User talk:Aschlafly/Archive1

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search



How am I sarcastic? Sane Hey Mr.Schlafly, i cant upload any pictures, why is that? --Will N. 13:48, 4 March 2007 (EST)

Will, let's hold off on uploading pictures for a few days. I'm aware that feature is currently disabled. It will be restored in the future. In the meantime, let's work on improving and adding new entries. Thanks!--Aschlafly 14:33, 4 March 2007 (EST)

YO!! Mr. Schlafly, I can't upload any music from my band... I'm just wondering if I need my song in a special format, or if it is impossible to add songs to my bands web page and I'm wasting my time trying. User:Billy M

Not sure, Billy. We'll fix that but it will take a few days. Thanks.--Aschlafly 22:11, 6 March 2007 (EST)
Billy, for the time being Conservapedia does not support music files. It only supports images. I also wanted to add my own music to my userpage, but found that the Wiki software would not allow me to. I think we can enable the format so music can be uploaded. But that presents a problem, as it is much harder to screen a song than an image, if you know what I mean. --<<-David R->> 20:37, 9 March 2007 (EST)
Also, songs are enormous in comparison with images. PhilipB 20:45, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Block AmesG

I understand why you might have objected to some of AmesG edits. I am not going to comment on the first set of concerns. However, I would like to note my concern that part of the block reason was due to "misspelled Suetonious and failed to note that his work was after Christianity spread" As to the first matter, I see nowhere in the Conservapedia commandments that discusses blocks for making spelling mistakes. As to the second, I fail to see how that is factual error or blockworthy. I am puzzled by the a decision to block someone based on them not noting a relevant temporal detail. JoshuaZ 02:30, 27 February 2007 (EST)

Obviously AmesG was not blocked simply for misspelling a name. He had been blocked before and yet he continued to violate the rules with misleading and/or inappropriate edits that required reversion. That said, poor quality should also be an added basis for blocking in order to keep quality high.--Aschlafly 14:22, 27 February 2007 (EST)
I'm going to strongly disagree with the last matter, especially given how low the quality of most articles are anyways. For example, would having an article on relativity that doesn't distinguish between general and special relativity be blockable? Or the addition of the claim that real numbers can have infinite values? I don't think we want to go there. Incidentally, AmesG apparently wants to talk to you and would like me to give you his email address if you don't mind. JoshuaZ 16:26, 27 February 2007 (EST)
Joshua, does AmesG still want to return? I believe in second chances. But we do have good rules here.--Aschlafly 15:58, 5 March 2007 (EST)
My impression is that the user does wish to return. JoshuaZ 17:08, 5 March 2007 (EST)
OK, Joshua, at your request I've unblocked AmesG. But please tell him not to post anti-Christian material in violation of the rules, and to maintain high quality in his postings. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.--Aschlafly 17:16, 5 March 2007 (EST)


What is the method by which new editors can register now? It appears that the registration option at the login is disabled and I can find no obvious instructions to potential users regarding this. JoshuaZ 03:17, 27 February 2007 (EST)

We will reopen to new users once we complete an upgrade to faster speed and make sure we can comfortably handle the vandals. Thanks for your patience.--Aschlafly 14:22, 27 February 2007 (EST)
I would suggest putting a note to that effect on the main page or on the login page so potential users no why they can't create new accounts at the moment. JoshuaZ 02:40, 28 February 2007 (EST)
Especially given how much publicity you are getting, letting people know why they can't register would be very good. You most likely will not have as much interest in a few weeks as you have now. It might alternatively make sense to let people register now, but only by sending you an email. This would screen out most of the more blatant vandals and such. JoshuaZ 16:15, 28 February 2007 (EST)
Maybe we should start preparing for another "open enrollment" period.--Aschlafly 15:58, 5 March 2007 (EST)
I would do this ASAP, this initial burst of publicity may be the best you are going to get in a while and it seems to be dropping off. At minimum, it would be useful to have on the login page some way of describing how people can get in touch with you to get an account. JoshuaZ 17:08, 5 March 2007 (EST)
A number of forums seem to be having people who want to register but do not know how. At minimum, an explanation of why they can't currently register might be in order. JoshuaZ 23:30, 5 March 2007 (EST)

A word about the rollback tool.

You mentioned on the Examples of Bias page that "reverting" doesn't leave an edit summary. That's because the tool you are using to revert (often called the "rollback" button) is designed to be a quick way of dealing with obvious vandalism and such (and for technical reasons, it also takes less bandwith and server time than manually reverting). To revert while leaving in an edit summary, the best thing to do is to go to the history, click on the version you want to revert to, click on edit and then put in your edit summary. (Also, on a number of other projects, such as Wikipedia, use of the rollback tool on regular editors is considered to be rude, since it has an implication that the edit was so wrong that a summary was unnecessary). JoshuaZ 14:54, 1 March 2007 (EST)

Billy Bob

I don't know what to make of BillyBob. His talk page seems like a bunch of nonsense. So I googled his name; he may be a real person. I sense some sarcasm in his page. I don't know. Any thoughts? --<<-David R->> 20:16, 1 March 2007 (EST)

He specially requested an account by email and we complied. His name seems reasonable, unlike many user ids for the vandals. So let's give him a chance, but watch his entries.--Aschlafly 23:55, 1 March 2007 (EST)


Do you need more Sysops? Also you may want to archive parts of this page Geo. 13:40, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Thanks for the suggestion. I just cleaned this up by deleting old info. We are looking for more SYSOPs and I'll recommend your name to the other current SYSOPs who would help make this decision.--Aschlafly 15:58, 5 March 2007 (EST)
I created a {{stub}} template. This tells readers that the article has problems and invites them to fix it. It also adds articles to a category so a regular editor can improve what has been tagged. Feel free to delete it if you don't see a need for it, it is a suggestion. Geo. 21:31, 5 March 2007 (EST)
Interesting! Sounds like a great idea!--Aschlafly 21:35, 5 March 2007 (EST)
Good, you approve, I have started tagging articles. They should appear in Category:Articles needing major improvements. Geo. 23:45, 5 March 2007 (EST)
Just out of curiosity, how long do you think the decision process will take? Geo. 01:22, 6 March 2007 (EST)
This won't take long. A day or two, perhaps. Remind me if necessary. It would help to know what you plan to do with the SYSOP privileges that you cannot do now. At this time we don't have a need to block many vandals, though when we reopen registration we will!--Aschlafly 01:39, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I replied to your recent email to my hotmail account

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

I replied to your recent email to my hotmail account. Conservative 18:13, 5 March 2007 (EST)conservative

AP and SAT Subject Test Prep Books for World History and Economics

Hi Mr. Schlafly!! I am starting to think about what review books I should get for AP World History, AP Macroeconomics, AP Microeconomics, and SAT World History. Do you have any books that you would recommend based on experiences of past students in your courses? Thanks. --Kevin51292 21:09, 5 March 2007 (EST)

REPLY: Good question, Kevin. I'm not aware of a clearcut superior choice for review books. I'd encourage you to take a look through whatever the bookstore has, and buy one with the format you like best. Our World History class was the first of that specific subject that I've taught, so I don't have a prior experience. On economics, you'd need to do extra work to cover "Macroeconomics", because we're mostly covering "Microeconomics" now. By the way, the AP exams on economics seem quirky. Top students, both inside and outside my class, received a "4" when they expected to receive a top score of "5".--Aschlafly 21:40, 5 March 2007 (EST) and other question

I read from a gentleman who is conversant with the creation-evolution debate the following regarding a pro-evolutionist website: "At Talk.Origins you will be fortunate to find 1 scholarly article out of every 50." [1] Sadly, I found this to be true. I looked at the site and found they misquoted the scientific literature. Many evolutionists who uncritically follow evolutionary ideas or who are fanatical evolutionists promote the website and I have noticed two postings at Conservapedia that promoted the website. Do you want material removed from Conservapedia? And if the offenders persist block them? I blocked one promoter already because he was warned about poor edits before. I banned him for two weeks.

