. With that being said, I just wanted to say that if atheists in the future wish to fill those talk pages with whiny comments, it will of course confirm atheists are often proud people who have thin skins so I welcome them to squeal like stuck pigs on the comedy/satire talk pages. :) I won't be reading their whiny comments, but I am guessing that others might enjoy seeing them whelp on the talk pages of the comedy/satires of atheism and evolution. :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:25, 7 July 2011 (EDT)

My conversation with "Conservative" was removed after I asked Mr. Schlafly to review it. What is the meaning of this outrageous behavior? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 08:00, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:Can you be more specific, as to where or what page you refering to? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:31, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::It was in the section above this one. The posts are from yesterday. "Conservative" deleted the whole section after I asked Mr. Schlafly to review "Conservative's" insulting behavior and state whether the editorial policy here is YEC as to articles like evolution. I don't know how to find the posts. Can administrators look at the history? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 13:50, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::You don't have to be an administrator, unless the edits in question have been oversighted. Is [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Community_Portal&diff=887044&oldid=887012 this] part of what you're talking about? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 14:09, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Yes, thank you. That's the last post in the section "Conservative" deleted. How do you find pages like that? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 14:21, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::There's a little tab at the top of the page labeled 'history'; click on that and you get a list of changes starting with the most recent. Hope that helps. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 14:23, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Very much, thank you. I knew abut my contributions button but didn't know about history. I now see that entire discussions that took place in December between "Conservative" and various users challenging the absolute lack of evidence of any correlation between atheism and obesity have completely disappeared. What is going on on this site?! [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 14:38, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Now that's something one does need to be an administrator to answer. I try to stay out of these things. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 15:00, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Nate, the comment was never deleted, or reverted. It was Archived. I would be supportive of a guideline on Archiving that gives a 7 day waiting period since the last posting before Archiving. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:39, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I didn't know what an archive is. Thank you for showing me, RobS. All I saw was that the conversation was suddenly missing. It was archived around 11:30 Central time and I had to get to bed so I never had a chance to see "Conservative's" last post ending the conversation by "stating the obvious" and further denigrating the Catholic Church as "not the most Bible loving institution" and saying "I really think it is hard to deny that much of the Catholic leadership and a significant amount of RCC scholars fail to take a high view of Scripture." I deny it. I deny it up and down and am getting and more offended as "Conservative" continues slandering the Catholic Church. It may surprise "Conservative" to know that people just like me read the Bible (there are a LOT of us) literally where the context indicates it should be read literally. People can obviously come to different conclusions based on ''how'' they decide what is to be read literally. Young Earth Creationists like "Conservative" treat the first chapters of Genesis as history. I was taught and accept the "Framework View". Our disagreement should not entitle "Conservative" to slander an entire Church and an enormous group of people who walk the walk everyday. Will someone please help get this person under control and stop the sneering anti-Catholic jabs and clarify whether YEC is the editorial policy here? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 16:32, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Nate, you never addressed information like this that I provided from the online version of Roman Catholic New American Bible: http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/2peter/intro.htm which gives an example of many post 1960s Catholic scholars not having a high view of Scripture. The website http://www.usccb.org is maintained by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. I suggest you cease your denialism. You can cry slander day and night, but unless you demonstrate it, you are not particularly convincing. By the way, it appears things are not looking good for evolutionism in the key biology textbook state of Texas as can be seen [http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/07/new-volunteer-is-coming-aboard-who-is.html HERE] Have a nice day! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:56, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::What's to address? You're laughably wrong. You gave a link to the introduction to Second Peter in an edition of the Bible but haven't even bothered to justify your offensive claim that it "gives an example of many post 1960s Catholic scholars not having a high view of Scripture." These men are bishops of the Catholics Church. What do you think they're doing if they're not devoting their lives in service of a "high view of scripture"? You also haven't demonstrated why scholarship questioning the provenance of Second Peter is wrong. So you've failed altogether to do anything more than argue by assertion based on an absurdly erroneous misreading of the source. And I'm in denial? You can't even accurately cite sources in order to prop up your vendetta against "liberals", atheists, "evolutionists" now Catholics. I looked at this shockofgod stuff you keep spamming. The guy looks like a Youtube crank running his mouth about an ambitious campaign that's having little or no effect. Good luck with that. I'll ignore him like everyone else seems to be doing. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 11:45, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I see that you can safely be ignored. How is your request for Andy's input going? :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:20, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
Mr. Schlafy's refusal to intervene to stop your abuses is disappointing. The smiley face and your insulting non response just prove my point that you're an awful debater who refuses to address things on the level or cooperate. I'm very sorry for this site that no other admin except this sneering creature chose to intervene. Please close my account if no other admin is willing to assist with controlling this person. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 02:44, 10 July 2011 (EDT)
:Well geez, what are you asking? Pardon me, but your complaints seem to be all over the map. First you complain about a possible anti-Catholic bias because the assertion is made the Roman Catholic Church views the Pope as arbiter of God's Word and not scripture; then you make complaints about the user your in dispute with; then you complain about the sites owner; then you complain nobody's willing to help; then you complain about the site. Now you wanna take your ball and go home cause others can't debate whatever you are driving at.
:Let's address the complaint of anti-Catholic bias: other sites, devoted to athiesm and rational science, I'm sure are much less sympathetic to Catholicism than the devotion and respect it recieves here. Have you tried defending the Catholic faith at those sites? If so, gimme a link so we can see your bona fidas. Maybe then your complaints would be taken more seriously. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:46, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

== Resolution of matters ==

[[User:Conservative]] wrote: ''deletion and satire page protection issue resolved, CP not becoming a pro-evolution website''. My proposal: when a matter is resolved, a short (but highlighted) statement should be added under the respective discussion, summarizing the achieved consensus. After this, the discussion can be archived.

[[User:Conservative]] stated that [[Gender-neutral|he]] won't protect talk pages any longer - but what about the deletions? Has [[Gender-neutral|he]] said something about them?

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:01, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:User:Conservative said so above, "''''deletion and satire page protection issue resolved''". I'm not certain restoring all, or certain, talk page deletions are possible. And mainspace, such as the link you provided, are simple reversions or edit wars. Am I understanding your question properly? Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:28, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I will use more discretion as far as the delete button so as not to remove credit to other contributions. Including this time, I have said this three times now. I suggest you stop beating this dead horse and let it rest in peace. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:32, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

:::@RobSmith: I thought that Conservative's comment indicated that some issues had been resolved. And that's my point: After having a problem resolved, there should be an easily readable short resolution, perhaps a template which states in which way the matter was solved. After this, the topic could be archived. This would help to avoid repeating the same discussions over and over again - one could link to the already resolved project. Just an idea for the future...
:::BTW: I linked each occurence of ''he'' to the article on [[gender-neutral|gender-neutrality]], as I wanted to explain why I won't address [[User:Conservative]] as ''(s)he''.
:::@Conservative: it's nice that you'll ''"use more discretion as far as the delete button"'' is concerned. What's about using the ''preview-button'' - as taken into consideration by you [[User talk:AugustO# You comment to me has been read and I will take your comment into consideration|here]]?
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:27, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::AugustO, thanks for the input. A person I invited to this wiki who created a very popular article at Conservapedia told me he created his material on a word processor first and then transferred that material to Conservapedia. I can use this same approach. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:57, 12 July 2011 (EDT)

==Deletion==
Perhaps user:conservative would like to tell us why he has taken to summarily deleting other users' user and talk pages. This would appear to be in contravention of the spirit of free speech that Mr Schlafly [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AMain_Page&action=historysubmit&diff=887947&oldid=887941 encourages] on this wiki.

