User talk:Aschlafly

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TheAmericanRedoubt (Talk | contribs) at 09:55, 1 April 2016. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

Comment here

Archive Index


Printed Version of Conservative Bible. Name of Conservative Bible

• I'd like to print a copy of the NT draft. The copy I'm planning to print is publishable (I typeset, this is practice/research.) I'd like to push it into a software program. I'd like to do this with permission. Who do I need to contact/how?

• The Title of the Bible version has been used before. This causes issues with recognition, and the word conservative in biblical circles means very very literal translation, which this version is not. Can I suggest titling this version "Holy Bible: A Trustworthy Version" or "Conservapedia's Trustworthy Version of the Bible"? Cmahte (talk) 10:24, 6 October 2015 (EDT)

I don't claim that the "Conservative Bible Project" is the only "Trustworthy Version," so I oppose those titles. Who used the title "Conservative Bible" before? I doubt anyone has used "Conservative Bible Project" before.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:50, 6 October 2015 (EDT)
re: Conservative Bible Project : I'm not referring to the name of the project to produce the work but the words that would appear on the front cover. It will be confusing to have the Conservative Version of the Bible(completed 2008, printed 2012) and Conservative Bible (which is actually only a NT at this stage). My suggestions are just that, suggestions. However, if you could find a way to separate them a bit...
re: Another work with the same name: (My wikityping is out of date, feel free to update this external link. ). The Conservative Version of the Bible was completed in a proof version on or before 2008. That's about when I became aware of it. The latest update of bug-fixes for the software modules are from circa 2009. They published the entire Bible to print in 2012.
re: Proceed to create Print and Software materials: Can I proceed with permission or at least acknowledgement that this wouldn't be a 'rare exception' mentioned on the copyright page? Who should I contact about permission/licensing/proofing prior to releasing?Cmahte (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2015 (EDT)
You're talking to the right person about permission, and it's fine to reprint the translation here, without any license fee, as the "Conservative Bible Project" (its true title) or something similar, such as the "Conservapedia Bible." Honestly, I don't like calling it a "Trustworthy" Bible because there are other translations that are worthwhile in their own ways, as reflected by praise and use of excerpts from them on this site.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2015 (EDT)
Thank you for your permission. I only chose "trustworthy" because its there on the page. I've started processing the text and already have some things I can deal with, but to best represent the project, I'd like to know what the intent was/is:
In the first few chapters of Matthew, there are 26 verses which appear 2 times. (Matt 4:1-11, Matt 5: 1-9, Matt 16:18) All of these appear to be alternatives, and none of them should appear as a verse repeated.. but is it better to remove the alternate or push it into the commentary? If you look through these, some of these alternates are so close, and they are grouped up so much at the front of Matthew.. is it possible to pick one or the other of some of these, and only list the verses with more variation as alternates? Cmahte (talk) 21:55, 7 October 2015 (EDT)
I haven't made it to checking yet, but I've already spotted obvious spelling errors (Matt 5:39 should contain resist, not resit). The program I'm going to be checking in isn't exactly friendly with wikis... it's got its own storage format.
Deaf Missions lists verses of the NRSV, but you parallel KJV (for the NT I think this only varies in 2 John and Rev 12.) I know the 26 verses above are additional and John 7:53 - 8:11 are intentionally missing. Is there anything else that will vary from KJV verses that is intentional? My mental math is coming up short about 10 verses that the sums are different. Again, I haven't started checking.
These are excellent points. I will review and respond today to them.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2015 (EDT)

Cmahte, is wasting your time and he is not serious about this matter. He is a new editor that has edited from different IP addresses from locations very distant from each other. He has also posted his message at the top of your user page instead of the customary bottom of your user page because he wants as much attention as possible. Conservative (talk) 13:50, 8 October 2015 (EDT)

not serious - Were the entire Conservative Bible completed, It would be difficult to make it to print. Printing an entire Bible is a specialized event that only makes sense in large quantities. Printing a New Testament is certainly feasible, and is appropriate, and can be done POD at reasonable rates.
new editor - I'm not an editor, I'm a typesetter/programmer.
from different IP addresses - I have checked Conservapedia from both my office at work and at home. They are located about 10 miles apart, but the work office routes traffic through home office, in another state. I'm Texan but my business card says Chicago.
Some of the minor mistakes are being corrected.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2015 (EDT)
I've been busy in the last week, but I have noted changes were/are ongoing. The process I use Involves stripping the HTML and encoding the text into a biblical editing tagging (USFM) which is then transformed into other encodings (epub, Adobe PDF for print, software modules.) The first step is manual and took me 2 hours to get from your page to an 80% complete intermediate step. I'll need to start over, but I'm going to push my current version into checking and report some issues or make some of the fixes.
I need to consolidate the multiple alternate translations of the same verses. I should be able to do that today.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 10:12, 13 October 2015 (EDT)

Protected redirect page

Hello! Sorry to bother you, but I've been through the administrator list and picked you at random. I thought you would be able to edit a protected page which I can't: Conservapedia:Administrators (a redirect). I'd like you to add the text #Administrators after "Guidelines", so the page redirects to Conservapedia:Guidelines#Administrators, which is a more specific and more accurate target. This is a tiny issue, but it's one that bothered me, so I'd be grateful if you could fix it. Chinken 18:53, 21 June 2015 (EDT)

Done as requested. Thanks for your suggestion.--Andy Schlafly 12:56, 27 June 2015 (EDT)

Article for Deletion

Andy, even in an essay we should not allow obviously wrong statements. In Essay:Calming the Storm, there are a couple of falsehoods which the essay is based on. The most obvious one is perhaps:

In the Mark verse above, traditional translations insert the word "said" as though Jesus caused the calming by verbally ordering the sea to be still. But "λέγω" -- the Greek term used for said in some versions -- does not appear in the Greek above,
  • The Greek term appears in the Greek above - it wasn't just recognized by the author of the essay!
  • Therefore, traditional translations have nothing to "insert", they just translate what is present!

That's why I think that essay should be deleted. If you think otherwise, you should make your case, and not just repeatedly erase the {{delete}}-tag: Just ignoring my arguments doesn't prove them wrong - or go away... --AugustO 04:37, 28 June 2015 (EDT)

The verb λέγω is irregular. Here are the tenses for the third person singular indicative active:

3rd Person Indicative Singular Active
Present λέγει he says
Aorist εἶπε he said
Future ἐρεῖ he will say
Perfect εἴρηκε he has said
Imperfect ἔλεγε he used to say
Pluperfect ᾐρήκει he had said

Now look at the sentece: καὶ διεγερθεὶς ἐπετίμησεν τῷ ἀνέμῳ καὶ εἶπεν τῇ θαλάσσῃ, Σιώπα, πεφίμωσο. So, remembering the movable ν, a form of the verb λέγω can be spotted in the verse: the aorist, simply and cleraly meaning "he said". How can you say that ""λέγω" -- the Greek term used for said in some versions -- does not appear in the Greek"? And how can you go on to ignore this mistake?

--AugustO 14:57, 28 June 2015 (EDT)

I removed two false statements from your essay

As you won't do it yourself, I stepped up and removed the following two obviously false statements from your essay:

Is "rebuked" the correct translation of the Greek term "ἐπιτιμάω", which appears in all three verses above and in connection with other miracles, such as Jesus's lifting of the fever in Luke 4:39? The real meaning of the Greek "ἐπιτιμάω" is closer to "judge" than to affirmatively rebuke. The term can even be used in a positive manner, as in "honor" or "raise the price of." The English term "rebuke" carries the primary connotation of a verbal communication, while in the Greek ἐπιτιμάω has the primary connotation of a non-verbal judgment.
In the Mark verse above, traditional translations insert the word "said" as though Jesus caused the calming by verbally ordering the sea to be still. But "λέγω" -- the Greek term used for said in some versions -- does not appear in the Greek above, and where it does appear in Greek versions its real meaning is to "lay", to "cause to lie down," or to "put to sleep." It only has a connotation of speaking when used in a context of verbal communication (as in putting one word with another), which is not the case here.

--AugustO 03:03, 29 June 2015 (EDT)

Two months later, still no reaction by you. So, I reverted my edits to your earlier version. --AugustO (talk) 07:31, 9 October 2015 (EDT)

User:Conservative's editing recently

He's been editing for about 8 hours straight. As the quantity of edits increases, the quality is likely to deteriorate. Perhaps it's time for him to take a break, and you could suggest that a break is worthwhile. Thanks, GregG 17:29, 4 July 2015 (EDT)

GregG, what notable conservative organizations, news organizations, organizations or websites, have cited your articles? GregG, how many page views has your most popular article received? Has the Chicago Tribune ever cited one of your articles in non-critical manner? Has Concerned Women of America ever cited one of your articles? Has one of the largest Christian organizations in the world ever cited one of your articles as a resource to their readers?
By the way, one of my most recent articles Atheism and social justice was shared over 75 times at a popular website and the article is only about a few weeks old.
Instead of concern trolling about the quality of the User: Conservative account edits, why don't you show the editors of the User: Consevative account how its done! Conservative 17:43, 4 July 2015 (EDT)
One last thing: The User: Conservative account will not be muzzled on Independence Day due to a concern troll. Let freedom ring! Conservative 19:19, 4 July 2015 (EDT)

Breaks are for pantywaists. No person who won a marathon ever took a break. :) Conservative (talk) 23:01, 9 October 2015 (EDT)

Block of Burke39

I see that User:Burke39's recent 2-month block has just expired. Apparently it was for something he wrote about ephebophilia, or pedophilia, or thelarche, or something; I don't know; I haven't looked at the edits. In any case, after the block expired, he made trivial changes to his signature on earlier edits, and was immediately blocked again. The new block reason said "still obsessed with aberant sex entries. See: 'Talk:Pedophilia'" He may or may not be obsessed, but he did not make any nontrivial edits.

The idea that, after being released from incarceration, one can be incarcerated again for the same offense, is the way the justice system of the Communist Soviet Union worked. It suggests that Burke39 is simply going to be blocked for a week, every week. This doesn't seem right.

SamHB 16:39, 12 July 2015 (EDT)

Being on the left, I am sure you know how the Communist Soviet Union worked. I am also sure you understand that leftist agitators often made unreasonable demands/accusations which you are doing now.
As playful ad-hominems go, I'd give that about a 6. I'd give it a 7, but the Soviet Union dissolved over 25 years ago. You can do better. I'd give you a nice zinger in reply, but I can't think of one just now. Sorry. Leftist agitators? Nice. Unreasonable demands? Well, I don't think Conservapedia should be emulating the Soviet justice system. In fact, we have this concept in the United States justice system commonly called "double jeopardy". It's generally frowned upon; in fact, in our legal system, it's forbidden. Being on the left, I am sure you know how that concept works.
Burke39 was told to lay off the sexual aberrancy topics. VargasMilan and I don't have a lot of confidence in his edits in these topic areas. There are lot of topics outside of sexual aberrancy where he can create articles. How about he create a Clock entry or a Model train entry or a The Trouble with Atheism entry? Conservative 16:57, 12 July 2015 (EDT)
But getting back to the topic at hand, writing about clocks sounds fascinating. I'm surprised (seriously!) that CP doesn't have an article on this topic. I'm going to contact him and see if he's enthusiastic about writing such an article. Not sure about atheism and clocks, though. We will leave that to you, OK?
But you will have to unblock him, right?
SamHB 10:37, 15 July 2015 (EDT)
His block will expire at 13:23 on Sunday. I've been in extensive email conversation with him. He says that he doesn't really know anything interesting or useful to say about clocks or model trains. I agree with him; articles should be written by people are are at enthusiastic about the topic. (By the way, where did you come up with those two topics? He doesn't remember ever expressing an interest in them.)
What he wants to write about are topics related to Freemasonry, Judaism, and antisemitism. From our email exchanges, I think he will do very well in these areas.
SamHB 23:56, 17 July 2015 (EDT)

Opinion on Bernie Sanders

Hi Dr. Schlafly,

Given a scenario where you were forced to pick between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders for president, who would you pick? I was interested in hearing your opinion and justification about this matter.

