User talk:Aschlafly

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Miley Cyrus photo

Hello Andy, do you think it's inappropriate to include this photo on the Miley Cyrus page? File:Miley Cyrus.jpg I don't have much of a problem with it, but DouglasA disagrees. --1990'sguy (talk)

I'm OK with it.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2019 (EDT)

MPR suggestion

This struck me as a very Conservapedia type of story: "'In God We Trust' will remain on US currency as Supreme Court declines atheist challenge." PeterKa (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2019 (EDT)

So the last will be first, and the first last

Could you please explain this concept in the language of set theory? What is the paradox, and how is it resolved by set theory? Thanks. --AugustO (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2019 (EDT)

The paradox is obvious. In number theory and virtually every other system of logic, the last cannot be the first. But in set theory it can.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2019 (EDT)
I take the bait: how can the last be the first in set theory? --AugustO (talk) 19:40, 15 June 2019 (EDT)
Thanks for archiving. Enumeration of elements of a set is up to the intelligent designer. This is how Georg Cantor proved that the set of real numbers is larger than the infinite set of rational numbers. But you're in good company if you resist his way of looking at things. Many great mathematicians of his time thought (incorrectly) that he was some kind of charlatan.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2019 (EDT)

Georg Cantor's great breakthrough ("Cantor diagonalization") was not in showing that the rationals are countable—that is a fairly straightforward construction—but in using that fact to show that the reals are not countable. There are many ways to specify the correspondence between a given denumerable (countable) set and the natural numbers. In fact, there are a uncountably infinite number of ways to set up the correspondence. Whether any of these constitute "intelligent design" is not for me to say, except that I think that term gets overused in certain quarters.

Then there's the matter of a "well ordering". A "well order" on a set is an order such that any subset has a least element. So a set with a "well order" is sort of like the positive integers—any subset of the positive integers, even an infinite subset, has a least element. (Note that the full set of integers, or the rationals, or the reals, are not well-ordered by their normal arithmetical order.) But it is a theorem of ZFC logic that any set has a well-order.

Does the well-ordering theorem constitute intelligent design? That's not for me to say. Does it disprove the Cantor diagonalization theorem? No. The well-order on the reals necessarily uses the Axiom of Choice, and cannot be constructed. Cantor diagonalization can be constructed.

Getting back down to Earth, sets can have different orders—the natural numbers from 1 to 100 can have an increasing order and a decreasing order (and 100 factorial other orders too.) With that notion, "the last" under one order "will be first" under the other order. But this is completely obvious under any system of logic, including set theory. But claiming that it's true for the same set with the same order is simply nonsensical.

But I'm in good company if I resist your way of looking at things in this manner. I'm sure AugustO is also.

SamHB (talk) 00:39, 17 June 2019 (EDT)

"sets can have different orders" - precisely. But the number line does not. What Jesus taught was nonsensical to logicians and philosophers of his time, but perfectly logical once Georg Cantor overcame intense opposition and developed the breakthrough of set theory. If Cantor's opponents had recognized the Bible as a book of logic with an open mind, then they would not have mistakenly opposed Cantor so much. Ditto for Thomas Paine.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2019 (EDT)
The real line, like all sets of more than one element, most definitely can have multiple different orderings. Here's an alternative ordering off the top of my head. Let SWAP(X) be result of swapping the 1st and 2nd decimal digits, the 3rd and 4th digits, and so on. Then we can define an ordering on the reals that has X < Y in this ordering if SWAP(X) < SWAP(Y) in the usual numerical ordering. While this may sound weird and contrived, this sort of thing happens all the time in set theory and measure theory, and is actually very close to what goes on in Cantor diagonalization.
Many people were criticized or vilified at some point in their lives. Georg Cantor, Thomas Paine, Galileo Galilei, Louis Pasteur, and Oliver Heaviside come to mind. I don't think it is fruitful to analyze these cases in detail here, and I don't think you have established that the criticism of Cantor arose from an insufficiently open-minded reading of Matthew 20:16. SamHB (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2019 (EDT)

Could you please quote one philosopher or logician of His time who was baffled be Matthew 20:16 (or Mark 10:31 or Luke 13:30)? Especially as Matthew writes ἔσονται οἱ ἔσχατοι πρῶτοι and not εἰσιν οἱ ἔσχατοι πρῶτο? --AugustO (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2019 (EDT)

Many critics of the Bible were probably baffled by it. Don't have quotes handy, but perhaps some can be found on atheist websites.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2019 (EDT)
So your claim that "what Jesus taught was nonsensical to logicians and philosophers of his time" was probably just made up. --AugustO (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2019 (EDT)
My statement was self-evident. When I have more time I can research it further, but the reality is that writings of Jesus and his followers survived to a far greater extent than those of his detractors, so the thinking of non-believers is not always easy to find.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2019 (EDT)

I for one am not baffled by it at all. Jesus was not making a statement about set theory or measure theory. He was making a moral/ethical statement about pay scales. One can disagree with Him (and some of the workers did), but His statement was very clear. The "first" and "last" referred to the wages of the workers and the time when they had joined the work crew. Jesus's statement was clear in Biblical times and is clear now.

One can't just say "I have invented a new field of mathematics, and I am calling it 'set theory'". One needs to provide various theorems and results showing that it is a fruitful new area of mathematics, Cantor, and others, did just that. There are the various theorems about cardinality and measure theory. There's the Baire Category Theorem (which provides another proof, independent of diagonalization, that the cardinality of the reals is strictly greater than the cardinality of the rationals). There's the Cantor set, which is a uncountable set of measure zero, a seemingly paradoxical result. There's the Cantor function, which has derivative equal to zero everywhere except on a set of measure zero, but has f(0)=0 and f(1)=1, also seemingly paradoxical. And there are other theorems, like the Heine-Borel theorem and the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem. And Zorn's Lemma. And, of course, all of analysis and topology.

You can't just treat set theory like some simple monolithic thing invented by Georg Cantor. The notion that the field could have been worked out by an open-minded reading of Matthew 20:16 is rather far-fetched. SamHB (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2019 (EDT)

Set theory is a different style of reasoning. Otherwise there would not have been such intense, hostile opposition to it. But its power and logic ultimately prevailed over the opposition. And Georg Cantor is properly given all the credit.
Workers at the time of Jesus disagreed with him, as many do today, when he observed paradoxically that the "last shall be first, and the first last." But when viewed as a set theorist does, there is not paradoxical about it at all.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2019 (EDT)

MPR deletion

Hello Andy, would you please restore the massive amount of information accidentally deleted in this edit on Template:Mainpageright? (scroll down a bit): [1] I also sent you an email about this. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2019 (EDT)

Thanks, I thought I restored it already. It seems to have the proper link at the bottom.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2019 (EDT)
Sorry, I did not see that you had already restored the info. Thanks! --1990'sguy (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2019 (EDT)

Copy&paste of PD or freely usable material

Hi Andy, User:Honeyko is wondering if it is acceptable to insert public domain or other freely usable text from Infogalactic (or perhaps other freely usable sources) into Conservapedia articles. It is not plagiarism, but do we have a policy in regard to republishing such materials? I was thinking that is was generally discouraged, but I'm not finding much about the topic in our rules and documentation.
Thanks! --DavidB4 (TALK) 19:28, 20 June 2019 (EDT)

Infogalactic is not public domain, but is under a Creative Commons type of license. So, no, that material should not be copied here. If something is truly public domain, then copying to here is OK but attribution should be included. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2019 (EDT)

A different name for the "Gish Gallop"

Eugenie Scott coined the term "Gish Gallop" as an insult to how Duane Gish supposedly went from claim to claim so fast in a debate that it would take much longer to answer each claim. However, Atheists do the same thing all the time, including Aron Ra. I heard Kent Hovind use the terms "Ra Rush" and "Ra Rant." I was wondering if there is a place for an article that describes this tactic without using the name that insults Duane Gish. Shobson20 (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2019 (EDT)

Good points. But I checked Duane Gish's entry and it says the term is used by his critics. What do you suggest? Please feel free to edit as you think best.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2019 (EDT)

Image question

Hello Andy, is it appropriate (with licensing) to upload this image? [2] It was taken in the Oval Office and is on Trump's Twitter account, but it doesn't explicitly say that it's Public Domain. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2019 (EDT)

That's public domain. We can use it. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:25, 29 June 2019 (EDT)
Thanks! I will upload it right now. It's good to have a photo of one of the greatest political figures right now along with one of the greatest minds in constitutional law. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2019 (EDT)
Right: Two-time winner of Conservative of the Year meets with its first winner (for the last decade)!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2019 (EDT)
I think both men will be candidates for the upcoming 2019 Conservative of the Year nominations. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2019 (EDT)

Conservative Sports

Hi Andy, I don't have enough wiki experience to add to the table you created but I suggest Cricket as a conservative sport. It is commonly called 'The gentlemans sport' and I cribbed this from the internet: the game only gained popularity in the 17th century, when English aristocrats started playing it. They decreed that cricket would be played in ‘a gentlemanly manner’ , which means no sledging, cheating, bodyline bowling , temper tantrums or excessive appealing. If the batsman knew he was out, he should ‘walk’ even if the umpire decided otherwise. Cheating is punished quite heavily and the only team currently which breaks the gentleman's code is Australia who sometimes behave in a very nasty manner which is frowned upon (they have been fined multiple times for poor behaviour. The NZ Cricket team however are considered some of the best and kindest team - often making sure their competition are OK if they are felled or struck by the ball and playing with true sportsmanship (see here where a NZ player assists an opposing team who have just lost the match). A true sport of gentleman. JohnSelway (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2019 (EDT)

If you read the article it says Then Elliott made that noble gesture of sportsmanship to Steyn distraught on the ground, offering him a hand up. JohnSelway (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2019 (EDT)
I would consider adding shooting sports: [3][4][5] Also, schools in more conservative areas are creating shooting sport teams (and I've heard that they used to be common in public schools): [6][7] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2019 (EDT)
These are terrific suggestions. Please feel free to add them, or I will. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:23, 1 July 2019 (EDT)
Thank you Andy. If you could add cricket I would appreciate it. I don't have enough wiki experience! JohnSelway (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2019 (EDT)
I figured it out by copy/paste. JohnSelway (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2019 (EDT)

PD template unlock request

Hello,
Template:PD tag is used heavily on our image collection. It is designed to require a parameter ("source") so that the source URL can be included in the template. However, some people are attempting to use the template by simply referencing it and pasting the link. This is something which should work, but it does not. Ideally no parameter name should be required, but since it has been built and used this way, there is no changing it now. Instead, I would like to attempt to set up this template so that it accepts the URL with or without the "source" parameter tag, to simplify usage without breaking it on the 261 pages currently using it. I am not particularly skilled at this, but I think I can do it.
Would you be willing to unlock the template so I can give it a try? Note that it is also under cascading protection from File:John McCain official portrait 2009.jpg, and perhaps others, so the protection on such pages will also need to be updated. Thank you! --DavidB4 (TALK) 18:24, 11 July 2019 (EDT)

I unlocked it. Please let me know if I need to unlock anything further! Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2019 (EDT)
Thank you! I think I have finished with it, as best I can, so it can be locked again, if you want. --DavidB4 (TALK) 17:55, 22 July 2019 (EDT)

Respectful disagreement

As I'm sure you know, not all people who are "conservatives" agree with each other. Even a lot of "conservatives" disagree with some things this website says (Such as conservatives who are not Young Earth Creationists, even devout Christians like William Lane Craig and Frank Turek are not YECs). For example, a newer user named Enr15 edited the article on the Roman Catholic Church to have an extremely biased Catholic point of view. I reverted the edits because I know that major changes like that should not be made without discussing on the talk page (I recommend he read "The Church of Rome at the Bar of History" or watch this video: [8] ). At the same time, Northwest is Catholic. Is there a space where I can voice my own editorial opinions which might not agree with some of the information in this website (I won't change any mainspace articles without permission)? As an example, I have a very negative attitude towards extreme Christians and "Churchians" who condemn rock music, including Jack Chick, so I can see where some of his critics are coming from. I have also added many Christian Rock songs to the Conservative Songs article. I read his tract on that, and I do understand that many Christian musicians have been given tempting offers to take God out of their music since Christian music doesn't sell as well, and some have sold out, but not everyone does. Petra, in particular, has made some of the most wonderful songs ever, and it's mainly due to the songwriter and only original member, Bob Hartman. They are deeply devout and not Satanic by any stretch of the imagination. Look up the testimony of John Schlitt sometime, it's an amazing story of a man who went from the sin and vice of the secular music industry into the clean Christian music industry. The contrast of his before and after life is incredible.

