Difference between revisions of "User talk:Aschlafly"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Reverted edits by KeraGewNuutssssss (talk) to last revision by Conservative)
Line 931: Line 931:
The view count was reset to zero due to my mistake.  I personally don't care about the displayed view counter for the evolution article I largely created.  But if other Conservapedians do care about the displayed view count, the article has gotten about 1,100,000 total views if you want to reset the counter.  It had about 500,000 views when the counter was reset before, plus this time it had about 650,000 views when it was mistakenly reset.  [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 02:13, 9 February 2011 (EST)
The view count was reset to zero due to my mistake.  I personally don't care about the displayed view counter for the evolution article I largely created.  But if other Conservapedians do care about the displayed view count, the article has gotten about 1,100,000 total views if you want to reset the counter.  It had about 500,000 views when the counter was reset before, plus this time it had about 650,000 views when it was mistakenly reset.  [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 02:13, 9 February 2011 (EST)
== TK ==
Hi Mr. Schlafly, I've been trying to email my friend Terry for days to ask him something, but he doesn't respond. I found out that he recently died because of some coronary artery disease. Do you have any information on this? I ask you because I assume that you were close to him. [[User:Willminator|Willminator]] 21:47, 13 February 2011 (EST)

Revision as of 02:47, 14 February 2011


Post Comments Here

I realized that this conversation should be on the user talk page of the counterexamples to relativity, they have been moved --mvgilpatrick, 18:00 12 Aug 2010 CDT


(posting of an MIT email address and reply deleted)

Whoever you are, "David", you're definitely not a physics major at MIT. Try Freed-Hardeman University in Tennessee. Karajou 21:24, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

When I saw your original note to Dmlerner here, I contacted him at the email address he gave. (I was also pleased with what you said about my alma mater MIT.) As you recall, he wanted to discuss things about relativity with you in email or chat, and you urged him to discuss it publicly, on the "counterexamples to relativity" talk page. The discussion here was deleted, and he never even saw your reply. He seems to be shy about debating people in public; I urged him to go ahead. This was before I realized that he had been blocked.

Now it came out in our discussion that, by amazing coincidence, we've met, in an MIT activity (of which I am a leader) last semester. I can assure you that he is an MIT student. The "mit.edu" email address shows that also.

He was not aware that you must edit from an MIT campus address if you are an MIT student. He is not on campus over the summer. I do not know why he edited from the campus of another college. Nor did he tell me what he wanted to say about relativity.

I recommend that you unblock his account when the fall semester begins.

Dmlerner is unblocked. Karajou 00:12, 12 August 2010 (EDT)

Obama opened up stem-cell research

Obama is back at his liberal shenanigans. Obama's policies have let the liberals at the FDA approve injecting people with murdered babies. I can't believe the insanity, just murdering them isn't enough? They have to desecrate them as well? --CathyB 01:29, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

Thanks for the link, which I moved to the Main Page.--Andy Schlafly 10:43, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

Counterexamples to Evolution --- exciting news!

Greetings Andy,

With today's addition of the 59th counterexample, our statistical confidence level in disproving evolution has surpassed 95%, the scientific threshold! Now not only has Conservapedia amassed a large archive of individually convincing counterexamples, we have disproven evolution scientifically, beating the evolutionists at their own game. I would humbly suggest that this collective achievement be announced "In the News". AJFrederickson 00:22, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

Thanks for the suggestion! Perhaps when the list reaches 60 that would be a round number more worthy of adding to the "In the News"?--Andy Schlafly 09:10, 4 August 2010 (EDT)
Andy, I just added schizophrenia to the article, which gives us our 60th counterexample! Good News indeed. --CathyB 21:36, 5 August 2010 (EDT)
I look forward to learning from your edit to Counterexamples to Evolution. Thanks much for contributing your insights to the entries.--Andy Schlafly 23:51, 5 August 2010 (EDT)
If 95% is the confidence level that scientists use, then both Evolution and Global Warming lack sufficient support to be called "science". Surveys show that 5% of scientists disbelieve in the theory of evolution, and disbelief in Anthropogenic Global Warming runs in the teens or twenties (i.e., well over 10% of scientists doubit the theory).
Isn't it time we labeled these ideas protoscience or even pseudoscience? --Ed Poor Talk 19:40, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

Thanks for unblocking RonLar

I assume that you enjoy our discussion at Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words as much as I do.

However, to make this edit, I'm sitting in an internet café, as my usual venues to the internet (home, work, library) are now all covered by range blocks (,,

To facilitate my contribution to our exchange, I'd rather like you to lift the one covering my ISP at home, i.e.,:

The block was made by TK. The reason given is IP of blocked vandal / troll /

troublemaker: RIPE, Unitymedia, Germany.

* Start of block: 19:51, 27 January 2010 * Expiry of block: 19:51, 27 January 2011 * Intended blockee: You can contact TK or another administrator to discuss the block. You cannot use the 'e-mail this user' feature unless a valid e-mail address is specified in your account preferences and you have not been blocked from using it. Your current IP address is 109.90.xxx.xxx and the block ID is #63109. Please include

all above details in any queries you make.

Of course, if you got convinced that my contributions are detrimental to your site, you don't have to do anything - and I will stop to edit, as the process becomes to cumbersome.

RonLar 08:11, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

Ron, your "contributions" have been mostly talk. As I previously suggested, please also contribute with substantive edits to entries as others do. Substantive edits to entries are the essence of this wiki.--Andy Schlafly 10:52, 5 August 2010 (EDT)
My contributions (not "contributions") are carefully crafted arguments and insightful graphics. I don't think that a contribution like this is less substantive than this, only because it happens to be introduced on a talk-page.
Shall I take your unwillingness to unblock my ISP at home as a hint?
RonLar 07:52, 7 August 2010 (EDT)

Question, by email?

Hi Mr. Schlafly,

I had a question for you about Mediawiki that I needed to ask you by email, but with email disabled in your edit console I couldn't find your address. Would it be possible for you to shoot me a quick email so I can reply to it with my question? I'd really appreciate the help. Thank you! Tyler Zoran Talk 15:59, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

Bible translation copyright question

Hello Mr. Schlafly,

I've heard about your Bible translation project, and as a Sunday school teacher was naturally intrigued by this effort. I've read through a number of passages in your translation, and am wondering if it would be ok to print them out and hand out to my students. I think the language is often clearer and simpler to understand than in many other translations, so it would be of great benefit to the youngsters. I want to double check with you though to make sure you're ok using your translation in this manner (especially since it seems like the project is not completely done yet). Thanks, --TeacherEd 18:14, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

The authors of the Bible did not limit legitimate circulation of their work, and neither do we. It's OK to print our translation and distribute as you like. This has been our longstanding policy, as set forth in Conservapedia:Copyright.
Unlike liberals, we welcome dissemination of the truth.--Andy Schlafly 21:49, 5 August 2010 (EDT)
Thank you for the explanation. I printed out a few passages and used them in class today - so far so good, and I think the youngsters are getting some new insights from reading such a clear translation. Also, thanks for the link to your copyright policy - I read it, and find it very interesting (and a bit ironic), that the liberal Wikipedia actually has stricter standards for protecting their work then Conservapedia, which truly makes its content shareable by everyone. --TeacherEd 21:41, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

Cannot undo "Ten Commandments" vandalism?

It says "The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits." (4 edits back by JamesAnon) -danq 15:28, 10 August 2010 (EDT)

What's the vandalism, and is it still there?

Galileo and Kepler

I answered a question of yours, rather belatedly, here. --Ed Poor Talk 19:35, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

Reverts to Counter Examples in Relativity

Hi, Sorry to bother you again. I wish to query the deletion of one particular contribtuion. I can appreciate the deletion of the comment that linked to the one article but the other comment contained a reasoned explanation of the point at hand. Namely:

A trivial solution to Einsteins field equations for a vacuum can result in Minkowski spacetime. This is a 4D metric describing a pseudo-Riemannian manifold with no spatial curvature (i.e. flat). A requirement of GR is that in locally inertial frames (i.e. small enough regions of spacetime) we recover Minkowski spacetime. It's just that in GR the requirement of a locally Minkwoski spacetime does not always extend to a global case with curvature effects breaking down the notion of inertial frames for all observers. The observation of a flat Universe (spatial curvature parameter, K = 0 in the FLRW metric) is not in violation of GR and is a valid solution to Einsteins field equations (see e.g. | Friedmanns Equations) and a prediction of models of inflationary cosmology whereby a rapid expansion in the early Universe drives the Universe towards a spatially flat solution, certainly within the observable Universe. Predictions from GR are still obeyed... 14th August 2010

It seems like a reasonable point regarding the observed flatness of the Universe being a solution to Friedmann's equations?

Thanks, NotesTH

I have an open mind about this and will give your comments more thought before replying. But I can respond now with this: the issue is not whether something can be conformed to Relativity, with Relativity as the assumption, but whether an observation is plausible under the Relativity. A flat universe does not seem plausible under the theory.--Andy Schlafly 14:27, 14 August 2010 (EDT)

Reverts to Counterexamples to Relativity

I posted the reasons for my edits on the Summary at the bottom of page, which can be seen in Page History. Isn't that enough?--Freiberg 13:37, 16 August 2010 (EDT)

No, an unsupported claim in the edit summary is inadequate to justify a sweeping deletion of an entire item. We don't allow censorship here. If you want to delete something substantive, then please explain why better than you did. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 14:05, 16 August 2010 (EDT)

Relativity and relativism

Timely and relevant article in Washington Times about the connection between relativity and (moral) relativism here. --Ed Poor Talk 15:31, 16 August 2010 (EDT)

The Starlight Problem

Mr. Schlafly, I think this problem needs to be better addressed than the article currently up attempts to do. Recently I've encountered a lot of people using the argument that because those stars are billions of light years away, there couldn't have been a young universe. The current article has a few proposed soltions but they all admit to having some problems with the theories. I just think its something that needs to be addressed more clearly. RianB 11:37, 20 August 2010 (EDT)

Please improve it as you think best. I'll take a look myself.--Andy Schlafly 12:15, 20 August 2010 (EDT)
The thing is I'm not really sure what the general YEC consensus is regarding that issue. I checked creationwiki and they didn't really have an article but rather they had articles about books on the subject. Is it that God had already created the stars and the rest of the universe before the Earth and when He said, "Let there be light," that was when they became visible on Earth? Genesis does say He created heavens and then Earth; I don't think there are necesarily time constraints before the first day God began creating the earth (just one possibility). Or is it something concerning a speed of light that is subject to change over time. Or is it something regarding the theory of relativity? I do see that the article does do a good job at showing that this is a problem for the Big Bang. RianB 1:55, 20 August 2010 (EDT)

New User

Hello Mr Schlafly! I'm a new member here and just wondered how to start going about things. Do you like new people to watch and learn for a bit, or just pitch straight in? And if the latter, do you have a list of favoured topics, or should we follow our individual areas of ineterest and expertise? My particular interests are cities, their histories and ideologies. Many thanks, Trevor.


I'm somewhat concerned about promoting the youtube user, ShockofGod, on these pages. He has somewhat of a sordid history on youtube, and I don't think CP should be too closely affiliated with him. If you'd like to know any more, just drop me a message or something.(I would have asked about this on the talk page for his article, but it's locked apparently) --JasonN 19:16, 24 August 2010 (EDT)

Are there reliable witnesses and have you checked their allegations carefully or are you just repeating rumors? The reason I ask is there is no shortage of atheists/Wiccans/liberals with axes to grind, but without proof for their allegations. Also, can you bring forth any Christian witnesses to substantiate your allegation? The reason I ask that question is Ray Comfort did an interview with shockofgod. conservative 22:02, 24 August 2010 (EDT)

New User

High, I am new here and ready to contribute! Where should I start? Thank you!

Basis for 3 branches of government

(It seems like some new user has accidentally removed this topic, so I am pasting it back in):

Andy. Is there a direct basis for Isaiah 33:22 for the 3 branches of government? Is the connection just Hebrew parallelism or is there historical evidence for our founding fathers using this verse? Thank you.