Regards, TMullis 15:48, 13 July 2015 (EDT)

I am postive he would stay home rather than choose a vote between two far-left septuagenarians.--Jpatt 17:20, 13 July 2015 (EDT)
Still trolling, huh, "TMullis"? You just can't help it but to prove us right all the time. Guess it's a weakness. Karajou 18:16, 13 July 2015 (EDT)
If I was an American I'd abstain or vote no confidence. JohnSelway 21:26, 13 July 2015 (EDT)
I would write-in a candidate, or vote in the election but not vote for anyone for that office. I never vote for a pro-abortion candidate, even if a Republican.--Andy Schlafly 01:42, 15 July 2015 (EDT)
Bernie Sanders doesn't have the stomach for aggressive fundraising and he doesn't seem to want to delegate that out to someone who does. So his chances of being the next U.S. president are effectively zero. Eventually, his campaign supply lines will be stretched too thin. Barring her scandals weighing her further down in a much more significant way and barring health issues, Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic presidential nominee. She does not have any reluctance when it comes to campaign fundraising. Conservative 04:23, 15 July 2015 (EDT)
Sanders is attracting Democrats who used to support Warren, Biden, and others. While the media played up the "Sanders surge," Democratic support for Hillary actually edged up from 62 percent to 63 percent.[1] I find it difficult to fathom why anyone would vote for corruption queen Hillary, but numerous polls testify that she has a solid base of support this time around, unlike 2008. PeterKa 06:47, 15 July 2015 (EDT)

It is easy to fathom why someone would vote for corruption queen Hillary. For countries which have elections, they often get the leaders they deserve. Corrupt people vote for corrupt politicians. Conservative 07:21, 15 July 2015 (EDT)

Sexuality topic ban

My main interest right now is going to be editing articles about anti-Semitism, Judaism, and Freemasonry. But I'm interested in some editing of sexuality articles. If I do more thorough research before editing these articles, and I do not put any liberal pro-perversion edits in, and I also edit other topics and do not exclusively edit sexuality topics, can I edit sexuality articles and have the topic ban removed? The reason I have not been editing much since the block expiring is because I want to thoroughly research every topic I edit before I edit it. For example, I'm going to thoroughly research anti-Semitism, Judaism and Freemasonry before editing those topics. And the same will be the case for sexuality if my topic ban is removed there. Paul Bustion User:Burke39 17:11, 20 July 2015 (EDT)
This is an educational encyclopedia. Please be guided in particular by Rule 3 in Conservapedia:Commandments.--Andy Schlafly 17:56, 20 July 2015 (EDT)
Ok, I understand. As long as my edits to the sexuality topic area are "informative, family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language" as the rule 3 statement requires and they comply with the other rules as well, and as long as that is not the only topic area I edit, am I allowed to edit sexuality related articles?Paul Bustion 23:11, 20 July 2015 (EDT)
Mr. Schlafly, I'm sorry, I should have clarified this. My screen signature is Paul Bustion, my real life name, so maybe that was confusing. I'm User:Burke39. VargasMilan and Conservative topic banned me from sexuality articles. They said I have a "creepy/bizarre liberal" viewpoint on sexual issues. I'm requesting that the topic ban be removed. I agree that if it is removed I will only make sourced, informative, non-explicit/family friendly, and anti-perversion edits. I will not promote deviant sexuality, I will not make unsourced statements, I will not be explicit in descriptions. I also will edit other topic areas besides sexuality. If I agree to all of that can my topic ban on sexuality articles be abolished?Paul Bustion User:Burke39 00:43, 21 July 2015 (EDT)
My main point was to ask if the topic ban against me editing sexuality articles could be abolished? Can it?Paul Bustion 02:21, 22 July 2015 (EDT)

The main reason I put the topical ban on you is that I don't have the time or inclination to want to monitor your edits and I thought you were irritating VargasMilan with all the edits on abnormal sexuality that sometimes took a liberal point of view (which is probably because many of the experts in psychology have a irreligious/liberal point of view).

Why don't you do anti-Semitism, Judaism, and Freemasonry edits for 30 days and then the topical ban could be lifted as long as you do what you said you were going to do above. I think that would be a suitable compromise. Conservative 06:52, 22 July 2015 (EDT)

He hasn't explained himself yet. Two months ago I noted that you have to be a kind of like an expert to treat these topics conservatively. Much of what Burke is rehearsing is prior mistakes he made that he should have known not to do in the first place, if he were an expert. He hasn't demonstrated expertise. We also don't have an explanation for the sockpuppets with similar names and interests that appeared after he was blocked. Shouldn't we look into those first to make sure he's not being insincere and/or trolling us? VargasMilan 16:12, 22 July 2015 (EDT)

Andy and Cons: Thank you for attending to this in a positive way. I'm confident that Paul will do well in his future edits here. From my email exchanges with him, he seems to be a knowledgeable, earnest, and forthright person. I believe that the suggestion above (stay away from sexuality for 30 days, and until his expertise and forthrightness have been established) is a reasonable one. He may well turn out to be quite an expert in topics like antisemitism. SamHB 16:45, 22 July 2015 (EDT)

VargasMilan, thanks for you input.
Why don't you workout some counter proposal to mine as far as the topic ban. Perhaps extending the topic ban to 90 or 120 or 180 days or a year or 2 years or 5 years. I suggest working out something out with you, Andy and Burke39.
And then if Burke39 contributes poor content to sexuality articles down the pike, the topical ban could be made longer the second time around or be made permanent.
On the other hand, if you feel strongly the topic ban should be made permanent due to the sockpuppets with similar names, etc., then say so. Conservative 17:36, 22 July 2015 (EDT)
He should be an editor in good standing at Conservapedia before even asking for the privilege. If that takes three months of brilliant editing, good. If that takes a year of so-so editing and maybe a probational period where he does alright, okay. If he shows more of the same problems, probably not. VargasMilan 00:26, 23 July 2015 (EDT)
That sounds good to me. And since it is Andy's wiki, I will let you, Andy, and Burke39 work things out. Andy gave Burke39 the green light to edit sexuality related articles pursuant to the conditions that Burke39 said he would impose on himself. Perhaps, you can convince Andy otherwise. I am on the record as siding with you. Conservative 02:44, 23 July 2015 (EDT)


You should feel free to edit articles on any topic, such as the ones you suggested (anti-Semitism, Judaism, and Freemasonry), but I'd recommend staying away from sexuality topics. I don't really understand Conservapedia's stance on sexuality, and I never edit on such topics. Don't fret over just why people wanted you to stay away; I never figured out what their gripe was either. Just stay away.

Please don't get too stressed out over just what Cons and VM think of you. Proceed normally. Don't worry about "He should be an editor in good standing at Conservapedia before even asking for the privilege." Just stay away from sexuality, the way I stay away from creationism.

Now there is no guarantee that you won't be arbitrarily blocked for reasons that seem frivolous. (In fact there's no guarantee of anything in this life, is there?) These things happen. I was blocked by Ed Poor 7 years ago, with no explanation (he didn't put any explanation on my user page.) Several attempts, over the next few years, to get him to explain what this "probation" meant, were unsuccessful. Eventually I just forgot about it, and so did he. We collaborated amicably after that.

SamHB (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2015 (EDT)

New users having problems registering an account

Someone contacted me about registering a Conservapedia account and said he was getting an error message. I said I would register an account for him and I got the same error message.

Here is the error message:

[fb766450] 2015-08-04 19:52:00: Fatal exception of type MWException

Please let me know when the bug is fixed.Conservative (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2015 (EDT)

The bug is fixed.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2015 (EDT)
Thanks.Conservative (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2015 (EDT)

Attempts to prove E=mc2

Wait a minute, Andy. Isn't the transformation of hydrogen to helium a fusion reaction rather than a nuclear-fission reaction? VargasMilan (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2015 (EDT)

Yes, great point about the word choice. The terminology is corrected in attempts to prove E=mc2. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2015 (EDT)

Rehearing en banc denied in Sissel

I heard this week that the D.C. Circuit denied rehearing en banc of Sissel (the case that brought an origination clause challenge to Obamacare), with four judges dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc (although they indicated they would find no violation of the origination clause because of the shell bill tactic). The challengers are planning to go to the Supreme Court. What are your thoughts? Thanks, GregG (talk) 12:58, 8 August 2015 (EDT)

Four judges dissented, but not because they disagreed with the outcome, as you astutely point out. The rationale in the dissent was thereby disappointing to me.
But four dissents is better than no dissents from the denial of the petition for rehearing, and the attorneys for Sissel will petition the U.S. Supreme for a writ of certiorari. It requires only four votes to grant cert., not five. Hopefully cert. will be granted. This is an issue of enormous national importance.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2015 (EDT)
If the King challengers couldn't even get four votes on their side for the final decision, I'm not sure Sissel is going to fare much better before the Supreme Court.
Also, you might be interested in an arbitration development: after over three years of delay, the liberal California Supreme Court released a decision last week in Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co. in which all the justices agreed that the terms in the arbitration clause that the plaintiff challenged were not unconscionable under California law. (The court did not look kindly upon the arguments made by the plaintiff purchaser of a Mercedes that an arbitral appeal would be prohibitively expensive for him.) GregG (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2015 (EDT)
This is good news about the California Supreme Court upholding an arbitration clause, right? I guess the adage that "bad facts make bad law" has a helpful converse: good facts, in this case an Mercedes-Benz buyer complaining about the costs of arbitration, makes good law!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2015 (EDT)
I think the California Supreme Court reached the right result in the case. However, it should be noted that the two major arbitration forums have limits on consumer arbitration fees regardless of ability to pay (AAA is $200, as adopted in March 2013 to replace a schedule that had unlimited fees for consumers in cases involving more than $75,000 or non-monetary relief; JAMS is $250), and the most recent serious scholarship defending large arbitration fees comes from 2006 by Ware (who previously criticized caps on consumer arbitration fees that did not take into account the consumer's ability to pay) and Drahozal (who argued that contingent fee lawyers should be able to pay arbitration fees and still save as compared to court costs). This may be moot if, as I advocate (and you can help with this advocacy!), Congress sets minimum standards for all consumer arbitration cases instead of more disruptive legislation like the Arbitration Fairness Act. When the CFPB predictably attempts to ban all consumer arbitration clauses in financial contracts, I plan to propose a rule based on the minimum standards as a compromise. GregG (talk) 22:21, 10 August 2015 (EDT)
This is great information. I'll help build some more entries about this.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2015 (EDT)
Mayer Brown recently wrote a corporate-side write-up of Sanchez. Also, feel free to ask me any and all of your consumer arbitration questions. GregG (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2015 (EDT)
Also, Ballard Spahr has a client alert. GregG (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2015 (EDT)
Those are good links to helpful resources. Thanks!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2015 (EDT)

New Hampshire Primary

I took the liberty of moving the page on the New Hampshire primary from NH primary to New Hampshire Primary. Revert it if you want but I feel this version is better and is in the same style as the page you created for the Iowa Primary. FFAF (talk) 00:31, 10 August 2015 (EDT)

Good improvement for NH primary.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2015 (EDT)

Math markup code broken

Help! It seems that, whenever I edit anything within math markup (<math>...</math>), I get a big red "Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable. Please see math/README to configure.)" This obviously got broken at the time of the recent upgrade. It seems that all existing math markup code is OK, because it is in a cache somewhere. But the slightest change to any math markup gets the error. SamHB (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2015 (EDT)

Thanks, I'm aware of this and am working on it. Suggestions are welcome.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2015 (EDT)
Math problem is fixed now. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:41, 17 August 2015 (EDT)
That's wonderful that you got working so quickly. I had not been optimistic about a quick resolution, and my reply to your "Suggestions are welcome" wasn't going to be very cheery. You see, we had a similar problem from a software upgrade over at Ameriwiki, and fixing it was a drawn-out and frustrating process. And I doubted that Fergus Mason (or anyone at RW!) was going to be inclined to help. SamHB (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2015 (EDT)
Thanks again for raising the issue of the math software problem. I'd quote Proverbs or Psalms for the ability to fix the bug, but I can't think of a particularly appropriate verse right now for successful debugging.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2015 (EDT)
Well (from my standpoint), there's always Matthew 7:7  :-) SamHB (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2015 (EDT)


Andy, the last seven days of edits seem to disappeared. Has this site been hacked? EJamesW (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2015 (EDT)

Andy upgraded the Wikimedia version being used to one that is more resistant to hacking. So it is doubtful that the website was hacked. Just some snafu. Conservative (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2015 (EDT)
It wasn't a hack. Bad computer crashes occur, unfortunately. Thank God for backups.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2015 (EDT)

What about an announcement at the main-page? Perhaps even a short apology for the inconvenience? --AugustO (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2015 (EDT)

Man, that's the second time in a few years where you've lost an entire week's worth of contributions. I can't recall such a thing ever happening at Wikipedia -- to what do you ascribe the difference? SaulJ (talk) 14:25, 26 August 2015 (EDT)
More of a spiritual focus here than at Wikipedia. And I don't think the loss of some talk-page rants or routine housecleaning is going to matter in the long run. It wasn't a full week, and many of the substantive edits have been restored.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:41, 26 August 2015 (EDT)

I have not been able to recover my user page. I made significant changes to it, changing the "semi-retired, but not dead" title to something better. You may recall having asked me, while replying to something else, to do that. I put a lot of work into that change, and I can't recover it from my browser cache. I also didn't make a copy of the file itself, though I often make copies. I was going to do it the next day. (Hand of God here?) Is there any chance you can recover it for me? I consider it a very substantive change, referring to my philosophy of what topics I edit on. SamHB (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2015 (EDT)

Perhaps, as Schlafly noted, you're not being spiritual enough. Or too spiritual. He's hard to figure out. SaulJ (talk) 23:37, 26 August 2015 (EDT)
SamHB, it should be in your browser cache. I will take a look also in what I have.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2015 (EDT)
UPDATE: I just restored the lost edits to your user page.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2015 (EDT)
  • IIRC, this is the second time that a couple of hundred edits were lost. Andy, you say that nothing important went missing, but it is tedious to repeat "routine housecleaning". At the moment, I don't feel inclined to add links to the verses of the CBP: that is nothing which I should have to do over and over again.
  • I get 500-errors quite often when I try to visit the site. So, your technical problems haven't disappeared yet. How likely is another "bad computer crush"?
  • This wiki hasn't much traffic: 500 edits in a week isn't that impressive. I don't think that this will improve much, especially when you show such contempt for your editors: "I don't think the loss of some talk-page rants or routine housecleaning is going to matter in the long run!" In the long run, all wikis will disappear. It's the middle distance which counts!