You know that I've voiced disagreements about the Video Game article, and I like the fact that DavidB4 has made it less negative and judgmental. A lot of people get banned because they don't know how to disagree respectfully. Shobson20 (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2019 (EDT)

Differing viewpoints are welcome on this website in the search for the truth. The talk page of an entry is the best place to post commentary. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2019 (EDT)
I was thinking of adding a lot of general commentary to my user page. SamHB has done so with his page. But I wonder if doing too much of that constitutes a violation of the 90/10 rule. Shobson20 (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2019 (EDT)
It should be OK to post repeated comments to your own talk page.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:55, 13 July 2019 (EDT)
The general principle should be that, if you edit something in a way that someone is likely to object to, put up your reasons on that article's talk page immediately. Respectful discussion, without 90/10 threats, will often follow. While the 90/10 rule is, in the end, whatever the blocking person wants it to be, I think the intent is to stop "anklebiters" (I wrote that article, in response to just such a person!) who waste people's time with incessant and repeated whining over the same issue.
I use my user page, as opposed to my talk page, much more than many people do. This is done not so much for "90/10 insurance", as for making clear statements about where I stand on various issues; this is important, since most people here disagree with those stances. One's user page is a more formal and proper way to make such statements than one's talk page. This paractice may or may not suit you. SamHB (talk) 11:19, 14 July 2019 (EDT)
Also, this is probably a little off-target, but if you have some specific topic you want to voice your opinion about in detail, there is also the option of writing an essay. Essay polices are much more lenient, and allow for strongly opposing viewpoints and arguments, as long as they are done in a reasonable and respectable manner. Otherwise, your user page is your own, so as was already discussed, this is a good place for such commentary. The 90/10 rule is, as SamHB alluded to, intended only to stop those who constantly chatter and discuss, while almost never making any meaningful contributions. It is not intended to stifle discussion, though. Just keep making some substantive edits as well, and it seems to me that you should be fine. --DavidB4 (TALK) 17:55, 22 July 2019 (EDT)

Insight from Singapore's wealthiest man

The richest person in Singapore (one of the wealthiest countries in the world) has admitted that God and His Son Jesus are the most important things in one's life: [9] He notes (and refutes) how modern culture rejects God and puts things like sex, alcohol, drugs, money, and material success (as seen in Hollywood movies, he notes). This seems like a powerful refutation of part of the secular left's worldview. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2019 (EDT)

That's amazing ... and Breitbart rather than the lamestream media carries the story!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 01:12, 26 July 2019 (EDT)
Are there any CP articles that are appropriate for me to add this? This is too important, I think, to not find a place for. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:27, 26 July 2019 (EDT)
Perhaps in the quotation section and/or elsewhere in this popular entry: materialism? Thanks!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2019 (EDT)
Done! If there are any other good articles to add it, please let me know. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:28, 27 July 2019 (EDT)

Don't bite the newbie editors via reversions

CP needs research assistants, copy editors, and people to do maintenance and formatting work, not just content contributers. Most wikis have a Don't Bite the Newbies policy. I find this archived discussion useful. If CP doesn't have an official policy, it still is useful for CP Admins to know that reverting newcomers has the effect of limiting CP's user base. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:05, 28 July 2019 (EDT)

Other than people inserting nonsense and/pushing misleading/errant liberal/leftist tripe, I think this was an excellent post. A little politeness and diplomacy goes a long way.Conservative (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2019 (EDT)
Oftentimes, new editors try to change the POV of articles, copy info from Wikipedia, or made other edits which are unencyclopedic (on an encyclopedia). Rob has a good point on treating new editors with respect, but it cannot be at the expense of the quality of CP's articles. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2019 (EDT)

Unlock request

Would you please temporarily unlock File:Holodomor2.jpg, per a request from RobSmith so he can add categories? --1990'sguy (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2019 (EDT)

I think you can re-lock it. Thanks! --1990'sguy (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2019 (EDT)

Violent Democrats

Hello Mr. Schlafly, Conservapedia has a page on atheist mass shooters, but Conservapedia does not have a page on mass shootings committed by Democrats/leftists. Can one be made? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JobsNotMobs (talk)

We already have Left-wing violence in the Trump era, where examples like that are already mentioned. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2019 (EDT)
Yes. A Violent Democrats article would only start a nuclear arms race with a Violent Republicans article here and elsewhere. OTHO, if trends continue and Democrat party leaders continue advocating violence, it may be necessary someday. Just not now. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:16, 5 August 2019 (EDT)

MPR

A poll found that Republicans have become even more opposed to gun control, despite massive pressure from the media, Democrats, the establishment, and liberal activists: [10] This setback for the Left might be a good MPR entry. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2019 (EDT)

KIWIFarms

Hi.

I have a question regarding article creations. Should I create an article for KIWIFarms, and if so, should I list it as a conservative site or a liberal site? On the one hand, it mocks disabled people and may have driven someone to suicide. But on the other, they did show the massacre at New Zealand and didn't cave to censorship, so... yeah. Not sure what to list it as, if it should be created that is. Pokeria1 (talk) 09:20, 17 August 2019 (EDT)

It's your call. Disapproval of someone or something is not an absolute bar on creating an entry about them. But I would leave out any suicide accusation as too speculative.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:28, 17 August 2019 (EDT)
The site is neither. It's a juvenile meme troll factory and barely satirical or parody. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:01, 17 August 2019 (EDT)
Okay. Well, since it's neither, probably better off not creating them. Pokeria1 (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2019 (EDT)
It's amazing that sites that allow free thought and exchange of ideas are considered conservative, and sites that are run like a concentration camp are considered liberal. Why is that? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:30, 17 August 2019 (EDT)

Move request

Andy, can we move this Essay:Rich Man and Parable of Talents to Parable of the Talents. It looks like only minor changes would be needed for this to be a proper article. Progressingamerica (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2019 (EDT)

Image upload request

Hello Andy, would you please upload the vastly superior Commons version of John Trumbull's Declaration of Independence painting to File:Declaration of Independence.jpg? The file is protected, so I can't do it myself, and I have experienced technical difficulties trying to upload new versions of existing images in the past (see this and this). --1990'sguy (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2019 (EDT)

Hoped that worked!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2019 (EDT)
Thanks for doing it, but the CP file still looks blurry and poor (compare to the Commons link). This is the same problem I encountered. I wouldn't want to upload a new image since this one is linked in so many articles. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2019 (EDT)
I deleted the prior version. Any better now? It may be that the Commons link uses a large file to get the better resolution, but I'm reluctant to go to a larger file which might slow speed.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2019 (EDT)
It's still showing the same version. I doubt file size is causing it, as the resolutions for the Italy maps I tried uploading a few months ago were the same. Overall, I think it's good to avoid using large file sizes, but for important and high-profile images like this, a clearer, quality image might be better. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2019 (EDT)
I've encountered this problem before: upload to a new file but the old image persists. So I uploaded to a separate file and inserted it into the template. If you like the image in the template, we could then update the other links (less than 20) in just a few minutes.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2019 (EDT)
I like it, and we can update the remaining links -- once that's done, you could delete the old one if you want. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2019 (EDT)
Yeah, I've seen this before. It seems that even after overwriting/deleting and replacing, that image name holds the original image's aspect ratio. Using a different name is the way around it...I have not found a fix. Perhaps it is fixed in newer versions of Media Wiki. --DavidB4 (TALK) 22:29, 24 August 2019 (EDT)

Not to detract from DavidB4's comment above, but in addition to the old file (File:Declaration of Independence.jpg), please delete File:76485685i79.jpg, a redirect which has been protected. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2019 (EDT)

Update MediaWiki, bots

I was wondering if MediaWiki could be updated. This version seems out of date. As a site note, would it be possible to use bots to help stop vandalism? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChickenHacker (talk)

Yet one more unlock request

Hi, I hate to keep bothering you with these, but when you get the chance, would you please unlock Template:Infobox person? I would like to add some documentation to the template's info page, and perhaps expand the template itself with some more parameters. Thank you! --DavidB4 (TALK) 15:10, 13 September 2019 (EDT)

American Progressivism

Andy, I would appreciate your yes/no about this.

Debate: Does Conservapedia need at least one single page devoted exclusively to American Progressivism? Progressingamerica (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2019 (EDT)

I think some context can be found here: Talk:Progressivism#Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn --1990'sguy (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2019 (EDT)

Pro-choice? how about anti-life or pro-death?

Liberal rags like Wikipedia refuse to use the term pro-life, instead saying "anti-abortion" or "anti-choice." I think we should return the favor and use one of the two terms in the section title, since that's what they really are, as this video shows: [11] Shobson20 (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2019 (EDT)

Night mode problems

I have been having some problems with this 'night mode' DavidB4 told me about. I am currently editing from in the GMT + 7 time zone, so I am unable to contribute sometimes. He told me that 'If this is a problem, you could contact User:Aschlafly. He might be willing to upgrade your account to get around this.' so I was wondering if you, being the owner of this site, could somehow find a way for me to edit during night mode. I understand if this is not possible at this time, as DavidB4 told me that upgrading my account may be necessary for me to edit during night mode, which I may or may not be worthy of right now. Please let me know what can be done as soon as possible. My only intention here is to contribute to this fantastic and trustworthy encyclopaedia as effectively as possible.