Good question. I'm not sure if there is any evidence of the basis of the 3 branches of government. Attendees of the Constitutional Convention were supposed to destroy their notes. A few (such as Madison) did not, and those notes are searchable on internet sites. Can you take a look?--Andy Schlafly 20:53, 24 August 2010 (EDT)
This is a fascinating idea, and when I saw this, as a Sunday school teacher I immediately started researching. I found this [site http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm] (among various others), which seems to support this theory by stating that :At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He discovered this model of government from the Perfect Governor, as he read Isaiah 33:22;

'For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us.'” --TeacherEd 22:14, 24 August 2010 (EDT)

Wow, that is a remarkable claim and citation! I wonder if there is even more support for this.--Andy Schlafly 22:18, 24 August 2010 (EDT)
This topic is discussed on numerous internet sites, but I found this one http://av1611.com/kjbp/ridiculous-kjv-bible-corrections/Isaiah-33-22.html in particular especially insightful. It discusses this passage in terms of modern Biblical translation, and proves how they are often wrong by misinterpreting it! It looks like Conservapedia hasn't yet translated Isaiah, but I have no doubt that the mistakes of the "progressives" won't be made here. --TeacherEd 22:26, 24 August 2010 (EDT)
Not sure about a Biblical basis, but in Unificationism the functions of the lungs, heart and stomach are controlled by the brain, just as (ideally) "the legislative, judicial and executive branches - will interact in harmonious and principled relationships when they follow God's guidance as conveyed through Christ and people of God." [1]
Anyway, our American Founding Fathers got the idea from France:
I would be fascinated to discover a more ancient antecedent. --Ed Poor Talk 15:57, 28 August 2010 (EDT)

Edit rights

Hi Prof. Schlafly,

Thanks for granting me edit rights! It's gratifying to know that my contributions are appreciated. I hope you can clarify though; what does that actually mean? Don't get me wrong, I'm not unhappy or angling for more rights. I was just looking at the user rights log and not sure what it means. Is it that I'm not affected by those editing blackouts at some times of the day? Just curious. Thanks again. EMorris 16:40, 25 August 2010 (EDT)

Right, it means editing unlimited by time.--Andy Schlafly 16:43, 25 August 2010 (EDT)
Awesome. I understand why that limitation exists, but it's been a pain for me at times. Thanks! EMorris 16:47, 25 August 2010 (EDT)

left side of main page and sources of good pictures

Got some feedback from a sysop. The sysop was wondering now that Joaquin is not so active and left main page and I will be less active except for big creation/evolution/Christianity stories, who will be doing left main page edits more and what should be on left main page. Since I seem to have a knack for finding interesting pictures (current pic of dogs, recent fire pic, etc) and for certain newsworthy times like the rosy North Dakota employment rate news, etc. etc. , I have been asked for my two cents on the left main page.

Here is my advice: Keep the popular articles at Conservapedia section, keep the evolution section since that is a "liberal sacred cow" we seem to be poking well with the creation science cattle prod :) , but have more politics with pictures on the left main page. Here is how Conservapedians can find interesting public domain pictures at flickr: http://www.askdavetaylor.com/how_to_identify_public_domain_creative_commons_photos_flickr.html I would also recommend this site for public domain pictures as long as the person does not mark it as private: http://photobucket.com/ I really think politics is going to be a big issue for at least 3 years as the SS Obama ship goes down in terms of the economy and the new Republican or even third party person replaces Obama. Of course, maybe things will change and I will get more interested in politics so maybe I will get more active on left side of main page. conservative 22:19, 25 August 2010 (EDT)

Based on some recent developments and additional deliberation, I have decided to keep my options very open as far as future edits to the left main page.  :) conservative 15:07, 29 August 2010 (EDT)

important addendum

I think this is a real good resource so I would leave it up on left main page somewhere: http://www.conservapedia.com/Resources_for_leaving_atheism_and_becoming_a_Christian Alternatively, you could use link instead: http://www.conservapedia.com/Resources_on_becoming_a_Christian Ideally, have both links on left main page. Also, once in a while for nostalgia sake trot out this picture on the main page since certain quarrelsome gentlemen are quite fond of this pic: http://www.flickr.com/photos/evolution_atheism/3360230417/  :) conservative 22:35, 25 August 2010 (EDT)

left and right side of main page

The graphs on the left side of the main oage gave me an idea. Why not have the right side of the main page be news events and then the left side of the main page concern itself with trends and things that are long lasting/eternal. You could throw in some art as well. Here is a good source of trends: http://www.trendsresearch.com/journal.html Here is another example of trends: http://www.entrepreneur.com/trends/index.html conservative 22:24, 27 August 2010 (EDT)

imbed videos on left side of main page too

I also think you should imbed videos on the left side of main page. Videos are very popular. Here is an example of a wiki inbedding a video from Google video: http://www.creationwiki.org/Creation#Video The videos could be on news items, interesting topics, or the Christian faith. conservative 22:57, 27 August 2010 (EDT)

Worth considering. Feel free to try it out if the video is particularly educational.--Andy Schlafly 23:02, 27 August 2010 (EDT)
TerryH is going to need to help us out showing how to imbedd a video on left side of the main page, but perhaps other admins know as well. I believe Google video, YouTube, Tangle, and perhaps other types of videos be imbedded on a wiki. I think we will see front page view counts go up if we have engaging/educational/newsworthy videos. Here are some of my favorite YouTube channels that I think that would appeal to our audience: http://www.youtube.com/user/GeraldCelenteChannel and http://www.youtube.com/user/HumanEvents and http://www.youtube.com/user/HeritageFoundation and http://www.youtube.com/user/ConservativeNewMedia and http://www.youtube.com/user/visionvictory and http://www.youtube.com/user/misesmedia and http://www.youtube.com/user/ppsimmons (I like his anti-evolution videos ) and http://www.youtube.com/user/creationclips conservative 00:43, 28 August 2010 (EDT)
I think we could ask some conservative groups that focus on key issues to tell us when they have a particularly good video and that would make things easier. This would make the videos more newsworthy and educational. conservative 00:52, 28 August 2010 (EDT)

abortion article- extra 200,000 unique visitors a year plus word of mouth created

Andy, now that things have settled down a bit after the TPM traffic, I think we should keep the momentum going via the abortion article and abortion related articles. I think this will bring in an about an extra 200,000 unique visitors a year plus word of mouth created and this is only counting the main abortion article. Plus, if we better utilize the left front page via videos, trends, art, and Christian news, this will bring in additional visitors. conservative 23:45, 27 August 2010 (EDT)

700 to 1,700 extra visitors a day may be possible to the main page if you improve the left front page plus word of mouth advertising

One last thing, if you improve the left side of the main page, I think it is reasonable to assume that main page traffic would increase by 10 - 25% percent which would mean that main page traffic increases by about 700 - 1,700 visitors a day based on the current front page view counts plus any word of mouth advertising. If you had more main page viewers this would drive traffic to the popular articles at Conservapedia section. You might want to scrunch down the popular articles at Conservapedia section and eliminate some of the articles so the key articles stand out plus it would allow for more content which attracts more visitors. conservative 01:49, 28 August 2010 (EDT)

I have an idea about how we can get quality educational videos on the left main page in an efficient manner that I will discuss with you and some sysops. conservative 16:23, 28 August 2010 (EDT)

User Talk Page

Hi, Andy, and thanks for *yawn* one more vandal rv. I've been told that I'm a little bit too handsome. Do you suppose that's why so many gay liberals want my attention? --Ed Poor Talk 15:50, 28 August 2010 (EDT)

Conservapedia ranks #3 for the word "conservative" at Google USA plus

Conservapedia ranks #3 for the word "conservative" at Google USA. Second, I realize that if I get involved in beefing up the left side of the main page in terms of political content that you want sufficient "blue space" and organization so the main page does not look cluttered. conservative 17:41, 28 August 2010 (EDT)

Mini Drudge Report on left main page in terms of resources being offered

One of the reasons people go to the Drudge Report is that he offers multiple links to other news sources.

I propose having a mini-Drudge Report and have direct links to: the top 5 conservative news sources, the top 5 conservative video sources, and the top 5 conservative columnists. Maybe have links to the best conservative thinktanks as well. I propose that the sources be fiscally conservative,socially conservative, and against frivolous wars that drain the US treasury and create unnecessary and harmful foreign entanglements. I say this because the fiscal policies of Bush/Obama have put this country in a financially precarious position. I do realize that some Conservapedians may not share my views on the Iraq/Afghanistan wars so perhaps a consensus view of the sources being offered could be arrived. This way the main page would offer a resource that is uncluttered and give people another reason to keep coming back the main page. conservative 13:52, 29 August 2010 (EDT)

socialism article refined and beefed up. Now possible for Conservapedia to have a prominent article on the internet for socialism

I did some refining and beefing up of the Conservpedia socialism article. If Conservapedia wants to have a very prominent position on the internet for socialism, it is now very possible to do whereas before it would have been difficult. conservative 18:19, 29 August 2010 (EDT)

Well organized and uncluttered mini Drudge Report section on main page

Based on Andy Schlafly's input and Sysop input, I created a "mini Drudge Report" on the main page. Please feel free to improve these resources through more clickable clinks, better formatting, better organization, and expanding the resources.

conservative 16:21, 31 August 2010 (EDT)

Where do we post our answers for the American Government Course

Good Afternoon Professor Shlafly, I saw that the American Government Course began today and after reading lecture one, I was wondering where I should post the solutions. I'm sorry if I'm being a bother, but this is technically my first course here after the Writing course was cancelled. Can you please post specific instructions for what we have to do, and when should we have it done by. Thank you for your time. --Davidkon 18:21, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

Thanks for your comment. You can post your answers using this link: American Government Homework One.--Andy Schlafly 20:34, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

Thank you! I have submitted my work. When can I expect Lesson 2 to be avaliable?--Davidkon 14:48, 3 September 2010 (EDT)

In about a week. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 15:04, 3 September 2010 (EDT)

Professor Schlafly, after reviewing your corrections to my paper, I feel morally obligated to make it known that I feel you have been too generous. On Question Four I completely forgot that only one third of the Senate is up for re-election and this is glaringly obvious in my predictions which only express the fact that I thought the Republicans would win a majority. As the Senate aspect of the question is nearly half the question, I feel that a minimum of five points should have been deducted there, as a full question is ten points. As for my embarrassing spelling mistake, I would also have taken a point or two off for that, because as not only was this assignment not timed, it was also on the computer. I should have taken the time to spell-check my answers, at the very least. I also feel that the extra-credit was far too generous at 5 extra points. I would have given it a one or two point bonus, maximum. As Conservatives, we must hold ourselves to the highest standards and not be afraid to critique what needs to be criticized in order to better ourselves. May I ask that in the future you grade me at a college level, so I may get the most out of this course? Thank you! --Davidkon 12:30, 5 September 2010 (EDT)

David, self-discipline is often helpful but you are being too harsh. If and when you feel you got an undeserved break, then consider giving someone else that extra benefit, as in adding good information to other entries here so that more can be learned by visitors than otherwise. Thanks and Godspeed.--Andy Schlafly 13:10, 5 September 2010 (EDT)

Tracking conservapedia main page views from early on

I thought you might be interested in this - Tracking conservapedia main page views and other page views from early on: User:Conservative/Conservapedia-running-stats-all conservative 21:58, 3 September 2010 (EDT)

Second American Government lecture

I just want to inquire as to when you think the second lecture of the American Government course will be ready. It was slated to be done last Thursday, and in planning my week I was hoping to study it today, so I am anxious to see it. No rush of course - I am sure it takes a lot of effort to get the lecture just right, and I certainly don't want to impede on its quality, but just wanted to know if there is a new schedule, so that I can plan accordingly. Thanks, --TeacherEd 21:08, 14 September 2010 (EDT)

I am anxious too!! TerryB 22:40, 14 September 2010 (EDT)
We're taking a one-week break in the course. Thanks for your patience.--Andy Schlafly 06:00, 15 September 2010 (EDT)
Thanks for letting us know, Mr. Schlafly. Can we assume the second lecture will be posted this week (I am just trying to plan ahead with my schedule - no rush if it's not ready yet, of course!). On a completely unrelated note, there have been multiple occasions since I joined Conservapedia when I wanted to add some content, but was unable to do so, only being able to "view the source" of a given page. Are these just technical difficulties or is there some other reason behind that? Thanks, --TeacherEd 21:09, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

Did main page changes we discussed and found important things

I did the main pages we discussed and I found some important things.

Right now, we have an article called Conservation and environmentalism. We need to have two separate articles. One called "Conservation" and the other called "Environmentalism". Overtime, we will get more search engine traffic if we do that. Also, we can spend more time on each issue without the article becoming too cumbersome.

Next, the Federal Budget Deficit and Limited government are politically big issues this year and in the foreseeable near future so these articles need to be beefed up.