Sadly, this is yet another indication of user:conservative's complete lack of interest in the protocols of this wiki, nor is he interested in anything but himself and his own agenda, even if it means insulting Catholics like NKeaton and Mr. Schlafly. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:54, 11 July 2011 (EDT)
::TracyS, I don't think you are a sincere person and your most recent instance of trying to pick a fight with me over a complete trivial non-issue. Please find something productive to do rather than making baseless charges and trying to waste other peoples time. Also, if you truly felt I have insulted Mr. Schlafly I would think you would have contacted him about this matter. Unsurprisingly, I have no indication you did. My guess is that if you did try to make this allegation with Mr. Schlafly you would get the same non-response as NKeaton. I have nothing further to say about deleting a person's page who indicated they no longer wanted to edit. I also have nothing further to say about recently deleting another profile with nonsensical and contradictory material created by an inane provocateur. If you think I am going to waste a lot of my time dealing with your melodramatic and phony posts to me, guess again. I am not. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:03, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:::User:Conservative has in the past several hours reverted talk page comment from Aschlafly's page. Stop. Please stop. You are not Aschlafly. This is a violation of another's user space. You are not free to remove comments from other users space. If Mr. Schlafly wanted those comments removed he would do it himself or ask someone to do it. Mr. Schlafly removed personal information from that same thread; if Mr. Schalfly wanted that thread removed he would have done it there and then. User:Conservativis action is disrespectful to another users talk page, and all CP editors.
:::User:Conservative has gained quite the reputation for information destruction. This wiki has survived some battles, and now is the time to demand accountability from Sysop. Sysops are to be models of interaction for junior editors, but they are not whenthey feel they can violate and ignore CP's core principles. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:27, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Setting aside your allegation about my reputation information destruction (A claim which I find odd given my 63 page article on [[atheism]] which I largely wrote, 46 written page article on [[evolution]] which I largely wrote and a 62 written page article [[homosexuality]] which I largely wrote. Perhaps, I have a reputation for information dissemination? ), I will briefly say that you raise a good point in this instance. A person's talk page is their castle. Although I decided to remove my own post, I do think it would have been better if I had asked Mr. Schlafly first. I have no problem admitting when I am wrong and changing the way I do things. RobS, can the same be said of you? I have yet to receive an apology from you for removing the protection from my talk page. You may not like the system I have for receiving my messages, but Conservapedia does say that a person's talk page is their castle. Am I going to receive an apology from you concerning this matter? You have chosen to be assertive and I have no problem with that. But I would at ask you to be consistent. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:09, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::It is not your talk page. It is Mr. Schalfly's. Your talk page is your castle, do what you want with it. But other's talk pages must be respected. If the comment was innapropriate, it shouldn't have been placed in the first place. And users who troll other's talk pages generally get blocked. Both are blockable offenses, and edit warring over it is another. You need to be an example for sysop wannabe's, both (a) how to interact with other editors, and (b) how ''not'' to misuse sysop powers. There is entirely too much shoot-from-the-hip with you in all of this. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:31, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
I'm concerned that the focus here isn't necessarily in the right spot, and I apologize for not having contributed to the community portal earlier - I'd been on a series of summer vacations visiting family up and down the East Coast. Frankly, I think it's acceptable if some leeway is given to comments written by the user, even if on another user's talk page. Do I think it's ideal to post a comment and then remove it? No, but the wiki doesn't break down if it happens. In the same sense that it's acceptable to fix typos in your posts, I think it's acceptable - though again, not ideal - for a user to determine that his post might no longer be relevant, or perhaps was redundant, and take it upon himself to delete said post (assuming no other users have contributed to the discussion).

I must admit I was previously more concerned with the wholesale deletion and recreation of pages, but I think that a lot of progress has been made on that issue thanks in large part to Rob, so my commenting would serve no real purpose.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:52, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:::RobS, if you want to lead in this area, you need to lead by example. I still not have received an apology from you for removing the protection from my talk page.
::::And you're not gonna get one.
:::Again, you may not like the system I have for receiving my messages, but Conservapedia does say that a person's talk page is their castle.
::::Then leave other people's castle alone.
:::Am I going to receive an apology from you concerning this matter?
::::Am I gonna recieve an apology from you for your rudeness? Stop reverting, deleting, and oversighting discussions I am involved in.
:::You have chosen to be assertive and I have no problem with that.
::::Thanks, I didn't know I needed your approval.
:::But I would at ask you to be consistent.
::::Here's consistancy: STOP ABUSING YOUR SYSOP POWERS!
:::I have a feeling that no apology will be forthcoming.
::::It ain't.
:::Regrettably, I have to say that I have downgraded my expectations for your success with your project in instituting new rules and getting their requisite enforcement.
::::Regrettably, I have to say I agree you have abused your sysop powers.
:::I feel it will be impeded by you wanting to throw your weight around and not showing a willingness to admit your own mistakes and to abide by existing rules. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:12, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Don’t lecture me on the rules, pal. You’ve never shown an interest in policy development or writing sysop rules. All you’ve done is abuse the powers granted, abused the sensibilities of people trying to contribute, and damaged the reputation of yourself and Conservapedia. [[User:RobSmith|RobSmith]] 23:30, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:If "a person's talk page is their castle," why do you keep deleting and recreating other peoples' talk pages/castles? [[User:RodneyA|RodneyA]] 23:20, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I have already address this matter. I will further add that unlike Aschafly I did have JPatt's and Karajou agreement to mess around with their castles. :) In addition, Aschlafly is not particularly upset with me and has not poured oil down upon me from his castle walls. :) Lastly, I standby my action with NKeaton and the person I blocked and have no further commentary! Adios! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:45, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