Many thanks, --Toby Chester (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Double redirect request

Hello Andy, would you please look at the newest comment here -- Talk:Allies -- and fix the double redirect on this protected redirect page? --1990'sguy (talk) 11:03, 17 October 2019 (EDT)

A request for a lock on Infant baptism

Andy, as I expressed on the talk page of Infant baptism, during my research I found an abundance of virulent polemic online regarding the hot-button topic of infant baptism both pro and con, enough to give me reason to humbly request that you please consider, if appropriate and reasonable, locking the main article, solely in order to avoid vandalism and distortion of the balance of presentation through subtle editing by opponents or proponents of the doctrine, to slant it more toward, or away from, a factually balanced treatment. I included both sides of the argument in the reference notes of the body of the article and in the listing of External links. Constantly reverting the changes could be a persistent annoyance. Objections could be reserved to the article Talk page, with a relevant note saying so at the top of the page. Trusting your judgment. Peace be with you, now and for ever. --Dataclarifier (talk) 11:59, 19 October 2019 (EDT)

Locked as requested. Will also put a message directing folks to the talk page.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2019 (EDT)

An election preview

I think we killed two birds with one rock: we made Katie Hill the poster child for White supremacy and the Equality Act. Need to build these themes. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 15:15, 26 October 2019 (EDT)

IMO, a Nancy Pelosi staffer looked at our Katie Hill page, saw links to both White Supremacy and the Equality Act, called Hill into Pelosi's office, and Hill was gone before she even made it back to her own office. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 15:09, 28 October 2019 (EDT)

Main page popular articles

Could you add The New Colossus, at least just for a few weeks. Progressingamerica (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2019 (EDT)

Done as requested. Thanks for the suggestion!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2019 (EDT)
If you would like to de-list it from the popular list, it has been updated now. Thanks for your help. Progressingamerica (talk) 11:33, 23 November 2019 (EST)
Replaced it with Samuel Adams. Thanks for the suggestion to make a change, and please make more in the future!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:46, 23 November 2019 (EST)

Problem with Talk:Infant baptism

Andy, RobS on the Talk:Infant baptism page is beginning to be a real problem. I tried to be patient but it's getting out of hand. Please take a look and see if the Talk page too should be locked. I'm not certain one way or the other, but I don't think he is posting any thing useful anymore, just repeating the same argument. It ceases to be an example of vigorous debate. The whole page has become bloated. I tried to be fair and answer every objection. It seems to be utterly counterproductive. If you do lock it, it will remain an example of debate on the issue. As before I trust your judgment. I'm not going back to look. Quite frankly it's been hard on my bloodpressure. Peace be with you. Michael Heart. --Dataclarifier (talk) 01:58, 3 November 2019 (EST)

I'll take a look but the general policy is to leave talk pages unlocked. You don't have to respond there and everyone knows that a talk page is merely a discussion that typically contains different viewpoints. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 10:58, 3 November 2019 (EST)
Michael, you seem to have a tenuous relationship with the truth. I called you out on this in January, here, where you had falsely claimed that your user page had been vandalized, and that you had arranged for it to be locked.
And now you claim (4 sections above) that the infant baptism article has been vandalized. Aside from a notice from Andy that it has been locked, and a very few edits today by Wikignome72, who, as an admin, can blow past any locks, the page has 331 revisions, every one of them by you.
So now the discussion has, not surprisingly, moved to the talk page, and it is a very lively and robust discussion. And you now want that locked? That's not the way things are done on talk pages. Perhaps you would rather do your writing on a blog someplace, that lets you control comments from other people. I believe there are services on the internet, such as "blogspot", that let you do that. You might want to contact one of the User:Conservative people about doing that. But that isn't how things are done on talk pages on an open wiki. Especially now that the locking of the article pages has moved everything to the talk page.
SamHB (talk) 11:29, 3 November 2019 (EST)
Michael, the above rant is by a user who has been repeatedly blocked. Your edits are very welcome here and please ignore the rude tone above. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:35, 3 November 2019 (EST)
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that there is anything that Dataclarifier should or should not do. I think the robust discussion on the talk page is fine, and none of it bothers me. I apologize for anything that was considered rude. SamHB (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2019 (EST)

I don't think the talk page should be locked. CP has editors of different theological viewpoints, and inability to reconcile those different viewpoints shouldn't be an excuse to stop discussion of them. And to be fair, the vast majority of the text on the talk page are comments from Dataclarifier, which is fine, but because of that, it's not fair to put all the blame on RobS for the long text on the talk page. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2019 (EST)

And spamming a talk page is not discussion. Neither is removing other people's comments to remove them from context. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 15:37, 3 November 2019 (EST)
In fact, the mainspace "Infant baptism" page should also be unlocked -- there was zero edit warring on it, so Dataclarifier didn't even have a reason for requesting protection. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:52, 3 November 2019 (EST)
He's put a lot of work into all his stuff. Most of his postings on talk really belong in Essay space if he doesn't want to be interrupted by argument or refutation. Many of these discussions then could be held on an Essay space talk page.
His basic argument is that infant baptism brings salvation, yet he's never defined what salvation is despite repeated requests. Consequently, the discussion strays off into numerous other topics. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:08, 3 November 2019 (EST)
A link could even be made from Infant baptism to his Essays. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:13, 3 November 2019 (EST)

Andy, I'm more grateful than I can express for your remark above regarding my edits. (I do disregard the rude tone of the "rant".) I had come back to mention that I discovered that other sites on infant baptism and other related "hot-button" topics have talk pages that have been archived one, two, three, even eight times, full of comments and venom responding to their topics. Accordingly, I withdraw my request that Talk:Infant baptism be locked, so that there will be more opportunity for others to speak up and further enliven the debate. Eventually I suppose an archive will be necessary. I am absenting myself from that Talk page. It just means that I won't be available to be baited any more, and will no longer be anyone's favorite target. That may put out the fire. (Just take a look at my own talk page, at the remarks made at the bottom by RobSmith's "Suggestion", and my final definitive answer in response: User talk:Dataclarifier#Suggestion.) Pax vobis --Dataclarifier (talk) 03:43, 5 November 2019 (EST)

The mainspace "Infant baptism" page should be unprotected. There was absolutely no edit warring, and Dataclarifier dominated the page's edit history. --1990'sguy (talk) 07:59, 5 November 2019 (EST)
Dataclarifier, you wrote: "Quite frankly it's been hard on my blood pressure."
You should keep in mind that if people want to find answers to an issue, there are tons of resources on the internet plus God gives wisdom/answers to those who humbly seek Him. So if you see a page or two on the internet that you want to change, but cannot do so to your satisfaction, its certainly not the end of the world and certainly not worth getting your blood pressure up over. Wikignome72 (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2019 (EST)
Per RobSmith "Suggestion" on my talk page, I just created Debate: Infant baptism and moved into it most (not all) of the debate on the Talk:Infant baptism page, leaving intact on the original talk page at infant baptism the comments re the article, its structure and sources of information cited there, and posted a note redirecting all general comments on the topic to Debate: Infant baptism. I did the same on my own talk page. By the way, the blood pressure response was unexpected, and is entirely physiological and involuntary. I was surprised that it happened. I think my creation of the new debate page will be more useful. (I don't intend to contribute anything more to it.) --Dataclarifier (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2019 (EST)
(The "final definitive answer" that I posted on RobSmith's "Suggestion" entry on my Talk page, has also been included in the move of the debate from the Talk:Infant baptism page to Debate: Infant baptism. --Dataclarifier (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2019 (EST) - )
I was suggesting you place the original two lengthy sections on Protestantism versus Catholicism in one Article Essay space, minus the intervening comments, to preserve the original research. It just needs an appropriate title. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 23:03, 5 November 2019 (EST)
For example: Essay: Differing perspectives on infant baptism. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 01:25, 6 November 2019 (EST)

A few minutes ago I copied this entire posting to Debate: Infant baptism as relevant part of the whole general debate. --Dataclarifier (talk) 08:33, 6 November 2019 (EST)

Problem: Obsessive redundant repostings

RobSmith persists in reposting to Talk:Infant baptism the same edit already moved twice to Debate: Infant baptism. This seems rather obsessive. I moved his postings verbatim to the Debate page. He calls it spamming. I don't believe he will stop reposting the same comments again and again at Talk:Infant baptism and badgering me about the matter on my Talk page. Please look into the matter and do what you think appropriate. (Seems like this is proof that the main article needed to be proactively locked.) Thanks to you and all of the good Protestant editors for your own outstanding works on Conservapedia. --Dataclarifier (talk) 12:00, 6 November 2019 (EST)

Do not remove other peoples ongoing discussions. That is a blockable offensive. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:03, 6 November 2019 (EST)
The Talk page has 8,000 page views, your Debate page has 176, or 2%. I can appreciate you trying to hide a "debate" you lost badly, but removing other peoples ongoing comments and discussions, who have committed no site policy violations, is a no no. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:09, 6 November 2019 (EST)
Perhaps we need a page on Wikietiquette. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:13, 6 November 2019 (EST)
The same reposting was just now repeated at Talk:Infant baptism. RobSmith's POV has been preserved now four times on Debate: Infant baptism. --Dataclarifier (talk) 12:15, 6 November 2019 (EST)
Talk:Infant baptism clearly directs all debate on doctrine to Debate: Infant baptism. It isn't hidden. --Dataclarifier (talk) 12:24, 6 November 2019 (EST)
RobSmith imposed a block of my IP and Dataclarifier ID in response to my moving of his doctrinal debate to the Debate page where it is more appropriate. (Block now expired)
I have never deleted or removed his comments from Conservapedia. Nor have I blocked him to prevent debate. In addition he has reposted again verbatim the same reposted doctrinal debate argument at the Talk:Infant baptism page. --Dataclarifier (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2019 (EST)
There are three other editors besides myself engaged in discussion in the two subsections thaT you have removed several times now; when an editor engaged in a discussion comes to reply, they do not know where to find it. Please, show some etiquette and do not interfere with other editors ongoing discussions. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:05, 6 November 2019 (EST)

Andy, this entire encounter with the adversary has been a real faith builder and a privilege to experience. This has not been my only one. I don't make light of it by any means. Thank you for your supportive comment above. --Dataclarifier (talk) 13:55, 8 November 2019 (EST)

Dataclarifier, we live in a post Protestant Reformation period where Protestantism is growing rapidly in the world.
You can't pretend that Protestants/Protestantism and their arguments don't exist and move the opposition's arguments to a debate page. This is unacceptable.Wikignome72 (talk) 14:16, 8 November 2019 (EST)
You can't move doctrinal debate about infant baptism on the articles talk page to a debate page. Please stop doing this. It is impolite, must end and it is counterproductive. Wikignome72 (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2019 (EST)
Copying text to another page without removing it from the page copied is not a move. --Dataclarifier (talk) 11:00, 9 November 2019 (EST)

error in link to external source needs minor correction

A colon needs to be replaced by a hyphen in the following link at locked article Infant baptism.
12:48.htm should have been 12-48.htm (I can't get to it.)

error https://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/12:48.htm
correction https://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/12-48.htm

Thanks, Andy. --Dataclarifier (talk) 09:31, 9 November 2019 (EST)

Conservative of the Year 2019

I have created the Conservative of the Year 2019 article. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:59, 9 November 2019 (EST)

Terrific start!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2019 (EST)
Would it be appropriate to post the article on the main page until a winner is announced? --1990'sguy (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2019 (EST)

Bilski v. Doll

Hello Andy, I see that the Bilski v. Doll article has not been updated. I tried to update it, but it's too much of a mess. The two Wikipedia articles on the case (1,2) don't have the same name as the case, so it seems to me that the situation is relatively complicated. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2019 (EST)

I improved both. Please let me know if further edits would be helpful. Thanks!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2019 (EST)

Scribes (Bible)