Lastly, I put Tea Party Movement on the main page popular entries. conservative 14:45, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

Got rid of redirect for environmentalism and now we will need a full fledged article

Got rid of redirect for environmentalism and now we will need a full fledged article for environmentalism. conservative 20:28, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

Health care reform

Conservapedia needs a Health care reform article now too. I removed the redirect that goes to socialized medicine. Health care does need reform as far as making it more free market oriented. There is no need to have a redirect to Socialized medicine. conservative 20:38, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

Course on the Unborn Child

I haven't been around here for a while, but I was hoping to read the lectures on the Unborn Child course, and I can't find them. Is this course happening this term? DanielPulido 06:00, 22 September 2010 (EDT)

It's under development. It would be great if you could contribute suggests or content for it.--Andy Schlafly 08:36, 22 September 2010 (EDT)
I posted some of my thoughts on it here. When were you planning to start it? Will it be after the American Government course finishes? DanielPulido 02:47, 23 September 2010 (EDT)
Your suggestions are terrific. I think the timing of this new course would be after the American Government course finishes, or perhaps even sooner. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 09:23, 23 September 2010 (EDT)
I would sign up for this course. It seems interesting, Andy. TerryB 12:23, 23 September 2010 (EDT)

American Government course

Mr. Schlafly, what is the current status of the American Government course? You mentioned a one week break, but it has now been 2 weeks since the 2nd lecture was originally supposed to be posted, so I am curious as to the schedule. Is the course still happening? --TeacherEd 19:52, 23 September 2010 (EDT)

Just starting to catch up now. Should be caught up by the weekend. Thanks for your patience.--Andy Schlafly 22:29, 23 September 2010 (EDT)
Thanks for the update, and for reminding us to be patient, which, after all, is one of the seven core Christian virtues. --TeacherEd 23:44, 23 September 2010 (EDT)

Human Events and RobS left main page revamp

Revamping the left main page by adding important current trends and information was very helpful to our readers. RobS added a lot of good information. Human Events may have noticed and they just mentioned Conservapedia. I just posted this as news item: Human Events, a leading conservative news website, mentions Conservapedia.[2] conservative 07:25, 28 September 2010 (EDT)

Funny but ...

I deleted Compass and straightedge even though it was funny. If the author were still around, I might have userfied it. We do need a geometry article on how to use compass and straightedge for certain constructions, but I skipped plane geometry in school and went on to analytic geometry instead (big mistake). --Ed Poor Talk 18:50, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

Thanks. As you say, humor has its place, but not as a substitute for academic content.--Andy Schlafly 18:59, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

Bible lectures

Mr. Schlafly, I've been learning a lot from your American Government course, and from Conservapedia in general. I would like to express my thanks in a practical way, by teaching a course of my own. Being a Sunday school teacher, I have some expertise on the Bible, and so would like to teach a brief course about it. I have listed the individual lecture topics here. If you approve, I will begin developing the actual lecture content. --TeacherEd 16:37, 2 October 2010 (EDT)

That would be terrific, and I'll be the first to enroll in such an important course. Such a course would benefit many.--Andy Schlafly 16:54, 2 October 2010 (EDT)

Worrisome Article

Hi Mr. Schlafly,

While scanning the news, I came across this. While it's not talking about us, it's still a worrisome trend (in my opinion, at least). This seems like an attempt by the British government to equate some pagan faith with Christianity, wouldn't you say? (Sorry I can't find a better source for this either; I don't really know much about the british media so it's the best I could do). Thank you! Tyler Zoran Talk 10:05, 3 October 2010 (EDT)

Bible course enrollment

I have made much progress in developing the first lecture for the new Bible Course. I have opened up enrollment on this page. Do you think this could be advertised on the main page, so people have the opportunity to sign up? I think the course can start on October 11th. --TeacherEd 19:41, 3 October 2010 (EDT)

This is terrific. We've already had a bunch of changes to the Main Page this weekend, and I don't want to overload it with more changes. I'll announce this terrific new course on Monday, if that's OK!--Andy Schlafly 22:03, 3 October 2010 (EDT)
That sounds great! Thank you, Mr.Schlafly. --TeacherEd 22:11, 3 October 2010 (EDT)
I saw yesterday there was a mention on the main page about the Bible course (thank you for that), but I am wondering if you could post a link directly to the Bible Lectures so that more people have a chance to sign up. On a separate note, do we have another break in the American Government course? I am eagerly awaiting the completion of the third lecture. --TeacherEd 20:43, 5 October 2010 (EDT)
I'm catching up, and hopefully will have fully caught by this weekend. Thanks for your efforts.--Andy Schlafly 23:37, 6 October 2010 (EDT)

Compass and Straightedge

What is going on? You seem to be endorsing "editing by flamethrower"! The recent deletion (by Ed Poor) of the Compass and straightedge article was totally wrong, and destroyed an important part of middle-school mathematics. I feel responsible for this, because I had brought this to Ed's attention just two days before. Here is the relevant clip from my email:

But have you looked at the "compass and straightedge" article? I finally got around to reading the whole thing. It reeks of parody! See for yourself. Ask yourself whether ancient Greek sailors used compasses to guide their navigation, drawing circles with them. Or whether geometric figures like triangles were inspired by the shape of an oar.

(By the way, I didn't consider it the least bit funny. In another context, maybe, but this was plain vandalism.)

"Reeks of parody" seems to have overstated the case. My intention was to have him fix those few sentences, not delete the entire article! Many people had contributed to that article before the parody, and the article is important. All those people's work has now been destroyed. How are you going to get people to want to contribute if this sort of thing goes on?

Please restore the article, and take out the parody. As I said in my email to Ed, there are a few other minor improvements that need to be made. I will do them.

There was a similar thing with the Ruddigore article, that I sent email to you and DouglasA about. I never saw the original; it might be awful. But don't just delete it. Please restore it, and I will take a look.

SamHB 21:54, 8 October 2010 (EDT)

I'll take a look at these disputed math articles and see what can be restored.--Andy Schlafly 23:25, 8 October 2010 (EDT)


I realize that you are extremely busy, taking one course, teaching another, and coordinating news items about the upcoming election, but I wonder if you could restore this article, and perhaps the "Ruddigore" article as well. I had hoped that Ed Poor would do this, but his recent reply to me has not made me optimistic about either this article or my ability to contribute. Please restore it. Even if it has that parody, it won't hurt to leave it in for a day or so until I can fix it.

I know nothing about the previous contents of the Ruddigore article, but I consider it unlikely that someone would choose a Gilbert and Sullivan opera as a way to vandalize Conservapedia. My guess is that it was a matter of being trigger happy after someone's account was blocked.

SamHB 21:47, 24 October 2010 (EDT)

Election Seasons Greetings....

T'was the night before elections

And all through the town

Tempers were flaring

Emotions all up and down

I, in my bathrobe

With a cat in my lap

Had cut off the TV

tired of political clap-trap

When all of a sudden

There arose such a noise

I peered out my window

Saw Obama and his syncopates

They had come for my wallet

They wanted my pay

To give to the others

Who had not worked a day!

He snatched up my money

And quick as a wink

Jumped back on his bandwagon

As I gagged from the stink

He then rallied his henchmen

Who were pulling his cart

I could tell they were out

To tear my country apart!

'On Fannie, on Freddie,

On Biden and Ayers!

On Acorn, On Pelosi'

He screamed at the pairs!

They took off for his cause

And as they flew out of sight

I heard him laugh at the nation

Who wouldn't stand up and fight!

So I leave you to think

On this one final note—




This was from the email, too good not to share. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 16:35, 18 October 2010 (EDT)

American Government/Bible courses

Hello Mr. Schlafly,

I noticed that unfortunately the number of remaining students in the Bible course is very small, so I am considering putting the class on hold until we are able to recruit some more. I assume the American Government course was put on hold for a similar reason? Do you think perhaps more advertising for the courses on the main page could help? What else could we do to let people know about Conservapedia's educational resources? I am eager to help however I can. Thanks, --TeacherEd 22:47, 20 October 2010 (EDT)

I think we can continue with both courses. Online courses do not have to fit the bricks-and-mortar model. There is more freedom online, and people benefit from these courses without constraint with a week-by-week schedule. But it's up to you.
The only reason I haven't posted more lectures more quickly in my American Government class is because of other activities on the site. But those are good diversions and time well spent. Thanks again for your efforts ... I've learned from your Bible course and really appreciated your insight about foreknowledge in Genesis about anesthesia!--Andy Schlafly 01:38, 21 October 2010 (EDT)
I hope you are going to continue posting the American Government course. I was really interested in reading the lectures on whether or not Jesus was pro-life. Can you commit to keep posting them? DanielPulido 05:30, 21 October 2010 (EDT)
I'll keep working on the lectures. But can there be any doubt whether Jesus was pro-life? "I am the bread of life" was central to His message, and most of His miracles were life-saving or life-promoting.--Andy Schlafly 05:59, 21 October 2010 (EDT)
Thanks for your thoughts, Mr. Schlafly. Great point about the difference between online and in-person courses! I will continue doing my research for the next lectures. --TeacherEd 23:36, 21 October 2010 (EDT)

Thanks for help & Following the mid-term election results.

Thank you for your help in setting my account up and unblocking my IP, I'm going to re-read through all of the Conservapedia Commandments now before contributing. I was just wondering, as I'm outside the USA, what is the best online resource to follow the incoming results from the election, and what time can these results be expected? StephenKP 14:36, 1 November 2010 (EDT)

Results will start shortly after 7pm New York time Tuesday, because Kentucky polls close then. There is a disputed Senate and at least one House race there, and that will give a sign for how the entire evening will go. In close races the outcome will not be "called" until after midnight New York time.
The value of the internet is in consulting many resources ... and especially this one!--Andy Schlafly 14:45, 1 November 2010 (EDT)
Thank you. I'll likely stay up late then. I'm deeply hoping some of your 'Tea Party' candidates can secure seats in congress. In a time where even European Social Democrats are making big spending cuts to reduce deficits, the Tea Party are exactly what America needs. I'm interested in writing an article about the United Kingdom's austerity measures. The Conservative government has issued a Comprehensive Spending Review - a plan to cut spending by upto 25% within 5 years, cutting spending on everything from welfare to public sector employment. It's a really good political move, and I'd like the article to cover criticism and economists' views too. What would you call this article? United Kingdom Comprehensive Spending Review, UK Spending Cuts... something like that? StephenKP 15:01, 1 November 2010 (EDT)
I'd like to learn from your planned entry about this. Either name for it would be fine, and you could insert a redirect into the other name to point visitors to the name you choose for it.--Andy Schlafly 15:10, 1 November 2010 (EDT)

Labour Party

Andy, is there anyway you could unlock the Labour Party page please, or otherwise alter it so it no longer reads that they now form the government of the UK? As I'm sure you're well aware the Tory party's now in (thank God!) and an article of this importance needs to reflect that. I bought it up on the relevant talkpage but no one's responded as of yet. Many thanks, and great work here with the project by the way, ChelseaR 14:51, 5 November 2010 (EDT)

Unlocked as requested. Please edit as you think best!--Andy Schlafly 15:16, 5 November 2010 (EDT)
Many thanks! ChelseaR 15:30, 5 November 2010 (EDT)

Follow up

Please see user talk:ctown200, where I have replied. Ctown200 16:35, 8 November 2010 (EST)

Writing Topics

Are there any topics you'd particularly like worked on? My knowledge is generally in UK, USA & French Politics, Mathematics, English & French language, European Culture and Christianity. Also, how do I take part in the Bible Course? Will I be contacted now I've put my name down? Also, did you get my email to the registration account? Is there a better place to privately contact you? StephenKP 16:58, 8 November 2010 (EST)

Some additions

Hi, Andy. I made a few additions to Andrew Klavan and pluralism before work this morning. --Ed Poor Talk 09:27, 10 November 2010 (EST)

Interesting entries and edits!--Andy Schlafly 09:47, 10 November 2010 (EST)

Chemistry article expansion

Would this encyclopedia mind if I start expanding chemistry articles? --LK 11:14, 16 November 2010 (EST)

That would be fabulous! I look forward to learning from your edits.--Andy Schlafly 11:26, 16 November 2010 (EST)
Tin(II) oxide... --LK 11:34, 16 November 2010 (EST)

User:LanthanumK/Wikipedia contrast

How d'ya like it? --LK 16:25, 17 November 2010 (EST)