::RobS, I just saw your post. I suggest if you have a good case as far as some of your allegations that you take it up with Mr. Schlafly and with all due haste. I suggest you do that right now. I don't think that is gong to happen and even if you tried, I don't think it would go anywhere. We both know this. I don't mind altering my behavior due to reasonable requests. I think you should take a good hard look at how Iduan and August is approaching matters as I think you will have far more success. I do find it sad that your oversized ego and hot temper are getting in the way of admitting you erred concerning violating policy on my talk page.
:::Admit you erred in reverting, deleting, archiving, and oversighting active discussions I was involved in, blocking some participants without cause, and deleting their user pages. And let's understand this straight out -- this discussion is not about roasting User:Conservative, it is about developing guidleines and policies for editor and sysop conduct. You my good man, are simply the posterboy for abuse because of your unresponsiveness to other editors.
:::So you can cease right here and now with personal attacks about others ego, etc. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:40, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

::Good luck with pushing your reforms with your present attitude and inconsistency. Next, I will certainly admit that with TK around I wasn't exactly an eager beaver as far as developing policies. I have from day one had my primary focus be content creation and related matters. I don't regret my decision. I think at this point, we should just avoid needlessly butting heads and get along as much as possible. I think I have clarified my position sufficiently and responded to other comments sufficiently. Despite your personal shortcomings and your recent behavior towards me, I have no ill will towards you and I hope your initiative bears fruit. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:16, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Good. Let's work together to improve the wiki. I too, was always focused on content, but now we have the opportunity to overcome earlier mistakes the CP project made in ''not'' providing adequate guidelines and development support for sysops and editors. Registered users should be ''encouraged'' to contribute, and worked with to help develop their talents, not suspected as trolls from the minute they register, hounded, stalked, and blocked before they perform their first edit. The sysops that remain in this project must seriously review our shortcomings and recognize much of what we've tried has failed. I propose we overhaul our existing written policies and guidelines, and present them to the site's owner for input and ratification. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:54, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Thanks for the cordial response. A pointless wiki battle doesn't serve anyone. I am working on making some changes as well which I believe could make a big change if they were implemented. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:09, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

===Reform movement===

:::<s>User:Conservative ... firstly I can't find what you accuse RobS of doing in your page log - http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User+talk%3AConservative - there's no record of an "unprotection".</s> ('''update''': I was mistaken - an unprotection did occur; I stand by my second point. Apologies for the mistake.) Secondly, I think the notion that, without an apology for a, <s>presumably</s>, one-time mistake, Rob's efforts have no legitimacy, is an absurd one - and so is the notion that this is only Rob's crusade. Rob started an attempt at reform, and I think we'd all say he deserves many kudos for doing so, but it's on all of us to build a better encyclopedia.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:21, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Iduan, I had asked RobS for clarification and received no response. Regardless, RobS's recent behavior towards me still has caused me to downgrade my expectations. Frankly, my expectations were not that high to begin with, but I had hoped for the best. Personally, I think the first order of business is to enforce existing core rules such as citing your sources which is given in the [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Conservapedia commandments]]. The people I requested to create content Conservapedia cited their sources and those articles are among the most popular articles at Conservapedia. However, most if not all wikis, are under sourced. I do think Conservapedia could do better in this area and I think the Admin group could do better in this department and lead by example. I may have ignored the preview button for various reasons and I am not against altering my behavior at this stage, but giving my sources has been a strong point of my content. Creating stub articles or under sourced articles is often a total waste of time. Higher quality content, on the other hand, often gets ranked at the search engines and is more apt to bring in new readers and new editors. Non-quality content serves as a deterrent to gaining new editors. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:56, 12 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::I absolutely agree that citing sources is important - I think that's something that I've certainly been very careful to do in almost all my articles, but of course every user, including myself, could always do better. As to the preview button: I'm not especially concerned with the preview button and its usage. I think the question here, though, is what must sysops be subservient to? Obviously, Andy is the final authority, but regulating every sysops behavior would be a waste of time on his part. So I think what we all are trying to accomplish is some sort of explicit guidelines that will allow users to know what to expect from sysops, as well as allow sysops to police each-other and point out if one has erred.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:03, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::We need rules for sysops. And we need sysops to understand they can loose those powers for violating the rules.
::::::*We need clearly defined blockng policy.
::::::*We need clearly defined deletion policy.
::::::*We need a definition of vandalism.
::::::*We needa clear understanding under what circumstances oversight is to be used.
::::::*We need a method of review when it becomes obvious a sysop has oversteped those bounds.
::::::*We need a definition of good faith.
::::::*We need to end this hideous "member of a vandal site" cause for blocking, which I can find no precedent anywhere how it came into existence, other than TK invented it out of whole cloth.
::::::*We need to end blocking on sight. Some sysops must run traceroute before a user makes thier first edit. This is not showing good faith and a terrible example to set.
::::::*We need to encourage community participation, policy development, and building consensus.
::::::*We need a definition of consensus.
::::::*And a few other things. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:20, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Iduan, some of Conservapedia's biggest missteps have been the result of poor sourcing and poor research which inevitably lead to poor content in those instances and this has happened to all wikis and not just Conservapedia. Second, I had told RobS that I had wanted to attend to this matter at another time and frankly RobS knows it could have waited as I told him privately that I had wanted to tackle other non-wiki matters and would not be creating much content and be far less active at Conservapedia in the short term. Plus, I think some of his charges towards me are ill conceived and ill supported. This is what convinces me that RobS has a problem with throwing his weight around and showboating. Furthermore, his refusal to apologize for removing the protection of my talk page further adds to this assessment. Did I want to say this about RobS? Was I trying to undermine his efforts? No. I said I wished him the best and until today I had chosen to remain silent about my reservations in terms of the success of his initiative. Does this mean that I think the project is doomed and RobS cannot change his behavior. No and I hope he does. I would suggest he start showing more good faith towards me and stop pestering me. I have no problems with being cordial towards RobS and cooperating with his initiatives, but it has to be a two way street in terms of respecting each other and our efforts. If RobS chooses to repair things I think that would be great and I could be among his biggest supporters. If he continues to show bad faith that would be most unfortunate. The balls is in his court now. I am certainly not going to support someone who is pestering me though. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:41, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::By the way, I would add that it would not surprise me if the content/allegations/tone of this portal has caused Mr. Schlafly not to participate in this portal. I would think that RobS would want Aschlafly as a big supporter and for him to participate in this community portal. That certainly would be a big boost to his efforts. Have I told Mr. Schlafly how wonderful this community portal is? No, I have not. I said that although some good points were raised, I certainly had some reservations on how things were being conducted. Again, I would suggest that RobS cease and desist his pesterfest as I would far prefer being a wholesale supporter of this initiative than being a skeptical detractor who hopes for the best, but has some open reservations as far its potential for success. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]