I just completed a new article Scribes (Bible). I hope it's worthy of Conservapedia. Pax vobis --Dataclarifier (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2019 (EST)

Wow, that's fabulous! Very well done.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2019 (EST)
I did a major revision with additional material and division with subheadings for improvement. Includes section on calling scribes "my father" (Mt 23:9). --Dataclarifier (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2019 (EST)
Looks even better now. I did a minor punctuation improvement. Terrific work.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2019 (EST)

Technical display problem at Religion#Development of religion

Just a "heads up" alert. Recently, every time I have accessed the article Religion (simply to read it) there has been a display flutter and blackout of a portion of the article at Religion#Development of religion. The section reads fine in edit mode—no problem there. All other parts of the article remain stable in page display. I am unable to determine if the fault is with my own computer. Tech error? Virus? No other parts of Conservapedia have presented this difficulty. --Dataclarifier (talk) 00:16, 15 November 2019 (EST)

I have observed so such problem, on the religion page or any other. I would recommend that you reboot your computer, perform a comprehensive virus and malware check (installing the necessary antivirus software if necessary; I recommend Norton), restarting your web browser, and trying again. SamHB (talk) 10:57, 15 November 2019 (EST)
Sam, just now no problem. (I have had Norton for more than 2 years now). My internet server is through a land line. My own tech says it's probably the area I live in, and fact that I'm near "end of the line". Coincidental. Thanks. --Dataclarifier (talk) 10:05, 1 December 2019 (EST)

Eros

Just created article Eros from already available material in other articles here. I assume you don't need me to notify you every time I create another article. Thanks for all you do, Andy, for your efforts to present unbiased truth. --Dataclarifier (talk) 03:47, 15 November 2019 (EST)

My article on Hong Kong is published

My article on Hong Kong was published in Hong Kong-based Dim Sum Daily. It has been up only a couple of hours and it already has a thousand page views. Could you put on MPR and help it along? PeterKa (talk) 07:14, 24 November 2019 (EST)

Good article. I hope you continue making first hand written accounts in a series. (you don't have to be at ground zero for all events, just cover the issues involved). RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:06, 24 November 2019 (EST)
My follow up story has been published in the Seattle Times. Dim Sum Daily toned me down a bit, but the editor at Seattle Times played up the anti-communist/pro-democracy angle. I submitted various pictures to both newspapers, but both editors selected the same picture of me in a mask. PeterKa (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2019 (EST)
Tremendous work. Very well done! Posted.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:11, 14 December 2019 (EST)

Gouverneur Morris

Just thought I would mention, the Westin states that "Our hotel takes its name from the state's first Governor"[12] Gouverneur Morris was never a Governor that I am aware of. Progressingamerica (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2019 (EST)

You're right! Great catch!!!! I'll fix it if you haven't yet done so.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:04, 8 December 2019 (EST)
Can we just remove it altogether? It's about another person altogether. What value does it add to the article? Progressingamerica (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2019 (EST)
Moved it to another entry, but feel free to object to that new home for it!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2019 (EST)

request for restoration of possibly unitended deletion of a section of an article

Andy, the following section was deleted after you locked the text of Infant baptism. See earlier version 1584071. It was based on historical information I had found online re the topic. Could you please restore it? Thanks. --Dataclarifier (talk) 15:04, 15 December 2019 (EST)

Andy, I am 100% positive that Tertullian did not indicate what Dataclarifier says he did. Please do not grant this request.
Dataclarifier wanted this article locked after he put various material in the article. On a wiki, the dialetical method (The dialectical method, is at base a discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to establish the truth through reasoned arguments) and civil discourse are important - especially on matters where there are competing theological camps. The infant baptism article has been a trainwreck as far as this occuring. And unfortunately, I don't see things turning around anytime soon.
When I got involved in the article Petrine Primacy, we managed to hammer out an article without too much rancor, etc. But right now and for the foreseeble future, I do not have time to be a referee or a big contributor to infant baptism.Conservative (talk) 15:42, 15 December 2019 (EST)
Simply FYI relevant to comment by Conservative, I noticed the following Diff. The online sources supporting the deleted segment in ref notes were also removed with the deletion. I understand and sympathize with Conservative's lack of sufficient opportunity to improve the balance of the article. I am in a similar bind. I only had come back to consult the article, not to critique it. That's why the appeal here from both of us for your judgment in the matter. Faithfully yours, --Dataclarifier (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2019 (EST)
I moved my reply to Dataclarifier from my user talk page message area to the Infant baptism talk page area. It is located HERE now.
The battle between Dataclarifier and Robsmith is kind of a rhetorical Thirty Years' War. At this juncture in my life, I am endeavoring to avoid internet drama - albeit not always successfully. But after responding to an atheist on my talk page via "SS American Religion: Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead" about the eventual triump over secularization in the USA, I decided to renew my pledge. One thing for certain, even atheists admit that the atheist movement is dead or dying (see: Decline of the atheist movement). I tango and cha-cha-cha on the grave of the atheist movement! Olé! Olé! Olé! Conservative (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2019 (EST)

Earliest historical mention of infant baptism: A.D. 185

The earliest explicit mention of infant baptism is found A.D. 185 in Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book II, Chapter 22:4.[1]

For He came to save all through means of Himself — all, I say, who through Him are born again to God — infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. (boldface emphasis added)
This born again is a direct reference to John 3:3-5:
3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
King James Bible (KJV)

The Greek New Testament word for "man" here in John is τις tis "anyone".[2]

See interlinear text of John 3:5. No human being is excluded. Age is not mentioned.

references

. .

Thanks, Andy. Hope you have a wonderful Christmas. --Dataclarifier (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2019 (EST)

Mysterious duplication of entire article onpage

Andy, just "eyeball" and check out the following diffs. [13] [14]. My own check of the page's View history does not show who made the duplication. I am certain I didn't do it. Can you determine who was responsible?

Back when I first asked for the article to be locked, I thought something like this, or some other form of mischief, would happen. Be assured I'm not asking for it to be locked now. I can check it myself from time to time. Thanks. Have a blessed Christmas. --Dataclarifier (talk) 07:29, 21 December 2019 (EST)

Anyone can check things like this, you do not need to enlist the site administrators's help. Just look at the page history, the way I did just now. The extreme duplication to which you refer was made at 10:12, 17 December 2019‎, by RobSmith. That was 69 edits ago. All 68 edits since then were made by you. I can't pass judgment on why RobSmith made the change, though I would guess that it was an accident, of the sort that we all make. His edit comment was "organized churches, not individual Christians".
The addition "and the danger of death before baptism", added by you at 14:06, 18 December 2019, is safely in the current version, so no further action should be needed. But when you repair Rob's changes, be sure that is preserved. In fact, you will need to check that all of your edits since then are intact. By the way, Rob's accidental change had the effect of precisely doubling the size of the article, from 184,252 bytes to 368,504 bytes. Whether it was a precise duplication of the content is something I haven't checked; I would suggest that you do that. And then be sure that your recent 68 edits, including the the one about "and the danger of death before baptism", are intact.
I occasionally find myself needing to track down situations like this; it's very annoying. Good luck. Please do not assume malice.
And have a blessed Christmas. SamHB (talk) 10:09, 21 December 2019 (EST)

More night mode problems

I am still having some problems with the Conservapedia night mode. I am still editing from in the GMT + 7 time zone, which is becoming increasingly bothersome for me. You did promote your account to SkipCaptcha privileges back in October, but I am still unable to contribute for a significant portion of the day. You said that 'overnight editing privileges can be added after there are more edits from your account'. The number of edits that required for me to gain overnight editing privileges was never specified, but I have frequently made numerous contributions to this encyclopaedia. In short, I am requesting that my account be promoted to overnight editing privileges, or at least for the number of edits required for me to receive the promotion be revealed. I have enjoyed my time so far on this encyclopaedia, despite the time zone problems. Overnight editing privileges would be a huge help, and allow me to contribute to Conservapedia more effectively. Thank you.--Toby Chester (talk) 11:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

That's right, I've been on this site for a long time and I still have problems with Night mode. Shobson20 (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2020 (EST)

Night mode edit request

I wish to be able to edit when CP is in night mode. It's frustrating to be locked out until 10:00am, or in the case of today, hours after night mode is supposed to be over. I hope you can be sure that I won't vandalize the site. Just for curiosity, what was going on, anyway? Shobson20 (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2020 (EST)

Page name blacklist issue

Hi Andy,
It looks like user:BHathorn is have an issue where he is trying to create a couple pages which are being blocked by the page name blacklist. Would you please take a look? See: Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany#Question_about_a_permission_error
Thanks! --DavidB4 (TALK) 23:12, 19 January 2020 (EST)

Updating information, etc.

Hi Andy, I was just wondering, if you have the time, can you look through my edits just to make sure all the information I added is accurate and consistent? I'm just concerned that some content I added could've been worded better, was outdated, or inaccurate, etc. In addition, how hard is it to become an administrator? I saw the Conservapedia Guidelines page but it wasn't specific on the requirements to become an administrator. Also, just wanted to mention, thank you for founding Conservapedia; I stumbled across this site about half a year ago, and by now, with this great site and with other organizations with similar idealogies, I'm a proud conservative! --Liberaltears 8:42, 23 January 2020

RobSmith threat to delete balanced article

Andy: RobSmith intends to delete an article without any evident justification for his charge of "sarcastic mockery". I did what I could to present a factual article at Burning at the stake, Biblical pretext for, now simply Burning at the stake. I responded with some adjustments in the article. See my simple explanation as a response on the talk page, along with this text that Rob posted on my User talk:Dataclarifier
Ridiculous arguments
If you want to continue ridiculous arguments without engaging on the Talk page of Burning at the stake, Biblical pretext for, I'll just delete the page as "sarcastic mockery" of God's word. You need to engage other editors directly on Talk when legitimate questions are raised - without spamming blocks of text and redundant links. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 01:57, 4 February 2020 (EST)
Whatever you decide. Peace be with you. --Dataclarifier (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2020 (EST)
The user is in gross violation of Conservapedia Commandment #1, copying text from and citing Wikipedia. See here and here. It's a pattern I've detected on just two pages. Burning at the stake, Biblical pretext for is sarcastic mockery of God's word, until I renamed it. But he continues to insert sarcastic mockery of Christianity cut n' pasted directly from Wikipedia. Some of the problems could be fixed with rational good faith engagement with other editors on discussion pages, however the user is in the habit of spamming talk pages with massive blocks of text and redundant links, some of which is cut n' pasted from Wikipedia and elsewhere.
I'd suggest the user take some of that plagiarized text from Wikipedia and simply rewrite objectionable portions, but he seems more interested in using biased, non-Christian, and anti-Christian content he borrows from Wikipedia, and filling CP up with it. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 02:37, 4 February 2020 (EST)
Andy, take a look at his edit summary
01:04, 4 February 2020‎ RobSmith - I won't follow you with a pooper-scooper always) (undo)
This is self-explanatory. Is this harassment? The information I posted to which he so strongly objects is corroborated independently by the several independent Pew Research articles et al. You know my work. I post nothing that I have not been able to verify. As to the above, I have no wish to be baited with anti-Catholic antagonism. That is why I don't respond to his attempts to "engage" with interminable interactions, and limit my response to simple, factual statements.
What did you think of the recent Democratic and Republican performance in the Senate? The win of the Chiefs at the Superbowl 2 February was an exciting addition to my 73rd birthday 1 February. As always, Peace be with you. Michael --Dataclarifier (talk) 02:52, 4 February 2020 (EST)
The information was moved to Talk. It's salvageable. But I won't re-write and clean up your mess. I did enough on mainspace Burning at the stake. If you need input and help, engage there. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 02:56, 4 February 2020 (EST)
Andy: RobSmith just now threatened an edit-war.
You can earn yourself a temporary block for reverting a Sysop with the rollback key. I;m going to rollback your edits a second time on Burning at the stake. Meet me on the talk page to discuss changes or enjoy a temporary block for edit warring. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 03:08, 4 February 2020 (EST)
--Dataclarifier (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2020 (EST)
No, I explained you can enjoy a temporary block for edit warring. You need to engage in good faith at Talk:Burning_at_the_stake#Rewrite-it to fix the content you cut n' pasted from Wikipedia. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 03:15, 4 February 2020 (EST)
It would not be hard, at all, to fix the content you cut n' pasted from Wikipedia. It requires simple good faith editing. But here you are, spamming Andy's talk page with redundant postings.
I can make simple suggestions to objectionable material - there. But you must engage me there. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 03:22, 4 February 2020 (EST)
See my good faith response at Talk:Burning at the stake#Dataclarifier response --Dataclarifier (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2020 (EST)
RobSmith has removed subheading Dataclarifier response from the link I provided, so you can't access it. Go to Talk:Burning at the stake#Rewrite-it and scroll down to my now untitled response. --Dataclarifier (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2020 (EST)