Blood from Stone

Mr. Schlafly, I am a fairly regular reader of "Scientific America" and despite the inherent liberal nature of the magazine, (with Liberals controlling the intellectual elite and all) it often has good conservative articles non-the-less if you know how to look. In the most recent issue, I came across this article "Blood from Stone". http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=blood-from-stone The Liberal scientific community has grudgingly accepted what Conservapedia has been saying all along! With your permission, I would like to be able to incorporate the information from this article into the article on Dinosaurs. The whole article is not avaliable online, so I would encourage you to pick up a copy of the December issue, as it is a very interesting read! It's good to see that there are still some good Conservative scientists hard at work out there! Perhaps this is even Main-Page worthy? Thanks! --Davidkon 13:41, 30 November 2010 (EST)

At first glance, the article seems to push an Old Earth view, which is used to erode faith. Have you studied Counterexamples to an Old Earth?--Andy Schlafly 19:04, 30 November 2010 (EST)
A good number of very devout Catholics including myself disagree with you and I think are probably the majority in the RCC. I teach the CCC to my children and their friends every week. Not taking Genesis creation literally hasn't troubled our faith or belief that the soul of every man was created by God. Section 390 of the Catechism teaches that "the account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents." CCC Section 283 mentions the development of lifeforms and appearance of man. This supports some people's belief that God's hand was throughout the process. Humani Generis teaches that the souls of men are specially created but it doesn't mean that their bodies were too. I guess you can believe the bodies of men were specially created but it's not necessary. That and only that do we know to be true and the discussion must end there. But even if I did not know that Humani Generis is considered to be sufficient to end this discussion, I do not believe anything I have been taught and believe is inconsistent with the faith my savior deserves. Being a "theistic evolutionist" or accepting an old age of the earth does not change my walk. I have struggled with how to regard the consistent YEC message on Conservapedia. Not all Christians believe as the Baptists, Presbyterians, and other protestants who accept YEC do. Very few Catholics do. I believe you are among them. Therefore someone needs to say that a lack of belief in YEC does not always erode a man's faith. I guess that person is me. I am sure it is dangerous to the beliefs of other men but it doesn't need to trouble a Catholic who has been instructed in the teachings of our Church. They're looking out for us. Nate 20:21, 30 November 2010 (EST)
Nate, Jesus mentioned the Flood and the Pope forbade teaching anything contrary to the existence of one Adam as the father of mankind. Check out Humani Generis and see if you still want to support evolution, which teaches that there was not one Adam.
Yes, I support "theistic evolution" because "the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter -- for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God". Humani Generis Para. 36. Adam existed. He fathered all men through the original woman and transmitted sin. That says nothing about the origin of his body or the age of the earth. Nate 20:47, 30 November 2010 (EST)
Nate, evolution teaches that Adam did NOT exist. Evolution also denies the Flood, which Jesus mentioned. Atheists are deceitful enough to undermine faith in an indirect way, as well as direct approaches. If an atheist cannot succeed in denying that Jesus existed, then they deny the occurrence of something Jesus said happened.--Andy Schlafly 20:52, 30 November 2010 (EST)
I'm not an atheist. I believe that Adam existed because the Church teaches that as undeniable revelation. I don't believe in a literal global flood because Church teachings don't require it and there's no good evidence it happened. Back to my original point. Not all Catholics believe as you do. That's just a fact. Nate 20:59, 30 November 2010 (EST)
Nate, I know you're not an atheist, but evolution and denial of the Flood are arguments developed, promoted, and taught most by atheists. Please check out Richard Dawkins' work, for example. And atheists emphasize these ideas because they are so effective in undermining people's faith. Otherwise atheists would focus on other arguments to advance their purpose.
Among 1 billion Catholics in the world, of course there are many who believe in many different things. There are millions of Catholics who support abortion. Perhaps ten million Catholics voted for Obama. But Jesus mentioned the Flood, and I've never heard of the Catholic Church denying it. And the Pope ordered Catholics not to teach anything contrary to one Adam. The theory of evolution is certainly contrary to the existence of one Adam.--Andy Schlafly 21:20, 30 November 2010 (EST)
I regret I don't know much about the flood. I will read about it this week. My main point is that not believing in a young earth is not necessarily an impediment to faith. I don't know what else to say about this other than to restate that I agree that Catholics are directed to believe in the existence of the body of one Adam as the father of men and not many Adams all over the place. I read the Humani Generis as an apostolic exhortation in every sense. It does not direct us to believe in how Adam's body came to be but that his soul and the souls of all men were specially created. With that understanding some kind of evolution guided by God is mentioned as not contrary to Church teaching and for that Catholics are not directed to believe in a special creation or young age of the earth. They may but not must. If there are Catholics like me who believe in what is called theistic evolution and the Church says exploring that science is worthy then it cannot be an impediment to faith if it is done mindfully. You might make your point about atheism better if you could come up with a way to focus on the work of atheists directed toward those of us who believe in God instead of dogging the faith of religious people like me who believe differently than you. I just read that the author of that dinosaur article says she is a Christian. I think you're talking about atheists pushing an atheist agenda. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't think the ideas in and of themselves are atheist. May I ask if you go to a Catholic church? Nate 22:28, 30 November 2010 (EST)
Nate, this isn't complicated or personal. Evolution is like other belief systems that tend to draw some people away from God and Christ, regardless of whether you personally feel that effect. Countries that have higher levels of belief in evolution tend to have higher levels of atheism, such as Britain and the former East Germany.
It is easy to find Counterexamples to Evolution and Counterexamples to an Old Earth, just as it is easy to find defects in other liberal belief systems. Please feel free to continue your discussion on the talk pages for the "counterexamples" entries.--Andy Schlafly 22:11, 1 December 2010 (EST)

Eclipses and Earth's moon

It is nothing other than a miracle that Earth's moon is just the right size so that we get occasional solar eclipses, and frequent lunar eclipses. It's the same kind of miracle that the radius of the planet's orbits follow a regular mathematical progression instead of being "random" (see Bode's Law).

There are two many coincidences for the atheists to be able to claim that everything "just happened". --Ed Poor Talk 18:26, 20 December 2010 (EST)

Right ... and many atheists hide or avoid information about this as much as they can.--Andy Schlafly 23:28, 20 December 2010 (EST)

Don't ask, don't tell

Hello! I'm just curious about your edits to the Don't ask, don't tell article—you say that you "improved, updated" the article (and it certainly does appear that you've streamlined it), but in the process you removed a properly cited piece of information, which was in fact the only citation on the whole page. Considering that Conservapedia's second commandment is "Always cite and verify your sources," isn't it a bit counterintuitive to remove information which was properly cited? -IkeL 18:29, 21 December 2010 (EST)

The citation was to an unreliable survey. This isn't Wikipedia where all citations are considered equal in credibility.--Andy Schlafly 18:46, 21 December 2010 (EST)
The citation was to a survey conducted by the Department of Defense and posted on a .gov website. I don't understand how the Pentagon's survey can be considered unreliable, as no non-governmental organization has better access to our troops. -IkeL 18:52, 21 December 2010 (EST)
The Obama Administration is highly partisan, particularly on this issue. If there were a citation to a study by a company that makes harmful product, and the survey report claimed that the company's products were not harmful after all, would you cite to that as though it were credible? I hope not.--Andy Schlafly 19:01, 21 December 2010 (EST)
According to Conservapedia, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates describes himself as conservative and was appointed by President Bush. I don't think your analogy makes sense here because the Department of Defense isn't a company producing harmful products and the study isn't defending the DoD's current practices, only collecting data about the potential effects of future legislation (the study was published before recent DADT-abolishing legislation was passed). I've read the study, and as far as I can tell the question format seems to be very fair; other than the way the questions are posed, there isn't really a way to insert bias into a survey (unless they falsified statistics, which is just plain fraud and something I'd sincerely hope the Department of Defense wouldn't do). Furthermore I would argue that studies conducted by the federal government aren't necessarily automatically biased toward the current presidential administration. From your response it seems to me that you're rejecting the survey based on the fact that it was conducted during the Obama administration; to dismiss it based on this alone would be an incredible fallacy (again, not everyone who works for the federal government under the Obama administration is necessarily pro-Obama). I'd encourage you to read the study if you have the time. -IkeL 19:25, 21 December 2010 (EST)
IkeL, surely you're not pretending that the Obama Administration is impartial on this issue.--Andy Schlafly 19:34, 21 December 2010 (EST)
Of course not, and I don't understand how you came to that conclusion based on my previous post. I'm saying that the Department of Defense, as an independent arm of the federal government run by a conservative with presumably only its own best interests in mind, is. This is a little bit frustrating for me because I get the feeling that you're not considering my arguments. -IkeL 19:46, 21 December 2010 (EST)
IkeL, what makes you think Gates is a "conservative"? You claimed that Conservapedia says he's a conservative, but I don't see that in his entry. And even if he were a conservative, there's no doubt that his boss is not, and we saw how McChrystal was forced out when he didn't say what the boss wanted.--Andy Schlafly 20:32, 21 December 2010 (EST)
Obama's fiscal and monetary policies will probably lead to deeper future staff reductions in the United States military. In addition, his treasury draining Afghanistan war will probably lead to future lower military staffing levels. In addition, there are conservatives who will no longer wish to serve in the military. The liberals got their way on the DADT issue (at least for now), but the aforementioned actions of Obama appear to point to a smaller section of society, namely the military, that will ultimately be directly affected. conservative 20:45, 21 December 2010 (EST)
Okay, upon second look the article states that he describes himself as a Republican; maybe it's a mistake to assume that all Republicans are conservative. To Conservative: This particular discussion isn't about the effects of a DADT repeal, it's about what the Department of Defense has reported would be the effects of a DADT repeal and whether or not the Department of Defense can be considered a reliable source of information on its own soldiers. The study I linked to has raw statistics based on the Department of Defense's extensive polling of members of the armed services; to say that the PDF document I linked to in citing my claim on the original DADT article isn't reliable is to accuse the Department of Defense of falsifying raw data to somehow appease the Obama administration. Beyond how ludicrous that claim is, I have faith that the top priority of the Department of Defense is, well, the defense of the United States and the American people. If you're willing to take the stance that this study can't be considered reliable just because it was produced during the Obama administration, then that seems a little nitpicky to me, and deleting any mention of the study at all (not even qualifying its mention by saying something like "Even though it was produced under the Obama administration, a Department of Defense study suggests that...") is just plain censorship. I'm not going to continue to argue this because it's clear to me that you aren't actually reading and considering my arguments, and I feel like no matter what I say I'll simply be dismissed. You dismissed the study without reading it, and I'm sure that if you had read it you could've come up with a better argument for why I shouldn't have used it, as it's rife with statistics that suggest an anti-DADT repeal opinion among certain sections of the armed forces, but you seem more content with jumping on slight errors I may have made as well as putting words in my mouth. I really don't appreciate that and it's certainly not conductive to even vaguely academic discourse. -IkeL 21:16, 21 December 2010 (EST)

Liberals are well-known for misunderstanding (or worse, knowingly misrepresenting) the structure of the American government. Remember the last time a Republican won the presidency, and they wanted the Electoral College to be set aside? I guess they forgot that the strength of America's democracy is that is prevents the tyranny of the majority over minorities. Odd that a party (see Democrats) that so frequently appeals to minority support would forget this principle.

As for the Department of Defense, it is not one of the 3 powers enumerated in the Constitution, but is directly under the President. He might not be able to appoint anyone he wants (without the consent of Congress), but as the commander in chief, he can certainly fire any official or general.

How typical of "drive by" commentators that they pick on the "reliability" of studies that agree with their preconceived viewpoints, but show little understanding of constitutional principles. That's the same Constitution that guarantees their freedom of speech. (I love a good debate: it's such an excellent opportunity for liberals to show off their ignorance.)