I think the biggest concern about delaying the conversation is that it will be delayed indefinitely; obviously any contributions that you can add despite your schedule are extra-appreciated. Its certainly reasonable to have a small delay, but without a timeline that's hard to do. I can't serve as a medium between you/Rob, but I do think no user is purposely pestering another; I think any bluntness can be attributed to the supposed urgency of the moment that all wikis are subject to, and not to hostility.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 01:09, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:Iduan, I do thank you for your cordiality and reasonableness. Despite some inappropriate conduct, I do think some positive benefits have resulted from this portal. As far as RobS pestering me, I think it was the result of impatience and ego and not being particularly concerned about another editor. I don't think his main focus is to pester me at an importune time, but nonetheless that has been the result. I am usually fairly successful at getting key participants cooperation for things that are important to me as I can be pleasantly persistent. RobS has chosen to be unpleasant and pushy. I would prefer to be a supporter of RobS though and time will tell if this happens. I think it is fair to say that things are fairly frosty in terms of us having a working relationship at the present time and that is unfortunate. I do have a feeling though that I may have accomplished my objective of not having RobS pester me and he may finally see the light concerning this matter. It shouldn't have taken this long though. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:36, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

====Proposal 1; re:blocking====
Perhaps we should create a block review panel? Users with blocking rights who are willing to be contacted in the case that a user feels a block was unfairly handed out. I feel as though having a specific block policy and this theoretical panel could circumvent the need to define "vandalism" - which in my experience can be amorphous. Obviously specifics could be drawn up later, but as I see it a panel member could, should the scenario call for it, reverse a block without any hard feelings, and perhaps as a general guideline (though not a rule) the unblocked user should - barring clear vandalism - under no circumstances be reblocked by the original blocking user. This is very similar to current policy, except users inexperienced with wikis might not know how to find users with blocking privileges to contact if they have a concern, and this would conveniently list willing, active users. This would at least partly address bullets 1, 3, 5 re: blocking, 6 and 9.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 01:03, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:::That may not be feasible. Every blocked person could ask for review as a result. It may have unintended consequences. I think a better solution in the meantime is to be choosier about who is given block rights. I should have been more vocal about Bugler and RodWeathers being phonies but at least I got RodWeathers to create content. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:14, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Well presumably with a large enough pool of willing "admins" (I'm using that to mean people with blocking rights, but I do understand the difference) it shouldn't be hard to accommodate those requests. I think it's relatively easy to determine whether a user is completely bad faith or whether perhaps a second chance should be granted. Certainly well done on Rod!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 01:18, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::We need serious blocking policy reform; I tried to log in minutes ago from my local public library and the account was blocked because of "possible misuse of U.S. or other government computer system." Can anyone help me right now in locating these blocks so they can be undone? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:38, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::We need full articulation when and under what circumstances a Range block is applicable. We've probably blocked every Starbucks and McDonald's on the planet, infinitely, as well as every public library and college. Undoing 4 years of inappropriate blocking is a real chore. [[Conservapedia:New sysop training page]] needs updating. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:36, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I can absolutely get behind that. I would offer to help with range blocks, but I'm not familiar at all with that area - I've never even issued a range block. I also agree the language should be toned down on the blocking section of the sysop training page. While it is important to "err on the side of caution", as the page suggests, block are a serious punishment, and should be handed out with careful consideration.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:07, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Here's the page[[ Conservapedia:Blocking policy]]; it should be written primarily for sysops. Editors can get the idea from there what is expected from them if they aspire to be sysops. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:10, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
[[Conservapedia:New_sysop_training_page#Blocking]] - which you already linked to - seems to be a much more detailed (longer, certainly) approach. I would almost go so far as to suggest that the content from that section literally be flipped with content from that guideline page, after the language is toned down. (I could work on doing that, if you'd like, although perhaps it'd be best coming from you)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:17, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
:Yes please do. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:21, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
::This is what I've come up with: [[User:Iduan/guidelinedraft#Blocking]]. I would suggest that the first point - which is applicable to all users with block rights - be moved to [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy]], but the second two points - which involve using administrator tools like "checkuser" or "delete" - be kept on the sysop page. If you could check over what I did it'd be greatly appreciated! (And obviously feel free to edit - I'm just using my userspace as a sandbox)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:43, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
:::(Just so you know - and you don't think I'm just being lazy - I'm actually unable to edit the new sysop guide page as its protected, hence the fork)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:02, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Ok, I'll help on the userspace talk page. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:23, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
::Personally, I think that we should try working with ISPs before issuing rangeblocks. For ISPs that will not work with us, we should block those ISPs altogether, with a note that users should complain to their ISP or switch to another one to contribute to Conservapedia. This is what email administrators have been doing for quite some time, and although it isn't without flaw, it seems to have been somewhat effective for them. Since I have five years of experience dealing with ISPs, I'd be more than happy to help Conservapedia in doing this, and both Jpatt and Karajou can attest to my effectiveness.
::As for people desiring to appeal their block, Wikipedia and some other wikis allows blocked users to edit their own talk page and insert a template to challenge their block. They have an option to revoke this privilege if it is abused. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 18:44, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Good. I may have some questions on ISP and want to know more. Appealing a block presents some problems, namely manpower (or personpower to be politically correct) to handle it. This of course can be another source of efforts to just waste sysops time. If we had dozens of sysops with time on their hands to respond, and handle it responsibly, it wouldn't matter. Let's not put nthe cart before the horse. Let's hammer out a definition of "good faith user" and "vandalism", then if there's any misunderstanding in what that means, we could add an appeals process. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:10, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

Hold on here. My thoughts are this. Disputing an administrator's block (unless you are an admin yourself) is disputing their judgement, which is uncalled for. I, for one, trust Andy's judgement in appointing his admins, and by extent trust the admins he appoints. I think, as editors, we should not question an sysop's decision. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 20:59, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
:We need to identify and define grounds for blocking. Then we can review a sysop's actions. This means ''both'' sysops and editors can be held accountable. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:41, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

==Archiving==
Only discussions which are inactive for 7 days should be archived. Any discussion thread with a comment within the past 7 days should still be considered an active, ongoing discussion. This will give all users and interested parties an opportunity to review and participate. See [[Conservapedia:Editing_article_and_talk_pages#Talk_pages_and_Archiving]] for more details. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:53, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

[[Category:Navigation box]]
[[Category:Conservapedia]]

== Enforceable rules for sysop conduct ==

This is a follow-up to some [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly&action=historysubmit&diff=884164&oldid=884024 points I made on Andy's talk page], which he said he agreed with completely.

First, I have to recognize and congratulate RobS for his work on bringing the rule of law to Conservapedia, and for lending his sysop influence to this.

The point I want to make is that "tweaking" the 90/10 rule (80/20, 70/30, whatever) requires that rules, and violations thereof, be logically connected with account blocks. This is simple logic. '''It does no good to lay out criteria for blockable misbehavior if sysops block people for whatever reason they please, with no regard for actual infractions''' (90/10, combative arguing, trolling, vandalism, lying, etc.)