I made a mistake

I created an article for Kendrick Brothers but the brothers should have a lower case 'b'. They do have an organization known as Kendrick Brothers Productions with a captial 'B' but I started a stub article about the brothers themselves. Are you able to fix this? Thank you.--StFrancisThames (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2020 (EST)

Another moved it. I just promoted your account to SkipCaptcha. Welcome!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2020 (EST)

Template creation permission request

Hi Andy, I'm seeking permission to a create a template titled "Template:Republican establishment". I know I mentioned it here and again here, but RobSmith seemed unsure about it, so I was wondering what you would think. Thanks! --Liberaltears (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2020 (EDT)

Sounds like a good idea. I've created it and you can edit it now.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2020 (EDT)
Thanks Andy! Just wondering though, where's the template? I can't find it... --Liberaltears (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2020 (EDT)
Sorry! I thought I had created it, but I had not put anything in it so nothing was created after all. This time it contains a tiny period, which you can replace: Template:Republican establishment. Enjoy!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2020 (EDT)
Yes! Thank you very much, Andy! --Liberaltears (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2020 (EDT)

Great image to quickly upload

Hi Andy, can you upload this image into a file? I think that this would be a great addition for the featured article on Vladimir Zelenko as well as to use for this article as well. Thanks! --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 13:30, 28 March 2020 (EDT)

Done as requested!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 13:45, 28 March 2020 (EDT)
Thank you Andy! --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 13:48, 28 March 2020 (EDT)

So I just watched this video...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s13qZnKdLQ8&feature=emb_title Phil Donahue really seems to be sticking to the zero-sum game fallacy thinking that your mom wanted women to "stay in the home" when she only said that women tend to be happier there. Shobson20 (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2020 (EDT)

Western Civilization to the rescue

Hi, Andy. I'm interested in how America and "Yankee Ingenuity" will overcome the coronavirus. The UK and Israel (part of Western Civ) may also help. But I don't expect much from the socialist countries or dictatorships. I'm also watching progress on the USS Theodore Roosevelt, an aircraft carrier with a coronavirus outbreak. --Ed Poor Talk 12:55, 2 April 2020 (EDT)

Ed, it's great hearing from you! Hope all is well. Ironically, China and India have welcomed innovation in treating the coronavirus more than Democratic governors here have, such as Andrew Cuomo who is hoarding hydroxychloroquine rather than allowing it to be dispensed widely to patients. Reminds me of the greater freedom in communist China in being able to criticize the theory of evolution than is allowed by many officials here. Oh well.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2020 (EDT)
Ed: included in that basic premise is the structural flaw of single party socialism - a system (as advocated by Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders, et al) without checks and balances.
I see two narratives emerging on the origins of global economic meltdown caused by coronavirus: (1) the CCP was negligent in its corruption and greed by not alerting the world of the pandemic so as not to disrupt the tourism trade in Wuhan during the Chinese New Year travel holiday (as the leftist mayor of New Orleans didn't want to disrupt Mardi Gras celebrations, either); and (2) the CCP issued a bioweapon attack in reprisal to trade tariffs which threatened the CCP's hold on power; this is the more conspiratorial narrative which the CCP has already countered with whataboutism and the US military.
The CCP's fake news allies in the United States are already preparing the ground for the next narrative phase: the "factual"evidence that an authoritarian socialist regime had only 3,000 deaths using harsh containment methods vs. the chaotic and freewheeling United States which has over 4,000 deaths when the pandemic first hit shows the superiority of the socialist system. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:11, 2 April 2020 (EDT)
Speaking of Cuomo, can you please post the source about Cuomo hoarding that drug and not distributing it throughout New York on the main page? Pokeria1 (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2020 (EDT)
Just posted the link as requested. The clinical trial did not start on time as Cuomo promised in New York, either. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2020 (EDT)
Thanks, though I was actually referring more to this news item: "Dem New York Gov. Cuomo stockpiles and withholds hydroxychloroquine such that coronavirus patients are unable to get their prescriptions filled in some parts of the State. " Pokeria1 (talk) 08:46, 3 April 2020 (EDT)
Dem Gov. Andrew Cuomo has essentially limited the dispensing of hydroxychloroquine for coronavirus to his slow, small clinical trial,[15] and I heard confirmation of the difficulty of patients obtaining the life-saving medication from a presentation by a New York physician.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:28, 3 April 2020 (EDT)

Modifying Template:Officeholder/senator

Hi Andy, can you modify/improvise Template:Officeholder/senator as I mentioned here? I was really hoping that a sysop would be able to do it as the template is locked as well as the fact that I barely understand template source codes. Thanks! --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 11:59, 3 April 2020 (EDT)

I unprotected it for you to edit as you think best. Thanks!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2020 (EDT)
Thanks Andy! I do hope I can figure it out... --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 12:51, 3 April 2020 (EDT)
Success! While I'm not sure how to make the function “required” in the same sense with all the other functions, I did manage to use three separate optional functions, where whenever one is used in the template, the other two functions are simply left blank. Since I tested the updated version and it works fine, I think you can re-protect the template now. Thank you Andy! --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 13:20, 3 April 2020 (EDT)
I should specify one issue with the way I modified the template; if the function is used more than once out of all three options, then more than one of the options out of “Senior”, “Junior”, and “Former” can show up due to the combinatorials of all three. --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 13:29, 3 April 2020 (EDT)
Oops, never mind. I just tested it, and apparently my worry wasn't the case. --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 13:33, 3 April 2020 (EDT)
Nice, thanks for doing that, Liberaltears! --DavidB4 (TALK) 16:16, 3 April 2020 (EDT)
Yep, no problem! --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 16:17, 3 April 2020 (EDT)

Mainpage: Right

Is there a URL associated with that recent news item? I read today [16] and there appears to be widespread fraud in NY. --Jpatt 14:15, 3 April 2020 (EDT)

I added the link to the country-by-country and state-by-state data. But the American Thinker makes a valid point, too. Thanks for mentioning it, and great to hear from you!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2020 (EDT)

Hiding a revision from view...

Hi Andy, I was wondering if you could fully oversight (hide) the vandalized revisions on this page and this page. While the vandal user names were hidden from view, DavidB4 said that he couldn't fully oversight the revisions from view due to an error, as mentioned here. I'm really hoping that all evidence of the vandalism can be hidden from view due to the seriousness of the matter. --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 17:53, 3 April 2020 (EDT)

Added a question

Hi Andy, I would like to start a page on mediocrity which disuses the subject and how it has been caused by liberals. However, when I went to go start the page, I saw it was previously created but you removed it during a mass removal of pages created by a certain user. I am not sure about the details behind this user, but I wondering if you have a problem with me creating this page up again? --YankeeDoodleDandy (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2020 (EDT)

No problem at all if you create it again. Please create and add to it as you think best. Thank you!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2020 (EDT)

Thank You Andy just wanted to make sure it was okay with you --YankeeDoodleDandy (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2020 (EDT)

Permission requests for several template creations...

Hi Andy, I would like to request permission to create the following templates:

  • Template:Officeholder/lieutenant governor
  • Template:Officeholder/state senator
  • Template:Democrat establishment

--LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 14:49, 12 April 2020 (EDT)

Please do! Those would be terrific templates. Thank you.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2020 (EDT)
Thank you Andy! --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 14:53, 12 April 2020 (EDT)

Coronavirus protests

Hello Andy, I have been looking at these Coronavirus protests that have been springing up all across the country, and I was wondering, how often did Phyllis go to protests or organize them? I am pretty sure she organized ERA amendment protests, but could you give me more information if you have any? Progressingamerica (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2020 (EDT)

My mother Phyllis often organized protests like these! Thanks for asking.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2020 (EDT)
It's my pleasure. I first started attending protests in 2010 at the Tea Parties, and as I mentioned earlier in the year, I also attended the 2020 March for Life. Now that you have confirmed this, could you provide any more information? Maybe she wrote about it in one of her many books or are there photos that you could point to? What could take me considerable time to locate could take you 10 or 20 minutes, or maybe even less. Progressingamerica (talk) 10:16, 18 April 2020 (EDT)
Perhaps the first photo in her entry here (Phyllis Schlafly) is an example?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2020 (EDT)
I recall it like it was yesterday. Someone asked Phyllis about NOW. She responded with something like "they wouldn't exist if they weren't getting federal money". Her organization was entirely grassroots. I instantly became a believer. IOWs, in 1979 the US was approaching 10% unemployment and the federal government was spending money on on anti-family, divisive and social engineering programs like NOW. RobSLive Free or Die 10:24, 24 April 2020 (EDT)
Wow, Rob, thanks for sharing that! They should have had some mention of government funding of the Leftist groups in the Mrs. America miniseries about STOP ERA.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2020 (EDT)

Speedy image upload request

Hi Andy, I'd like to request the quick upload of this image (source page here) into a file (fair use license, I believe), with the small black space on the top and bottom cropped off. Since Matt Innis is a Republican running for U.S. Senate from Nebraska to challenge establishment anti-Trumper Ben Sasse and the primary is less than a month away, I'm making this special request (similar to the previous one on hydroxychloroquine) largely due to a long backlog of image requests in CP:IUR. Thank you Andy! --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 21:18, 17 April 2020 (EDT)

Uploading the image now ...--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2020 (EDT)
Yes! Thank you very much Andy, I really appreciate it! --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 22:25, 17 April 2020 (EDT)

Block of RobSmith and VargasMilan

Andy, thanks for your note my talk page 25 Feb at User talk:Dataclarifier#Unjustified block. I have blocked RobSmith and VargasMilan. Please believe me that I have not done this lightly. See details at User talk:Dataclarifier#Blocked: RobSmith and VargasMilan. I appreciate your work and trust your judgment in the matter. Thanks. Stay Healthy. --Dataclarifier (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2020 (EDT)