--AugustO (talk) 07:39, 27 August 2015 (EDT)

I found that has cached pages from the six days gone lost. I will be adding my work shortly. --Jpatt (talk) 11:52, 27 August 2015 (EDT)

Thank you, thank you, thank you, for finding and restoring my user page. While you were doing that, I was redoubling/retripling/requadrupling my efforts to extract the information out of my Firefox cache. The explanations I found on the internet, explaining how to actually get the data back, all seemed to go off into the weeds at that point. Then I found a utility that actually does the job correctly. It's downloadable freeware. Though it's not commercial, I know we're very sensitive about "spamming link to external sites". May I post its URL here? I figure that your talk page is the right place for it, since this seems to be where people are discussing the crash. I will be restoring more material over the next few days. Thanks again. SamHB (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2015 (EDT)

That's wonderful, SamHB! Yes, please do post its URL here, though presumably that works only for Firefox (which is a superb browser).
The program is "mozillacacheview", at No installation procedure or other messy stuff. Just a zip file with mozillacachereview.exe and a couple of documentation files. Unzip it and run it. It's for Firefox, though the web site seems to have utilities for other browsers also. SamHB (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2015 (EDT)
At this point, I estimate that only about 50 substantive edits by all users have not yet been restored from the data outage. I have most of those (thanks to another very skillful editor) and will restore much of them (other than the ones that SamHB is taking care of) over time. There is no point in restoring the talk page or headline edits, which are time sensitive and worth trimming later anyway.
AugustO, may I humbly recommend Matthew 13:3, the parable of the scattered seeds. By the way, I think the span references are better positioned at the beginning of the verse itself, rather than the verse number, so that when the link is clicked all of the verse appears to the viewer. More generally, thanks much for your patience and for your efforts.
I've learned much from this mishap and am taking steps to improve for next time. The silver lining in setbacks is that they establish a good baseline for improvement.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2015 (EDT)
It would be a good idea to restore all the missing edits from Conservapedia:Community Portal if you can. EJamesW (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2015 (EDT)


That's a frequent message I get when trying to visit Conservapedia:

Internal Server Error

The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.

Please contact the server administrator, and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.

More information about this error may be available in the server error log.

Additionally, a 500 Internal Server Error error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request. Apache/2.2.23 (Unix) mod_hive/5.0 mod_ssl/2.2.23 OpenSSL/0.9.8e-fips-rhel5 mod_bwlimited/1.4 Server at Port 80

--AugustO (talk) 07:18, 28 August 2015 (EDT)

Worst Church Hymns

I hope you found my contributions helpful. George Weigel's Evangelical Catholicism (2013) also contains a critique of modern Catholic music. It's at the Firestone Library here at Princeton (I returned it so I can't refer to anything off-hand). GregG (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2015 (EDT)

Your edits are superb. I've learned from them, and added a section about additional criticism by Weigel.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2015 (EDT)


Do you guys still do debates? I have a few interesting ideas for them--Scatach (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2015 (EDT)

Sure, and here are many examples: [[Category:Conservapedia_Debates]]. Just create a new entry with "Debate:_______", with the question of the debate filling in the blank.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2015 (EDT)

Possible fix/fixes to 500 permission errors when editing

Andy, some users said they commonly receive 500 permissions when editing.

Here is a possible solution:

"A Permissions Error. In most cases, a 500 Internal Server Error is due to an incorrect permission on one or more files or folders. In most of those cases, an incorrect permission on a PHP and CGI script is to blame. These should usually be set at 0775 (-rwxr-)."[2]

Also, other potential causes: Causes of 500 permission errors. Conservative (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2015 (EDT)

You appeared to do a great job in fixing the 500 errors which came up frequently for many users. I don't get them at all anymore. Conservative (talk) 12:59, 26 September 2015 (EDT)

Advice on dealing with an egregious attack on arbitration

Hi Andy,

I just came across this diatribe on arbitration. As you might pick up from reading the rant, it contains numerous disparaging falsehoods about how arbitration works. Although the author provided contact information at the bottom of his editorial, I'm not sure how useful it would be to offer him in-depth corrections of all the misunderstandings his post exhibits. What are your thoughts on dealing with this? Thanks, GregG (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2015 (EDT)

The editorial makes many substantive points. Perhaps one counterargument is that in the absence of arbitration, much of the payment goes to attorneys rather than to consumers.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:57, 4 September 2015 (EDT)


Hi Andy, thanks for the account promotion, I was getting sick of having to type in Rome before any edit went through! (you may want to see if there is any reason why the skipcaptcha is currently stuck on that question as it seems to have only asked that question for the past week or so for me atleast). FFAF (talk) 12:53, 9 September 2015 (EDT)

CFPB arbitration hearing 10/7 in Denver

The CFPB is holding an arbitration hearing in Denver on October 7. Do you have any plans on offering comment at that hearing to rebut the mainstream media's predictable attacks on arbitration? (I don't think the hearing will work in my schedule.) Thanks, GregG (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2015 (EDT)

That's very interesting. I wonder if the CFPB will accept written comments in lieu of oral testimony at the hearing.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:17, 26 September 2015 (EDT)
It's a field hearing, so I think the only commentary at the hearing will be in person (although some pro-business groups have published their own press releases in conjunction with previous CFPB arbitration activities). There should be a formal notice and comment process as part of the arbitration rulemaking, which I plan to participate in. GregG (talk) 10:14, 26 September 2015 (EDT)
Very impressive. Please let me know when the rulemaking opens up, and I'll consider submitting something also.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2015 (EDT)

The CFPB has posted its proposal here. The proposal prohibits arbitration clauses from being used to block class action litigation and requires arbitration awards to be submitted to the CFPB. The proposal does not prohibit the use of arbitration clauses outside of the class action context (yay!) nor does it require individual arbitrations to comply with minimum standards (boo!, although the CFPB says that it is not considering this proposal because there is insufficient data on individual arbitrations since there are so few of them). I'm looking forward to watching the Denver hearing this afternoon. Thanks, GregG (talk) 10:28, 7 October 2015 (EDT)

Image upload request

Hi, I have been working on this page - John Key and wondering if you could upload an image of Key for the page? I'd like to have it like the templates you have for US presidents (tenure, party etc). Many thanks! JohnSelway (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2015 (EDT)

Done as requested. Thanks for the suggestion!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2015 (EDT)
Thanks so much for uploading the image! John Key is such a good example of right-wing pragmatism over here in NZ - we are very lucky to have him as PM. Hope you in the States get someone similar. JohnSelway (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2015 (EDT)

Trying to undo vandalism...

...I am currently trying to clean up after a vandal on your wiki, but am stymied by having to answer a silly question after every revision I make. Your current anti-vandal system is both too weak to actually prevent vandalism and too much of a pain in the neck to encourage editors to help out. W.Sidney (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2015 (EDT)

Problem solved for your account. Thanks for mentioning it.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:28, 6 October 2015 (EDT)


Hi; I'm interested in improving this site through both adding new content mainly analyzing the political nuances of various popular media and overall helping make the place more fair and inviting, but I was banned with no reason given, and all my contributions reverted without explanation; think you could help me out here / make sure my contributions aren't impeded? JustMyTwoCents (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2015 (EDT)

Can you cite a few examples of reversions that you think were unjustified?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2015 (EDT)

Example: at [3] I added accurate information to the article regarding political and topical elements in the game, and this was removed with no reason given despite the previous version of the article having no content relating to conservative politics. JustMyTwoCents (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2015 (EDT)

Eh? (simply looking for your OKAY) JustMyTwoCents (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2015 (EDT)

The reversion you mentioned was part of a group of reversions. It is OK for you to restore the edits on that particularly entry (EarthBound).
The bullying entry has an informative introduction of general application, and displacing that with a section about so-called bullying in school is not an improvement.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2015 (EDT)

WTH is up with the hate crime page? Permission to correct it, please? JustMyTwoCents (talk) 13:26, 18 October 2015 (EDT)

We don't have an entry yet on Christian bashing. How about starting there?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 13:29, 18 October 2015 (EDT)
I created a Gay bashing article which demonstrates that most gay bashing is homosexual on homosexual bashing. Citing eminent forensic scientists, it shows that homosexual on homosexual bashing is often exceptionally brutal.
JustMyTwoCents, put that in your homosexual agenda pipe and smoke it! :) Conservative (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2015 (EDT)

Pardon me, but your "additions" to that page seem to serve only to undermine the point that gay bashing is wrong, and grossly understates its harmfulness and status as a serious problem.

"What's this about a homosexual agenda pipe"? JustMyTwoCents (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2015 (EDT)

Understates? Where are your statistics and expert witnesses?
The article says that gay bashing is not wrong? Doesn't the gay bashing article use words such as brutal, violence, overkill and murder? JustMyTwoCents, you are WRONG and a LIAR! Conservative (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2015 (EDT)


I'm curious: which of your contradictory statements is true:

«There were no monarchies at the time of Christ» (Andy Schlafly, 00:47, 21 October 2015 (EDT))


«Augustus established a constitutional monarchy rather than a true republic, because the Senate's role became only advisory.» (Andy Schlafly, WHL4: Birth of the Roman Empire)

Or perhaps the Roman Empire was not a real monarchy? --AugustO (talk) 07:37, 29 October 2015 (EDT)

So? --AugustO (talk) 06:28, 30 October 2015 (EDT)
Great point. But a "constitutional monarchy" is not a "king".--Andy Schlafly (talk) 10:03, 30 October 2015 (EDT)
And the moon is not a green cheese. Which of two the statements above is correct, which isn't? --AugustO (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2015 (EDT)
Context matters. My reference to no monarchies at the time of Christ referred not to a lack of Caesars, but to to the lack of "kings" in the modern English sense of the word.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2015 (EDT)
  1. The context was the discussion of the term "majesty" (Merriam Webster: a great and impressively beautiful quality) - we weren't talking specifically about kings. I cannot judge your internal context, I've to go with the things you write - and in the written context, it wasn't obvious for me that you wanted to say: "There were no kingdoms at the time of Christ"
  2. However, the statement "There were no kingdoms at the time of Christ" is wrong, too: Herod the Great was around as King of Judea in Christ's early days. Until 38 A.D. Artabanus III was King of Parthia (which covered parts of modern Turkey and Iran, not far away from Judea), which had many contacts to the Roman Empire!
  3. As for the "lack of "kings" in the modern English sense of the word": there was a lack of millers, carpenters, bakers, farmers, etc. in "the modern English sense of the word", too - but we still use the vocabulary.... --AugustO (talk) 16:56, 30 October 2015 (EDT)

A great disappointment

Dear Andy,

As someone with an autism-spectrum disorder, I am greatly disappointed at the disparagement of autism presented in the Atheism and autism "article". Autism is a trait that God has endowed some of us with, for better or for worse. Is this kind of drivel that should be featured on the Trustworthy Encyclopedia?

(As mentioned on my userpage, I have begun pursuing new opportunities and am therefore going to limit my contributions to Conservapedia, but when I found out about this, I could not pass up the opportunity to express my severe disappointment.)

Thanks, GregG (talk) 09:02, 1 November 2015 (EST)

Greg, I greatly appreciate your feedback. I'm disappointed that the entry does not explore a possible link between autism and vaccination. Apparently the Amish have low autism rates. Do they have low vaccination rates also? But I don't find anything in the article to be offensive.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2015 (EST)
"I'm disappointed that the entry does not explore a possible link between autism and vaccination." Until you deleted User:Conservative's comment, this was only the second most asinine statement on this page. --AugustO (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2015 (EST)
Within a minute of searching I found that my intuition was correct: "the relatively low overall vaccination rate in the [Amish] community," observes a pro-vaccination article in The Atlantic. [4]
Also have to admit my disappointment regarding that statement as well. I'm a firm believer in Roman Catholicism and if anything I utterly hate Atheists for their trying to persecute and even exterminate us Christians and feel if I were to ever let myself become an atheist, I'd inevitably blow up churches and try to wipe out religion just to show God doesn't exist, yet I'm autistic, certainly high-functioning aspergers. I actually DO serve God. Granted, it's more due to utter terror of him, feeling that if I don't, he'll vaporize me and worse, which ultimately stemmed from Raiders of the Lost Ark, but nonetheless, I do actually believe God exists and serve him. Pokeria1 (talk) 08:24, 29 February 2016 (EST)

discussion for aschlafly

Good day, Mr. Schlafly,

(Main questions are marked with Q#.) I'm curious as to why there's such hostility toward atheists, specifically, on this site, given that atheists make up such a small percentage of the population, and some evangelicals hold the position that atheists do not exist (Denials that atheists exist). So, Q1) "Why is there so much hostility toward, and misinformation about, atheists?"

I ask because I'm an atheist, and I find it extremely odd (specifically, I'm an "agnostic atheist", referring to what I don't believe in, and a "rationalist Humanist", referring to what I do believe in). If atheists do not exist, then how can these imaginary concept of beings be as horrible as this site portrays us?