More to the point:

  1. the study is being used to justify the president's proposed action
  2. the only one not "considering" the arguments of others is the president, who seems not to care that the Marines and combat soldiers oppose letting homosexuals serve openly
  3. what the top priority of the DoD ought to be, and what it is, have often been at odds: consider the lowering of standards necessary to ensure that women got jobs such as bomber pilots ... clearly advancing the careers of women took priority over combat readiness
  4. I personally have no objection to a Controversy section in the article in question, indicating why each side thinks as it does, and what evidence it gives

If you want to add to our Debate topics, that is where arguments like this belong. I'd love to debate you there. My point will be that Obama is more interested in getting homosexuals into the military (for whatever ulterior motive that would serve) than in winning any particular war or defending any particular US ally. --Ed Poor Talk 18:43, 25 December 2010 (EST)

Merry Christmas

I likely won't be online tomorrow (spending time with family), so just want to wish you a Merry Christmas Mr. Schlafly! I hope you're having a wonderful time with your family celebrating the birth of our Savior and enjoying this entire joyful season. As a side note, I want to mention that I recently posted a brief Bible knowledge test for curious Conservapedians to take (it's the same test I gave to my teenage Sunday school students recently). --TeacherEd 12:34, 24 December 2010 (EST)

Merry Christmas. --Joaquín Martínez 12:58, 24 December 2010 (EST)

right main page: found good information, but need to make it more compact - thanks

I found some real good information re: Obama's leading candidates for his next chief economic officer. On the other hand, I do need to make my right side main page posts more compact/punchy as in a newspaper headline. Thanks for improving my posting to the right main page. I do think this is a good skill to develop. I believe the US and the world are in for some very turbulent times and there is a growing trend developing for Journalism 2.0. conservative 01:15, 27 December 2010 (EST)

Dear Mr Schlafly

Please don't remove this comment, because I'm only trying to help. But it seems that conservapedia is a bit judgemental and harsh. God tells us to build each other up and to forgive each other. But conservapedia says all liberals are deceitful. i'm a liberal, but I believe the Bible is true and God's word! Am i a liar?

Where does God tell us "to build each other up"? The Bible contains many warnings against those who reject God's laws.--Andy Schlafly 20:01, 27 December 2010 (EST)
He might have been thinking of I Thessalonians 5, although the KJV has it as, "Wherefore comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do." (the following verses suggest that we esteem highly those who admonish us ;-)
But many people thing that "building up" or "supporting" someone always must be non-judgmental (like those self-esteem camps where everyone gets a prize, even the kid who comes in 9th place in a race)
For those who make a religion out of being non-judgmental, the only sin is judgment, i.e., pointing out the difference between right and wrong or between good and evil. They have good intentions, and they fervently hope that their intentions are so good that they don't have to actually do anything good, let alone refrain from anything bad.
Whenever a good person tries to steer this kind of liberal away from a moral error, they throw up their "DO NOT JUDGE ME" shield. I guess it's because they are so self-centered in their immaturity that they can't stand a single moment's reflection, and they run away desperately from any kind of pain to their conscience. Which is about as smart as pushing away the dentist's hand when he uses that little hooked tool that finds cavities.
You want forgiveness, kids? Try apologizing, first! To do this, you must (1) recognize that you have done something wrong, (2) feel sorry for it, and (3) promise to stop doing it. Jesus told us to forgive one another, but he didn't say the transgressor gets this for free. It doesn't build you up to tell you that you can get away with murder. I've got to tell you what's what.
I don't recall reading here that all liberals are deceitful, although they way you began your "comment" wasn't particularly honest. Let's just say that deceit is typical of liberals. But I like Arthur Schlesinger's history and Daniel Moynihan's politics.
Instead of trying to score points against us, why don't you ask for the help you need? --Ed Poor Talk 16:17, 28 December 2010 (EST)

Hebrews 3:13 says, But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called “Today,” so that none of you may be hardened by sin’s deceitfulness.

And 1 Thessalonians 5:11 says, Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing.

-- I stumbled upon this conversation in recent changes: and would like to add the following: Also, Romans 15:2 says "Each of us should please his neighbor for his good, to build him up". In fact, Romans 15:1-6 echoes this theme, concluding, "May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus, so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." Userafw 20:09, 27 December 2010 (EST)

These verses do not mean that Conservapedia should condone or tolerate un-Biblical behavior. What's an example where you think Conservapedia is being judgemental and harsh? My view as a reader is that Conservapedia (quite rightly) opposes un-Biblical behavior, but is fair and balanced, so to speak, on other points. --EdSm 20:18, 27 December 2010 (EST)

But what do Barack Obama and light bulbs have to do with Biblical behaviour?

Well put. By the way, Hebrews 3:13 (Conservative Bible Project translation) seems to encourage us to exhort others against sin, not to "build up" anyone and everyone no matter how much they reject God.--Andy Schlafly 20:20, 27 December 2010 (EST)

i'm a liberal, and Liberal says liberals are deceitful. How is that not judgmental?

And i disagree with your translation, but your version of romans 15:2 (http://www.conservapedia.com/Romans_9-16_%28Translated%29#Chapter_15) says: Let evfery one of us please his neighbor, for his good for the purpose of building-up.

See Deceit. And the main page is always criticisng liberals, but never showing that most liberals are no more sinful than conservatives.

Liberalism encourages all sorts of unacceptable behaviors, often by means of deceit. For that reason Conservapedia condemns liberalism rather than backing it. Is this confusing? The Bible is the most logical book ever written, and contemporary American conservatism is the most logical political position ever conceived. --EdSm 20:28, 27 December 2010 (EST)

But it seems conservapedia condemns liberals more than liberalism.

And the Bible tells us: Let every one of us please his neighbor, for his good for the purpose of building-up.

And, But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called “Today,” so that none of you may be hardened by sin’s deceitfulness.

And, Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing.

Why does conservapedia never encourage liberals or build them up when they do right?

Paul warned against befriending or building up those who reject God. Why aren't you quoting some of those passages?--Andy Schlafly 20:37, 27 December 2010 (EST)
Andy, this is is only good point: we ought to praise liberals on those (rare?) occasions when they do good things. For example, when Bill Clinton signed the Republican Welfare reform bill, he deserves credit.
What we can't do is "build up" anyone who's doing anything wrong. Should we build up the North Korean government, whose socialist policies frequently have caused famine and starvation? Should we build up Cuba, where health care is a cruel joke (see Healthcare in Cuba)? Shall we build up gay rights activists, who espouse a lifestyle that brings guaranteed ruin and misery to everyone who tries it? (I'll praise Elton John for writing "Goodbye, Yellow Brick Road", a song about leaving the gay lifestyle, though.) --Ed Poor Talk 16:26, 28 December 2010 (EST)

Colossians 4:5-6 says, Walk in wisdom toward outsiders, making the best use of the time. Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.

1 Peter 2:12 says, Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.

conservapedia doesn't seem gracious. I'm sort of a liberal, and conservapedia says liberalism is deceitful. Does that mean I'm a liar?

You're not answering my questions.

It seems conservapedia condemns liberals more than liberalism.

The Bible talks about bringing people to Christ and living in a way that pleases God, but it doesn't talk much about politics. Why do you try to make the Bible say things about politics?

Are liberals deceitful? Here's an answer, JSamuel, based on the Ten Commandments of Exodus 20:

  • Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Liberals have placed government before God; they demand the public bow down before government; they demand heavy and increasing taxes to support government.
  • Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, nor shalt thou bow down before them and worship it.
The false gods of liberals - and ones which are increasingly pushed upon society - are atheism, humanism, secular science, evolution, global warming, and so on. Worship of the God of the Bible has been pushed aside and treated with contempt.
  • Do not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
The name of God and Jesus Christ is continually used as a swear word.
  • Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy.
This country once had the "Blue Laws" on the books, allowing for stores and other businesses to close on Sundays due to church. Now that these laws have been removed, a worker who wants to go to church on Sunday risks being fired.
  • Honor they father and thy mother.
How many cases have you read in the papers of children robbing and killing their parents? What about the backbiting and cursing as well? And then there's the Founding Fathers of this country, who are spit upon by liberals today.
  • Thou shalt not kill.
Abortion, the siding with killers over their victims, the threats to kill conservatives from the mouths of well-known liberals, counts as violating this commandment. Jesus Himself said if anyone harbors hate in his heart, he's guilty of murder.
  • Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Adultery is any kind of sex outside marriage. And who are the people trying to "re-define" marriage as something other than between a man and woman? The same people who have now said it's OK to have an openly-gay military. Homosexuality is also adultery.
  • Thou shalt not steal.
Liberals think stealing is OK, provided they're doing it via legislation. If you're rich, they intend to steal your money.
  • Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
We have cited again and again the tendency for liberals to lie, and lie repeatedly. Case in point: global warming.
  • Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods.
Again, look above, with regard to theft.

I don't need to cite any sources for this; any newspaper any day of the week will confirm it. That includes today's papers. And decietful liberals can come in as quietly as church mice, just like you're doing now, Sammy. Karajou 21:04, 27 December 2010 (EST)

And Sammy, we are not going to have people like you come in and insist we have to make compromises with liberals in order to get along; that is what I'm seeing from you. Karajou 21:07, 27 December 2010 (EST)

Merry (Late) Christmas and Happy New Year

Speaking of encouragement, Merry Christmas (a day or so late) and Happy New Year! Userafw 20:15, 27 December 2010 (EST)


I came to use my Christmas gift ipod to write another article about a Catholic prayer I just remembered but am distracted by this person's erratic behavior. Last time it was peanut butter and Richard Dawkins. Now it's Chuck Norris and obese atheists who can't get married. Please look at the recent logs and tell me as the owner of a serious project you approve of this being splashed all over your website? Nate 10:44, 28 December 2010 (EST)

Nate, we don't censor here. Essays are allowed here, and if there's a correlation between atheism and unhealthy obesity, then people benefit from learning about that.
If you want a site that prohibits essays and removes criticisms of atheism, then you might try out Wikipedia for a while. But you might not like how your own edits would probably be altered there.--Andy Schlafly 10:53, 28 December 2010 (EST)

I want to edit Conservapedia because places like Wikipedia don't want the kind of articles I'm able to and want to write. This place is much more wide open and for the most part more ideologically consistent with what I believe. When I brought this up I wasn't at all suggesting censorship of ideas worth being stated. I'm not. But some ideas are only appropriate at certain times and places. Poor quality attempts at humor and hateful messages to PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins don't not belong in an encyclopedia. They're embarrassing. If there are any ideas worth being in an encyclopedia in the dozens or hundreds of edits "Conservative" made to his essays they should remain. Obesity is a serious issue. If there's a connection between obesity and atheism it should be stated clearly and concisely. I didn't see that connection presented by what "Conservative" wrote, I just saw pictures of peanut butter, animals, Chuck Norris, PZ Myers being called fat, and other hateful personal messages to people "Conservative" thinks are his ideological foes. I'm tired of explaining to my wife that "Conservative" is the exception to the rule that this site has educational, honest, helpful material when she looks over my shoulder and gasps at how ridiculous some of his material looks to some people. I want to work on an encyclopedia that is willing to accept articles that don't have to be written by top experts in their field like Wikipedia. I am a tradesman not a professor. I don't want to work on a funhouse. Nate Nate 13:12, 28 December 2010 (EST)

I agree with NKeaton here. It's one thing to allow these essays to be hosted on CP. But I'd say that when "Richard Dawkins and peanut butter" [note: I'm not making this up] hits the main page, it crosses the line from "free speech" to "public embarrassment". --EdSm 11:04, 28 December 2010 (EST)
I agree with both NKeaton and EdSm. I love Conservapedia as an educational resource and I agree with Mr. Schlafly that if there is a link between atheism and obesity it should be explored, but not by using jokes about obese mothers and lyrics from a song about an obese woman too large to dance. JaneX 11:19, 28 December 2010 (EST)
I also tend to agree with the above contributors. Although combating atheism is indeed important, and there very well may be a link between atheism and obesity, and even atheism and peanut-butter eating habits, the information should be presented in a more serious manner. This is not to say that humor should be absent completely - humor can often be a good way to get a message across - but the manner in which many of user Conservative's articles & essays are presented is I think unbecoming of a serious project like Conservapedia. --TeacherEd 11:44, 28 December 2010 (EST)

Folks, you're being awfully quick to seek censorship of these postings. I wonder if there is a double standard, whereby the ridicule of some people (e.g., George W. Bush or Sarah Palin) is just fine, but the ridicule of academic atheists is somehow off-limits? Many "A" students would be uncomfortable with this type of ridicule of their professors. But have you complained to liberals about how they ridicule Republicans?--Andy Schlafly 21:42, 28 December 2010 (EST)