Blocks '''must have verifiable reasons'''. But a look at the block log shows things like:
*By Horace, you have been banned from another wiki
*provided no proof and evidence that atheism is true
*Negative personal comments: The pigstie you require is down at Uncle Billy's farm.
*नही मर्दानगी भरा व्यवहार (what???????)
*Multiple accounts; same IP(s) as existing/previous user(s): Need to change your socks, pardner...try washing them as well.
*Member of a website supporting vandalism: fake professors need not apply
*lack of machismo
*no need to give publicity to site with many obsessive underachievers with penchant to vandalize
*Member of a website supporting vandalism: I'm all for improvement too, stupid, which is why you're outta here.
*Broken arrow! (with a youtube page about the movie "We Were Soldiers") (what???????)
*I suggest going to Africa and searching for Mokele-mbembe. You have 5 years to do it now
*If only you were as nice as a pony, maybe women would love you
*probably an obese atheist with a thin skin!
*conservapedia obssessive compulsive disorder
*obesity

Blocking is serious business! It reflects upon the seriousness of Conservapedia. If you can't put in a cogent block reason, find some other sysop who can.

Now some of the cases above were probably well-founded, like the one with the comment with "try washing them as well", but sysops should be models of probity and levelheadedness, and should not have made that comment. Even if personally annoyed by someone's behavior, sysops should not let it get to them.

There are some other things that simply must not be permitted:

*Wanton deletion of pages, without VERY good reason. For example, deleting another user's user page or talk page. Even if it is swiftly recreated, and even if this is done without loss of information, there is simply no excuse for it.
*"Oversighting", that is, removal of information in such a way that there is no record that it ever existed.
*Deletion of material from talk pages, unless it is truly libellous. Talk pages are a journal of discussions. There is almost never a reason to delete anything. Merely being peeved by something is not an excuse. If you are insulted by something, there should be a way to mark it with "personal attack removed" or something. I don't know the details.

Now I'm going to step on some toes. Take a deep breath, everybody.

The sysop guidelines / rules need to be '''enforceable'''. The Conservapedia community needs to know that they will be followed. Therefore, '''there need to be sanctions for repeated and flagrant violations'''. That means '''suspension of sysop/admin rights'''. I see plenty of well-intentioned "junior" sysops who are doing an excellent job of keeping the site running smoothly. The removal of one or two sysops for flagraqnt violations will not harm Conservapedia. In fact, it may help immensely, by setting an example of expected behavior.
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:17, 12 July 2011 (EDT)

:I don't see why you're so upset over the block comments. Conservative is simply trying to add some humor. However regarding the Hindi/Thai/whatever block summary, this is an English wiki so everything should be in English. [[User:MeganH|MeganH]] 11:05, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:::MeganH, you are a good guesser. It was Hindi. With that being said, SamHB's post has some merit as well. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:41, 12 July 2011 (EDT)

==Community input requested==
Editors are encouraged to give us your input on two very important proposals being reviewed presently. They are,

*[[Conservapedia:Blocking_policy]]

*[[Conservapedia:Vandalism]]

Please comment on the talk pages there, or be bold in giving us your input in the article mainspace. Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:28, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

== Block appeal? ==

A thought that just hit me: I'm genuinely not sure if this has been considered so far, but with internal e-mail now being disabled and the Zoho account not being listed on the Main Page, what is the current appeal process when you're blocked? I didn't check how many sysops list their e-mail address on their user page, but I'd be somewhat surprised if many do (since it attracts spam bots).

[[MediaWiki:Blockedtext]] probably needs to be amended with a link to whatever appeal/contact policy is up to date, too. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:05, 19 July 2011 (EDT)
:That link's hilarious. But seriously, we're looking into this. We'd like to get a good blocking policy everyone can get behind in place. I'm arguing CP should stop trying to re-invent the wheel, and look at how WP has learned to deal with sockpuppetry and vandalism. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:00, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

== Conservapaedia suppressing users' rights? ==
:''Discussion moved from [[Talk:Main Page]]
Coming here to complete a registration and start writing about my topics of interest, I got deeply disappointed when I saw the message '''Only alphanumerical usernames are accepted'''. So how come that one isn't entitled to contribute here for the sole reason that they have an underscore or a gap in the desired username? I'm sure these restrictions have a strongly negative effect on the development of the Conservapedia, deterring a significant portion of contributors. Just look how many people work on Wikipedia, write popular pages on subject they now without bothering about admins imposing their views. Can you take a moment to imagine how many users, well, not only have been pressed to the wall next to the "open gate", but even compressed to death by the following crowd? It's way too surprising that the amount of users and articles is still important to you, as you state on the main page. If it's the case, I urge you to reconsider your policies and give more freedom to newcomers. --[[User:Blackstar24|Blackstar24]] 14:21, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:Just wait until you get to the part where you can't move pages, upload images or even edit at certain times. Assuming you won't be blocked to force you into registering again with a user name that follows the "first name, last initial" convention. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:24, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::Perhaps I'd better wait for anyone ready to keep to the point? --[[User:Blackstar24|Blackstar24]] 14:32, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::You talk about giving freedom to newcomers, but then dismiss me pointing out that newcomers indeed lack many freedoms they would expect to have? Well, have fun then. For what it's worth, I agree with the point about underscores in names. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:46, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Because instead of letting competent users respond to my claim you digress from the topic in an unconstructive manner, giving an outlet for your butthurt in a wrong place. --[[User:Blackstar24|Blackstar24]] 14:57, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Yes, insulting people will get you very far.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 15:02, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg Higher, higher :)] --[[User:Blackstar24|Blackstar24]] 15:30, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I could care less about the problems this section raises, I was pointing out that if your going to go around insulting people you aren't going to go anywhere here or anywhere--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 15:35, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Conservapedia is run strictly at the pleasure of [[Andy Schlafly]] as the founder, and to a lesser extent at that of the administrators. If you don't like their policies, then you have no business here. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 17:17, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I always thought that this site was run in the interest of presenting items without the liberal bias that is prevalent through out the internet and the MSM. The opinions and whims of [[Andy Schlafly]] should have little to no bearing on the content of the site so long as the information set forth is well argued and is able to be backed up.
:::::::::If this site is run at the pleasure of Mr. Schlafly, than I'm afraid it is no better than wikipedia. For Conservapedia and the conservative movement to succeed, we must hold ourselves to higher standards than those of wikipedia and the MSM.--[[User:MrLCharms|MrLCharms]] 14:32, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