What really intrigues me – besides just the obvious hatred for atheists – is how the Islam page actually somewhat-reflects the positions of Muslims and the page isn't extremely derogatory (like the atheism page is), and same with Judaism, Wicca, and Buddhism. Although each of these pages have a conservative Christian bias (which is to be expected), what intrigues me is how these pages can (mostly) accurately represent them, despite in your view, they would all be following "false gods" (or for Judaism, an "incomplete God"). But for the atheist page, it seems as if every attempt is made to make us look evil, as if we were "Set/Satan" himself.

Often, it seems as if people fight what they view to be a threat – Q2) "Is the atheism page established that way because you view atheism as a threat?"

I understand that there are some outspoken atheists, such as Richard Dawkins et al, who share their views and encourage their views be accepted; but then again, there are exponentially more outspoken Christians, who share their views and encourage their views be accepted. Yet, a Christian earns the title "preacher", while the atheist earns the title "militant atheist", why the discrepancy? Are out spoken preachers, therefore, "militant Christians"? And Q3) "Why do all atheists get lumped in with the Dawkin's personality on this site?"

This leads me to my next point – my parents are conservative Christians who believe the universe is 6,000 years old, I'm a liberal Humanist (with affinities toward the rationalism of the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, and our Constitution) who believes what all the scientists say, and yet, we get along fine. I don't push my views on them, nor they, on me. I live in St. Louis city – most people I know are evangelical Christians, Roman Catholics, and there's a pretty high Sunni Muslim population here (and I've become cool with several of them). I've specifically sought out nonbelievers to befriend, because I've felt the need to get away from (my own, subjective perception) "the crazies". Many of my nonbelieving friends are exactly the same way – we don't hate you all, contrary to what you might think. Yes, we get irritated with you guys, sometimes, and the opposite is also true. Nonetheless, my Christian family and friends know me to be honest (in that I literally don't lie, even if I might find the consequence undesirable), trustworthy, giving (people have known they could ask me for financial help, and they joke about how I always just say "sure", without asking why - and no, they don't take advantage of me), helpful (people always know they can count on me to help with moving, projects, etc), they respect me for my service, and I'm now studying Business. Some of my Christian friends and acquaintances have stated that I'm "more Christian" and "a better person" than anyone else they know. Similarly, I respect each of them for their own merits. The difference between us? I don't believe things like: 1) males and females of the millions of species on Earth could have fit on a ship that was only slightly bigger than the one I was stationed on, which was uncomfortable living quarters for a mere 300 sailors; 2) I don't believe that light, which have been traveling from formed galaxies traveling at lightspeed billions of years ago, was created in-transit, as to deceive humans into thinking the universe is that old, 3) for the sake of testing our faith in a book where the main character mistakenly calls the mustard seed the smallest seed in the earth, for the sake of illustrating a parable, to protect us from a concept of Hell, which anyone advocating a "loving God" could take seriously, when there's so much evidence to the contrary. (I understand this may have come across as an attack, but it's not intended that way – I'm merely demonstrating my own perception of the Bible versus science, and how I, as someone who's loved by my community, can't reasonably accept the book that you advocate is the only way to be a moral and good person.) Q4: For people who have theological and intellectual reasons for disbelieving the Bible – and there are many of us, as we study it, along with other religious books – yet we're just the average, kind person you might mistake for being a Christian, how can you feel justified to leave such demeaning content up on your website?

I understand that there are unanswered questions that rejecting faith leaves open, and I do hope that the questions will all be answered one day. "How did abiogenesis occur?" "What caused the universal expansion?" Well, I don't know, but I can't find peace with accepting answers from books that I perceive to be filled with theological and irrational holes, merely because I demand to know the answer to life's biggest questions right now, no matter the legitimacy of it. Still, in a world where a person should be judged by their actions, and not by their labels, why are we hated above all other groups, when most of us just live our lives, not bothering anyone else?

This discussion is intended for Aschlafly, alone, and was written in good faith. I'm seeking some answers from you, sir, that I hope you'll answer, as well as relaying my own position and lifestyle to you, to clear up some misconceptions that may exist. I'd hope and expect that you wouldn't take offense to my own views, since my views are stated as only my own. ConstitutioSocialist (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2015 (EST)

I will answer these questions.
1. Atheists have been extremely hostile towards Christians, especially recently, and as proof of this one has to read the news on a daily basis. You atheists are hated because you are forcing - and I do mean FORCING - your religious beliefs on the rest of the country. Tell me, Mr. Atheist, just what kind of individual is it that has to file a lawsuit to force someone else not to pray in a public school? Is it the kind of individual that you want to sit down and have a cup of tea with while he tries to strip away your First Amendment rights?
2. Atheists have been hostile to this website. Conservapedia espouses family and Christian values, as well as providing evidence against certain subjects near and dear to atheists hearts, such as evolution. These atheists don't like it, and they show it. To me and most everyone here, that is tantamount to forcing your religious beliefs on this site.
3. You said "Still, in a world where a person should be judged by their actions, and not by their labels, why are we hated above all other groups, when most of us just live our lives, not bothering anyone else?" You are bothering everyone else, and unfortunately that kind of bothering as you said has the intent to send an individual straight to hell. You can believe what you want to believe, but when it comes to proclaiming the Gospel - either in this website or in a public park - just who are you to stop it? Because one way or the other, you're going to find out whether or not we're right. Karajou (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2015 (EST)

Dawkian atheists are not shown as the only types of atheists as can be seen by: 6 types of atheists and Atheist factions (which is introduced near the beginning of Conservapedia's main atheism article). Also, the main atheism article says, "Although anti-theists, militant atheists and new atheists give the general public the perception that atheists are exceedingly angry individuals, research indicates that in the United States the atheist population as a whole is not angrier than the general population (see: Various types of atheists/non-believers and anger)."[5]

Next, you wrote: "Some of my Christian friends and acquaintances have stated that I'm "more Christian" and "a better person" than anyone else they know." Notice that they did not say that you are "more atheist" than anyone else they know. What great moral teachers are well-known as far as atheism? Jesus sets the highest moral standards, not atheism. And then there is the matter of atheist history and its very checkered past. See: History of atheism and Atheism and mass murder and Moral failures of the atheist population.

Lastly, I don't see atheism as a threat. See: Desecularization AND In the Western World atheism/agnosticism will probably decline somewhere between 2021 and 2050 due to the low fertility rate of the secular population, the high fertility rate of religious conservatives and religious immigration into the West [6] but it could happen sooner if there is an economic depression[7] AND "Glory and power belong to Jesus Christ forever and ever! (1 Peter 4:11). And Conservapedia points out that Dawkian atheism is on the wane (see: Richard Dawkins' loss of influence, etc. etc. Conservative (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2015 (EST)

By the way, your "Jesus/mustard seed/smallest seed" complaint is the result of poor biblical exegesis skills.[8] Being Christian conservatives, we forgive your mustard seed size microagression against the rock solid worldview of biblical Christianity.
Also, it is obvious that your long screed of atheist/liberal wordiness is a result of being threatened by the recent Atheism and the brain series and that you are engaging in psychological projection. Why is science, in this case medical science, so threatening to atheists? Your long screed in response to the atheism and the brain article series reminds me of a classic movie line: "Captain: [Our psychology] is working all right. All ahead for attack, Mr Ware. Maybe we can rip him open in the middle of a waltz."[9] Conservative (talk) 17:35, 4 November 2015 (EST)

ConstitutioSocialist insists twice "I'm a humanist". He isn't interested in the cause of helping humanity. He only wants to manipulatively lodge the untruth (at the end of his argumentation) that Conservapedia and its outlook is coming between humanity and needed help as deeply as possible into the heart of its members and then watch them angrily and frustratedly try to extract it.

For a narcissist (someone whose life revolves around securing themselves as the center of attention), watching others disentangle themselves from an untruth in this way is a win-win. If the targets succeed, it serves as a substitute for a subservient kind of friendship: a group of persons extracting something painful that they share (the untruth he composed) with the narcissist from them much like the painful inner contradictions (emotional baggage) in the narcissist's life.

If they don't succeed, it helps reinforce the narcissist's sagging sense of having an understanding of human nature superior to other people, even though that particular "understanding" was learned from having on a previous occasion introduced this kind of untruth and having watched the results and then later treacherously reintroducing it with greater skill. Some "humanism". VargasMilan (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2015 (EST)

A few remaining points:

Animals fitting in the ark: How did the animals fit in the ark?
Speed of light and the age of the universe issue
The evidence points to a naturalistic origin of life being impossible
Two additional matters
1. ConstitutioSocialist wrote: "I've specifically sought out nonbelievers to befriend, because I've felt the need to get away from (my own, subjective perception) 'the crazies'."
The social science data shows that: atheists are more likely to commit suicide, that theism is a boon to mental and physical health and that people are active in their faith live longer (See: Atheism and suicide and Atheism and depression and Atheism and health).
2. ConstitutioSocialist claimed there was misinformation in the main atheism article. The burden of proof is upon the claimant and ConstitutioSocialist did not point out a single factual error in Conservapedia's atheism article. Conservative (talk) 14:32, 5 November 2015 (EST)
His sense of self-importance was probably contradicted by conservativism, which would explain why he peppers his alleged pleas for civility with concealed slights. He would claim water is dry and fire is cold just to bother you if he knew how to deliver the claim subtly enough to avoid ridicule. Can a leopard can change his spots? Then a habitual sinner can give up sinning (Jeremiah 13). VargasMilan (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2015 (EST)

Given the length and tone of his voluminous screed, I do find it humorous that he gets so upset about an encyclopedia article on atheism. It just provides further proof that atheists hate knowledge. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge" - King Solomon

And of course, at best, Mr. Schlafly merely skimmed his lengthy screed as he is much too busy to pour over secular leftist wordiness (see: Liberal wordiness). Conservative (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2015 (EST)

A message for the individual who calls himself "ConstitutioSocialist", which is a misnomer. First, your questions have been answered, both in the above missives as well as in the past; we can not help it if you choose to ignore them due to your desires to have a particular individual answer them instead. Just because you pound on someone's door doesn't mean he has to open it for you. Second, there's the issue regarding your own honesty - or lack of it - which seems to go well with those who lack faith and morals. You have entered Conservapedia in the past under the following sock accounts: "Humanperson", "Ebionites", "Ebionite", "Usaname", "FamilyJewels", "Stars", "Washington45", and "KettleToThePot". Some of the edits you made include harassment of others here in addition to inserting false info. All you did was confirm that lying is a big part of what an atheistic liberal actually is. All all you did was to confirm that we are correct after all. Karajou (talk) 01:53, 9 November 2015 (EST)

Speaking of lying, Karajou, can you (or Mr Schlafly) truthfully tell me you've read the current atheism article start to finish in one sitting? I suspect you can't, and I'd be intrigued to read an honest report of how your heads felt afterwards were either of you ever to try. Lots of love, JohnZ (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2015 (EST)
I can't argue with Karajou's checkuser research. I left an article of an early alias of this sockpuppeteer up thinking it wasn't worth digging through the misportrayals to leave whatever fragments truth was left and which would then have to be reorganized. He was blocked briefly then later blocked five years. But now it turns out leaving his article up only seemed to embolden him. Since we've established a troll-pattern (of playing mutually contradictory roles and dodging blocks) to his edits (of which some, from a later alias mentioned here by Karajou I considered too indecent to discuss) I will feel better about nominating the article I mentioned for speedy deletion. VargasMilan (talk) 03:09, 9 November 2015 (EST)
Someone with his m.o. posted here briefly before I blocked the account. I would have immediately blocked him longer if I had read his message more carefully. It seemed like an apology, but fit Constitutio's other behavior better, as his pleas for his atheist cause only seemed like a pretext for the exercise of further single-minded propagandistic methods of which he provided more pieces in the message itself. I will block two years but won't be hurt if anyone feels the urge to change it. VargasMilan (talk) 03:29, 9 November 2015 (EST)
He's like the Wizard in Oz: making a big show based on a lie by a loudmouth who can't afford to have that curtain opened. Karajou (talk) 03:39, 9 November 2015 (EST)
Yeah. User:Conservative gave him the opportunity to write an essay on atheism here at Conservapedia, but Constitutio turned it down for that "big show". VargasMilan (talk) 03:48, 9 November 2015 (EST)

Message left to me by User:MRinder

Message left to me by User:MRinder

Hi, you might want to look at the topic of Scientology and Abortions. They commonly force the members in the Sea Org to have abortions, if they are pregnant, often against their will.