Whether these users' objections are made in good faith I don't know, but I can speak from experience; during the last year I have encouraged most of my conservative friends and many members of Church community to use this resource and contribute if they're willing. I have not been met with success, for a number of reasons, but the most important is this: no one takes it seriously because they don't take the very first page they see seriously.
You may recall when I brought this issue to your attention before months back, I mentioned that I had asked my Christian and conservative peers their opinion of the essays, and the response was unanimous: I have yet to find a single person who finds them humorous, witty, or clever. Quite opposite, the comments range from "in bad taste," to "creepy," and I'll leave others aside for courtesy's sake. Copying and pasting pictures with bizarre captions does not make an essay, nor does it make satire.
Now, the issue of atheism and obesity should not be censored, nor do I think anyone is suggesting that it be. If the matter is deemed serious, a serious article should outline it (and so one does). The problem is with front-page billing for bizarre pages which actively drive away users that we want to contribute and, sadly, make me very uncomfortable being part of the project. Should a user be able to produce essays? Yes. Should a user be able to produce satire? Yes. Should a user be able to paste it on the front page without any discussion, or any willingness to accept constructive criticism? No. We have the choice: we can either grow as an encyclopedia by drawing in valuable contributors, or we can remain a very small group. DouglasA 22:09, 28 December 2010 (EST)
As an aside, the fact that the discussion pages for the essays in question, the essays themselves, and the discussion page for the user who created them are set so that newer users such as myself are unable to edit them or contribute to any discussion about them means that several editors are unable to contribute constructively to a very visible part of the project. Martyp 22:13, 28 December 2010 (EST)
I think Douglas has it exactly right. No one here opposes ridiculing academic atheists, as long as the ridicule hits the mark and is presented in an appropriate context. The problem is that the "essays" in question are of such ludicrously low quality that when placed on the front page, they make Conservapedia the object of ridicule, rather than an effective ridiculer. --EdSm 22:20, 28 December 2010 (EST)
Your comments above are most welcome, but seem to protest too much. It's rare for someone to protest about satire unless there's a deeper gripe. I'm not convinced that the deeper objection has yet been fully articulated.
I wonder if it is this: some object to ridicule of evolution, and by extension ridicule of atheism. Under that view, the subject must be discussed seriously, even though evolutionists utilize mockery with abundance in criticizing others. There are even people who go to church who feel overly defensive about evolution/atheism. They take personal offense at ridicule of evolution/atheism. But a good sermon is one that does offend, or at least make the audience feel uncomfortable about mistaken beliefs.--Andy Schlafly 22:53, 28 December 2010 (EST)
But these pieces aren't great sermons, and it's not because of the subject matter. They don't offend us. They're just stupid. They make me feel uncomfortable in the same way that watching a particularly clueless liberal try to debate does: embarrassed on his behalf. --EdSm 23:02, 28 December 2010 (EST)
Ed, I'm not persuaded. People don't protest so much against something simply because they think it is "just stupid." People shrug off what they think is stupid. It's the irritation or offense that causes people to complain, and I think some are offended at ridicule of atheists. If so, then that's a double standard because people are just fine with most other ridicule, such as ridicule of Republicans or even churchgoers.
Have you ever complained about how atheists ridicule Christians?--Andy Schlafly 23:07, 28 December 2010 (EST)
Conservapedia is an educational resource, not the appropriate place for a "Yo momma" joke. Frankly, I believe it's tacky and well below the standards of Conservapedia. I am not offended by the essays, I'm just embarrassed, as Ed said above. Not only do I not believe that they are satire (humor, perhaps yes, but satire? No), but I personally don't find them to be at all amusing. They are childish and they certainly do not belong on the main page. I, as most of us are, am here to learn, not to be bombarded with ridiculous images and the same blocks of text copied and pasted into various "essays." I do not feel as though I've learned anything by reading any of these essays, and the point of Conservapedia should be to inform. Conservapedia is a serious project, is it not? In order to gain respect, we must earn it and plastering the site with essays such as these is no way to earn it. I pity atheists who ridicule Christians, but why should we stoop to their level? That would be far below the standards that this site should have. JaneX 23:29, 28 December 2010 (EST)
I'm ROTFL at the liberals who think they've convinced Andy they're conservatives. He's not as easily fooled as you think. The son of the smartest woman in America, and a lawyer to boot, he's just giving you enough rope to hang yourself.
You liberals continue to label as stupid whatever you disagree with or dislike, but you neglect to supply reasons. That's the first giveaway. It's hilarious how you claim to exalt reason, yet are intractably unreasonable.
Socialism is just cargo cult economics, and evolution is just pseudoscience. Even the British courts know that the global warming theory is just pious cheating. When are you going to wake up, sleepyheads? ("Sanity is dedication to reality at all costs." -- M. Scott Peck), so you better stop fighting reality and - as they say in the 'hood, "Get real, baby!" --Ed Poor Talk 00:17, 29 December 2010 (EST)
After reading everyone's comments, particularly those of Mr. Schlafly and Mr. Poor, I've done a bit of thinking and have reassessed my position a bit, and I think I also have a way to reconcile everyone. First off, I hope as conservatives we can all agree that both atheism and evolution are detrimental concepts that should certainly be combated, and the people who promote them (e.g. Richard Dawkinks, PJ Myers) certainly deserve ridicule. Furthermore, I think we can agree that humor and sarcasm can often be an effective way to effectively communicate and educate our readers. It seems like the main issue is that people are criticizing the specific articles and essays we have on this topic, thinking that they could be of a higher standard. So I propose this - instead of criticizing our fellow hardworking and well-intentioned Conservapedian, we should instead put our energies towards creating other articles on the topic at hand. Lets create some articles dealing with atheism and/or evolution that are both informative AND humorous - I'll make this one of my New Year's resolutions. --TeacherEd 01:43, 29 December 2010 (EST)
TeacherEd, I strongly believe you are a parodist and I don't believe a lengthy rebuttal is warranted. That is why I blocked you previously. Second, satire is certainly an acceptable form of humor. Some people may feel satirical ridicule performs no social function or is even undesirable, but it has existed since ancient times and it does perform a useful social function. Given Western culture's decline and the egregious behavior of many individuals in the past and present, a good case could be made that ridicule has not been used often enough. I will point out that even the prophet Elijah employed ridicule . DouglasA, humor often involves surprise and incongruency. I do realize that is subjective in terms of its acceptable use and that humor is often a subjective thing, but I do have people tell me my satirical works are funny and they have been cited by conservatives who operate blogs/websites/YouTube channels some of which are quite popular. Of course, if you don't like my humor I have no problem with that as humor is a subjective thing. By the way, I was just informed that one of the most popular Christian YouTube channels is going to feature my atheism and obesity related material. I was also just told by someone who operates two popular conservative/Christian YouTube channels that he likes the "highly controversial peanut butter satire." :) I am certainly open to receiving more feedback from conservative individuals who enjoy wide audiences, but not to people who merely offer petty and poor criticisms and do not go into the arena themselves significantly. conservative 02:23, 29 December 2010 (EST)
By the way, I am certainly open to hear those who appreciate conservative satire and who understand what quality is in terms of satire. Of course, I would ask that their claimed expertise was gained through the actual production of satire which has shown itself to gain the audience of popular Christian/conservative blogs/websites/YouTube channels. So far, this hasn't been offered. conservative 02:35, 29 December 2010 (EST)
One thing I would like to add, I am glad that there are people who understand that atheist obesity is a very serious and weighty issue. conservative 02:53, 29 December 2010 (EST)
Conservative - I am a bit confused as to why you're referring to me as a "parodist" since my entries are fairly serious and I don't use much parody, sarcasm etc. in my posts. Even if I did though I don't see how that would be a blockable offenses since you yourself are obviously very much in favor of using humor to get your message across. I suspect you're using the word with some sort of different, negative implication, but I think given my contributions, insinuating that I am anything but sincere would be disingenuous on your part. As I've mentioned above, I support all your work and the use of satire - in fact, in one of my Bible class homeworks I encouraged students to contribute to your projects, and Mr. Schlafly himself has graciously contributed. So as I said in my last post, I do regret criticizing rather than contributing in this case, and so I plan on changing that. I will work on my own satirical articles related to the topics of atheism and evolution, and I encourage other editors to do so as well. --TeacherEd 11:57, 29 December 2010 (EST)

I'm very sorry to hear that any dissent is being quashed and those dissenters are being labeled as liberal. I can only assume it's because we are not administrators and we have absolutely zero say. Since that is without a doubt the case, fine, I can't do anything to change it and I have to either live with it or exit this project. Perhaps I was wrong in saying that the essays aren't satire. I suppose you're writing them to fit into the Juvenalian model?

If this is the best that Conservapedia can be then I don't want to see it at its worst. In a perfect world, others would be allowed to contribute to these essays and help to improve them, or at least discuss them on the talk pages. But I suppose that nothing that I have to say matters because I don't have a YouTube following. JaneX 11:14, 29 December 2010 (EST)

I just wanted to make a quick comment on the point that Jane just attempted to make, if I may, since not being an administrator, I feel I'm qualified to make it (bear with me). Jane, you said that "I can only assume it's because we are not administrators and we have absolutely zero say," but as someone who isn't an administrator and who still feels like a relatively new editor here, I think it's erroneous of you to attempt to shoehorn all of us "non-administrators" into a category that is treated unfairly. While it's true that some of what I've written has been reverted quickly and with an accompanying warning, it's been for formatting issues mostly and other non-content areas. Despite these reversions, no one ever called me a liberal, etc, or acted negatively towards me.
Like I said, since I'm not an administrator and yet haven't experienced the "lack of say" or negative behavior that you describe, maybe your complete categorization isn't very apt? Maybe take a closer look at your edit history (or mine, for that matter) and come back again if you're sure that there aren't any problems that you may have caused. When I've been reverted and counseled, I'm sure I could have cried foul and said "oh these admins are meanies" but for me, it's been pretty obvious when I've been in the wrong, especially as someone just trying to learn.
Does that help? If you feel the need to discuss anything I'm always open by email. Maybe I can shed some more light on the problems you're having. Tyler Zoran Talk 11:40, 29 December 2010 (EST)
Having returned to Conservapedia after a Christmas vacation with family (so a belated Merry Christmas to everyone!) I am very surprised to read some of these comments - if they can even be called that, baseless complaining rants is maybe more appropriate. I have introduced many friends to Conservapedia, more so since I began contributing in my own small way, and not one of them has complained about the satire or other main page content - perhaps this is because I don't associate with liberals who seem keen to criticize anything they find that doesn't fit their worldview. I stick to contributing to subject I am knowledgeable about, so why shouldn't a contributor who is knowledgeable about the many problems associated with atheism use that knowledge to write satires - that whilst highly amusing, carry a very serious message - that convey this? I also note that the "censorship squad" don't seem to want to attempt to refute the underlying facts on which these satires are built, but only call for them to be removed! PhilipM 14:57, 29 December 2010 (EST)
Am I on the censorship squad, PhilipM? Am I a "liberal" or intractably unreasonable, Ed Poor? Other people gave reasons why they think "Conservative's" essays don't have a place here and I also gave a few. Smartly done pieces getting to the heart of whatever issue he wants to write about make perfect sense for an encyclopedia trying to present articles that are not available anywhere else. Personal messages about PZ Myers being fat don't deserve being treated seriously. They just don't. If Conservapedia needs real people, not all these puffers and tricksters that showed up on this page to stir trouble, it will have to create an inviting environment. Pictures of peanut butter and Chuck Norris might be funny to my 14 year old autistic daughter but they don't invite serious people to this website or shed any light on whatever important message Conservative" wants to convey in his essays other than that he personally hates atheists. Ok. I'm not sure I hate anyone but I definitely don't like being on the receiving end of all that garbage about the Catholic Church being corrupt and full of rapists so I definitely understand that this stuff creates high tensions and why "Conservative" wants to be offensive. But if "Conservative" wants to say that PZ Myers is fat because he's an atheist that's just a dumb thing to say unless you're a doctor who examined this little fat man. I have no idea what in the world the point is of talking about Hispanic and Asian ladies or why things that are intended to be hateful personal messages to atheists are being called satire or comedy. Who cares what some atheist's web traffic is? Honestly, who cares? Who cares whether "Conservative" thinks web traffic numbers in regards to Hispanic and Asian females have anything to do with whatever message these atheists have?
I wasn't aware that these essays are part of keeping away serious people from this site until DouglasA wrote it. Them and the responses here are definitely driving me away. I've tried having a conversation about their poor quality and garish appearance on the front page with several admin while I was considering whether to work on this website. Deciding to try and become part of a community of like-minded people isn't an overnight decision for me now that I'm underemployed because of the economy and have a lot of time to spend working on computers. The admin here are not receptive to criticism because "Conservative" is said to bring so much web traffic to this website. It looks like "Conservative" can get away with whatever he wants and the admin will defend him in order to protect web traffic. But it's not fair to say I have double standards (only Mr. Schlafly knows much about me from our correspondence and I doubt he really thinks I have double standards) and am liberal. I am not liberal in very many meanings of that word and certainly not politically or in regards to my faith. I help serve mass to old ladies at 6 am as often as I'm called on by my church which is at least a few times a week. I take care of my wife's elderly parents because my wife makes more money than I can right now. I am the only registered republican in most of the union shops I get sent to by my local. If in spite of these things someone wants to call me a liberal like it's a bad name so be it. I don't appreciate it. If someone wants to say I have double standards for complaining about childish and poorly done nonsense scribbled all over what would otherwise be a website I'd be proud to show to any one of my friends from church then so be it. It's not fair. I also don't appreciate the false claim that I didn't give reasons for my objections and am unreasonable. Any of "Conservative's" essays that talk about nonsense like PZ Myers being fat, peanut butter, Chuck Norris beating people up, or the like are childish and indefensible. I'd like to see anyone one of you defend your children doing the same thing. You won't. Seeing a hundred edits to these essays on the recent logs makes this place look like a funhouse and causes me to just turn my monitor off and go read a book instead of poking around this website and learning or writing about something. If this gets me kicked out so be it. I will be very sorry to go but not because I said these things. Nate 18:25, 29 December 2010 (EST)
FYI, as per my previous comments, I've started working on some additional satirical essays for Conservapedia, starting with this one. --TeacherEd 17:53, 29 December 2010 (EST)
I think the underlying issue is that in America and the West as a whole, it is often taught that being critical of other worldviews is unacceptable and that there is no absolute truth. In short, postmodernism (which is atheistic) has a following. In addition, discussing politics and religion is discouraged in social settings in some quarters. Social harmony is put on a higher pedestal than truth. While I do think that being at peace with others if possible is preferable and I think violence should be avoided in terms of people and nations if possible (self-defense and just wars would be an exception), I do think that public criticism and ridicule has its place and can be quite constructive. conservative 18:07, 29 December 2010 (EST)
JaneX, my point is that anyone can make criticism and claim to be arbiters of what should be deemed quality material, but I do think it is entirely appropriate to ask that the person offering criticism demonstrate they in fact are making valid criticism. By the way, I have thought about one of the criticisms and I am going to make some edits. conservative 18:07, 29 December 2010 (EST)