Lastly, what actions do you want to see taken from those who promote the evolutionary view at Conservapedia? Conservative 21:45, 5 March 2007 (EST)conservative

I don't want to censor anything here except things like obscenity, speculation, gossip, poor quality, etc. If it's factual, then the proper response is to rebut it with other facts. So I wouldn't ban any website automatically if it has some factual merit. Instead, let's point the errors, or remove the citation if it does not support the point.--Aschlafly 21:50, 5 March 2007 (EST) is poor quality. I believe the claim that 1 out of 50 articles of their articles is scholarly is correct. So what do you want done for mere links to TalkOrigins in the external links sections? Also, if you would induldge me please read this article about TalkOrigins: Talk.Origins: Deception by Omission by Jorge A. Fernandez Lastly, do you want me to unblock the person I blocked that was warned about poor edits before (he added the link). Conservative 22:03, 5 March 2007 (EST)conservative
Wait, you blocked someone with no warning because they added links to a website you don't like? Did I understand that correctly? I presume you mean Reason whom you blocked for just this edit. Conservative, you shouldn't just block people who make edits you don't personally like, and blocking people for putting a link in with no warning at all is just... wow. JoshuaZ 22:05, 5 March 2007 (EST)
I have to agree with JoshuaZ on the point of blocking because of bad references. If the user references a site that doesn't support his edit, then you delete the reference, state that citation is still required, and notify the user that his edit was not supported by the reference he gave. But ,in this case, it sounds as if the user had already proved himself harmful to the website. Was he speculative in his edits? Were they poor quality edits? If so, blocking would have been appropriate. --<<-David R->> 22:20, 5 March 2007 (EST)
David, although the editor made a subsequent edit that Andrew warned him for, Conservative blocked the editor for his first edit which was merely to ad a relevant external link. Furthermore, the editor had other productive edits in between when he added the link and when Conservative blocked him. JoshuaZ 22:23, 5 March 2007 (EST)


A user has been posting pages from CreationWiki. Should we allow that? or should we create our own material. I have no opinion on this at the moment. just asking. --TimSvendsen 23:36, 5 March 2007 (EST)

I think we should make a deal with CreationWiki. There is a lot of good material created at CreationWiki. I would suggest contacting Chris Ashcroft at CreationWiki and his user page at CreationWiki is located here: Conservative 23:55, 5 March 2007 (EST)conservative
Since CreationWiki is under the GFDL the only way to do so and not break copyright laws would be to put our content under the GFDL. Andrew has expressed strong reservations about this in the past. However, at present one thing is certain- the use of GFDL content here is a copyright violation as long as Andrew wants to have Conservapedia retain control of the content. JoshuaZ 23:57, 5 March 2007 (EST)
I don't know what to say about this. I do have serious reservations in addition to Joshua's point. I'd like the SYSOPs and active editors to recommend something here. I'll posting something on the person's talk page who is doing this.--Aschlafly 00:22, 6 March 2007 (EST)
Copyright issues aside, I'd say that wholesale copying is a) unnecessary, and b) lazy. Copying from a wiki is worse, since there's always some distance between the material and the source. Copying from CreationWiki would be worse still.
In general, I think it would be wise to use wikis as a good way to find sources, rather than for the material they distill from those sources. Decreases the chances of inheriting the bias of unknown editors. Tsumetai 05:56, 6 March 2007 (EST)
I have found that the Senior Admin from CreationWiki Chris Ashcroft is a very strict Admin. I think he helps insure that the quality of CreationWiki is much higher than Wikipedia. Conservative 15:12, 6 March 2007 (EST)conservative
If you can find any physics this bad on Wikipedia, I'll eat my hat. Tsumetai 15:32, 6 March 2007 (EST)
If Conservapedia wants to keep tight control over its content, then the various templates that govern the boilerplate e.g. under edit boxes should be edited to say that all contributions become the property of Conservapedia, or whatever the right legalese is, and it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to something like "Copyright ©2007 Conservapedia, all rights reserved" at the bottom of every page, regardless of whether or not such a note has any effect at all on the legal reality.
I personally have assumed that what I contribute to Conservapedia is owned by Conservapedia because there's no notice to the contrary. This could, however, be a touchy issue for contributors familiar with Wikipedia who may assume that their freely donated contributions are being made free for re-use. The GFDL motivates some Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia calls itself a "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" where free means free for re-use, and that's important to some people. Dpbsmith 16:22, 6 March 2007 (EST)
There won't be any obnoxious attempts to enforce copyrights by Conservapedia. It's difficult to say that all copying is welcome, however, because there may be rare instances where the copying is a misuse. Wikipedia places limits on copying of its material, presumably for similar reasons. But those instances of limitation on copying would be rare. That said, there is little point in wholesale copying of material from another Wiki into Conservapedia. What would that accomplish? Let's try to be original here.--Aschlafly 17:11, 6 March 2007 (EST)
In regard to the statement that "there won't be any obnoxious attempts to enforce copyrights by Conservapedia" let me make it clear that if the site knowling violates the GFDL or engages in any other knowing serious copyright violations I will not be able to contribute in good conscience. JoshuaZ 17:15, 6 March 2007 (EST)

<reduce indent> Joshua, I read that as meaning that Conservapedia won't be chasing down people for copying material from here, as long as it's not particularly egregious. Tsumetai 17:17, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Right, Tsumetai explained what I meant to say. Thanks, Tsumetai. Of course we'll respect all copyrights asserted by others. As I said, I'd prefer that we don't copy anything at all!--Aschlafly 17:20, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Reverted edit of AmesG

May I inquire why you reverted this edit. It seems accurate. JoshuaZ 11:35, 6 March 2007 (EST)

It's not accurate. Did you see the lack of support? That's because there is no support. The Catholic Church prohibits teaching anything contrary to one father, Adam. The theory of evolution is contrary to that. Case closed.--Aschlafly 12:06, 6 March 2007 (EST)