== Talk:Evolution ==

On Monday, I made an edit to [[Talk:Evolution]] that removed the Student Panel Decision box. My reasoning (given in the same edit) was this:
{{quotebox|I have been bold and removed the Student Panel Decision. Now, before everybody is rushing to the Rollback and Ban buttons, allow me to explain why the text was utterly outdated and pretty much useless:
*"the article will remain protected indefinitely" - Yes, just like tons and tons of other articles. Big whoop. (This is a problem by itself, but one I won't tackle right here, right now.)
*"to protect it from inevitable vandalism" - .................right.
*"We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way." - Aaaaand this is the main reason why I removed the decision:
**The Panel made the decision in April 2007. Right now, the earliest revision of the Evolution article is dated February 9, 2011. Without knowing what the April 2007 version looked like, what counts as a major change?
**Between the first and last visible revisions alone, the article gained ~10k - not a major change? To put the number into perspective, [[Date of the Exodus]] is smaller than the amount this article has grown.
**Those who have been around since back then know exactly that the article ''has'' changed in major ways since then.
*"Those who wish to assist in improving this article should submit proposed changes to the panel for review." - Too many issues to list here. I honestly don't think this applies (or ''should'' apply) anymore.
I hope there can be some discussion before I'm just bluntly reverted. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:44, 18 July 2011 (EDT)}}
Today, Conservative bluntly reverted my edit without discussion, making my last line there extra hilarious. Can we maybe have some actual discussion about this? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:53, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:Sid, if you truly wanted discussion, you didn't need to remove the panel's notice to do that. Nor did you need your friend Horace in Australia who is obsessed with evolution/atheism/Conservapedia/myself to try to revert my reversion of you. What you wanted was an atheist revision of Conservapedia history. Second, the panel (who is made up of Andy's students) and Andy have had no problem with me adding more content reflecting the folly of evolutionism. More anti-evolution content is not a major change. Evolutionists adding pseudoscience which is what you are ultimately seeking to do is a major change. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:32, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::Sure we can have a discussion. But as I understand it, the decision of the CP Panel still stands. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:36, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Please restore the edit history of the article to show that the article hasn't "changed in any major way". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:43, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Sid wants to gut an article showing the folly of evolution because it gets a lot of web traffic. He would rather have a gutted article that gets little traffic. That is what this is about. If he really cared what the panel said, he would not have removed their notice. If Sid wants the panel or Andy to pare down the evolution article or do major revisions, then the frontal attack of removing the panel's notice while bold is very foolish from a human relations point of view. {{personal remark removed}} [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:48, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Which is interesting because Every atheist i Personally know is nothing like that. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 15:52, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
"Sid wants to gut an article..." He never asked for it to be unlocked, only for its full edit history to be restored. [[User:Lewis|Lewis]] 15:53, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Sid, your removing of the panel's notice betrayed you. You showed your true colors. Plus, there is the issue of {{personal remark removed}}. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:02, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::I'm with Conservative here. Here it is our job to discuss, not censor. There seems to be no consensus at all to remove the student panel decision, and all the admins seem to disagree. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:06, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::"Second, the panel (who is made up of Andy's students) and Andy have had no problem with me adding more content reflecting the folly of evolutionism." That's an interesting claim considering it's directly contradicted by the notice you put back on the talk page. In fact, there's no evidence Mr. Schlafly or the student panel ever gave "Conservative" permission to do whatever he wanted to that article, nor is it an appropriate purpose for an encyclopedia article to communicate one's editorial position that "evolutionism" is "folly". So let's discuss whether "Conservative" taking the article over to the exclusion of every single other editor and in open defiance of the student panel's instructions not to change it in any "major way" and to submit proposed changes on the article talk page is going to be permitted. Some of the irrelevant nonsense "Conservative" has been stacking up in this article wouldn't be so bad if the article adequately explained the subject matter before attacking it, but it doesn't. I've asked Mr. Schlafly to clarify the editorial policy here regarding YEC vs. evolution, which he will not comment on, but I would eat my hat if the version of the article the student panel locked in 2007 was the same pro-YEC hit piece it is today. So sure, have a discussion about the student panel's notice but don't pretend it means anything anymore. Talk about revisionist history. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 16:46, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::It is certainly against the spirit that drives wiki projects. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:56, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:Conservative, I'm not an atheist; and try to keep your little personal attacks to yourself. Please restore the history of the article so we can see what the April 2007 version looked like. Without the history, the Student Panel decision is pointless since it has no reference point to base itself on. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:15, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:(Side note: I see that Lewis just got a 2-year block by Conservative. Posting to the Community Portal is really a danger for one's wiki-health... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:21, 24 July 2011 (EDT))
::::Sid, I see you are fond of the exclusionary fallacy. Did Lewis have other edits as well? Second, if you think I am going to help a militant evolutionist, you are fooling yourself. By the way, your aforementioned frontal attack and your persistence in this matter remind me of Pickett's charge. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:26, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Your refusal to let us see the April 2007 version is quite telling. Just as telling as blocking a guy for two years right after he pointed out your error while claiming that the block was for comments the user made yesterday. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:36, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Sid, I have decided to retire from this battle that you cannot win. 是故百戰百勝，非善之善者也；不戰而屈人之兵，善之善者也。 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:38, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Ich nehme dich beim Wort. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:41, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::Both Please type in Englisch.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 16:41, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

===Section break===
I've had a problem being able to review 2700+ deleted edits and am not familiar with the earlier wiki-battles over that entry. Perhaps you can encapsulate. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:33, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

:I have taken the liberty of moving this post to its own section because it may go on for a bit. The very rough overview is basically this:
:*Between February and March 2007, this article had been central to lots of editing back and forth.
:*Conservative was made sysop (on February 25, 2007) to make his changes to the article, and his intention to have this article locked forever became apparent. Note that I'm not exaggerating here. From [[Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 1#Conservative_Please_Stop|Archive 1]], a post from the day he was sysop'd:
:*:Whatter, I was made a sysop at Conservapedia so I could make the changes I proposed in the talk page of this article. I am guessing the article will not be unlocked given that it is a lightning rod for liberals wanting to vandalize or liberals wanting to change the article in order to give it a liberal point of view. Conservative 20:38, 25 February 2007 (EST)conservative
:*Since that had been the magical time before locking anything forever became the norm, Andy promised to ask the anonymous Student Panel for their ruling, and the article was frozen in a fairly anti-evolution version.
:*Some time later (weeks later, I think?), the panel announced the decision that is still visible on [[Talk:Evolution]]. Aside from infinite protection, the central part of the ruling was "We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way."
:*There was a fair share of complaining about this (since having a mostly static article violates the wiki spirit), but the sysops (Conservative especially) held up the ruling as a shield against any further (pro-evolution) suggestions, so everybody kinda gave up and sighed.
:*However, Conservative kept editing the article as he pleased: Conservative's patrol log (which was only introduced on June 16, 2008 - more than a year after the ruling!) shows... 200+ edits for "Theory of evolution" and 950+ edits to "Evolution" (the article was moved in December 2008).
:*Between February 9, 2011 (first visible edit after Conservative erased the article history) and last week alone, the article gained roughly ten thousand characters. That's roughly the length of articles like [[Radiometric dating]] or [[Date of the Exodus]]. And this is just what happened during the last five to six months.
:*I am arguing that the Student Panel decision is utterly outdated and pointless: Locking forever is the norm for many articles anyway, nobody doubts that Conservative completely owns the article, and the "no major changes" clause is doubly absurd because the article has been constantly edited since then, and the point of reference (a version from March/April 2007) is unavailable.
:*That is why I removed the Student Panel decision and gave my reasoning in the form of the post I quoted up there.
:So the problem is not one of the many deleted edits, but rather the fact that there are so many edits and that they were deleted. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:06, 25 July 2011 (EDT)
::Thank you. Now I see the point more clearly. I do recall peripherally being aware of those happenings back then, but never was involved. The 2700+ edits maybe unrecoverable-I don't know. The overriding question is similar to the question of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles (WP:OWN); also, it may be fair to assume much of the Student Panel of 2007 has graduated, and a new Student Panel may have to be asked to look at this version, if that overall policy remains in place. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:35, 25 July 2011 (EDT)

== CAPTCHA Whitelist ==

I finally remembered to make this request while I was busy making a minor point: Could we add a few entries to [[MediaWiki:Captcha-addurl-whitelist|the CAPTCHA whitelist]]?