MY RESPONSE: I have a lot of matters going on in my life right now. So I don't plan on editing that article anymore. Given the litigiousness of Scientologists, I am guessing it would require some careful research and I can't do that right now. Feel free to contact the owner of the website about this matter at: User talk:Aschlafly.
The good news is that Scientology seems to be declining and the internet is probably a big part of that. So I would encourage you to contact the owner of the website. Conservative (talk) 09:49, 6 November 2015 (EST)

The advanced character features like bolding, italics, line spaces, etc is currently not working

I am not sure if it is just me, but the advanced character features like bolding, italics, line spaces, etc is currently not working. Conservative (talk) 11:49, 9 November 2015 (EST)

It works for me. SamHB (talk) 13:58, 9 November 2015 (EST)
Works for me also.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:08, 9 November 2015 (EST)
It works now for me also. Maybe I was in a rush before and I was mistaken or maybe it was just a temporary glitch. Conservative (talk) 02:55, 10 November 2015 (EST)

"Subject/headline" acting up

When typing in the "Subject/headline" and hitting "Publish" (when entering "Add Topic"), it goes blank when the captcha comes up, and when you re-enter the subject/headline, it is submitting without the topic headline. Just figured I'd point it out. JSalinas (talk) 01:14, 11 November 2015 (EST)

Thanks for mentioning it. Your account shouldn't have this problem any more.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 07:53, 11 November 2015 (EST)

Conservative Bible Project

Andy, perhaps you should refrain from editing the CBP until you have learned the most basic Greek? The declination of adjectives? The conjugation of verbs? Talk:Epistle_to_the_Hebrews_(Translated)#Hebrews_10:12 is a brutal reminder of the depth of your ignorance! --AugustO (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2015 (EST)

For your information

Have a look at Talk:Epistle to the Hebrews (Translated)#A challenge for Andrew_Schlafly:

Above, I have given an examples (Acts 7:36), where the demonstrative pronoun οὗτος is used as the subject of a sentence and refers to a person mentioned before, thus it is translated as "this one/man". There are many more of such examples, e.g., Matthew 26:23, Matthew 27:58, Luke 2:34, Luke 15:2, Luke 23:41, John 3:2, Acts 4:9, etc. Do you have another example (Biblical or from general Greek literature) where οὗτος refers to the author of the text without him being previously introduced

AugustO (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2015 (EST)

--AugustO (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2015 (EST)

Andy is convinced Jesus wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews. At the same time, he refuses to acknowledge that this would turn Christianity on its head by relegating the Gospels to second-tier texts.
In other words, he possesses superhuman powers of doublethink and crimestop when it comes to "arguing" for his "insights". Go punch a brick wall forever instead. Eventually the wall might crack... JohnZ (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2015 (EST)
You have no evidence of that. VargasMilan (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2015 (EST)
Au contraire. JohnZ (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2015 (EST)

Can't reset password

I had to create a new account. I have an account that I have not used in a long time (User:Ymmotrojam), but I was unable to reset the password to it because email features are disabled on this wiki. I'm not sure if you were aware of this or not. That may be preventing some people from contributing who otherwise would. I used to be a server admin for some other Christian-based wikis. If you are needing assistance with the MediaWiki software, just let me know. Blessings, --Tnmajor (talk) 11:13, 3 December 2015 (EST)

Welcome back, and thanks for letting me know about that issue! I've just fixed it. Please try it now. Thanks again.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 13:28, 3 December 2015 (EST)
It worked. --Ymmotrojam (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2015 (EST)

Plans for growth?

I am curious what your plans for growth of this project are? I get the general impression that the project as a whole is stagnating. Would you be open to allowing editing back to the public again? There are ways to keep spam away while still allowing the general public to make edits of articles. --Ymmotrojam (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2015 (EST)

Conservapedia remains open to the public, as illustrated by your ability to create a new account and edit from it. Conservapedia continues to grow and reach more people. But new suggestions are always welcome too!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2015 (EST)
I think one of the things that concerns me about this is a basic lack of professionalism in many of the articles (not pointing fingers to anyone). I am definitely against political correctness and such, but if we are going to claim to be as good as one of those traditional hard-back encyclopedias, we have a long way to go. I hate making criticisms like this, because we can all work to improve it. I'm just concerned that it doesn't seem to have changed much since 2007. I think this will scare many conservatives away from this site, even give conservatives a bad name. There also seems to be an overemphasis on the United States of America. I think in order to grow, we need to shed some of this unnecessary baggage that is holding the site back. --Ymmotrojam (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2015 (EST)
We address topics that traditional hard-back encyclopedias fail to include, which may be why traditional encyclopedias are failing. For example, we criticize the NFL, which is an addiction for millions of Americans and is being exported to the rest of the world. As to our American focus, the U.S. has been and continues to be the fountainhead of conservatism so it's not surprising this would be the starting point. This is what the U.S. should be exporting.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2015 (EST)
Addressing topics that a traditional encyclopedia does not is one of the benefits of the Internet. But I was referring to the professionalism of how articles are being written, not the scope or types of articles written. When I say it has an overemphasis on the USA, I don't mean we should downplay the importance of the USA. But if you were to pick up the Encyclopedia Britannica, would you see a logo on the front with the United States flag? The fact that the US flag is not there does not mean the US is unimportant, it just is not the central focus when considering the entire encyclopedia as a whole. If conservative concepts are good (which I think generally they are), they are universally good, without regard to any particular nation. See this: [10] --Ymmotrojam (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2015 (EST)

Three Co-equal Branches of Government

So I had this crazy idea that I thought I would throw your way. What if a wiki had three co-equal branches of government just like the United States government? Perhaps one of the reasons Wikipedia is so crazy is because it's every man for himself. But what if there was elected representatives at Wikipedia? I know it sounds kind of weird, but it might be a good idea. We won't be able to convince Wikipedia to do that, but we could do that here... we could setup a Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branch. There could be a "constitution", elections, all the works. The legislature would create the policies for the wiki, the judiciary would interpret the policies, and the executive branch would take the lead. What do you think? :) If there were any disagreements, there would be an appeals process that would go through the judiciary. --Ymmotrojam (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2015 (EST)

Your idea is clever but the elegance and strength of conservative thought is that it quickly becomes clear what the best position is. Some people will continue to disagree with it, but often that is due to a personal emotion rather than reasoned analysis, as in the case of gun control.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:39, 4 December 2015 (EST)
It's just a suggestion, so take it or leave. But I don't think the founders would have made that argument. They knew that the heart of man would always tend towards corruption. That's why we have our checks and balances. And I'm sure the founders were probably very conservative people. But they didn't just assume their conservative ideas would survive because they were such good ideas. --Ymmotrojam (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2015 (EST)
Your idea is insightful, and I'm not rejecting it. But math class is not run by checks-and-balances, and neither is church. Government, which does benefit from checks and balances, is not particularly intellectual or reason-based. So I think analogizing one to the other does have defects.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2015 (EST)
Every wiki has government (admins, sysops, etc), and laws (policies, commandments, etc), I'm just suggesting that there could be a little more organization and a democratic process to it all that reflected the will of the people. It doesn't mean that every minute thing in a math lesson would get voted on. But the overarching policies and procedures of the site would be dictated by a leadership structure with inherent checks and balances. --Ymmotrojam (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2015 (EST)
It's more suitable that an enterprise run for conservatives and professing a conservative point of view be run by conservatives, not by the public at large. VargasMilan (talk) 12:12, 5 December 2015 (EST)
And that's understandable to a degree. One of my thoughts though was that it may actually encourage growth, because people would feel like they can truly make a difference when they get to be part of a "political" process. And you could always make it difficult to change such a "constitution" by requiring 2/3 vote of those who had been voted "into office". :-) --Ymmotrojam (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2015 (EST)

article you will be interested in

Here is an article you will be interested in:

Enjoy! Conservative (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2015 (EST)

Interesting. Thanks for mentioning it.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2015 (EST)

Homeopathy article

I have substantially expanded the article on homeopathy. What do you think about it? How should I change it in order to make it conform to Conservapedia's goals? Should I make it more concise, or am I supposed to expand it more?--Leugen (talk) 14:55, 24 December 2015 (EST)

Your edits to the entry look good to me. I don't think they need to be more concise or verbose.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:57, 24 December 2015 (EST)

Happy New Year's Day!

Happy New Years Day, Mr. Schlafly. May Conservapedia continue to grow, even surpassing Wikipedia! Have a happy New year! U.U (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2016 (EST)

Happy New Year's to you also! With God's grace, may 2016 be even better than 2015 was.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2016 (EST)


There is a certain vandal, [11]. He has not made a single constructive edit. I suggest that we block him as he is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. U.U (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2016 (EST)

I blocked him.[12] Thanks for the tip. PeterKa (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2016 (EST)


Can you please block the vandal pronto. I can't keep reverting his edits indefinitely

For your consideration

Both of these images should be ok for encyclopedic purposes. Won't add to the Andrew Breitbart page until admin review.

File:Andrew Breitbart With His Family.png

File:Legacy Of Breitbart - Breitbart Is Here.jpg Progressingamerica (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2016 (EST)

The source and rights to those images should be added to the upload files, which presumably you obtained somewhere on the internet.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2016 (EST)
Yes, I want to complete the Breitbart page and these are good additions. The Breitbart is Here image should be good to go, but the image of him with his family I cannot find anything additional on. It was probably uploaded to a twitter feed by a personal friend which makes it exceedingly difficult to track down to the source. I added the link to the site where I found it. Progressingamerica (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2016 (EST)

Cert denied in Sissel

The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Sissel. I'm not sure that this development bodes well for Hotze, but I was interested in your thoughts. Thanks, GregG (talk) 14:40, 19 January 2016 (EST)

I just heard the news about the denial of cert in Sissel. You're quick to notice it so soon. I need to look again at how the Sissel petitioner framed his questions presented.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2016 (EST)
Here's the link to the petition and other case documents on SCOTUSblog, which is where I was following the case (it is an immensely useful resource). GregG (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2016 (EST)

News pick: "Nearly 10 percent of college grads think Judge Judy is on Supreme Court"

"Nearly 10 percent of college grads think Judge Judy is on Supreme Court" from The Hill. The survey results linked to in the article are quite disappointing. Perhaps there's some way to publicize Conservapedia's American government courses more widely. Thanks, GregG (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2016 (EST)

That is dismal news!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2016 (EST)

Please give User:Aburke SkipCaptcha rights and delete pages rights

Please give User:Aburke SkipCaptcha rights and delete pages rights so the wiki administrative work that the account will be doing will proceed more efficiently. Conservative (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2016 (EST)

Copyright policy

Someone has uploaded an image today that is copyrighted. I left the following notice on the talk page of the image File talk:Liberalism-Find-A-Cure-300x230-1.png‎, "This uploaded image is an exact copy of: which has the following copyright notice: "Copyright 2016 Visor Enterprises, LLC" Does this upload comply with Conservapedia policy?" Are there any more steps needed? Thank you for your help. JDano (talk) 13:33, 7 February 2016 (EST)

The image has been deleted. Thanks for letting me know.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:25, 7 February 2016 (EST)

Google Profile

Perhaps you are aware, and/or perhaps you do not care, but I came across this today. Clearly it is not your account, or it was yours but has been "hacked." Perhaps if you contact Google you could get this removed? --David B (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2016 (EST)

You're right, I don't care, but thanks for letting me know.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2016 (EST)
Alright, you didn't really seem like the type who would, but I thought I'd just go ahead and point it out. Have a great day! --David B (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2016 (EST)

Gravitational wave vandalism

As you may know, there's been a kerfuffle over those 2 pages, and I've been discussing it with Cons; see my talk page. Please be patient and let me deal with this. I will set it to what I know you want it to be, that is, free of what you consider claptrap. (I will then write an essay that is free of what I consider claptrap.  :-) But I can't get to it right away. But, could you use your administrative powers to rename "gravity waves" to "gravitational waves"? That will preserve the edit history for the page that it is supposed to be on. The comment about the difference between the two is well taken, and we should have that, and have the pages named properly. Just blast "gravity waves" on top of "gravitational waves". I will repair the damage, probably tomorrow. SamHB (talk) 01:34, 14 February 2016 (EST)

That is, today.  :-( SamHB (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2016 (EST)

OK, I misunderstood the protocol. You can't just "blast" one page on top of another, the way you can copy files. So, please delete the Gravitational waves page (I have saved the data), and then rename Gravity waves to Gravitational waves. I will then recreate Gravity waves with the saved data, putting in a notice along the lines of "You probably want to look at the other page; the words mean different things; and see website XYZ for an explanation of the issue." SamHB (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2016 (EST)