That's not true a) it was sourced to the NYT article (which I suggest you read). Furthermore, I could easily give more sources. For example, see [2], [3](John Paul II's writing), [4] among others. JoshuaZ 12:12, 6 March 2007 (EST)
These citations do not provide authority for the claim. Quote something specifically if you think it does. It doesn't.
We're not going to allow claims based on citations to biased journalists or other sources that do not provide authority for the claim. Such practice is rampant on Wikipedia, and improper.--Aschlafly 12:20, 6 March 2007 (EST)
Um, you might want to maybe consider that maybe just maybe, occasionally, journalists opinions have some basis in fact. In any event, the second source given is John Paull II and in that source he said that "In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points." John Paull then goes on to say that "Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis". Additional evidence and sourcing include [5] [6] (which while both journalists are both (I think) officially affiliated with the Church ). JoshuaZ 12:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)
Journalists' opinions are not facts. Also, journalists are not generally authorities. They report what authorities say. Wikipedia editors do not seem to grasp that. Maybe you can let them know and improve Wikipedia on this. Perhaps I should make it another example of bias in Wikipedia.
Your quotes do not support the claims, not by a long shot. Also, your second quote of John Paul II is not the official English translation.--Aschlafly 13:45, 6 March 2007 (EST)
Journalists fact check and have their material looked over by editors and such. I don't see how you can get much better than that especially about essentially factual issues. I'm also puzzled by your refusal to allow using journalists as sources while you have asked another user "Can you put this material in your own words and cite the Creation Wiki as references" - If major journalists at the NYT or the Wall Street Journal are not citable, I fail to see why a small project run by mainly random pseudonymous people is a valid source.
To the second point, I can give you many other translations that are nearly identical, such as this one, or see discussion at this official Vatican document. I furthermore fail to see how "Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation" is not in conflict with your claim that "The Catholic Church prohibits teaching anything contrary to one father, Adam. The theory of evolution is contrary to that." More to the point, see this official vatican source which says "While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens." JoshuaZ 13:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)
Hi Andrew, just wondering if you've looked at the official vatianc documents above in any more detail. JoshuaZ 14:45, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Keeping momentum and gaining more Sysops

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

I agree with JoshuaZ that you should capitalize on the current momentum that Conservapedia is currently having.

Here is my suggestion:

Since the #1 problem that Conservapedia is currently having is liberal vandalism/parody to the Conservapedia site, I would suggest looking at the edits of the Wikipedia conservative editors and based on their edits at Wikipedia invite them to become editors/SYSOPS at Conservapedia. Having additional SYSOPS would enable you to open registration to the site via the Conservapedia home page. Here is a list of the conservative editors at Wikipedia: Conservative editors at Wikipedia

What do you think of my suggestion? Conservative 15:07, 6 March 2007 (EST)conservative

We will have open registration again soon, probably during certain time periods. I'm fine with inviting editors from Wikipedia to come on over to a real encyclopedia project! Those who then have high quality edits can be invited to be SYSOPs. Not all our SYSOPs have to be conservative, by the way, but we are looking for those who are compatible with our rules or goals here.--Aschlafly 16:04, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Admin status

I'd like admin status so I can deal with the near-constant onslaught of liberal bias at Intelligent design. What steps do I need to follow to get promoted? Harpie snark 17:02, 6 March 2007 (EST)

A Question

I was wondering if I'd be able to make pages about music. Bands, composers(If I can find the information somewhere), music itself. That kind of thing. I know it's not necessarily important information, but there are some people who want to go find that information and not find someone's personal opinion about a certain band or composer or music genre. I consider myself somewhat of a "music freak" and would like to be able to help in some way to contribute to and expand the site. I also realize that there are many people who would appreciate an unbiased source for information on music.

I just figured I'd ask before doing so just so that I wouldn't end up making the pages just to see them deleted.

Just a thought, music is relevant too. I happen to know several people(a good portion of them conservatives) like to use it for several projects in college. I'm sure they'd enjoy a site with factual information on music. I could even start with a page on Alice Cooper, who happens to be one of my favourite famous conservative musicians.

Yes, please do. We did have someone (a student of mine) who posted guitar hand positions for Beatles' tunes, and though I liked it the other SYSOPs (mostly other students) insisted on deleting it. Yours seems more informative and should be a good addition to this site.
Some entries about "conservative songs" would also be most welcome. I've been planning to do that but am looking for way to do it so it isn't just pure opinion.
Also, we'd like to make you a SYSOP to help handle the upcoming invasion of vandals when we reopen registration for limited time periods. If you do not object then I will go ahead and convert you to SYSOP status. (One experienced editor (and admin on Wikipedia) did politely decline an offer of becoming a SYSOP here, even though it does not entail any responsibilities.)--Aschlafly 18:52, 6 March 2007 (EST)
I will try my best. Thank you.--TheTruth 18:56, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Thanks.--TheTruth 18:41, 6 March 2007

Why DID you revert my Creationism edit?

JoshuaZ, thank you for standing up for my edit to "Creationism." Aschlafly, I have to ask you, why do you censor clearly objective facts such as the fact that the Catholic Church did support evolution for up to 50 years, with only *some* question during the reign of the new pope Benedict XVI? Again JoshuaZ, I appreciate your cites to JStor, etc., and Aschlafly, if you're unconvinced by either this, my New York Times cite, or both, I hear you're a lawyer, based on your Lexis account. Then, go to the "News, Last Two Years" search screen in "News & Business" on Lexis. Enter "benedict w/s creationism" or "cathol! w/s creation!" and you'll get the full story from as many sources as you want.

I've spent hours and hours researching and debating this. I'm not going to redo all the work, though I will post material relating to the Humani Generis here. The bottom line is this: Catholic doctrine prohibits teaching anything contrary to one father of all humans, Adam. Evolution is contrary to that. Period. Any claims to the contrary are presumptively wrong, and must have specific authoritarian quotes backing up the specific claims. Not merely journalists' opinions.--Aschlafly 19:37, 6 March 2007 (EST)
Two points- first evolution is not contrary there being one father for all humans, and second how do you explain the quotes above from the official vatican websites? JoshuaZ 19:46, 6 March 2007 (EST)
Joshua, I'm not going to spend all day and all night debating evolution. The theory of evolution does teach that populations, not individuals evolve, and that there was not one father. But I'm not going to debate this further with you. The quotes and links did not support the claims made. If someone is going to claim that the Catholic Church, or any religion, supports evolution, then the quotes have to be airtight. They just aren't, so the claim cannot be made. (The claim is disingenuous anyway, most likely being made by people who reject Catholic doctrine.) Case closed.--Aschlafly 19:53, 6 March 2007 (EST)
Seriously, cite something. Go ahead.

i think your name is suspicious. i suspect that you are actually a liberal. - Iamneverwrong.

I'm afraid you're not being true to you're name, because you're wrong. :-)
My name is AmesG... how does that make me a liberal?
No one said that makes you a liberal, AmesG. But try applying for a job or admission to a school with the name "Iamneverwrong" and see how far it gets you.--Aschlafly 19:37, 6 March 2007 (EST)
Iamneverwrong isn't me, Asch. It's some red-tagged user of yours.
I didn't ever think it was you.--Aschlafly 22:54, 6 March 2007 (EST)

External links and conservapedia's Policy. What is the policy?

I realize now what the mission of conservapedia may perhaps be. I may be wrong but it seems as if you want the central thrust to be neither liberal or conservative. You want it to be factually based and let the chips fall where they may. I say this because you said something about not being opposed to liberal SYSOPS/Admins.