Right now, we have to solve a CAPTCHA even if we link to sites CP considers trustworthy, such as the [[Essay:Best News Sources|best news sources]], [[conservative blogs]], and the various [[conservative links]] (especially sections such as "Conservative Organizations" or "Creation Study"). Adding those sites to the whitelist would allow us to insert such links without hassle. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:59, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

== Everyone, please... ==

Come on [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Community_Portal&diff=prev&oldid=894414 terms like treacherous backstabber] ARE personal remarks themselves. Are we not supposed to kind and considered? Please pay heed: ''Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.'' (Epehsians 4:32). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:44, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:RobS has turned on [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] in particular and Conservapedia in general. I feel the remark was factually accurate and justified. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 23:05, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::Edit to add: And may I suggest you read [[Matthew 1-9 (Translated)#Chapter 7|Matthew 7:5]]. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 23:07, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Cross Country

2011-07-28T03:11:53Z

JarradD: /* Cross country skiing */

== Suggestions for 'Famous Athletes?' ==

Besides the obvious additions, I was wondering if anyone had any ideas on how to integrate religion into this article. I know, off the top of my head, that Hall, Salazaar, Ritzenhein, and I believe Rupp are Christian. I know that Hall`s faith is very important to him.

== Running ==

I assume that this article refers to cross country running (which is why I made the addition). Certainly my experience leads me to believe that when the term "cross country" is used without further descriptors it is a reference to running. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 22:55, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

== Cross country skiing ==

Cross country doesn't always mean running. I saw the title and thought of skiing.--[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 22:56, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:You may be right. Where I come from there is not a great amount of snow so the usage may be different. I have removed "running" from the first sentence. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 23:11, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

Cross Country

2011-07-28T03:10:28Z

JarradD: I withdraw that

'''Cross Country''' is a sport that involves multiple participants in a long-distance race.

The distance, depending on the circumstances-- middle school, high school, college, or professional race-- is anywhere between 3 kilometers and 12 kilometers. The courses may consist of varying terrain, from flat and on pavement and grass, to extremely hilly and on trails.

'''Famous Cross Country Runners'''

Steve Prefontaine

Alberto Salazaar

Galen Rupp

Dathen Ritzenhein

Ryan Hall

Alan Webb

Talk:Cross Country

2011-07-28T02:55:14Z

JarradD: /* Running */ new section

Cross Country

2011-07-28T02:52:54Z

JarradD: Vital addition

'''Cross Country''' is a sport that involves multiple participants in a long-distance running race.

The distance, depending on the circumstances-- middle school, high school, college, or professional race-- is anywhere between 3 kilometers and 12 kilometers. The courses may consist of varying terrain, from flat and on pavement and grass, to extremely hilly and on trails.

'''Famous Cross Country Runners'''

Steve Prefontaine

Alberto Salazaar

Galen Rupp

Dathen Ritzenhein

Ryan Hall

Alan Webb

User talk:JarradD

2011-07-28T02:48:00Z

JarradD: /* 6000 million stars */

{{welcome}}--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 18:45, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

== 6000 million stars ==

I hereby award you 6000 million gold stars for the Pimpernel quote! Loved the book, loved the movie. Also, thanks for the smile you gave me while reading that section on Andy's talk page. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 22:29, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:That is very sweet of you. Thank you. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 22:48, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

Pinot noir

2011-07-28T01:09:07Z

JarradD:

'''Pinot noir''' is the preeminent red [[grape]] variety in many of the world’s finest [[wine]] growing regions, such as the [[Pacific Northwest]] of the [[United States]]; Burgundy and Champagne, in [[France]]; and Kent, in England.

In Burgundy, pinot noir is used to make some of the most highly regarded red wines anywhere on Earth, but many experts believe that, as Pinot noir tends to produce its best wines in areas of lower [[temperature]]s, various regions further north may well eclipse the famous vineyards of the Cote d’Or in the very near future.

[[Category:Alcoholic Beverages]]

Talk:Promisee

2011-07-28T00:18:29Z

JarradD: Created page with "The second sentence reads as follows: :"Unlike promises in everyday speech, certain promises made under the law can be legally enforceable." A couple of issues arise. Firstly, w..."

The second sentence reads as follows:
:"Unlike promises in everyday speech, certain promises made under the law can be legally enforceable."
A couple of issues arise. Firstly, what exactly is the distinction between "everyday speech" and "under the law"? The law is all pervasive. Everything you say and every promise you make could potentially found a right at law or in equity. It just depends on the circumstances. Secondly, the term "legally" troubles me. Was the author talking about equity rather than law? The common law does not generally recognise promises unsupported by consideration. Indeed the term "mere promise" is often used to distinguish between enforceable contracts and unsupported promises. Obviously "legal" can have different meanings but if the author is talking about equity then the term "legally" should be changed in order to avoid ambiguity. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 20:18, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

Good News Club v. Milford Central School

2011-07-27T23:05:24Z

JarradD: Tense

In '''''Good News Club v. Milford Central School''''', 533 U.S. 98 (2001), the Supreme Court ordered a public school to allow a religious group to use its facility during a limited forum held after school hours for other groups. Five Justices held that the religious group could even engage in worship in the school.

Justice Thomas wrote for the Court that "speech discussing otherwise permissible subjects cannot be excluded from a limited public forum on the ground that the subject is discussed from a religious viewpoint."<ref>533 U.S. at 112.</ref>

Justice Thomas elaborated as follows:<ref>533 U.S. at 117-18 (footnote omitted)</ref>

:Fourth, even if we were to consider the possible misperceptions by schoolchildren in deciding whether Milford's permitting the Club's activities would violate the [[Establishment Clause]], the facts of this case simply do not support Milford's conclusion. There is no evidence that young children are permitted to loiter outside classrooms after the schoolday has ended. Surely even young children are aware of events for which their parents must sign permission forms. The meetings were held in a combined high school resource room and middle school special education room, not in an elementary school classroom. The instructors are not schoolteachers. And the children in the group are not all the same age as in the normal classroom setting; their ages range from 6 to 12. In sum, these circumstances simply do not support the theory that small children would perceive endorsement here.