Update: The original link I provided was altered by RobSmith. It can be accessed at Talk/Dataclarifier/Archive 01#Blocked (past tense): RobSmith and VargasMilan --Dataclarifier (talk) 07:51, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
Huh? I altered a link? Provide a diff or it never happened. RobSLive Free or Die 13:32, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
See the diff at:
https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Burning_at_the_stake&diff=prev&oldid=1619849
See also the following text at User talk:Aschlafly#RobSmith threat to delete balanced article
See my good faith response at Talk:Burning at the stake#Dataclarifier response --Dataclarifier (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2020 (EST)
RobSmith has removed subheading Dataclarifier response from the link I provided, so you can't access it. Go to Talk:Burning at the stake#Rewrite-it and scroll down to my now untitled response. --Dataclarifier (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2020 (EST)
See also the following altering diff defeating direct link to User talk:Dataclarifier#Blocked: RobSmith and VargasMilan:
https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Dataclarifier&diff=1644391&oldid=1644390
--Dataclarifier (talk) 06:34, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
See also this RobSmith alteration of my subpage respectfully titled "Administrative comments" which he turned into a ridiculously trivialized "Sandbox" — "Creating Sandbox for User:Dataclarifier"
https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Dataclarifier/Administrator_comments&action=history
--Dataclarifier (talk) 09:06, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
You never answered a simple, good faith question and created a new discussion thread loaded with spam. You are spamming and trolling right now on Andy's discussion page, which justifiably could result in removal of your comments and a short term block. Please stop. RobSLive Free or Die 14:40, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
See Conservapedia:Trolling:
  • employing redundant arguments intended to occupy and waste the time, efforts, or energies of other users or to distract them from productive editing and making mainspace article contributions.
RobSLive Free or Die 14:48, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
I can't confirm nor deny Dataclarifier's claims regarding that particular situation, though I will mention I had to deal with similar stuff from RobSmith as well. Namely, a few times after I added in a reply, he while adding his reply tended to delete my posts. When adding my reply back in, I also demand that he stop removing my replies. Here's one example: https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=1441930 He hasn't done that in a while, though given my experience, I won't necessarily claim Dataclarifier was off the mark in his accusation. Pokeria1 (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
If I ever remove a posting it is either a mistake or somebody swore or said something innappropriate. Your diff looks like an error. Sorry. In Dataclarifier's case, it's hard to discern what he's talking about. I think he now is referencing a time he created a subheading entitled ==My response== or something, and spammed the page with extraneous material. I removed the subheading cause I think it was suppose to be a response to a question, and frankly, I'm tired of him ignoring questions and spamming pages. RobSLive Free or Die 05:05, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
In fact, I don't believe I have ever removed a posting of Dataclarifer (except for an unnecessary subhead he created) or deleted a page. I did one page move and rewrote certain sections on Burning at the stake, which if I recall he was satisfied with. RobSLive Free or Die 05:12, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
The way I see it, this dispute has its origins with the infant baptism article, and differences in application between Catholic and Protestant denominations. Since this is an encyclopedia, the article should clearly state "Roman Catholic Church doctrine states..." or "Lutheran Church states..." etc. on this subject where there are differences. But it should also be very, very clear if those differences conflict with what the Bible states, then the Bible is the final authority and trumps everything else. People are just going to have to accept that one small fact. Karajou (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2020 (EDT)
The problem with using the whole "Bible has final say" argument is that there are technically two different bibles (and that's not even counting the King James version) thanks to Martin Luther removing six books from the Bible (including Maccabees), so the Catholic Bible actually has SIX additional books. Maybe if there was literally only one bible, with literally NOTHING removed from it, that solution would work. Pokeria1 (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2020 (EDT)
Fine. Those points belong in separate articles or Essay space. My immediate problem is with an editor who claims "biblical authority" then denies biblical authority on Talk pages and attributes the Epistles of Paul to Satan. Many of these articles carry the Template:Christianity. I've asked this editor several times to clarify these mainspace contributions and he either ignores these questions completely, or spams the discussion with off-topic, plagiarized, contradictory and redundant blocks of hypertext and external links. RobSLive Free or Die 19:18, 5 May 2020 (EDT)
People can (ab)use the Bible as an excuse for a number of ridiculous evils, such as burning at the stake. (Because the catholic church said so, it must be true, right?) Twist in enough, and just like the MSM, you can make your source text say whatever you want it to.
In a more mild sense, the many denominations we now have, exist because they interpenetrate the scripture differently from the others. A clash of religion is inevitable in a project like this, but as Karajou said, I think the best way is to state the various conflicting views from a fairly neutral standpoint in this case. --DavidB4 (TALK) 19:37, 5 May 2020 (EDT)
Because someone claimed in the 12th century a "Biblical pretext" for burning at the stake, and was in gross error, is no reason to promote a "Biblical pretext for burning at the stake" in the 21st century which is accessible to Google search engines and homeschoolers. RobSLive Free or Die 20:06, 5 May 2020 (EDT)

Potential bullying: threat of blocking

Andy, RobSmith says welcome back on my talk page. I am content with having made a strong statement with my own action of blocking. (I was not so naïve as to actually believe an infinite block of him and VargasMilan would last very long.)

He now continues to threaten me on my talk page with the same tone of domination unchanged. If I refuse to respond to him re contentious topics, he may decide again to slap another block on my account. He gives me no reason to believe otherwise.

You have expressed both here on your talk page and on my own talk page the freedom of contributors on Conservapedia to make the prudential choice of exercising a decisive refusal to engage in contentious continuing debates with other editors and administrators.
However, shortly after you gave me that advice (assurance to know that I do not have to respond to any comments) and subsequently after I chose to exercise that option with RobSmith and said on a couple of talk pages that I would no longer respond, and that I had said all I could say, he kept demanding additional response, and finally inflicted a short term block for my refusing to get ensnared again. What is to prevent this again if I choose not to respond? Especially since both our positions have been more than adequately expressed, and I might say "redundantly". All I could do was reiterate what I had already said, and back it up with substantial documentation. He insists that my completely substantiated responses are "incomprehensible" and "say nothing".

Now that I have found that you removed the more extensive unjustified intentional [21 Feb to 1 May] block by VargasMilan on 25 Feb, I simply ask you for the standard Conservapedia freedom enjoyed by others here to legitimately refuse to further respond to RobSmith or others like him without a threat of blocking for exercising that fully available option. Without such assurance, I see no real possibility of continued involvement in contributing to Conservapedia, even though you expressed hope that I would continue, because I could be blocked again for exercising legitimate refusal to respond, for "who knows how long?". Please answer. Either here or on my talk page. --Dataclarifier (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2020 (EDT)

"He now continues to threaten me" - this is simply a pointed lie. I suggest User:Dataclarifier begin building good faith with other users. RobSLive Free or Die 20:29, 5 May 2020 (EDT)
Secondly, Dataclarifier received two blocks, one for 10 minutes and one for an hour after undoing the actions of a Sysop, i.e. edit warring with a Sysop. The worst that can happen to Dataclarifier in the future, if he refuses to defend controversial edits on Talk, is a revert of edits and page protect to deny access.
Nowhere was Dataclarifer ever "threatened" with a block for refusal to answer good faith questions. RobSLive Free or Die 21:42, 5 May 2020 (EDT)

Archive and Administrator comments

Andy, to handle the current controversy on my talk page, I set up two pages: an Archive of all that has been submitted to this date, and a special "Administrator comments" page where I can move special commentary from any administrators regarding my work and responses posted on my regular talk page. I posted an info notice re this on my regular talk page. Peace be with you. --Dataclarifier (talk) 10:25, 6 May 2020 (EDT)

The original link I provided was altered by RobSmith. It can be accessed at Talk/Dataclarifier/Archive 01#Blocked (past tense): RobSmith and VargasMilan --Dataclarifier (talk) 07:48, 7 May 2020 (EDT)

You are spamming redundant postings again. And also spamming by creating unnecessary new subheadings. RobSLive Free or Die 13:58, 7 May 2020 (EDT)

Administrator deletion of content from a User's Own Talk page in violation of Conservapedia Guidelines

Andy see Revision history of "User talk:Dataclarifier". Without cause RobSmith has unjustifiably vandalized my own talk page, deleted material from it and sabotaged the pages I set up as stated in the posting above by changing them and deleting material there. He is violating the Guidelines. I also found that I was unable to restore the lost material from older copies of the pages. --Dataclarifier (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2020 (EDT)

What does that prove? That you added a category to your talk page 3 times and on 4th one you got a warning? Look below. Even Andy's talk page is not included in any Categories. RobSLive Free or Die 17:06, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
I didn't add the category. Until I saw your messages, I was unaware of it's presence on the page. You didn't even give me a chance to respond before you blocked me. --Dataclarifier (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
I told you to quit spamming. How did you respond? You spammed your user page. RobSLive Free or Die 17:30, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
It just occurred to me that the category appeared with my copying of the Commandments and Guidelines pages. It was not intentional. According to their content I have the freedom and right to include all decent material I choose to post. Also to remove any unwanted comments. --Dataclarifier (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
You also have the freedom and right to not edit war, troll or spam a Sysop. RobSLive Free or Die 17:41, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
The following was posted on my talk page
Dataclarifier: You have now added an unwarranted Category to your User Talk and User Talk subpages 6 times. You warned not to after the 4th effort. You have earned a 10 minute block for editwarring with a Sysop. The next block will be one hour in length. RobSLive Free or Die 17:16, 7 May 2020 (EDT)

I didn't add the Category tag. I finally found it and removed it. It turned out to be part of what I copied and posted here. --Dataclarifier (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
I have never spammed a sysop. I have not been on your talk page. --Dataclarifier (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
You're spamming right now. What you posted above is spam. You spammed at least two Sysops, Andy and myself.