With that in mind, what is the policy regarding external links? When you simply put a link down you are not making a factual claim but are merely encouraging Conservapedia readers to read the links contents. However, the links may be filled with factual inaccuracies or opinions parading as facts. This would seem to defeat the stated purpose of Conservapedia.

I am asking your policy on links because certain Conservapedians are putting links and I have found that this website misrepresents what the actual scientific literature states. For example, a scientist will say "may" and use scholarly caution but TalkOrigins will not state that the scientist is merely speculating and use the citation to support a "fact". Here is Walter Remine author of the book called The Biotic Message (a creationist book) stating that TalkOrigins misrepresented his material by commission and by omission: Walter Remine stating that TalkOrigins misrepresented his material by commission and by omission

So what is your policy specifically regarding links and external links in general? By the way, do you want me to reverse the block of user "Reason" who I blocked for putting in a which I thought was not factually based in all too many cases. User "Reason" was warned earlier about poor edits by the Conservapedia leadership. Conservative 19:27, 6 March 2007 (EST)conservative

Don't know about Reason. I don't recall seeing much by him here. But the issue of links is something no one has addressed here yet. Your input is valuable. I don't have the answer. At a minimum, some disclosure about a highly biased link would help. But were not here to hide things. The conservative view thrives in free speech. Maybe an entry entitled "talk_origins" would address your good points.
I am personally using the reputable test. Geo. 20:44, 6 March 2007 (EST)
Meaning? Also keep in mind that TOA has been looked at very positively from the general scientific community. For example, Scientific American specifically recommended it. JoshuaZ 20:50, 6 March 2007 (EST)


Please see User:Whatter. I believe it meets the definition of obscenity and will block this user accordingly, but want to get a second opinion first. Geo. 19:41, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I don't know about that one. I cleaned his page (which you should always feel free to do). This seems borderline but in the case of obscenity, I err on the side of blocking. Your call whether to block him. I think his edits have been typically intelligent. He hasn't been around for a week anyway.--Aschlafly 19:53, 6 March 2007 (EST)
I blocked him for only 1 month. This takes into account the fact that he appears to not be recalcitrant, while sending a anti obscenity message. Geo. 20:41, 6 March 2007 (EST)
Good decision. Thanks.--Aschlafly 21:03, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Thanks and a Checkuser question

Thanks for the vote of confidence. Until registration reopens, I will probably make sure 'the hatches are battened down' and clean out garbage and copyright violations. Maybe this wiki doesn't have Checkuser, but if it does you may need to utilize it when registration reopens. Also, is there a timeframe on when registration reopens? Again many thanks. Geo. 15:52, 6 March 2007 (EST)
If you are enabling some form of checkuser, I suggest you make an assurance to user's concerned about their privacy that you will use it only in very limited circumstances. JoshuaZ 21:12, 6 March 2007 (EST)
It may reopen for a brief period tonight. Our computer expert has the go-ahead to do so. What's a checkuser? Sounds like it may help here. I did just take a snapshot of our user list so I could see who will be new.--Aschlafly 21:22, 6 March 2007 (EST)
Checkuser is an option that allows one to recognize what IP addresses someone is using as well as related information. I don't know how much of it is actually WikiMedia based and how much is server based. On the projects that do have it, it is generally regarded as something that needs to be handled very carefully since it can result in major privacy violations. JoshuaZ 21:28, 6 March 2007 (EST)
I doubt that would help much here. When a user is blocked, his IP address is blocked also, I think. Knowing what his IP is doesn't add much. Where Wiki software could be improved is in allowing an intermediate level of registration between open registration and closed registration. A brief period for chatting, for example, would be nice. Or limits on what new users can do, with the limits lifted after there is some observation.--Aschlafly 21:37, 6 March 2007 (EST)
You may want to see if the version of WikiMedia you are using allows for semi-protection which can help restrict what new users are capable of. Also, the real point of checkuser is not for simple blocking but to deal with subtle sockpuppetry. JoshuaZ 22:49, 6 March 2007 (EST)


The open window seems to have worked. I had to warn a few people, but I have not blocked anyone yet. Geo. 23:21, 6 March 2007 (EST)

What an incredible influx of new users!! They were entering at almost 2 new users per minute! I think the registration is being disabled for the night now. But there are about 150 new users, and it's growing until it is actually disabled in the system. Thanks for your help in watching.--Aschlafly 23:27, 6 March 2007 (EST)
A lot of productive edits are being made, but the night isn't over. Geo. 23:39, 6 March 2007 (EST)
I'm keeping a special eye on Ala Sinistra. His name is Italian for "left wing". MountainDew 23:43, 6 March 2007 (EST)
Good catch! I wouldn't have known that. There is tremendous interest in this from outside the United States, by the way. The BBC (radio) in London is about to interview me in 15 minutes. Germany is the highest in terms of country of origin among those outside the U.S.--Aschlafly 23:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)
I have to admit that I put that into a translator. In any event, good luck with the interview! That's a lot of publicity right there. MountainDew 23:52, 6 March 2007 (EST)
All right publicity! Geo. 00
29, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Regarding my user Premisebeach blocking, please give me some feedback Mr. Schafly

I blocked the user Premisebeach for an infinite amount of time. I thought his wholesale deletion and revision of the dinosaur article which had many respectable citations to some very brief pro-evolution article that made a dig to Bible believers who are more literal in their Bible exegesis was rude.

Here was his article at Dinosaur:



1. Any of various extinct, often gigantic, carnivorous or herbivorous reptiles of the orders Saurischia and Ornithischia that were chiefly terrestrial and existed during the Mesozoic Era. 2. A relic of the past: "living dinosaurs of the world of vegetation" (John Olmsted). 3. One that is hopelessly outmoded or unwieldy: "Anyone who interprets the bible literally is a dinosaur" (Peggy Breault). [7]

Please let me know if you feel I am being heavy handed. I am flexible and can adjust to your advice regarding my blocks. Conservative 23:44, 6 March 2007 (EST)conservative

Your block was perfectly appropriate. Thanks much!--Aschlafly 23:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)
The guy was a jerk. It turns out he misquotes a dictionary. [8] Conservative 23:53, 6 March 2007 (EST)conservative


Here I am! I'd like to be an administrator (or an editor that works too). edits on Conservapedia haven't been very frequent but as an administrator I'm sure I'd be on Conservapedia alot more! -Working for Him 23:55, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Excuse me. I believe you offered me a position as an editor this Tuesday evening but you discontinued our cconversation. Is there something wrong? -Working for Him 23:46, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Working for Him, the harvest is plentiful and the workers are few. But you haven't contributed a single new entry yet, and only improved a tiny few. How about contributing a few dozen good entries and then moving to the higher level?--Aschlafly 00:10, 9 March 2007 (EST)


Any reason typing "Mexico" in the search bar redirects to a page called "404.shtml"? I can't even access a page called "Mexico", and I'd like to create it. --Hojimachong 00:21, 7 March 2007 (EST)

The page exists, but for some reason it just says 404.shtml. You should be able to still edit it. MountainDew 00:29, 7 March 2007 (EST)