Justice Breyer became the sixth Justice to side with the religious group, but he merely held that the facts should be developed further to see "whether a child, participating in the Good News Club's activities, could reasonably perceive the school's permission for the club to use its facilities as an endorsement of religion."<ref>533 U.S. at 128 (Breyer, J., concurring)</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Law]]
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]

Talk:Common law

2011-07-27T23:00:01Z

JarradD: /* Precedent rather than statute */ new section

I have expanded this definition. Also, it seemed overly focussed on the US so I have edited those references out. If you are talking about the common law you are talking about a substantial number of countries which includes the US. The common law does not centre on the US. In fact the US is probably somewhat isolated from other common law jurisdictions.--[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:04, 22 February 2007 (EST)

== Precedent rather than statute ==

I have removed the sentence contained in the introductory paragraph that stated that the common law was a system that worked on precedent as opposed to statute because that concept is dealt with as one of the three meanings that are referred to in the dot points below. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 19:00, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

Common law

2011-07-27T22:57:44Z

JarradD: See talk page.

The '''common law''' is the legal system which developed in [[England]] from the reign of Henry II in the 12th century and continues there and in former and current British territories and [[colony|colonies]]. It was referred to as the common law because it was (and remains) common to all of England. The [[United States]] (except for [[Louisiana]]) and the [[United Kingdom]] are two prominent countries that have a common law legal system. The [[International Court of Justice|ICJ ]] also uses common law.

The term is used to denote three distinct concepts:

1. Common law as opposed to statute law. That is, the law of precedent as opposed to the law expressed in legislation. In the common law countries judges will apply the common law in the absence of a statute governing a particular matter in issue.

2. Common law as opposed to [[Civil Law]]. That is, the common law legal system as opposed to the legal system adopted by most of continental Europe.

3. Common law as opposed to equity. That is, the law that applied in the former common law courts as opposed to that which applied in the former Court of Chancery. In [[England]], the Judicature Act 1873 created a new system which gave the courts both legal (common law) and equitable jurisdiction.

==Relationship to Islamic law==

It has recently been pointed out that certain features of English Common Law bear a striking resemblance to Islamic law of the High Middle Ages, in particular to the Maliki School of jurisprudence. In particular, concepts such as trial by jury, land possession and perpetual endowment have no affinity with either Roman Law, which was becoming established in western Europe at the time, or with Anglo-Saxon local customary laws which preceded English Common Law, but have exact parallels in the Maliki legal system (e.g. the concept of a perpetual endowment in ECL is essentially identical to that of a waqf in Islamic jurisprudence).

A potential source of Islamic legal ideas was the court of Sicily, where the Norman rulers retained many customs and laws from the previous Muslim rulers, whose legal advisers were of the Maliki School. It has been noted that Thomas Brown, an English civil servant, worked in the Sicilian Court in the 12th century and later joined the court of Henry II of England at the very time that the Common Law was being established. Brown (known as Qaid Brun in Sicily), brought mathematical ideas from Sicily to England (e.g. the Arabic/Hindu numerals) and could equally have brought legal ideas as well, although there is no direct evidence that he did so.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7631388.stm</ref>
==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Law]]
[[Category:Legal Terms]]

Willem de Kooning

2011-07-27T22:53:49Z

JarradD: Remove tautology.

[[Image:Willem de Kooning.jpg|thumb|left|120px|Willem de Kooning]]

'''Willem de Kooning''' (1904-1997) was an [[Abstract Expressionism|Abstract Expressionist]] painter. He emigrated from the[[Netherlands]] to the [[United States]] in 1926.

De Kooning is best known for the painting ''Woman V'', which took two years to complete. He and [[Jackson Pollock]] were both important figures in the Abstract-Expressionist school. De Kooning suffered from alcoholism his entire life.
{{Clear}}

== See also ==
[[Image:De Kooning Woman 1.jpg|thumb|Woman I]]
*[[Painting Masterpieces]]
*[[Painting Schools]]
*[[Grace Hartigan]]

 
[[Image:De Kooning Woman V.jpg|160px|Woman V]] Woman V

[[Category:Painters|Kooning, Willem de ]]

Afrikaans

2011-07-27T22:47:35Z

JarradD:

'''Afrikaans''' is the language of the Afrikaners (and Cape Coloureds) of [[South Africa]], who form about 56% of that country's white population. It is derived from the South-Hollandic dialect of [[Dutch language|Dutch]], brought to southern Africa in the 17th century. Its double negative structure is acquired from [[French language|French]], (the double negative was absent in both German and modern Dutch, but present in Middle Dutch).

It has also borrowed words from Malay.

== Orthography ==
In 1925, when Afrikaans replaced Dutch as one of the official languages of South Africa, a spelling system drafted by Roeland Anthonie Kollewijn was immediately adopted. ''De spelling Kollewijn'' did not get government approval in the [[Netherlands]], but many of his recommendations were implemented in later spelling reforms.

==Sources==

*[http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs3/ca/ca.pdf]- The Christian Afrikaners. A lecture by Dr.Lee (a Professor of Calvinism)
*[http://s2.ned.univie.ac.at/Publicaties/taalgeschiedenis/en/negation.htm] Negation in Middle Dutch (Universität Wien)

[[category:Germanic languages]]

Alice Rivlin

2011-07-27T22:19:11Z

JarradD: Introductory sentence.

'''Alice Mitchell Rivlin''' (Born March 4, 1931 in Philadelphia, PA.) is an economist and former U.S. cabinet official.

Alice Mitchell Rivlin has achieved several degrees; A BA from Bryn Mawr in 1952, an MA from Radciffe in 1955, followed by a PhD in 1958. She was an economist at the [[Brookings Institute]] from 1957-66 followed by further tenures from 1969-1975, and 1983-1993.

Rivlin was appointed by [[President Johnson]] during [[Great Society]] programs, to be Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation from 1966-68. In 1971, she authored ''Systematic Thinking for Social Action,'' a work that answers questions regarding how the government can allocate scarce funds to promote the maximum well-being of our citizens.

Rivlin held position as the first Director of the newly established [[Congressional Budget Office]] from 1975-83. She was appointed Deputy Director if U.S. [[Office of Management and Budget]] 1993-94 by President [[Bill Clinton|Clinton]] and later to the [[Federal Reserve Board]] of Governors between 1996-99.

She also served as Chairman of Financial Assistance and Management Authority from 1998-2001.

Rivlin was a persistent and vociferous critic of [[Reaganomics]] as head of the [[CBO]].

{{DEFAULTSORT: Rivlin, Alice Mitchell}}
[[Category:Economists]]
[[Category:Authors]]