Is this semantics worth bothering with? Presumably many people use the terms interchangeably.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2016 (EST)
Deleted one and moved the other entry as requested.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2016 (EST)
Yes, people often misuse the terms. And I've generally thought of Conservapedia as a place where we are sticklers for doing things correctly. Readers can learn about the common misuse of the terms here at Conservapedia, just as they can have many other common misunderstandings corrected. In any case, by making the requested move, you have answered your question in the affirmative. We have to move forward with the notice about the issue, as I described above.
Now I am tempted to decline to make this change, or make any other contributions, since you have threatened to delete/censor my work on Arthur Eddington. But I promised to do the gravitation wave work, and I will keep that promise.
But you have also repeatedly censored/reverted many other contributions in the relativity area, such as changing headings for sections about experiments that establish the validity of relativity in general, or E=mc^2 in particular, to have titles like "Experiments that Fail to Prove Relativity". Or making a change that claims that Uranium fission does not occur. Readers can easily see the foolishness of these articles as written in the form that you insist on.
If you look at the "essays" category, you will see hundreds of incredibly silly things, that you have not seen fit to delete. Also, I made the Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity page an essay, in the hopes that it would be thus protected against deletion, which hope has thus far been met. I have been planning a few more of these "rival article" essays, including one on E=mc^2, containing massive, incontrovertible, unambiguous experimental evidence of its correctness, to get past your insistence that the Cockcroft-Walton experiment either did not occur, did not get the results that it got, or would not get those results if conducted again. Or your insistence that analysis of alpha particle energies is simply a coincidence, like a stopped clock being correct twice a day. The essay was going to contain hundreds of "stopped clock" alpha analyses, showing that the clock actually keeps very reliable time, all day.
Compared to the E=mc^2 issue, the issue with Arthur Eddington was actually quite minor. The sticking points were the notion that he had Nobel ambitions (you don't know that), that he used the eclipse expedition to get Conscientious Objector status in World War I (the eclipse expedition was in 1919, WWI ended in 1918, the chronology is actually complex, there were some real issues there, but he didn't get out of WWI service over the eclipse expedition) or your extremely disdainful comments about the 1/136 and 1/137 business (your article makes Eddington out to be a complete loser, he was a popularizer, he was extremely good at it, but was was wrong about 137). I assume that your extreme disdain for the man was that he used his skill and renown as a writer to promote relativity. You went way overboard in this. I was trying to write an essay that explains in a reasonably even-handed way who he was and what he did. My essay also explained what the "who is the third?" anecdote was about. You appeared not to know about this, since, in one of your courses (not going to bother looking it up, but I assume you remember it) you repeated the anecdote without any explanation at all of what it was about. It occurred because he was a famous lecturer.
I think we could have reached an accommodation on Eddington. We could probably reach an accommodation on another of my essays: Essay:Law of mass conservation. The point there was your repeating the elementary-school level "old wives tale" that conservation only applies to chemical and "ordinary" mechanical phenomena, but somehow doesn't apply to nuclear phenomena, as though nuclear phenomena are in a completely different realm of reality. And your claims that people who don't embrace the "rules don't apply to nuclear phenomena" position are somehow liberals.
We could probably work out the disputes over Eddington and mass conservation, such that I would not need "rival" articles. The bigger ones: relativity and E=mc^2, I'm less optimistic about. My E=mc^2 "essay" was going to have a table of about a hundred or so alpha decay energies. I seriously doubted that you would permit me to edit that into the main E=mc^2 article, when that article refers to the Cockcroft-Walton experiment as an "Alleged Experimental verification"
So I await your decision on deleting my Eddington "essay". I have already saved that material, of course, but there is no other place where I need to post it. I know of no other place on the internet that treats Eddington as a pariah, or that has any need of a more even-handed treatment.
SamHB (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2016 (EST)
Just so you know, I wrote the above before seeing your note about "a tribute to Arthur Eddington". As you can well imagine, my reply took a long time to write. SamHB (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2016 (EST)
Is that title fine with you? If so, then I will do the move for the entry.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2016 (EST)
Could you hold off a bit while we both think about this? I'm OK with giving it another name that isn't just the original name with "essay:" stuck in front; that is indeed kind of dumb. But "tribute" makes it sound as though I am heaping praise on him, the way I think you were heaping scorn on him. I don't think I was. My "rebuttal to counterexamples" page (I'm getting tired of cutting-and-pasting, and putting things in double brackets; I'm sure you know what I'm referring to) has the word "rebuttal" in it, and it is obviously not just a rewrite with slightly different editorial content. Same for my "rebuttal to logical problems with E=mc^2", or whatever it was. Naming those essays "tributes", or naming an essay "rebuttal to Arthur Eddington", would just be dumb. How about this (but don't go off and move pages; we both need to think about it): my pages that go against the mainstream thought at CP could be named either "rebuttal to X" or "X: an alternative view". Or something like that. I think the things I am writing (or plan to write) would come in one of those two categories. The "alternative view" articles would be mostly similar to the original article, with my different take on things, in those cases where you and I can't reach a synthesis. By the way, my "essay" on conservation of mass is something that I think we can reach an accommodation on, and not need a separate essay. Look it over when you have the time.
Now I'm going to do the gravity wave stuff, and not keep looking at Recent Changes the way I all-too-commonly do :-(
SamHB (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2016 (EST)
That's fine to think about the name. I think you are praising someone who manipulated data for his own benefit and beliefs. If someone did that as a PhD student today, he would probably be kicked out of the program.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2016 (EST)

Let's go for Arthur Eddington - A Tribute and Arthur Eddington - A Vilification... --AugustO (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2016 (EST)

Your first suggestion is fine, but the second is not. And why didn't you address my observation about how Arthur Eddington's conduct would probably get him kicked out of a PhD program today?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 09:43, 15 February 2016 (EST)
  • "Your first suggestion is fine, but the second is not." As English isn't my first language, I often have trouble to decide whether such a statement is meant to be ironic, or just displays an astounding lack of self-awareness. SamHB has explained above the distortions in your article - which justify the term "vilification" IMO.
  • "And why didn't you address my observation about how Arthur Eddington's conduct would probably get him kicked out of a PhD program today?" Sorry, I will do so. You said:
  • "If someone did that as a PhD student today, he would probably be kicked out of the program." Yes, he would - and not only because his methods are absolutely out of date. I'm glad that the standards have improved over the last 100 years. Therefore, it is important that observations like his (or Mendel's) are replicated all the time, with more and more modern equipment. Lucky for Eddington that our best observations today proved true the results he wished to find.
  • "I think you are praising someone who manipulated data for his own benefit and beliefs." Pots and kettles? I suppose you don't want to be judged by history only as someone who used his ignorance of Greek to mistranslate the Bible according to his beliefs and insights? As shown here or here?
--AugustO (talk) 08:27, 16 February 2016 (EST)
The reason I didn't reply between your edit of 23:47, 14 February and your followup edit about same at 09:43, 15 February is that I was sleeping.  :-) Also, CP goes into "night mode", so I couldn't have replied even if I had stayed up all night. I also have other commitments that keep me busy. Please be patient. I promise that I will not leave this issue hanging for an undue amount of time.
It sounds as though the sticking points are the "rival" articles, as opposed to the "rebuttal" articles. There are two in the latter category; one is my rival article on mass conservation. That was a case of me overreacting to your characterization of my edit to the Eddington article as "claptrap". Sorry, but that sort of thing makes me very angry. (I'm a recognized expert, and a good writer, on technical topics, and those of my colleagues that know that I edit CP think that it is ridiculous that I do so.) So I overreacted. Sorry.
I think I can edit the main article on mass conservation in a way that will be acceptable to you. It will have no reference to relativity or E=YouKnowWhat. The problem was that it was repeating the old canard about "conservation of mass only applies to chemical or mechanical interactions, not to nuclear ones". I heard that in junior high school (and I suspect lots of other people do too), but by high school I knew what was really going on. The worldview that nuclear reactions are some kind of radically different phenomenon, outside the bounds of normal physics, is just bullsomething. Teaching that gives impressionable junior high pupils the idea that there are no fundamental physical laws that can be depended on. (As you would put it, no absolutes. Or to use your favorite metaphor, sometimes physics comes up with 2+2=5.)
After I make the change to the main mass conservation article, if you find it satisfactory (I'm confident that you will) you may delete my "rival essay".
Then I will get back to you on the subject of Mr. Eddington. My remarks on that subject aren't finished. Please be patient. I have other commitments in my life. (And Cons wants me to take time off and go touring the countryside.) Yes, people can, and do, get kicked out of PhD programs, and get fired from laboratories, over violations of scientific integrity.
SamHB (talk) 11:43, 16 February 2016 (EST)
I have put up a new version of Law of the conservation of mass. It is, In My Humble Opinion, one of the most clear and concise explanations of this difficult topic that you will find on the internet. It isn't easy explaining why all phenomena obey the same fundamental rules, and yet people are tempted to say that nuclear processes do not obey one of those rules. It has no mention of "cl*ptr*p". Please look at it. If you find it acceptable, feel free to delete my "rival" article, which is at Essay:Law of mass conservation.
Then we can discuss my other "rival" article, Arthur Eddington. SamHB (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2016 (EST)

Best Known for Watering his Pea-Patch

I had hoped to take another day or so to get my thoughts in order on this subject, but it seems that events, both on the Eddington page and on its talk page, have overtaken me. So here goes.

The existing Arthur Eddington page, in the present form that you are insisting on, is obscenely negative. It goes far beyond any standards of good taste. It is obvious that you are taking out your disdain for relativity on this person, a person who made some mistakes.

  • For the lede sentence to say that he was "best known for venturing out on a boat off Africa" is blatantly vicious. It is more negative than anything I've read about Kanye West! It would be equivalent to describing Gregor Mendel as being "best known for watering his pea-patch".

Both men conducted, and publicly reported, scientific research that history has since shown was subject to "confirmation bias". (Though in each case the results, if not the methods, happen to have been vindicated.) The contemporary scientific world has extremely strict standards for analyzing data, with the "5 sigma" rule, and extensive peer review within the scientific community. This can be seen in recent news about:

  • The Higgs Boson—the measurements were made by two teams that conducted completely different experiments and did not communicate with each other, and the announcement was made only after they compared their results and saw that they had each gotten a 5-sigma result of 126 GeV.
  • The "BICEP2" experiment for primordial gravitational waves. This was announced as preliminary data, subject to peer review. It did not pass the peer review. No deception was involved.
  • The recent announcement of observation of gravitational waves. In addition to having the "5 sigma" test applied, the data were analyzed for 5 months, with particular attention to whether a "prank" injection of data could have occurred. Checking for prank data is standard procedure in the scientific community, notably in the SETI project.

If someone were to announce results similar to Mendel's or Eddington's in the current era, they would be dismissed immediately as inadequate. They would simply get nowhere in the scientific review and verification process. If someone were to use subterfuge or deceit to get around that, they would be kicked out of graduate school, or their laboratory employment, as the case may be. People occasionally do engage in subterfuge to get around the review process, most commonly in the medical field, and they do get kicked out of their school or laboratory.

But those standards were not in place in Mendel's time or Eddington's time. They got away with their "cherry picking" of data because there were no controls of the sort that we have in the present era. I recommend Einstein's Luck, by John Waller, which analyzes many cases of this, including Mendel and Eddington. (The book gets its title from the Eddington case.)

Both men presumably exercised "confirmation bias", a well-known phenomenon in the present era, in making their analyses. Did Eddington cherry-pick which photographic plates to use because he had a personal stake in vindicating General Relativity? Undoubtedly. Did you cherry-pick which scientist to single out for your extremely negative article because you have a personal stake in showing that relativity is wrong? I'm sure you did.

  • You say that Eddington was a liberal. You are well known for using that word as a pejorative term for anyone you don't like. But the issues of modern American liberalism are very different from the issues of Edwardian era British society. Conservapedia's article on liberalism lists such things as "big government", national health care ("Obamacare"), deprecating the role of Christianity in society (such as banning public nativity displays), gay marriage, gun control, and so on. None of these were known issues in England at the time. England has no 2nd amendment. The notion of "big government" vs. "small government" was mostly brought to the fore by Ronald Reagan around 1980. Gay marriage was unheard of. There is no evidence that Eddington advocated a national health care system (such as England has today), or gay marriage, or any of these other things. Looking at British society at the time, Eddington would have to be considered a conservative.
  • Eddington "probably dreamed of winning a Nobel Prize", and "the Nobel committee was not impressed and declined to give him an award." How do you know what he was hoping for? How do you know what the Nobel committee's deliberations were? Why do you think they would have given a prize to Eddington, who merely publicized and popularized the theory, rather than Einstein himself?
  • Eddington supposedly arrogantly retorted, "Who's the third?" Your writing in the Eddington article, and in World History Lecture Eleven, shows that you seem to know nothing about the context of this quip. In the Eddington article you refer to it as "arrogant", whereas in the World History lecture you refer to it as "comical". The latter is closer to the truth, but apparently that didn't denigrate Eddington enough. My Essay:Arthur Eddington tells the story. (It's from the Waller book.) If someone were to say something like "The theory of General Relativity is so abstruse and complex that Einstein and I are the only two people in the world who understand it, and if anyone else suggests that there is a third, I wouldn't have any idea wht they are talking about. It is preposterous that a third person could understand it." that would be arrogant. He was simply momentarily confused by Silberstein's remark. These things happen in live question-and-answer sessions all the time. And yet you describe Eddington as being arrogant. Why?
  • Your comments about Chandrasekhar and about the fine structure constant also show a relentless policy of casting Eddington in the worst possible light, with statements like "did not fare well", "was proven wrong", and "lost all credibility". Also, you say that the 1/136 proposal was "to make the math easier". What math? The fine structure constant is used in various complex formulas involving spectroscopy and fundamental physics. Those formulas are full of "floating point" (non-integral) quantities, such as the charge on the electron and Planck's constant. No math is made easier if one of the quantities appearing in the formulas happens to be an integer. I believe that Eddington's proposal arose from some sort of notions of elegance or mysticism. Those notions were shared by many other people. To find that a dimensionless physical constant is an integer would indeed be remarkable.

Your Eddington article (that is, the form of the article that you seem to be insisting on) vilifies and denigrates a well-known (but not without faults and mistakes) scientist to an astounding degree. This clearly arises from your disdain for relativity and all things and people associated with it. The bias is really quite transparent, and casts Conservapedia in a very untrustworthy light.