I did, but it's mistitled, which is wierd. --Hojimachong 00:32, 7 March 2007 (EST)
I see what you mean. I've never seen that before. I'll report the error right away. If you prefer, you could do your edits under something like "United Mexican States" and we could redirect the page to Mexico later.--Aschlafly 00:38, 7 March 2007 (EST)
Geo fixed it :D. --Hojimachong 00:46, 7 March 2007 (EST)
I didn't fix it, I just created a link to an alternate page. Geo. 00:50, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Re:Oedipus Rex

I am pretty sure, because their only contribution was a picture of Lou Gehrig, if I did not see an edit, i will reinstate the block. Geo. 00:50, 7 March 2007 (EST)

I don't think deleted pages show up on their "user contributions" page. So I don't think you've seen (or I've seen) the entry by this new user that triggered the block.
I think some respect for the decisions of fellow SYSOPs, particularly in a blocking decision based on obscenity, is desirable. The block can always be undone after the SYSOPs confer. But if a block is undone prematurely, the result can be an influx of obscenity that is very undesirable.--Aschlafly 00:57, 7 March 2007 (EST)
Okay, I acted too hastily. I will reinstate the block. This is because I just had to change Korona's block to 1 year because of an invisible obscene article. My apologies for you having to waste your time. Geo. 01:08, 7 March 2007 (EST)
No problem at all. I'm a bit confused myself in trying to track deleted pages. It's hard under Wiki software, but maybe for good reason. After all, deletion is supposed to get rid of something.
By the way, thanks so much for fixing the "Mexico" problem. I was completely baffled by it. The user was very appreciative of your effort, rightly so.--Aschlafly 01:16, 7 March 2007 (EST)
Thanks for this, I wanted to delete it, but was afraid I would be violating something :\. --Hojimachong 02:01, 7 March 2007 (EST)
Mexico still goes to that page. i will try deleting it though. Geo. 02:07, 7 March 2007 (EST)
Deletion didn't work. Summon the techs! Geo. 02:10, 7 March 2007 (EST)
I think Hojimachong said it was working. If not, we'll get the techs on this ASAP. Thanks--Aschlafly 02:31, 7 March 2007 (EST)

An attempted hack?

Sir, I've just received the most troubling series of e-mails I ever saw. All were in the form of "password reminders" that I swear to you I never requested.

They all hit my inbox at 2:34 am EST this morning. All of them took this form:

Someone (probably you, from IP address
requested that we send you a new password for Conservapedia (
The password for user "TerryH" is now "(censored)".
You should log in and change your password now.

If someone else made this request or if you have remembered your password and
you no longer wish to change it, you may ignore this message and continue using
your old password.

I've done better than that. I have logged in--my old password was still good--and changed my password again, using my own password-generating software.

Andy, this is very serious. I am hot and heavy in a number of debates with certain people, concerning the content of my contributions and the ideal direction of the entire project. In the middle of this I get these e-mails asking for password reminders when I know I never sent them--and that's not even the IP for my Internet connection, nor even on my ISP's network!

The only possible alternative explanation is this: I tried to use the "E-mail password" button to create a new account. But that was last week, and I was trying to use a different account name to create an account. Since then, you granted me access under my current username. I have never requested an e-mailed password since.

The passwords all have this in common: they are random collections of numerals and letters (both UPPERCASE and lowercase) and are each seven characters long.

I request an immediate investigation. I have all five incriminating e-mails, which I will store for safekeeping. I would like you to e-mail me in private regarding this matter, so that I may forward the e-mails to you as attachments. In the alternative, I will make any attempt to trace this down that you see fit to advise me to make.


TerryH 09:42, 7 March 2007 (EST)

PS: Let me give in passing my recommendation on passwords. Random combinations of letters and numbers aren't strong enough. Passwords ought to contain special characters and be at least thirteen characters long. Such, my algorithms inform me, are the requirements for a 100% safe and nearly-impossible-to-crack password.--TerryH 09:42, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Terry, what this is caused by is someone at the IP address repeatedly saying that they are you and have forgotten their password. The probability that one can break into an account using this method is close to zero (since at any point the only passwords active are the original password and the most recetn emailed password). Thus, this acts more as an annoyance than an actual security threat. Nevertheless it may be a good to block the IP from accessing the servers and consider reporting the IP to its ISP.JoshuaZ 10:00, 7 March 2007 (EST)
Right, Joshua. This morning, a SYSOP has already blocked the IP address based on Terry's message. Thanks.--Aschlafly 10:03, 7 March 2007 (EST)
Several minutes before Terry's message, it seems. Now that's efficiency. Tsumetai 10:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)
I got 10 copies of the same Email giving me different passwords, so I blocked it. --TimSvendsen 10:09, 7 March 2007 (EST)

I got 5... This dude was really busy. --BenjaminS 14:12, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Interesting. On the alphabetical list of users, there are only 15 accounts between yours and Terry's. Wonder if you two were specifically targeted as active users, or whether it was an automated effort. Anyone else affected? Tsumetai 10:17, 7 March 2007 (EST)
On or two others saw this just after the last open registration, and we blocked the offending IP addresses then also and it stopped.--Aschlafly 10:20, 7 March 2007 (EST)
It sounds rather that Tim and I were targeted as not only unusually active users but also conservative users. I think someone was trying to embarrass one or both of us by publishing God knows what--smut, vulgarity, or libel, perhaps--in one or both our names. But you ask a good question--whether anyone else was similarly affected.
I'd like to comment on Joshua's point: if the only passwords active are the original password and the most recent e-mailed one, then why couldn't someone having the username and a new password get in that way? Or was it that they couldn't hack my e-mail account and therefore they never got my password? (I protect my e-mail account with one of those super-duper passwords, too.)
Sportsfans, Jesus says that when people pull this kind of stuff on you, you know you're doing something right. Saint Paul said it, too.--TerryH 10:26, 7 March 2007 (EST)
Correct Terry, without access to the email it doesn't help matters much. That's why this is more of a harrassement tactic than a serious security threat. I'm not sure that you want to make the argument that this shows one is doing anything right though since admins on Wikipedia get this sort of thing routinely(I've gotten it at least 3 or 4 times). JoshuaZ 14:18, 7 March 2007 (EST)
TerryH, you probably were targeted because someone didn't like what your conservative comments. The other targets (including me) fall into the same category. It's a sign you're doing something right and meaningful. But no one can hack into your account that way because the email only comes to you. So you need not be concerned. And, by the way, I think such hacking attempts are illegal. Thanks.--Aschlafly 10:34, 7 March 2007 (EST)
And I thank you for the assurance. It sounds right--and I am down on my knees right now, thanking God for granting me the good sense to be such a stickler for the security of my accounts. (FYI, I don't even maintain the same password for any two accounts--I have literally hundreds of different passwords for my accounts on on-line forums, merchants, and the like.)
How do you keep track of them all? Do you remember them all? I've never been able to figure out a way, other than memory, that doesn't pose more security risks than re-using passwords. Dpbsmith 12:16, 7 March 2007 (EST)
All the same, I respectfully recommend that every user so affected, change his password right now as I changed mine--and that all users consider my suggestions on how to make safe and uncrackable passwords.--TerryH 10:40, 7 March 2007 (EST)

I've received a number of these myself. Reverse IP lookups yield bizarre results; one was from the Netherlands; some recent ones were from the 216.211 range which is from The City of Thunder Bay. I'm not in the Netherlands and I don't even know offhand where Thunder Bay is. (Click, click... oh, it's in Canada). I find them troubling, too. I'm not too worried because, as you say, the email is sent to me; and, well, it would be embarrassing if someone were to hijack my Conservapedia account, but it's not exactly the same as if someone got into my banking account.