If I may add my opinion here, I think we have to remember that humor is somewhat subjective, and just because you don't find something funny, doesn't mean it is not funny, juvenile, or one of any other negative words. While User:Conservative's satire is not up to the levels of professional humorists like Jeff Foxworthy, who's to say it has no place here? The people who contribute the most to this website like it (and Conservative himself is certainly towards the top of this list as far as I can tell) and they are the ones who do and should have the most say. No one is forcing anyone to read them. Any essays Conservative has written are certainly far better than anything that has come out of the mouth of Jon Stewart, and that man is paid millions for his hogwash. AngusT 19:11, 29 December 2010 (EST)

AngusT sums it up pretty well, though I've never seen Jeff Foxworthy or any other professional humorist poke fun of atheists/evolutionists. It's long overdue and obviously people are not used to it. To some, mocking evolutionists is offensive. It shouldn't be.
People who believe in evolution are often just fine with mockery of Christians, so why the outrage when it's the reverse? I wonder if the critics above have ever complained on other websites about the crass mockery of Christian beliefs by atheists. Yet apparently it is atheism that leads to obesity, and that's information worth learning through humor or otherwise.--Andy Schlafly 19:54, 29 December 2010 (EST)
PZ Myers, (photo obtained from Flickr, see license agreement)
Nate, are you saying that PZ Myers is not overweight in the picture given? If so, why? Are you saying that it takes medical doctor to tell if someone is overweight in all cases? Are you saying that atheism and obesity is a subject which should not be broached at Conservapedia or that no examples should be given? If so, why? To the right is a picture of PZ Myers for your review. Please notice the area directly above PZ Myers' belt. :) conservative 20:33, 29 December 2010 (EST)
Conservative, don't be weird. I already said he's a fat man. My point is you don't know anything about why he's fat and to say the it's because he's an atheist is outside of what you could know unless you're his doctor. I'm not even sure you could know it even then but I also don't care because it's a petty thing to focus on when the man says such utterly offensive things about Catholics and our Pope. Talk about the really dumb stuff he says and does. He's famous among Christians for desecrating the Lord's Supper. If you care about the Eucharist you might find that offensive. I see the numbers you put up but they don't say anything about any fat person being fat because of atheism. They talk about statistics. Atheists are unhealthy. Yes I get it. Write a good essay about it and make the personal attacks pertain to things the people do that are offensive, not some characteristic about them that's awful. I'm 40 pounds overweight since I quit smoking 2 packs of Chesterfields a day last year. Do you want to call me a liberal and write an essay about me and my fat pets now? I do statistics when I supervise welders for my job. Every certain number of welds will fail no matter how perfect they look. I can't look at any particular weld and say "you will fail". I don't think you are being serious. Nate 22:43, 29 December 2010 (EST)
Thank you Mr. Schlafly, however, having said what I did, I feel I should address my two small criticisms. First of all, unless I missed it, I didn't see the specific statistics on obesity rates among atheists or agnostics in these essays. It appears that the national rate is somewhere near 1 in 4, so I suspect among atheists it's closer to 1 in 2, but it would be nice to have those figures stated clearly in the article. On a minor point, I don't know much about this PZ Meyers character, but based the picture in the essay, I would hesitate to call him obese. Sure, he's packing some extra weight around the middle, but many of us are, especially as we get on in the years. I'm not too proud to admit I have put on a few extra pounds in the last few years (my #1 New Years resolution is to address this), but if PZ Meyers is obese than I am not too far behind. "Overweight"? sure. "Obese"? unless that is a very flattering picture, I think that is an exaggeration. I'm sure there are many better examples of genuinely slovenly, obese atheists. AngusT 20:42, 29 December 2010 (EST)
AngusT, Americans have more problems with being overweight than many Europeans or other countries. In addition, the survey data from Gallup indicates that the non-religious have less healthy lifestyles in terms of food choices and exercise that the very religious. That is why it is easy to point out American atheist leaders who are overweight. Second, the material at Conservapedia indicates that PZ Myers is overweight in the picture given. It does not say he is obese. He may in fact be obese, but I took a conservative approach and merely said he was overweight. I would also suggest taking a look at the board of directors pictures for the American Atheists at their website too and see some people who certainly look overweight. You can do so HERE. PZ Myers' weight cited is not an isolated incident. Lastly, there are plenty of older people who are not overweight. Even if you have a desk job, most people can easily do some aerobic and strength training exercises and eat sensibly. On the other hand, it is easy to be a sedentary as well. It is all a matter of choices. You don't see many economically developed Asian cultures have problems with obesity. One of the reasons for this is because they have a better set of priorities and more self-discipline. You can see this theme go throughout their whole cultures. For example, S. Korean primary schools are more orderly and effective than many American schools plus S. Koreans have less people in prison per capita as well. conservative 21:20, 29 December 2010 (EST)
By the way, a note to the potential parodists and liberals who may have posted here (I am not saying that all the postings where from these camps), I created two more satires dealing with atheism and obesity: Atheist pet owners and Slim atheists' convention. conservative 21:33, 29 December 2010 (EST)
Fair enough. Looking more closely I see you do label Mr. Meyers as overweight and not obese, though since it is an essay on obesity it seems a bit out of place to illustrate it with a non-obese person. Could you upload the American Atheist board of directors picture or some other one that serves the purpose of the article better? If they are under copyright or there is some other obstacle then I guess we'll have to let it go. AngusT 22:21, 29 December 2010 (EST)
Nate, do you think the ale/beer PZ Myers is drinking in that photo was doctor ordered? Secondly, do you think that ale/beer he was drinking in the Australian pub/restaurant was low calorie beer? The reason I ask that question is I do recall hearing the phrase "beer belly" in the past. Secondly, I am a Protestant. Third, even if I was a Roman Catholic, I find your logic deficient. A person can certainly be criticized for many things both large and small. Next, I see no problem with offering specific cases to illustrate point using an individual or various individuals or a group as a whole. Lastly, if you had a serious health condition that could lead to more serious health conditions, would you spend a large amount of time on a anti-theism and anti- creation science blog or would you spend that time walking around the block more? conservative 23:58, 29 December 2010 (EST)
Jerry Falwell, Rush Limbaugh, Duane Gish, Richard Cheney, John Hagee, Glenn Beck, Jonathan Wells, William Howard Taft, James David Manning, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, and User:Ed Poor. Just sayin.' CBG 00:26, 30 December 2010 (EST)
AngusT, I am not interested in the project you suggested concerning the American Atheists board members that you alluded to. There is a lot more atheism related content that could be written that I think would be more noteworthy. conservative 00:11, 30 December 2010 (EST)
CBG, just sayin'? I hope you are not just saying that the non-religious have better health habits than the very religious as the data doesn't support such a position according to the Gallup organization study. I certainly would not want to accuse you of cherry picking and committing a fallacy of exclusion logical fallacy. By the way, have you seen the collection of pictures of the American Atheists board of directors? conservative 02:06, 30 December 2010 (EST)
Speaking of beer drinking, atheist and evolutionist PZ Myers relaxing after spending all day looking to finally find the very first transitional species fossil (You know the fabled "missing links"): Click HERE conservative 02:27, 30 December 2010 (EST)

Why is conservative being allowed to violate Conservapedia rules (as well as rules of politeness and taste)? The incestuously duplicative "Obesity" articles are a waste of bandwidth, as well as embarrassing. The "Obesity" articles are not subject to editing (unless one asks). The article "Overweight atheists comedy and satire" has a bogus "talk page" tab which is simply a redirect to the "Atheism and obesity" article - not a "talk page" at all...is this legitimate? The article "Overweight atheists comedy and satire" has a utterly unencyclopedic caption under a picture of the Marquis de Sade, "The authorities, no doubt many of them obese atheists and candy lovers, threw DeSade in prison." This is not satire - it's sophomoric in every sense. And to follow up on CBG's comment above, one wonders if conservative is obese, or has somebody in his/her/its life that is obese - conservative doth seem to protest too much. PaulBurnett 13:54, 3 January 2011 (EST)

Paul, obesity is a growing problem in atheistic public schools, and I doubt many realized the correlation between obesity and atheism before User:Conservative began to publicize it in a witty manner. Don't you think he deserves some gratitude for that?--Andy Schlafly 14:04, 3 January 2011 (EST)
Paul, you seem to be one of that group of CP critics who don't want us to "fight fire with fire". If you mean your criticism to be taken constructively, you'll have to convince us that you're not following in the mold of Noam Chomsky, who only criticizes the US but never other countries. The effect of Chomsky's hypocritical politics is to give people the impression that the US is head and shoulders above the rest of the world in cruelty and selfishness. Is that your purpose?
Atheists use humor (or at least, ridicule) to undermine Christianity and other good institutions or ideas. What's wrong with fighting back with the same methods? It attracts attention to our more serious articles. And anyone who has an ounce of common sense can see that this is the point. --Ed Poor Talk 13:35, 7 February 2011 (EST)

Sorry, Andy

If I had upload rights maybe I could upload some pictures and put witty captions on them, yes?CBG 23:58, 28 December 2010 (EST)

Abortion article

Hi Mr Schlafly, I just signed up after I saw what I thought was vandalism to the abortion article, I clicked undo but then when I checked it seemed that you had already undid it! I hope I haven't caused any clashes with this, although my userpage doesn't make much sense now!