Dataclarifier: I'll make a deal; Any time you commit a violation of policy, rules, or guidelines worthy of a block and I have to clean up a mess you made but I overlook the block, I'll make a notation in the editor summary Strike # with cause. Then, when you do get a block and want to come here and dispute it, we can debate it on the merits. RobSLive Free or Die 17:50, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
Every time you blocked me I have been unable to respond because you have blocked all ability to edit. So when I do get a block and want to come here and dispute it you make it impossible. --Dataclarifier (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
Go to the block tool and scroll down. The first is 10 Minutes. The 2nd 1 hour. The 3rd 2 hours and so on. Lifetime you have received 3 blocks from me, two 10 minute and one 1 hour. I wiped the slate clean and started over at 10 minutes. The next block will be one hour. RobSLive Free or Die 18:11, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
This controversy bids fair to continue interminably. I wanted to quit it long ago, but you coerced a continuation by threat of block. You've gone through with your threat by actual follow-up action numerous times, and you claimed that you were not threatening to block. It is now abundantly evident that you personally do not want me on Conservapedia. Andy does. See edits above and also on my Archive 01 page. In a week I will purge my current talk page of all your future comments. I will not get further embroiled in your time-wasting edit warring against me. I will not respond to you, from this moment on. --Dataclarifier (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
Here's the block log. I am one of the least likely Admins to issue a block, ask anybody. Any block you ever received was for a violation of site policy, and in every case it was for undoing the actions of Sysop. In every case you were warned not to. In every case, if you responded, you responded with spam. The combination of spamming and edit warring = trolling. It's a habit you've developed that I'm trying to help you overcome. RobSLive Free or Die 18:27, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
Notwithstanding what you have said: Many readers appreciate substantiating evidence or immediately accessible proof backing assertions made in response to challenges put forth to be answered. That is not spamming. They can see then for themselves the facts which provide a basis for intelligent evaluation of any debate from both sides. Would you deny them that opportunity to exercise their own opinion of whether or not the assertions of either side of a debate have merit? I question why anyone would remove such material from the reader's view. No more response. I'll just tend to my talk page and contribute what I can to the content of Conservapedia. --Dataclarifier (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
In a discussion page regarding mainspace content, your primary responsibility is to address the point under discussion with other participants in that discussion, not playing to an audience of readers. RobSLive Free or Die 23:03, 7 May 2020 (EDT)

Posting other users signatures

For months Dataclarifier has cut and pasted other users signatures to pages that other editors have not been involved in. I have respectfully asked him stop spamming and stop forging signatures. He's forged my signature to a User subpage 18 times, and when politely asked to stop, he did it again five more times. I am going to delete the spam page.

Dataclaifier: if you wish to recover the user subpage, you can ask me or another sysop to restore the page. If and when the page is restored, you have a responsibility, in a reasonable amount of time, to remove any other user's electronic signature from the page. You can leave intact a text version of the signature with date and time, but the electronic link must be removed. RobSLive Free or Die 05:30, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

Joe Biden and Liberal Double Standards

Hello Mr. Schlafly,

What do you think about creating a page titled "Joe Biden and Liberal Double Standards" to highlight liberal double standards regarding the recent sexual assault claim and other sexual harassment claims made against him?

Thank you, TheNewRight --TheNewRight (talk) 13:12, 4 May 2020 (EDT)

Great idea! Please create the new entry as you suggest.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2020 (EDT)

Locking my user page

This is not something I would usually ask, but I'd like to obtain the ability to lock and unlock my own user page as needed (per the vandalism history on my page). The reason I'm asking is because I'm getting frustrated with the continued vulgar vandalism of my page by the Juvenile Delinquent (the nickname I use for the young troll who uses sockpuppets with a variety of vulgar and foul variations of other editors' usernames to keep coming back to vandalize the site, so chosen because of his childishness, immaturity, lack of respect for authority and punkish behavior on the site) and I want to be able to lock/unlock my user page when necessary to keep the kid from constantly having his way here with his vandalism sprees. Northwest (talk) 08:21, 5 May 2020 (EDT)

That's good request, but I'm not sure the software permits it. Suggestions are welcome as to how to achieve this with WikiMedia software.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:26, 5 May 2020 (EDT)
From what I know, locking pages from editing would require either the "protect" or "Administrator" tag. --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 12:55, 5 May 2020 (EDT)
The lesser protection level, "Autoconfirmed" could be used to help reduce this, but as CP is currently configured, it seems that new users are either instantly autoconfirmed, or gain this tag very quickly. In the "local settings.php" file, the following variables can be used to configure this:
  • $wgAutoConfirmAge – Number of seconds an account is required to age before it's given the implicit 'autoconfirmed' group membership. (I suggest setting this to a fairly long time)
  • $wgAutoConfirmCount – Number of edits an account requires before it is autoconfirmed. (perhaps something like 20?)
Maybe these could be checked and perhaps adjusted, so that users are only autoconfirmed after making some number of edits? This way, we could autoprotect pages which really have no business being edited by junior editors, without causing problems for everyone else? I know it isn't exactly what is being requested here, but it might help. We could then add autoconfirm protection to Northwest's user page, so he can still edit it, but brand new user accounts cannot. --DavidB4 (TALK) 13:37, 5 May 2020 (EDT)
Going the autoconfirmed route (i.e. only being able to edit selected articles, user pages and user talk pages after a certain amount of time and edits) could do the job if it can be configured, that way it puts an end to that kid's continued nonsense (or at least slows him down enough to discourage him). Northwest (talk) 02:29, 6 May 2020 (EDT)
I'll try putting that protection level on your page with an expiration date, so we can try it. It he wants to troll you though, he will find other ways. Let me know if you want it changed or removed. --DavidB4 (TALK) 18:18, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
Maybe Andy can promote Northwest to "protect", "oversight", and "check user" abilities. That way, Northwest can edit his own user page even if it's protected, identify the IP addresses behind the vandal accounts and block the source, and even hide certain revisions from view if need be. --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 20:36, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
I just checked my user page and I'm still able to edit there, so that part's not an issue. As for a promotion to add those abilities, I think that'll be Andy's call to make. Northwest (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
About promotions, hopefully Andy might get to some of them soon. After all, I noticed that you were promoted to "edit" and "block" abilities before having made 1,000 edits, and I currently have over 2,000 edits. --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 22:10, 7 May 2020 (EDT)

Liberaltears, I set up your talk page in a way that will prevent vandalism to your talk page and I locked it.

You can see what I did at: User talk:Liberaltears.

If you didn't like what I did, you can get an admin to revert it.Conservative (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2020 (EDT)

I'm fine with what you did. Just wondering though, can you also set a protection on my main user page to "autoconfirmed"? --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 22:42, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
I just did your second request. The request about your user page.Conservative (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2020 (EDT)
Thank you Conservative! --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 21:46, 8 May 2020 (EDT)

Need help with editing

can someone help me find the confirmation number requested when editing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fremantle (talk)

Are you referring to a CAPTCHA? --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 21:57, 13 May 2020 (EDT)

Improvising a protected template

Hi Andy, I request a very specific edit to be made to Template:Infobox officeholder/Personal data, as it's protected and editing is limited to sysops. For the military service section, in the third line between {{!}} and {{!}} '''Military service''', I request colspan="2" {{WPMILHIST Infobox style|header_bar}} be replaced with !colspan="2" style="background:#E5CDFF". Thanks! --LiberaltearsJust say no to quid pro joe! | Free Roger Stone! 23:41, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

I unprotected it for you. Please edit as you think best.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:11, 17 May 2020 (EDT)
Okay, thank you Andy! --LiberaltearsJust say no to quid pro joe! | Free Roger Stone! 00:12, 17 May 2020 (EDT)

Piers Morgan vs. Dr. Fauci

Who's more believable? The Brit who lost a gun-control debate with Ben Shapiro? Or the doctor who runs our infectious disease institute? Piers Morgan cites the FDA as saying the malaria drug will kill you. Fauci's institute has just started a large clinical trial of it.

  • Some preliminary reports have suggested that hydroxychloroquine, alone or in combination with the FDA-approved antibiotic azithromycin, may benefit people with COVID-19.
  • Numerous clinical trials are planned or underway ...

I like journalism and journalists, but the fake media get get annoying from time to time. --Ed Poor Talk 12:17, 19 May 2020 (EDT)

Captcha

Can you remove the captcha from my account. User: Conservative requested that I ask you to do so for my account. Ethan Parmet (talk) 11:34, 27 May 2020 (EDT)

Please review

Your edit is incorrect - please review the article more closely as the mayors themselves say they got it wrong. JohnSelway (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2020 (EDT)

Oh. So they went out and arrested a few locals after they rounded up the prime movers. In real time, the reporting is accurate. RobSLive Free or Die 02:00, 31 May 2020 (EDT)
The edit is incorrect - as per the mayors stating as such. There not much to it. The article explicitly states that they mayors retracted their statements JohnSelway (talk) 02:04, 31 May 2020 (EDT)
Also Fox News confirms it. Edit to Conservapedia proven right should be reverted. JohnSelway (talk) 02:46, 31 May 2020 (EDT)
You're peeing in the wind, my friend. Bill Barr says it's true "in many places". RobSLive Free or Die 03:35, 31 May 2020 (EDT)
Your argument is a bogus as it gets. You're disputing the difference between "some" and "all" as the mayor initially said. "Some" doesn't make the statement any less true. Nowhere does he say "none". RobSLive Free or Die 03:41, 31 May 2020 (EDT)
I'm reminded how after a source for the Steele dossier told the FBI he lied to Steele, McCabe and Strzok told the court they interviewed the source and he apparently was telling the truth. So let's imagine for a moment a Democrat mayor releases an out-of-state terrorist for fear of catching Covid 19 in jail, then tells the press "we have no out-of-state rioters in custody", is he lying? You think this sounds far-fetched and crazy? You, in New Zealand, don't know these scum-sucking Democrat bosses, how they operate, or why they do the things they do. RobSLive Free or Die 03:49, 31 May 2020 (EDT)
And as to your Fox News source, just what the heck is this?
  • many of the more serious protesters are far-left or anarchists, without a significant appearance yet by far-right groups
"Yet." You call that news reporting? predicting the news? What happens when yet never happens? they gonna manufacture a "far-right group" to fulfill law enforcement and journalists' prophecy? RobSLive Free or Die 04:06, 31 May 2020 (EDT)

Userbox template creation request

Hi Andy, I request permission to create a userbox template titled "Template:Userbox-4" (as similar to Template:Userbox-2) to specifically be used for any userbox with four included images (two on each side). Thanks! --LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 23:48, 12 June 2020 (EDT)

Permission granted! Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2020 (EDT)
Thank you Andy! It will take some time, observing of other templates' source codes, critical thinking, and I'll aim at getting it done tomorrow! --LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 00:34, 13 June 2020 (EDT)
Wonderful!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2020 (EDT)
Alright, so I was able to create the template (here) with all the functions set properly, although I couldn't figure out a way to set a spacing between the 1a and 1b images and between the 2a and 2b images. However, it's not a big issue, as I currently only could think of this userbox to create and the outer spacing between the images and borders for it don't seem to be a huge problem. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 22:48, 13 June 2020 (EDT)
It looks fabulous. Well done!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2020 (EDT)
Thank you Andy! —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 12:25, 14 June 2020 (EDT)

Minor request regarding MPR

Hi Andy, I saw your MPR post and the graph included. Can you increase the size of the image by roughly ×1.6 so that viewers won't have to squint to see the text? Thanks! —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 00:08, 27 June 2020 (EDT)

Done as requested! Of course, any viewer could also simply click on or expand the chart to view in larger print.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:37, 27 June 2020 (EDT)
Thank you Andy! —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 11:43, 27 June 2020 (EDT)

Promote to SkipCaptcha for BernieandTrumpFan and TheAntiWikipedian?

Hi Andy, I request that BernieandTrumpFan and TheAntiWikipedian be promoted to SkipCaptcha tags for their good faith contributions to Conservapedia. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 18:49, 29 June 2020 (EDT)

Thanks for the suggestions! I'm reviewing some of their edits.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2020 (EDT)

Google can be changed

Not to boast, but I changed google.com so that when you enter the search terms "north korea last icbm test" it actually returns the bit I put in, at Wikipedia:

  • It has been 2 years since North Korea's last ICBM test.