It's a good thing MediaWiki doesn't actually disable the old password, or these would be a significant nuisance.

I think it should be a concern, however. I don't believe these are personally directed at me, I think they're from someone trying to make trouble for Conservapedia in general. Dpbsmith 12:01, 7 March 2007 (EST)

I also got these messages this morning. This is actually the second time this has happened. I'm not sure how this could actually be effective if it were a password grab attempt. MountainDew 14:14, 7 March 2007 (EST)

From a technical/PW-grabbing point of view it's not at all effective. It does not accomplish anything accept annoy the person who has their PW reset. PhilipB 14:30, 7 March 2007 (EST)
The Wiki software used/configured here doesn't "reset" the password, fortunately. It emails you an additional password which you can use to log in and set a new password yourself if you've forgotten your old one. Dpbsmith 16:16, 7 March 2007 (EST)
I got eight of these beauties. I think someone is trying to harass the Sysops. Geo. 19:19, 7 March 2007 (EST)
Unlikely, all Wikis get this. It is more likely that someone is just poking around various wikis and since this one has become recently prominent in the news it is getting hit now. JoshuaZ 19:50, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Rudy Giuliani

Thanks for fixing the reference link. Dean 18:18, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Abuse Noticeboard

Should I create a page where people can alert us (Sysops) to abuse and add a link to the Main Page?Geo. 20:11, 7 March 2007 (EST)

This would be highly useful. I haven't seen too many trolls ever since the ScienceBlogs guys stopped hammering us, but it would make it easier if we ever face widespread vandalism again. Plus, it might give future trolls pause, discouraging them before they even did anything. --Ashens 19:45, 7 March 2007

Inappropriate Edits?

"Warning: you will be blocked if you continue to make inappropriate edits like your change to atheism."

If this encyclopedia is to be as you enjoy advertising it (non biased) you will need to cover "BOTH" points of an issue in a fairly non-biased manner. The current state of the atheism article does little more than equate it with mass murder and irrationalism. It would be nice if you could explain to me how my intentions (and edit) are deemed (by you) inappropriate.

Thank you very much -Iant333 Michael Hunt


The current Iraq article is a copyvio from Wikipedia- the entire text is copied verbatim. JoshuaZ 20:47, 7 March 2007 (EST)


This user, disregarded your and PhllipB's warning, and pasted Wikipedia's Iraq on Conservapedia. I blocked them for 4 months, with a stipulation of a min. 1 year block for any future offenses. Geo. 20:49, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Perfect. Thanks--Aschlafly 21:16, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Permanent banning of articles

Is there a way to prevent articles from ever being recreated again? Somebody tried to recreate the Tentacle Rape article for the second or third time tonight. MountainDew 21:18, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Unfortunately, the easiest way to do so involves having a saved page there (something like "This page has been locked to prevent recreation by admins") then protecting that. More recently on the more up-to-date versions of the software there is a way to protect an empty page using transclusions. Question, do you see an option for "cascading protection" on the protection page? JoshuaZ 21:23, 7 March 2007 (EST)
Block him if you can identify who is doing it.--Aschlafly 21:20, 7 March 2007 (EST)
I did once I saw the username because it was obscene. MountainDew 21:21, 7 March 2007 (EST)
Excellent! Please block any user ids immediately if they are inappropriate or obscene. Don't even bother reading what they wrote.--Aschlafly 21:27, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Why did you delete my contributions to liberal?


I am new here! And I added some more facts to "Liberal" but you deleted it. Why? --Itsjustme 21:30, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Please see talk page for the entry. Thanks!--Aschlafly 21:37, 7 March 2007 (EST)

I created another section to the Theory of Evolution article. I think you are going to like it very much

I created another section to the Theory of Evolution article. I think you are going to like it very much. Conservative 21:33, 7 March 2007 (EST)conservative

Theory of Evolution

I suggested to Conservative that the Theory of Evolution page should be unprotected. He said that I take the matter up with you. I had said to Conservative that whilst there was some good work on the page, it seemed to me that the page was really an anti-theory of evolution page. In fact I used the term "woefully unbalanced". I am of the view that, as the page currently stands it does not reflect well on Conservapedia. I understand that the issue is a sensitive one, but the present situation is unsatisfactory.

Could you please give some thought to a solution. I know that Conservative has put a lot of hard work into the page but, with the greatest of respect, he appears to be allowing his own views to color his edits. --Horace 21:39, 7 March 2007 (EST)

I would also vouch for this. The article is terribly biased as it is, since only sysops can edit it, and all of the sysops here are conservative. --Hojimachong 21:40, 7 March 2007 (EST)
We don't limit the SYSOPs to conservatives. In fact, Hojimachong himself might soon be recommended to become a SYSOP. Horace, your work is great also and you might be a good candidate.
The issue, which we have not fully resolved, is how to keep our conservative character while welcoming all factual edits. Very few pages are protected. The evolution page became a flashpoint for conflict, and hence was protected. In fairness, Wikipedia gives a 100% pro-evolution perspective for the world to access, so it seems reasonable to allow the evolution page here to give the other side. Admittedly we have not resolved fully how to handle this and welcome further ideas.--Aschlafly 21:47, 7 March 2007 (EST)
Aschlafly, I realize that Wikipedia is huge as far as the sheer volume of content and that Google gives it's Evolution article the #1 ranking probably due to the sheer volume of material at their site. However, google also considers the number of links to an article. Wouldn't it be great if a great number of conservatives link to our current article and we surpass Wikipedia's ranking on google :) I suggest not watering the article down since conservatives have been battling the evolutionary position heatedly since at least the time of Darwin. By the way, take a look at my new section in the Theory of Evolution article which is titled: "Scientific Community Consensus and the Macroevolution Position"  :) and located here in the article: Conservative 23:06, 7 March 2007 (EST)conservative
Sadly two wrongs don't make a right. --Horace 23:07, 7 March 2007 (EST)
This "You say X, so I'll say Y" attitude will only serve to hinder the progress of the project. Since the rules are still being formulated, Conservapedia should take the high road and try to present a factual (though inevitably horrendously biased) article. It is quite hard to edit when there are no hard "rules" to follow regarding "keeping a conservative viewpoint", and this fact means it may be impossible to make Conservapedia factual. IMHO, there need to be a few guidelines regarding this. --Hojimachong 23:11, 7 March 2007 (EST)
Wikipedia locks pages also. Sometimes it is necessary to avoid vandalism or never-ending conflict. But locked pages are unlocked, as the ACLU entry was. The best way to address problems on an entry is to raise factual claims on the corresponding talk page, as was done for the ACLU entry. But simply saying a page has many errors or is wrong is too vague to justify changing it. Thanks.--Aschlafly 23:23, 7 March 2007 (EST)
Funny that you mention it... but the ACLU article is still locked. I had actually noticed it since your announcement of unlocking it, but I only managed to sign up during the second registration window (by staying up past 3am). Guess it was just a case of not properly hitting "Okay" on the unlocking form or something :) --Sid 3050 09:10, 8 March 2007 (EST)
Please accept my apologies. I thought I had unlocked it, but the change didn't occur. Thanks for pointing this out. I tried again (and tried and tried), and finally unlocked it correctly. You can edit it now.--Aschlafly 09:16, 8 March 2007 (EST)