2011 educational courses

Happy New Year Mr. Schlafly! Are there any new educational courses on Conservapedia planned for this year? Anything I could help with? --TeacherEd 13:28, 1 January 2011 (EST)

"Did Jesus Suffer More After Crucifixion?" - Comment to Article

With all due respect, I have added a comment to "Did Jesus Suffer More After Crucifixion?" Wanted you to know. Happy New Year, all. PaulBurnett 20:09, 1 January 2011 (EST)

Offensive user

Hello Mr. Schlafly. Are you aware that User:JamesTimmons has been voicing rabidly anti-Christian sentiment on this very website? His user page reads "LOL, Christians" and he has refused to respond to my inquiries. I don't think he has the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind. Thank you!--AnthonyDW 11:03, 2 January 2011 (EST)

He was blocked by another administrator many hours ago. But thanks for letting me know!--Andy Schlafly 11:09, 2 January 2011 (EST)
Not by an administrator, but yes, I blocked him a while ago because of his inappropriate comments to me in his email. Difference of opinion is fine, of course, but in my eyes, trivializing my faith is not. I took care of it. Tyler Zoran Talk 13:21, 2 January 2011 (EST)
Thank you, Mr. Zoran. Good to see that this website has some quality control standards. (Wikipedia, for one, does not!:))--AnthonyDW 22:03, 2 January 2011 (EST)
Always happy to help, Anthony. But please, Tyler, there's no need for so much formality! I'm still quite young after all! Tyler Zoran Talk 22:58, 2 January 2011 (EST)

My blocked account

Hello - this is TeacherEd. My main account has been blocked without an explanation, and I have not been able to get an explanation via emailing sysops either. Can someone please explain what I have done to deserve such a harsh blocking? --EJones 22:44, 2 January 2011 (EST)

If for no other reason, then violating the rule against creating a new account to protest a block? If you sincerely want to help the project, please email me a writing plan. --Ed Poor Talk 18:51, 3 January 2011 (EST)
I have emailed Ed Poor a writing plan, and am yet to receive any response. Also, note I am not "protesting" my block per se - I am merely inquiring as to the reason why I was blocked, as no explanation was ever given (and even no warning was ever given as to anything I may have been doing that would have been considered against the rules). --EJones 22:30, 6 January 2011 (EST)
I've changed my mind and will not look for your writing plan. Saying what I have done to deserve is clearly a protest. If you're not going to write in plain English, you can't be in this project. Normal people apologize even before learning how they have offended. --Ed Poor Talk 15:17, 12 January 2011 (EST)

The pope's recent comment on the big bang and your take on a claim of this article

Hello Mr. Schlafly, there’s yahoo article that just came up that talks about how the pope recently made a comment about God being behind the big bang and that the universe was no accident. [3]. The article claims that, “The Catholic Church no longer teaches creationism -- the belief that God created the world in six days as described in the Bible -- and says that the account in the book of Genesis is an allegory for the way God created the world.” Since you’re a Roman Catholic that believes Genesis is real history, as we Christians should, do you think that claim is true or false, and why? If that claim is true, is the Catholic Church becoming liberal then and how can that be stopped? Edit: I found some articles that says that the Pope actually criticized the big bang. [4] Willminator 10:21, 6 January 2011 (EST)

Help request

Mr. Schlafly, I really want my first substantive contribution to this excellent project to be the expansion of the Great Achievements by Teenagers article, as this was the article that led me to conservapedia. As you explained to me on the talk page, the individuals listed with achievements outwith their teenage years also had great achievement as teenagers, so it is my wish to add these to the article. I have searched and searched and I have not been able to find and information relating to these teenage achievements, so I looked back through the article's history to find who added them in order to ask that editor for help with my research - I discovered that you have added many of them, so I am here to ask for pointers to where I can find such information. Sorry for such a long-winded post, but I really want my first contribution to be of the highest quality! Thanks. BobG 16:48, 6 January 2011 (EST)

Are you actually asking for help, or is this a sly way of insinuating that the teenagers in questions don't have any actual, documented achievements? If it's the latter, why not simply say so directly? That would be a substantive and positive contribution.
In general, though, we don't expect new users to make a big splash. It's better to start off slowly, and give us time to get to know you. Establish a pattern of reliable, steady work, and people will trust you.
Also, using your real name, and proving that it's really your name, really helps. --Ed Poor Talk 10:42, 20 January 2011 (EST)

Password resetter

The individual who left his hate rant here - "JudgeJuan" - was also the individual who attempted several password resets. Just for the record. Karajou 14:19, 9 January 2011 (EST)


Hi Andy,

There was another slew of vandal accounts created within the last hour or so, and they did some fairly extensive damage. I've undone what I could, but unfortunately, I'm out of time and have to go attend to RL obligations. The bulk of the damage was done by a user named EricP, who redirected a slew of pages to Pink Floyd, but there were also a fair number of profane and asinine pages created between about 2:50 and 3:30. Sorry I couldn't fix all the damage. Hope your weekend is going well otherwise. --Benp 15:51, 9 January 2011 (EST)

Thanks for the alert blocks, Ben. No problem about the mess - I'll clean it up quickly now using special tools.--Andy Schlafly 18:06, 9 January 2011 (EST)

Atheism and Obesity revert

Hi, just wondering why you reverted my edit to the above? I truly have not seen this connection reported elsewhere, and looking through the history of this site (about the only place that has reported it) I saw many liberals attacking it, so I thought my edit was correct. I am new here so don't want to step on any toes, I'm just looking for guidance, thanks. DanielG 11:25, 11 January 2011 (EST)

Daniel, how about more substantive edits, with citations, for starters? Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 11:37, 11 January 2011 (EST)
Well gee, I find a site that covers topics that interest me, I make what I consider to be a substantive edit, then ask for guidance, only to be spoken to like that. And I thought this was a Christian website! I guess I'll have to find another site that's more welcoming to new users. Goodbye and God bless. DanielG 11:56, 11 January 2011 (EST)
Daniel, being Christian does not mean we're going to let everyone come in and walk all over us like we're a doormat. That's the way the liberal left wants to treat us, and it's not going to happen here. Karajou 12:24, 11 January 2011 (EST)
If you had been sincere about not wanting to step on any toes, you would have followed our rules instead of making sly accusations the first time you are given guidance. We welcome new users who want to help our project succeed. --Ed Poor Talk 15:12, 12 January 2011 (EST)
The article seems to be getting under the skin of some atheists. And some atheists have a lot of skin! conservative 01:23, 15 January 2011 (EST)

Call for prayer?

Dear Mr. Schlafly, would you be able to put a notice on the main page asking conservatives to pray for Jared Loughner to come to know Jesus as his Lord and Savior? I think it would be good to make this a goal. See Talk:Main Page#Call for prayer. Thanks! :-) NHope 23:38, 12 January 2011 (EST)

We had a moment of prayer here on Monday as part of the national event, and I left the notice up for two days. Our visitors pray in a variety of ways and priorities. You've made your suggestion twice now and our visitors can accept or reject it as they think best.--Andy Schlafly 00:22, 13 January 2011 (EST)
Fair enough. But we, as Christians, are called to pray unceasingly (1 Thessalonians 5:17). I thought it might be a good idea to put a notice encouraging people to pray for Jared up on the main page itself, though (most people won't read the main page's talk page). What do you think? NHope 00:27, 13 January 2011 (EST)
Did people pray for Jared's redemption in the "moment of prayer" you refer to? It's amazing what God can do to transform a man, as I'm sure you know. :) NHope 00:29, 13 January 2011 (EST)
NHope, pray for whomever you like and, if you have time to edit here, please be substantive in your edits. Godspeed.--Andy Schlafly 00:40, 13 January 2011 (EST)
Wouldn't it be better to invite everyone to pray for him, not just leave it to one or two people? Oh well, I suppose it's up to you.
Do you have suggestions for what I could do to improve the site? I've done a couple of small copyedits so far. NHope 00:46, 13 January 2011 (EST)


Mr. Schlafly,

Does this article look necessary or serious to you? It seems like cleverly disguised parody; if DHMO is water, then why have two pages about the same thing?--AnthonyDW 13:54, 18 January 2011 (EST)


Mr. Schlafly,

Does this article look necessary or serious to you? It seems like cleverly disguised parody; if DHMO is water, then why have two pages about the same thing?--AnthonyDW 13:54, 18 January 2011 (EST)

A parody ... of liberals?--Andy Schlafly 16:47, 18 January 2011 (EST)
It just strikes me as a bit off-key. This is a serious project with a serious mission -- fighting the spread of dangerous liberal ideas -- hardly the place for a confusing parody.--AnthonyDW 17:14, 19 January 2011 (EST)

Apatheistic Essay

I'm realizing that many members of Conservapedia write essays, both satirical and serious, on religion (and subsequent effects). I was wondering if I could write something on apatheism.

This essay would carry the theme of Keep Calm and Carry On, in reference to the British war poster that was never released. In it, I would hope to address the conflict between theists and atheists, and I'm quite certain that my religious stance, much closer to the stance atheists take than other members of this wiki, could make whatever I write more likely to be taken seriously. What I'd like to do is possibly get those who disagree with Conservapedia (namely atheists) would learn to ignore what they perceive as bias, and keep calm and carry on.

I'm not going to write this until I get explicit permission, for I understand that the desire for quality and stability in this wiki has led to stricter policies. I do, however, encourage that you consider giving me the green light, and if you don't like it, I'd be perfectly willing to take it down. Thanks ahead of time. PeterGilles 23:21, 21 January 2011 (EST)

Sincere essays are welcome. Simply put "Essay:" in front of the title, as in "Essay:Keep Calm and Carry On". That said, many atheists are fundamentally determined to censor Christianity, as in the example of classroom prayer. So I wonder about the productivity of your effort to persuade them to "keep calm and carry on" about something they are determined to censor.--Andy Schlafly 16:47, 23 January 2011 (EST)
Thank you very much. PeterGilles 17:48, 23 January 2011 (EST)

Conservapedia was down?!

Hi there - just a note to let you know that I think Conservapedia was down for a short time. I tried clicking the 'Edit' button at the top of a page, but it was replaced by a 'View source' button and a message about me requiring 'User, edit' privileges or something like that (I don't remember exactly). I wasn't blocked. Do you know what might have caused this? NHope 02:08, 2 February 2011 (EST)

I think the problem has been solved for you. conservative 02:15, 9 February 2011 (EST)

Request for intervention

Andy, could you please intervene here? Someone thinks that contributions should be judged based on the position of a contributor, rather than on their own merits. Thanks in advance! NHope 21:02, 2 February 2011 (EST)

The song which declares Wikipedians to be nerds has gotten over 53,000,00 views at YouTube[5] . Face it - Wikipedians are nerds and Wikipedia has a significant contingent of white, male, atheist nerds within it and many people in the public are aware of this fact! Please also see: 10 telltale signs you are becoming an atheist nerd conservative 22:52, 2 February 2011 (EST)
Karajou agrees with my removal of your text from "Wikipedia". Wikipedians are, for the most part, nerds; :-) that doesn't mean Conservapedia should have an unencyclopedic, random, quite unhumorous quote in the article. By the way, the link you provided doesn't work for me - and are you saying that we should judge what goes into Conservapedia articles by the number of views a video has received on a liberal site? NHope 23:25, 2 February 2011 (EST)
Random? Atheists often over use that word. My decision to add quotes was quite conscious and not random. conservative 08:10, 3 February 2011 (EST)


When you have a moment, please let me know if you've received my email. I'm not sure if I have the right address. DouglasA 14:30, 5 February 2011 (EST)

Sarah Palin

I would like to edit this article but it appears to be locked. My intent is to update the section on her time in office to reflect the change in tax policy where in the taxes on oil were raised very steeply. It is my position that the sharp increase in taxation has severely negatively impacted our state economy and put us well on the wrong side of the Laffer curve, which will play out as new wells are not brought online.--AlaskanEconomy 21:07, 6 February 2011 (EST)

Thanks for your request. I've unlocked it for you, so please feel free to edit the Sarah Palin entry now.--Andy Schlafly 23:27, 6 February 2011 (EST)
I think I'm done for now, once MartyP is done I think you can relock it, I might have more in a few weeks but it looks like you have a lot of vandalism so it will probably be worth it to unlock it again then for the changes. Thanks for unlocking it for me! --AlaskanEconomy 23:23, 8 February 2011 (EST)

small accident - no big deal

Andy, I was doing some maintenance and I deleted a file related to the Conservapedia evolution article because we were no longer using it. Plus, I accidentally erased the evolution page, but recovered a back up copy so the page is up again intact. I hit the cancel command to try stop the inadvertent deletion, but I I was not quick enough.

The view count was reset to zero due to my mistake. I personally don't care about the displayed view counter for the evolution article I largely created. But if other Conservapedians do care about the displayed view count, the article has gotten about 1,100,000 total views if you want to reset the counter. It had about 500,000 views when the counter was reset before, plus this time it had about 650,000 views when it was mistakenly reset. conservative 02:13, 9 February 2011 (EST)


Hi Mr. Schlafly, I've been trying to email my friend Terry for days to ask him something, but he doesn't respond. I found out that he recently died because of some coronary artery disease. Do you have any information on this? I ask you because I assume that you were close to him. Willminator 21:47, 13 February 2011 (EST)