If you insist on this blatantly unflattering and disdainful tone of the article, I will have to make a page along the lines of "Essay:A Defense of Arthur Eddington". It will not be a "rival" article. While giving a more even-handed treatment of the facts, it will also specifically reply to the objections that I have raised above.

SamHB (talk) 13:20, 18 February 2016 (EST)

Happy President's Day

Hi Mr.Schlafly. It's President's Day today! Both Washington and Lincoln, two patriotic presidents of The United States, were born this month. Happy President's Day, Mr.Schlafly. U.U (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2016 (EST)


Christians want to share their beliefs. Yet, the Bible teaches us to love thy neighbor and to respect people who do not share our beliefs. Historically, this contradiction has not been handled well, and Jews have experienced persecution for their religion and ethnic status.

Modern conservatism addresses this through a strong defense of Israel and through a careful approach in framing issues. For example, we discuss the Judeo-Christian tradition in contrast with Islamic traditions. I have been reading through this wiki over the past few weeks and watching the recent changes. I am a bit confused as to your stance on antisemitism at Conservapedia. For example, I noticed that one editor tagged a biography as Category:Jewish People and Category:American Jews, and you removed those tags. I then noticed two essays with provocative titles:

I was interested to see what direction they took, but the essays seem to have been deleted. Leaving bold face links to those essays on a large number of other pages creates implications which you may not intend. Before I get more involved in this wiki, could you please confirm that it follows the modern conservative approach of respect for Jews? Thank you. JDano (talk) 10:32, 19 February 2016 (EST)

There is no antisemitism here, or in the conservative movement.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 10:39, 19 February 2016 (EST)
You're right. Those essays, if they existed, would be inappropriate, and even the (red) links to them can "create implications which you may not intend". I have started deleting those links. But there's a lot of work to do, and I don't have any more time to work on it right no. I'll be back. Yes, antisemitism is totally against Christian teaching. SamHB (talk) 11:27, 19 February 2016 (EST)
Thank you. I will help also. JDano (talk) 11:51, 19 February 2016 (EST)
I have removed links to these pages from all remaining main pages. I did not do so on the essay or user pages.--David B (talk) 12:24, 19 February 2016 (EST)
Thank you!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2016 (EST)
I would delete links to them from the essays, but if that is not allowed, I have redirected both of them to this discussion. Thanks. JDano (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2016 (EST)
There should not be a problem deleting links within essays, unless the essay is protected. Can you give an example of any such problem?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 09:03, 20 February 2016 (EST)
I thought that it was against the rules to edit essays. I will fix it now. Thanks, JDano (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2016 (EST)
It is fine to remove an empty link from an essay. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2016 (EST)
Goldman_Sachs includes a "Quotes" section about Jews, unrelated to Goldman Sachs. Most are about the Rothschilds. One is from 1836. Another is from an anti-Semitic tract by Henry Ford. Perhaps someone can edit this appropriately. MelH (talk) 12:10, 20 February 2016 (EST)
I took the quotes out because (1) this was all a long copy-paste from the Rothschild family article and (2) having so many quotes without prose that explains their context is misleading. The quotes were undated and poorly sourced and no connection was stated between the Rothschild family and Goldman Sachs. By the way, Mr. Schlafly should look at the Rothschild family article. The article reminds me of the student who makes some research notes and then instead of sitting down and writing a coherent article, just types up the research notes without any logical order or complete sentences. Those sentences that are complete are lifted from the Wikipedia article. Many thanks, JDano (talk) 12:46, 20 February 2016 (EST)
I wondered if it was okay to remove them from essays--good to know! Someone cleaned up all but the links from here and TAR's page. --David B (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2016 (EST)
But the Rothschild family article remains painfully bad. Compare it to the John D. Rockefeller article. Both cover accumulation of wealth, but one sticks to the facts and the other comes off as Jew-bashing. JDano (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2016 (EST)

We need to give more thought to how we handle religious affiliation in biographies. For example, today I noticed that one US Senator who is running for President, does not have his religion in his article at all, while another US Senator who is not running for President had his religion added to the lead paragraph. I can understand his adding "liberal" and "Democrat" to the sentence, by why also add "Jewish" at the same time? Neither of the Senators are particularly known for actively practicing and advocating their religions. I know that several Congressional directories include religion as one of their data items. I suggest that we either include it as a data element in the infobox for all members of Congress, or put it into the personal life section, or just leave it out unless it become relevant to the elected official's official actions. JDano (talk) 08:53, 29 February 2016 (EST)

Consistent page format

I am responding to your edits following my edits at Solyndra. I am doing my best to follow the consistent page format established at: Conservapedia:Editing_article_and_talk_pages#Layout. It calls for References to come before the See also section. I have always suspected that this design was chosen because it would enable CP editors to spot pages copied over from Wikipedia which uses the opposite order. I will do it whatever way you specify, but need guidance so that all of the pages will be consistent. Many thanks. JDano (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2016 (EST)

Consistency is not as important a content. Personally, I prefer putting footnotes at the bottom. But there is no need to embark on a massive change in format for pages that have the order reversed.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2016 (EST)


A vandal on the loose. [13] I have told DavidB4 and Jpatt.U.U (talk) 02:34, 27 February 2016 (EST)

He, Rahulbrown, and Josephkocher might also be one and the same person. U.U (talk) 02:41, 27 February 2016 (EST)

Should Beauty and the Beast really be on the Greatest Conservative Films essay?


I probably addressed this topic... twice now on the talk page for the essay Greatest Conservative Films, maybe three times, yet no one responded one way or another, so I thought I'd address it to you directly, since you indicated that it was conservative, at least compared to The Princess and the Frog.

Anyways, I was starting to wonder whether Disney's Beauty and the Beast truly deserved to be under the essay Greatest Conservative Films, even under the Debatable Whether Conservative tag. I initially moved it to the latter from the definitely conservative section largely because there have been a lot of stuff in the film that was closer to being liberal than to truly being conservative. However, after giving it more thought, I'm not sure there was actually much to indicate it could even be debatably be labeled as a conservative film, let alone solidly conservative, sort of like how Star Trek was removed from the Greatest Conservative TV Shows essay altogether after initially being moved to the Debatable Whether Conservative.

For starters, while the film is less feminist compared to later Disney films such as The Princess and the Frog, make no mistake, it was definitely feminist in its plot line. I know that Jeffrey Katzenberg specifically requested when he demanded for I think the third rewrite that they do a feminist twist to the fairy tale. And Linda Woolverton made her views quite clear by explicitly stating she based Belle on the "Women's Movement", and she also indicated that she had a scene of Belle baking cut simply because "a liberated woman [like Belle] wouldn't know how to bake." And had also gone so far as to denigrate Belle's predecessors as being "weak", "insipid", "only desired love and marriage", and "only waited for their prince to come." And that was just under the production notes. In the actual film, the feminist agenda was made more than a little apparent where the opening song AND Gaston basically inferred Belle was an oddball in the town merely because of her literacy and love of books, which strongly implied that they were gunning for the feminist falsehood that women were not allowed to get an education or even be literate at all until the 1960s, and that before then, only "rich white males" could get any education and literacy at all (Having had to have that view be beaten into my head since College in Spring 2011, I'd recognize it when I see it). This is of course despite the fact that there have been plenty of women at the time who were literate and educated, like Marie Antoinette, or especially the original authors of the fairy tale, Beaumont and Villeuvneue. Plus, they also strongly implied that marriage and raising a child was a woman's worst nightmare, and we're expected to root for Belle to kick Gaston out of the house into a mudpool simply for proposing to her and essentially ruining the wedding near the beginning, with her specifically showing disgust towards the idea of having kids. Most feminists, especially by the second wave, had expressed disgust towards having children. In fact, it was also the first film to not only not show the main protagonists marrying each other, but also not even hint at their being married either, something even most Disney Princess films prior to that film at least tried to pull off. It's bad enough that the only three women, or at least the only three women with some consistent screentime that actually were receptive to the idea of marriage, those blonde triplets who crushed over Gaston, were actually depicted in an obscene manner, being depicted as if they were dumb blondes and even being referred to as "the bimbettes" in the script and credits, which is extremely derogatory and is essentially derived from "bimbo", despite the fact that they demonstrate absolutely nothing to even indicate they were of that beyond simply crushing on Gaston (which isn't enough).

In addition, Christianity in the film is not exactly treated in a very good light. Aside from the obvious bit about how marriages were depicted in a very bad light in this film (in fact, it arguably started a string of films where marriage was not depicted in a good light, like Aladdin, Pocahontas, Mulan, etc., etc.), the villagers themselves were themselves depicted in a very bad light, with their Christianity actually being emphasized a few times, like when they explicitly used words like "sin", "say a prayer" and "praise the lord" a few times. Namely, they were depicted as clueless starry eyed simpletons who are basically quick to enter a mob and would even support a plan to get a guy locked up under false pretenses just to ensure their town hero can marry Belle. It is also to be noted that Belle, the one the film actually tries to depict as an intellectual, makes absolutely no religious references in the film, not even once. In fact, only two non-villagers make any references to religion at all: Mrs. Potts when she says praise the lord, and Lumiere's outcry of Sacre Bleu, and I'm not entirely sure they are really all that devoted to the church.

Also, the males in the film, with the sole exception of Chip, are either treated in a very bad light, or if they are treated in a good light, it's for the wrong reasons, meaning it's very likely pushing misandry. Gaston is pretty obvious, but LeFou is depicted as being a jerk prone to talking before thinking, Maurice is depicted as a bit of a madman, even Beast, probably the closest we can get to a truly complex character in the film, was depicted as a jerk and later after Belle convinces him to "control his temper" he becomes so emaciated that he can't even fight back against Gaston unless Belle happened to be nearby, most of the village males were depicted in a very bad light, Cogsworth was depicted as a grouch, and Lumiere was depicted as being an unrepentant womanizer (this was mostly in the special edition with the song Human Again, though even the original film contained hints towards this view), and in Lumiere's case, they even implicitly supported this behavior. Not to mention that I think Maurice is the first dad character in Disney films to actually be depicted as a bumbling dad archetype that was used in various leftist shows and movies. Heck, Gaston himself, according to another user on here, was similar to what conservatives are generally ideally are, which are hard working and, well, being conservative, and he's depicted as the bad guy.

And while I'm not necessarily sure whether this is indeed the case, Dan Rather did indicate that the movie promoted the Gay Agenda, and then there's the mob song which did have a pro-homosexual agenda involved (namely, fearing someone who is a beast under false reasons).

There are also plenty of times where Belle does bad things and she is invariably depicted as being in the right and everyone else is in the wrong, even when the stuff she did actually WAS wrong.

Probably the biggest evidence against it being even a debatably Conservative film, however, is that Linda Woolverton in Time Magazine made clear that the Maleficent Film, which definitely deserved the rank of worst liberal film for more reasons than one, actually reused a lot of plot points from Beauty and the Beast.

Will supply links:

Since your mom, Phyllis Schlafly, fought against the second wave feminism, I'm a bit surprised you thought the film was deserving of being a conservative film, knowing all of that.

Pokeria1 (talk) 09:34, 29 February 2016 (EST)

Ah, are you going to respond? I don't care if you agree or disagree with me, so long as you at least give me a full response. Pokeria1 (talk) 08:49, 16 March 2016 (EDT)
So sorry for not noticing this earlier! I greatly appreciate your insights and look forward to reviewing and responding after some thought. Thanks for the reminder.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2016 (EDT)
That's alright. I heard that you got distracted regarding something that happened in Germany. Hopefully it won't take too long to do some thinking before reviewing and responding. Pokeria1 (talk) 08:05, 17 March 2016 (EDT)
Pokeria1, you make some superb points, which I reviewed carefully, but they are at the margin of the story. The unmistakable overriding theme, which is really impossible for feminists to change no matter how hard they try, is anti-feminist.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:25, 18 March 2016 (EDT)
Hmm... I'm not entirely sure. Katzenberg demanding for a "feminist twist" to the tale when having it rewritten the third time in a row would suggest that IS the overriding theme as well, not merely the margin. Besides, even the screenwriter made it explicit that the film was feminist in nature, and when the main writer makes clear its feminist, it basically means it IS feminist. And just because it has a theme about not judging by appearances doesn't mean it's conservative. Just look at the Matrix trilogy: That has the same theme as well, yet it's one of the worst liberal films. And even Iron Giant is listed as a liberal film even when it promotes forgiveness and also going against your inner vile nature. Pokeria1 (talk) 11:41, 18 March 2016 (EDT)

Certiorari denied in Hotze

Hi Andy,

Just found out today that the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Hotze. To be honest, I thought the petition was a longshot (even compared to the normal improbability of certiorari being granted in a particular case), especially after the court denied the Sissel petition. Are you working on any other Obamacare cases that you can talk about? Thanks, GregG (talk) 16:13, 29 February 2016 (EST)

A disappointment, but the Court did not grant any certs today. Thanks for your continued interest. There is another ObamaCare Origination Clause case in the Eastern District of New York, I think.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 16:29, 29 February 2016 (EST)