Actually, they have a "years and months" template, so it's more precise. (Okay, I'm boasting a little bit. :-) --Ed Poor Talk 20:18, 2 July 2020 (EDT)

Wow, Ed, that's an impressive observation and use of a Wiki template!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:34, 2 July 2020 (EDT)

Page creation on Hydroxychloroquine denial

Hi Andy, what do you think about this page I created earlier today? Do you think there were any major details I forgot to add? Thanks! —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 23:23, 8 July 2020 (EDT)

Great idea. I'll add to it as I think of more.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2020 (EDT)
Awesome! And from what I've heard that could be very important info to add, there are probably a few more Democrat governors who had restricted access to or banned HCQ (because "orange man bad"), and the subject covered in this article by the Gateway Pundit also seems like something I could do some research on. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 21:21, 9 July 2020 (EDT)

Hi Andy. Is it possible to have rights for "night time?"

Hi Andy. I'm Nishant Xavier, a Catholic Christian Conservapedia Contributor. I write for OnePeterFive. For Conservapedia, I've written and contributed to articles from the Gospel of St. Matthew to the Augustinian Hypothesis through Messianic Prophesies to Josephus on Jesus and some political contributions like Conservapedia's unofficial predictions state-by-state for the November 2020 U.S. Presidential election based on polling. Since I'm a user from India, often it happens that the time when I would be free to contribute (1 PM to 8:30 PM my time) is the time when Conservapedia is locked for me. Is there any possible workaround this one thing alone? If I was able to contribute even in half the blocked time, I'm sure I would be able to double my productivity on the whole. It's a little difficult with it in place. But I understand if, because of vandalism, it has to remain so.

Please let me know. May Our Lord Jesus bless you.

Blessings, Nishant X.NishantXavierFor Christ the King

Hi NishantXavier, I believe you're referring to "edit" rights. If Andy sees this post, then I also hope I can be promoted with the "edit" tag as well. —Liberaltears

May Dataclarifier be well! 11:55, 9 July 2020 (EDT)

A while ago, I asked Andy about user rights here, but got no response. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 11:59, 9 July 2020 (EDT)
Both accounts were just promoted. Sorry for the oversight in not noticing your earlier request for this, Liberaltears!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2020 (EDT)
I've inquired more than once and been totally ignored every time. Shobson20 (talk) 02:17, 10 July 2020 (EDT)
Hi Shobson20, I do hope that Andy can promote you to "edit" rights sometime soon. You are fortunate to have "Block" abilities though, and were promoted to such around a year after you had created your account, similar to how my promotion yesterday iss around a year after when I had created mine. If it helps, I would personally think about how more great content can be added to CP here, contribute what you can, consider whether it's enough for promotion to a certain tag, and inquire if need be. You did seem to block over 100 trolls, which proves you're a very faithful, trustworthy editor here! —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 10:59, 10 July 2020 (EDT)
I had to be a squeaky wheel just to get block rights. Now I think Andy is intentionally playing favorties, he shows that he cares more about you than me. Andy, you're STILL ignoring me. Shobson20 (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2020 (EDT)
I'm all for opening up the wiki, but I've also seen people block 20 of their own sockpuppet accounts trying to earn brownie points, so I'm not sure how effective that sort of merit system is. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 12:23, 10 July 2020 (EDT)
If you want to talk merits, notice that NishantXavier has been promoted to edit after being here for less than a year, whereas I've been around since December of 2017, Made several essays to promote conservatism and Christianity, made contributions to the existing essays, and blocked many trolls who are definitely not me. I've inquired to Andy about edit right multiple times, have been completely ignored each time, and am STILL being ignored NOW. By contrast, NishantXavier inquires ONCE and gets promoted IMMEDIATELY. From a simple analytical standpoint, this is evidence that Andy is playing favorites. I used to think that maybe he was too busy to notice, but now I think he's deliberately treating others better than me. Shobson20 (talk) 12:35, 10 July 2020 (EDT)
I don't know if this would be helpful, Shobson20, but I whenever in the last few months when I had hoped for a promotion, it would help that I found a good page to create or update. Maybe you could start an essay, or create pages for some conservative pundits/commentators like Katie Pavlich, Liz Wheeler, etc.? —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 12:34, 10 July 2020 (EDT)
I don't know what the backstory is there. There evidently is mistrust between Andy and Shobson. I may have been inactive at that time. Let me point out, Shobson could've abandoned his account and created a sock account to smooth over a misunderstanding. His treatment, as he explains it, can create the impression of unfairness and actually encourage sockpuppetry. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 14:22, 10 July 2020 (EDT)
Just added edit privileges to Shobson20's account. Not sure what the holdup was due to. It was not intentional.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2020 (EDT)
I'm grateful for your action, and despite what LiberalTears may say, I'm not holding a grudge. I'll be perfectly willing to put this behind me if he'll stop bringing it up. Shobson20 (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2020 (EDT)
Thank you very much, Andy! —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 21:10, 9 July 2020 (EDT)

Yes, thanks so much, Andy! Thanks also for all your efforts through the years in making the Conservapedia the great Encyclopedia that it is. I'm sure as we all work together, CP will scale even greater heights in the years to come! Thanks and God Bless, Nishant X. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 01:37, 10 July 2020 (EDT)

Hope everyone is happy now. Let's all work together to make Conservapedia the hottest and most happening place on the internet in the next decade. Beating Wikipedia at its own game has to be the aim; it won't be easy, but it can be done. Above all, we have to attract many many more to our site. In the meanwhile, let us ask not what Conservapedia can do for us, but what we can do for Conservapedia! It's up to all of us to make this place greater still. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 01:22, 11 July 2020 (EDT)

Well said! Thank you.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2020 (EDT)

Project 100 Million

Hi Andy. One other thing. When I read Network211's Project 100 Million, I thought of a similar project for CP: ""Network211 indicates that as of September 2019, over 37,000,000 web visits have occured on their websites.[3] Network211 works with many Christians/churches throughout the world.

Network211 currently has a project called Project 100Million.

Project 100Million is an evangelism and discipleship ministry of Network211. Their goal is to reach 100,000,000 people worldwide with the Gospel online." https://www.conservapedia.com/Network211" I was thinking, couldn't Conservapedia have a similar 150 million people project right here? We have more hits on this site than they do on theirs; it would be a great way to get people involved; people from around the world could sign up and post their testimony on the project page; it would be a way we could help fulfil the Great Commission. What do you think of such a project? Shall I go ahead with starting a CP project page for it? NishantXavierFor Christ the King 23:02, 12 July 2020 (EDT)

Fascinating suggestion! Please start an entry here and let's see how it unfolds.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2020 (EDT)

Wow, Andy! So encouraged by your incredible enthusiasm. Wonderful. Just as you say, I will start the page on CP soon. I hope to have a plan like 15 by 2021, 150 by 2023, 1500 by 2025 etc culminating in 150 million by 2035. Many say that over the next 10 to 15 years, Internet Evangelism will be the most successful form of evangelism. Anyway, I'm very excited and can't wait to get started! May Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ mightily use this project for His Glory! At His leading, let us prayerfully see how we are to go about it. Lord Bless. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 00:31, 13 July 2020 (EDT)

Project Page Created

Hi Andy. Project page created: https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:150_Million_Souls_for_Christ_the_King Please review. Thanks again for your edifying enthusiasm on this. I created the page, added a plan, some statistics, and gave my own testimony. I encouraged others to sign up and share their testimony for Christ, or urge their friends to do the same. Please let me know for any more ideas/material to add to the ongoing project in time. God Bless. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 16:06, 14 July 2020 (EDT)

CP's clock isn't set right

I'm putting this in at 8:08 PM Central Time US/Canada. Shobson20 (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2020 (EDT)

Promote Mr. Nationalist to SkipCaptcha?

Hi Andy, can you consider promoting Mr. Nationalist to a SkipCaptcha tag, seeing that he's made some helpful copyedits on Conservapedia pages? Thanks! —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Thursday, 02:25, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

Promotions?

Hi Andy, I have several requests regarding user rights. Firstly, as previously mentioned here, did you ever thoroughly look through the contributions of BernieandTrumpFan and TheAntiWikipedian? Since you had promoted me and other users to SkipCaptcha before making many significant contributions, I think that these two users have shown the merit worthy of getting the tag. Also, can you please consider promoting BHathorn? According to here, he has made over 35,000 edits, nearly all of which are mainspace contributions. And finally, do you suppose I can get a "Block" and/or "Upload" tag? In regards to "Block" abilities, there were many times I was vigilant against vandals but couldn't block them. Also, I'm currently going to focus strongly on the 2020 congressional races, and with many images I want to add (a long list here), CP:IUR tends to be a very slow process. Thank you once again! —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Tuesday, 00:27, 4 August 2020 (EDT)

Can you consider granting BHathorn "move" privileges? I noticed several of his page creations to have encoded invisible characters in the URLs, and given several of his previous move requests on CP:IUR, I think it would be great if he's able to move page titles himself whenever he feels the need to. Thanks! —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Wednesday, 18:04, 5 August 2020 (EDT)

Hi again Andy, did you see this message earlier? I apologize if I sound too repetitive, though I just want to note that I spend around several hours every day adding important updates to CP pages right now, and at least getting upload rights would be much appreciated so that I can improvise a large number of pages. Thank you! —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Sunday, 18:15, 9 August 2020 (EDT)

"500 Internal Server Error" over and over again

This site works for about 5 minutes and then shows "500 Internal Server Error" for over an hour. Shobson20 (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2020 (EDT)

Tell me about it! I was trying to work on this page specifically with the table I added to the right of TOC; when I had started editing, the server was functioning fine. A few minutes later, the 500 ISE issue popped up. I probably had spent the next hour adding on to the table, and knew I was spending too much time at once looking at my computer screen. I really had wanted to take a break, but leaving would result in my work lost. I then kind of accidentally pressed the x-button on the tab, and unlike when the server functions normally, there was no warning pop-up, so all my progress got lost. I'll probably get back to that tomorrow, seeing the server errors as a real pain to deal with when trying to make large edits. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Friday, 20:54, 6 August 2020 (EDT)
Something else I noticed: CP pages don't appear to load normally; random boxes and cells pop up and quickly disappear in the process sometimes. Scrolling to the bottom of pages doesn't immediately take one to the bottom, and it takes a second or two to load properly. And I think these types of server problems may also be occurring on other wiki sites as well. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Friday, 21:01, 6 August 2020 (EDT)
I just had the same thing happen to me a few minutes ago while trying to look through some of the articles I edit. Note that it never seems to happen to Wikipedia or other wikis, which leads me to one conclusion, in four letters: D-D-O-S. Northwest (talk) 03:53, 7 August 2020 (EDT)
Actually, I saw a similar case happen to Wikipedia. When reading an article there with a giant chart, the loading was odd, just as the loading had been on Conservapedia here yesterday for a while. Maybe it's because the CCP and its cronies are probably boiling over of how truthful we are. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Friday, 13:58, 7 August 2020 (EDT)

Delete request

Hi Andy, it's not urgent, but when you get some free time, would you please delete this page? I'm not allowed to delete it, since there have been more than 25 edits to that page. We want it removed becuase the name included some blank (probably unicode) trailing characters in it. Thanks! --DavidB4 (TALK) 23:47, 8 August 2020 (EDT)

Done as requested!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2020 (EDT)
Thank you! --DavidB4 (TALK) 18:00, 9 August 2020 (EDT)