I was going to make a new section on the Theory of Evolution Talk page, but since there is an unlock request here already... I had some fun with my text editor, did some sorting and counting, stuff like that. As of right now, there have been 223 edits (including the one that created the first version), with Conservative having contributed 143 edits. To put this into perspective: From the looks of it, PhilipB is in second place with eleven edits. The article weighs in at 16kB while the discussion page (excluding the suggested draft) weighs in at 60kB. I'm not in any position to evaluate whether the high discussion ratio led to good changes or not, but it's noteworthy in my eyes.

Now here's a suggestion that's partly based on these observations: Either (1) unlock this thing, (2) rename and label it as an essay (while crediting Conservative as the main author), or (3) at least split off sections. Seriously. I'm no expert in this field but what has the bit about how lions kill their prey have to do with The Theory of Evolution? This thing apparently has evolved (</pun>) into an essay with the title "Why the Bible is right and Evolutionists aren't" or something. Unlock or move the entry so that the space can be occupied by something that's not roughly 50% direct quotes. I appreciate that you want to show the other side of things, but you have to draw the line somewhere. Maybe define what the theory of evolution is defined as and then just link off to this essay like "See also: Creationist views regarding evolution". --Sid 3050 16:47, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Start of the project

In case you haven't heard already, I thought you might like to know that Wikipedia started out with about 30 contributors, and look at what it has grown to! I thought that might brighten your day, as it made me realize the potential of this project. --Hojimachong 21:49, 7 March 2007 (EST)

That does put me in a good mood!
I personally contributed to Wikipedia in the old days. I have bittersweet feelings in criticizing it, because I'm grateful for its initial vision. I just feel it has lost its way, like a prodigal son.--Aschlafly 21:56, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Opinion Question

Hello, let me know what edits are opinion, and i will cite sources. I havnt added anything that is opinion. Please let me know. --Billwsu 23:45, 7 March 2007 (EST)

This is unacceptable opinion, which you added to the entry on the United States:

Often the policies of the United States has not lived up to the Christianity of our Founding Fathers. Examples are the death penalty, covert CIA killings, and general lack of civil rights over the centuries (which is construed as being against "Love Thy Neighbor", the greatest commandment of all)--Billwsu 23:38, 7 March 2007 (EST)

--Aschlafly 23:51, 7 March 2007 (EST) Well taken, i added that some churches feel this way and gave a link to the Quaker website. if anything it will promote good christians to lobby their government for more responsible behavior. We are working for the same goal. You can love your country but not everything it does in the same way that you love your children but not everything they do. let me know if the revision is working for you. I can add more sources if needed. --Billwsu 23:56, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Nope, that doesn't work either. Quakers are pacifists and their view was rejected by the Founders. That Quakers may object today as they did in 1776 has no relevance to the entry.--Aschlafly 23:58, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Thanks for the help, i am new at this and am trying my best. :)


Probably want to delete the redirect Alix popham Tmtoulouse 00:55, 8 March 2007 (EST)

I just deleted it. Geo. 01:22, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Bot Commandment proposal

About two days ago, I proposed a Commandment prohibiting unauthorized bots. No one has commented on it or opposed. Should I make a Commandment, as it appears to be non controversial? Geo. 01:43, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Geo, aren't search engines powered by bots? I'm unsure of the consequences of your proposal. Speed isn't a problem now, so why prohibit bots?--Aschlafly 18:22, 8 March 2007 (EST)

I think bots are being referred to here as the software programs capable of making hundreds of edits per second. While bots are not bad, unauthorized bots could cause big headaches or even inaccuracies in the future. One of the most common ways for bot disruption is to make a bad edit to an article, and then flood the recent history with thousands of minor edits. I'm sure we don't want this. --Hojimachong 18:26, 8 March 2007 (EST)
OK, but doesn't that just fall under vandalism? And how is a rule written that still welcomes beneficial bots of the search engines?--Aschlafly 18:32, 8 March 2007 (EST)
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "bot of the search engine". Bots are dangerous in that they can create vandalism a thousand times faster than any human, and overload the servers in some cases. However, bots are also extremely useful if used correctly, being able to revert vandalism, add templates to articles, correct spelling, and categorize large numbers of articles. Wikipedia has a page describing bots and their purposes. --Hojimachong 18:34, 8 March 2007 (EST)
Search engines use bots to build their databases. We want that. A rule against bots may discourage the search engines. We're against vandalism, not bots.--Aschlafly 18:37, 8 March 2007 (EST)
The search engines won't care what your rules say nor can they be banned seeing as how they don't make accounts. So they don't matter. Sulgran 18:39, 8 March 2007 (EST)
I see the misinterpretation here; Mr. Schlafly, you seem to think the bots being referred to are the metacrawlers of Google, which are used to build pagerank. Bots on a Wiki are software programs run on a home computer, designed solely to edit Wikis. Does this clear things up? --Hojimachong 18:41, 8 March 2007 (EST)
That does help. A rule against editing done by Wiki bots is fine with me. Let's be clear that the rule only applies to that.--Aschlafly 18:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)
So it is a go? Geo. 00:00, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Abortion and the bible

I am concerned that some of the articles here, particularly the ones pertaining to aspects of morality, lack references to the Bible. In particular the Abortion article does not mention that Abortion is inconsistent with the 6th commandment "You shall not murder". The Bible, being the word of God, is a infallible moral guide as to the behaviour that God wants us to uphold. Regardless of the (very strong) scientific arguments against abortion the strongest argument (IMHO) against is the 6th commandment. I apppreciate your views. --AustinM 05:13, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Although I appreciate that you personally view the Bible to be an infallible moral guide many of us do not. After all, this is Conservapedia, not Christiopedia. What I am trying to communicate is that this would violate commandment 6 of Conservapedia. --trekie9001 05:34, 8 March 2007 (EST)

According to your user entry you are a "liberal, atheist, and a secular humanist". While I appreciate your candid disclosure of your predjudices I think your argument has no merit as regards commandment 6 of Conservapedia. This is a Christian wiki and the founders and no doubt most of the users accept the truthfulness of the Bible. Therefore it is appropriate to use the Bibles teaching on morality to present arguments against certain behaviours or activities. Of course the appropriate passage from the Bible should be cited as a reference thus negating violation of commandment 6 (of Conservapedia). --AustinM 06:26, 8 March 2007 (EST)