Another mainstream media attack on arbitration

This piece from Daily Kos, which immediately begins with an image suggesting bribery, a sure sign of the high level of academic discourse to follow (end sarcasm). I'm looking through this to see what I can add to my mainstream media attacks on arbitration list (I also have several dozen articles in an e-mail draft that I should post to my workspace here). Thanks, GregG (talk) 16:26, 29 February 2016 (EST)

Block of SamHB

Could you please look into the block of User:SamHB? User:Conservative blocked him because he blanked the "article" Godless Australia and loneliness. But SamHB was right:

  • At best, this is an essay, and not an article.
  • It was written just as an attack on User:AlanE.
  • It is without any content: it just states that Australia is a quite secular country and that a third of all Australians seems to feel lonely. As SamHB said: This article is a disgrace. It brings disrepute upon Conservapedia. We're trying to be an educational resource

Thanks, --AugustO (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2016 (EST)

AugustO, before you make accusations, at least get your facts straight.
There is one central article on Atheism and loneliness and 8 other related articles dealing with the topic of "atheism and loneliness" in various atheistic countries. For example, Atheistic Japan and loneliness.
The Godless Australia and loneliness article was not written as a means to attack AlanE. AlanE just happens to live Australia which is very nonreligious country compared to many countries. If AlanE did not live in Australia, the article still would have been written. This can be readily seen by the fact that 7 other atheistic/nonreligious countries had an article written about them on the topic of loneliness.
The article Atheism and loneliness is an informative article and already has about 9,000 page views despite being about 1.25 years old. A significant portion of the article deals with the loneliness issue in various atheistic/nonreligious countries. So there is some public interest in the loneliness issue for various nonreligious countries.
Next, many of your complaints have been ignored by Aschlafly. Expect the same for this matter - especially since you did not have your facts straight before lodging your complaint.
Lastly, as far as SamHB's complaint "This article is a disgrace. It brings disrepute upon Conservapedia. We're trying to be an educational resource", Mr. Schlafly is well acquainted with liberal histrionics, poor judgment and deception and I very much doubt he will take SamHB's complaint seriously. Conservative (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2016 (EST)
I'm going to try to keep from taking sides, but I'm a little concerned about this as well. On the one hand, I don't really feel a page should be arbitrarily blanked without discussion. On the other hand, the page does seem a bit "fishy" to me. The ungodly never seem to have a problem finding at least superficial if not "intimate" (in all senses of the word) relationships. They can feel a certain emptiness, but will usually brush it off. However, I'm not here to argue the factuality of the page.
For this issue, I'm just not so sure the "you're grounded" technique is the best. I mean nothing hostile or against either Conservative or SamHB. Conservative seems to be great in both his contributions and his work against vandals--He also has a lot more experience here than me. SamBH can't fight vandals, but from what I have seen, works hard to keep the content of CP clean and factual. He seems to proof-read every new contribution, while still making some of his own. I'd like to think this could be resolved without walking in the wet cement of others' feelings or using the ban hammer, but I'll leave that to you.--David B (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2016 (EST)
SamHB blanked without discussion because he knew he could not support its blanking. That is the primary reason why he was blocked for two weeks. His imperiousness combined with his histrionics and poor judgment earned him the block.
Furthermore, on AlanE's talk page he made the absurd and counterfactual claim that loneliness is "about the same everywhere". A claim which as is simply not true as can be seen here: Atheistic countries and loneliness and through reading the whole article of Atheism and loneliness.
There is nothing fishy about the article. Consider that: Atheists have lower marriage rates (see: Atheism and marriage); as a group have less sexual satisfaction (see: Atheism and sexuality); the atheist movement/community is known for being quarrelsome and socially challenged (see: Atheist factions and Atheism and social/interpersonal intelligence); participation in the atheist community is often difficult and atheists are known for their immorality (see: Moral failures of the atheist population and Atheism and morality).
Also, the Apostle John wrote that God is love. And atheists have an inability to satisfactorily explain the existence of love (see: Atheism and love) nor do they have a reputation for love - especially given the fact that atheistic communism was responsible for about 110,000,000 deaths which is a midpoint estimate (see: Atheism and mass murder).
In addition, atheists have a higher suicide rate (see: Atheism and suicide).
So after all is said and done, why wouldn't we expect atheistic societies to often have significant problems with loneliness? Conservative (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2016 (EST)

I'll certainly agree that atheist's have lower marriage rates. If they decide to marry, it is usually for romantic reasons only. For the most part, why "tie yourself down" when you can just "have fun." I'll go along with them having less "sexual satisfaction," too. Break-ups, divorces, and the lack of lasting relationships in general will then to cause that.

My skepticism comes in when you reach the "the atheist movement/community is known for being quarrelsome and socially challenged." They'll readily tear apart those who do not agree with them, but if they are not crossed, I'm not so sure I'd think that from what I've seen, anyway. The main argument for "Participation in the atheist community is often difficult" seems to be that there are few public gatherings where atheists come together as the church does. To this, my frank response is "duh!" They have no common cause or purpose to unite behind under such a context. Rather, they have community project meetings (which are not always bad, but are run by atheists), AA meetings, and all manner of other man-centered groups and activities.
I'll certainly agree that atheist relationships are somewhat hollow, but they usually don't even realize that. My knowledge and research thus far doesn't lead my to really believe this as a whole, however. Just like e=mc2, I guess I'll just back off of this. Ultimately, I surely could be wrong, but I'm not convinced...yet, at least.
--David B (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2016 (EST)

P.S. Regarding you comment about God being love, I again agree. Christians know a kind of live they never will. However, they usually do not recognize this. Their world view tells them that the superficial "love" they know is all there is. --David B (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2016 (EST)

DavidB$, as far as atheists having a reputation for quarrelsomeness, I would suggest reading the articles Atheist factions and Atheism and social/interpersonal intelligence which should clarify things. Also, if you read these three Bible verses: Psalm 14:1, Proverbs 29:11 and Galatians 5:16-21, the issue of atheist quarrelsomeness will be further clarified. Conservative (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2016 (EST)

What kind of banana republic is this?

On March 7, 2016 User:Conservative blocked User:SamHB with an expiry time of 1 week without any explanation. 90 minutes later, he extended the block to two weeks, this time stating "Given the willfulness of the foolish deletion, I reconsidered the block and extended it". The next day, User:Conservative unblocks User:SamHB and writes at his talk-page: "I shortened your block. You are now unblocked." What kind of banana republic is this? Are we all hostages of the mood-swings of one administrator? An administrator who hides most of his edits? Who claims that he has shared his account with other unknown entities? --AugustO (talk) 15:05, 8 March 2016 (EST)

Hides most of his edits? Are you telling the truth? Also, why do you use the word "he". Remember, even moose hunting Sarah Palin has more machismo than a liberal. Next, the User: Conservative account has been used by several individuals. Each one of the individuals is a Christian conservative. Aschafly wants more Christian conservatives to edit Conservapedia - not less!
Lastly, mood swings or intentional unpredictability to keep my/our ideological foes off balance? "Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate." - Sun Tzu. “Engage people with what they expect; it is what they are able to discern and confirms their projections. It settles them into predictable patterns of response, occupying their minds while you wait for the extraordinary moment — that which they cannot anticipate.” ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War. Conservative (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2016 (EST)
  • "Hides most of his edits? Are you telling the truth?" You tell me. It is hard to keep track. So perhaps not most edits, but at least an embarrassing amount.
  • "Also, why do you use the word "he". Remember, even moose hunting Sarah Palin has more machismo than a liberal." he/she/it - sorry if I inconvenienced your gender-sensitivity: you yourself have problems keeping track of the personal pronouns, why should I?
  • "Aschafly wants more Christian conservatives to edit Conservapedia - not less! " We all hope for more Christian conservative editors, but most of us think that they shouldn't hide in a single account! Let them see the light of day and get them their own accounts: this would help to create the image of a vibrant community, instead of creating the impression that one obsessed individual does most of the editing on this site...
  • I don't see how Sun Tzu gives advice for a collaborative effort like a wiki: it doesn't help that you see everyone who disagrees with you as an enemy.
  • I prefer the rule of law over the anarchy you provide with your wanton blocking.
--AugustO (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2016 (EST)

The additional Christian conservatives who have access to the account liked having Sysop/Admin powers from day one of their editing. So it is not a matter of them hiding. It is instead a matter of them preferring to use a Porsche Conservapedia account instead of using a Volkswagen Conservapedia account. Being a German editor, I am sure you can appreciate this matter. Conservative (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2016 (EST)

"The additional Christian conservatives who have access to the account liked having Sysop/Admin powers from day one of their editing. " Who wouldn't? But then, I was under the impression that this is a meritocracy.... --AugustO (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2016 (EST)
The wiki content that the members of User: Consrvativism have created has been informative, well-cited and generally has been very popular. A careful screening process was of course applied to all new editors of the account. Conservative (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2016 (EST)
So, instead of lobbying for userrights (which allows to edit all user rights) you just usurped the position of a bureacrat and handed out "Sysop/Admin powers" to your cronies - banana-republican style. --AugustO (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2016 (EST)
No, I asked the owner of the website. And I regret to say that if you asked to be under the User: Conservative editing umbrella, the answer would be no. Conservative (talk) 09:27, 9 March 2016 (EST)

A request

I recently made an article called "Declaration Of Independence From Liberalism and would like for it to gain essay status. Could you help me with that, please. Libertatem (talk) 18:26, March 7 2016 (EST)

Elevated to "Essay" status as requested! I look forward to reading your additional edits and new pages here.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2016 (EST)

Arbitration misconceptions

Hi Andy,

As you know, I've been working on the mainstream media attacks on arbitration for almost four years now, and I've started on article on Chris Morran dedicated to refuting the misconceptions he frequently states in his blog posts. I'd like to have a more general article on all mainstream media attacks on arbitration, but his work is a good place to start given the sheer number of misconceptions and the tendentiousness in which he maintains them. So, if you wanted to take a look and offer any advice, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, GregG (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2016 (EST)

Interesting article about conservatives in academia

Andy, an interesting article about conservatives in academia: Conservative (talk) 10:10, 12 March 2016 (EST)

Biblical scientific foreknowledge

Andy, when you protected the article Biblical scientific foreknowledge against editing on March 13, you wrote in the comment "need to discuss further on the talk page before deleting information here about Jesus". But at the moment, this discussion feels more like a monologue, as you haven't contributed anything to it since March 10. May I assume that you gave up your untenable position on this subject? --AugustO (talk) 05:46, 15 March 2016 (EDT)

Exciting political developments -- including the election results in Germany -- have temporarily distracted me for the moment. Thanks for your patience.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2016 (EDT)
I'm happy to wait - perhaps not until Nov 8, 2016, but at least for a couple of weeks - especially if this means that you are carefully weighing the arguments. But if the discussion takes this long, the article should reflect that certain statements are not uncontested facts, but currently under discussion. --AugustO (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2016 (EDT)

Backlog on deleting categories

Sir, there is quite a backlog of empty categories needed to be deleted:

  • Conservapedia:AFD Category:Subtypes of the Doshas
  • Conservapedia:AFD Category:Alochaka Pitta
  • Conservapedia:AFD Category:Blood Purifying Herbs
  • Conservapedia:AFD Category:Rakta
  • Conservapedia:AFD Category:Banksters
  • Conservapedia:AFD Category:Diseases of the Spleen
  • Conservapedia:AFD Category:Srotamsi
  • Conservapedia:AFD Category:Kapha Disturbing Foods
  • Conservapedia:AFD Category:Pitta Disturbing Foods
  • Conservapedia:AFD Category:Heating Foods
  • Conservapedia:AFD Category:Rasayanas
  • Conservapedia:AFD Category:Adaptogens
  • Category:Astringent Foods
  • Category:Pitta Soothing Foods
  • Category:Bitter Foods
  • Category:Vata Disturbing Foods
  • Category:Pungent Foods

I tried to follow the deletion insturctions, but I can't seem to get them deleted. Your assistance would be appreciated. Many thanks, JDano (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2016 (EDT)

I just completed the tasks. Conservative (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2016 (EDT)
Many thanks. I am sorry that there are so many of them. JDano (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2016 (EDT)
Thanks again. JDano (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2016 (EDT)
Uber-many thanks again. JDano (talk) 12:48, 29 March 2016 (EDT)
Thank you for unblocking me. I hope that we can complete the category clean up. I also hope that we can settle outstanding issues in a Christian way. If I say an link is a bad 404 link, everyone can either take my word for it, or test it for himself. If the 404 is cured, then I don't mind reinstating the link. But I know the link is bad and we should remove the link if it was reinstated in the passion of the moment. Let's work through the problems with mutual respect. I also hope we can address the factual errors. If the IRS regulations say that Roth IRAs can't be invested in collectables and that non-bank custodians are tightly controlled, then we need to keep that in the article rather than using links to "letters to the editor" as a basis for taking the opposite view. Finally, long block quotes beyond fair use or unattributable copy-paste needs to be watched. I have a reason for every change that I make, and I don't want to pick a fight with anyone. So, let's find a way forward. Thanks, JDano (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2016 (EDT)

Dear Andy, I am resigning from any further participation in CP. Please delete my CP user account and erase my user page and talk page along with its history. Thank you. TheAmericanRedoubt (talk) 05:55, 1 April 2016 (EDT)