AustinM, I find your statement that the views I hold are "prejudices" quite offensive. The conclusions that I have drawn about myself and my views we thought over very seriously. I do not off-handedly dismiss opposing viewpoints (I would feel that my membership on this site would be an example of that). As for your statement that this is Christian wiki I see no explicit evidence of that. If what you say about the majority of the members being Christians is true (it very well may be) that does not make the Bible true. Furthermore, to hold that your one religious book is the one true moral absolute when many modern moral philosophers would object to some of the content in the Bible is, I think, very authoritarian and close-minded of you. --trekie9001 06:57, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Trekie9001, I did not intend to offend you. However, your views will influence your position on things. For example your statement that you are an atheist openly acknowledges that you do not believe in God. If you do not believe in God then you clearly do not believe in the teachings of the bible. This will affect your ability to comment on moral issues. Likewise liberal is a political position and asserts you hold certain positions on subjects. As regards the Christian wiki statement may I quote this line from the Conservapedia homepage "Conservapedia is an online resource and meeting place where we favor Christianity........". That is a explicit statement of the Christian nature of Conservapedia. As a Christian I believe in the authority of the Bible as the word of God. As an atheist you can't understand that. Perhaps we should both agree to avoid contentious edits until this issue is resolved by a senior member of Conservapedia.--AustinM 07:14, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Austin, I wholeheartedly acknowledge that my views will influence my position, just as your views influence yours. The problem I had with your statement was that you used the word prejudice which doesn't mean having conclusions; prejudice, however, implies something sinister on my part as if I have some preconceived notion of Christians and Conservatives that will not change no matter what you say. Moving on, favoring does not mean excluding other possible answers or holding only one source to be absolute truth. If this Wiki was created in reaction to supposed bias in Wikipedia then surely such measures would entirely defeat the purpose of Conservapedia. In addition to this I would like to add that there are many different types of Christians and not all of them hold the Bible to be the sole moral authority. --trekie9001 07:24, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Protection of Washington article

There may be a distinction between censoring Jesus and a disagreement about whether to add an unsourced comparison involving Jesus. JoshuaZ 20:31, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Papal issues (again)

Conservative wants me to contact you about this issue since he thinks we should get your opinion about what John Paul II thought in regard to the Theistic evolution article, now being drafted at Theistic Evolution/draft. JoshuaZ 21:35, 8 March 2007 (EST)

John Paul II, like most Polish Catholics, rejected evolution. Catholic doctrine requires one father, Adam, while evolution teaches that populations evolve.--Aschlafly 22:00, 8 March 2007 (EST)

And you are not concerned that AIG and the NCSE both agree that he wasn't? JoshuaZ 22:03, 8 March 2007 (EST)
I have to disagree with the statement that John Paul II rejected evolution. In his 1996 address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, he made it clear that evolution and the doctrine of faith were not incompatable. It can be read here: [9]--Dave3172 22:13, 8 March 2007 (EST)

George Washington

It isn't censoring Jesus to remove a false statement saying that George Washington is the only person other then Jesus to volutarily give up power. It is nothing against Jesus that there were people other then Washington who gave up power. --TimSvendsen 22:24, 8 March 2007 (EST)

You keep saying that, Tim, but you haven't given any other examples. The other examples, like the King of England who abdicated to marry a woman, were not a pure giving up of power like Washington's. And you did censor the reference to Jesus rather than saying something like "George Washington is one of the few persons other than Jesus to give up enormous voluntarily."--Aschlafly 23:00, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Andrew, I believe that the you reverted mentioned Cincinnatus as another example and as the example in fact to which Byron compared Washington. JoshuaZ 23:02, 8 March 2007 (EST)
Curses! I was just about to say that. --Horace 23:03, 8 March 2007 (EST)
 :: Another example is Diocletian. --Dave3172 23:05, 8 March 2007 (EST)
Also, I do not see the comparison to Jesus as valid. There was never a question of Jesus having worldly power. --TimSvendsen 23:06, 8 March 2007 (EST)
Cincinnatus? He was in 460 BC, when Rome was a two-bit village, centuries before the Roman empire. He chose being safely with his family over fighting vandals in Rome. Not analogous. Diocletian, a better example, served as Roman Emperor for 11 years and left only after almost dying from illness. Health-related departures after one has seized power for over a decade don't count.
George Washington was before 1800 when the United States was a small country. President of the United states at that time was not a position of great worldly power. --TimSvendsen 23:42, 8 March 2007 (EST)
Tim, please reread the 3 temptations of Christ. Worldly power was the most prominent of the three.--Aschlafly 23:17, 8 March 2007 (EST)
Is it worth mentioning that Washington also resigned because OF HIS HEALTH to avoid dying in office? Or that Rome under Cincinnatus was actually fairly strong? Or that Diocletian's resignation was not timed just for his health, but to lend more effect to the tetrarchy? Or have facts lost all relevance here?--AmesG 23:53, 8 March 2007 (EST)

The Pope and theistic evolution. Your arbitration/mediation is wanted

Andy, it is my understanding you did a lot of research in regards to the former Pope's opinion in regards to the theory of evolution and Theistic Evolution. Thus, your arbitration/mediation is wanted here: Theistic Evolution/draft

Conservative 22:33, 8 March 2007 (EST)conservative


I seem to have somehow deleted the George Washington stuff. Sorry. --Horace 23:07, 8 March 2007 (EST)

That's better. --Horace 23:09, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Protecting the ACLU article?!

Asch, this is amazing. Not only did you revert my *factual* edits to the ACLU page, and censor my accurate corrections to your overblown analysis of basis legal processes, but then you muddle the grammatical structures, re-arrange the article so it makes less sense, and protect it so that it can't be corrected? There's a fine line between editing out bias, and editing out facts that don't support your insulated viewpoint, and you've crossed it here.

I joined Conservapedia to make sure that mainstream Conservative viewpoints were being well represented, and treated well, so that they wouldn't become a mockery if colored too deeply by the radical fringe. If you want your site taken seriously, you cannot let personal viewpoints obscure noted facts, and you cannot let your own bias blind you to accepted truths. Otherwise, you'll become worse than the evil that you sought to correct.

I'm sorry if this is out of line. Ban me if you want, but you'll just be proving to me, and to every member of the site, that you're not about removing bias, but instead about promoting your own bias. --AmesG 00:03, 9 March 2007 (EST)

AmesG, you deleted my current factual material and replaced it with 50-year-old material that was not even supported.
This is Conservapedia. Don't expect a puff-piece about the ACLU. Wikipedia welcomes that kind of stuff. Here, we're going to state the real facts about the ACLU. Point out any errors on the Talk page if you think there are any. But don't pretend the ACLU doesn't spend much of its time censoring religion in public places. It does.--Aschlafly 00:13, 9 March 2007 (EST)
I deleted your "factual material" because it was INCORRECT. I DID comment on the ACLU "Talk" page, and you have yet to respond to my allegations therein; I can only assume that you see the logic in my arguments, see where they're pointing, but refuse to acknowledge the appropriate conclusions drawn, and can only ban facts rather than answer to them! I do NOT expect a puff-piece about the ACLU. I DO expect facts, since you purport to be a neutral encyclopedia on the main page, stripped of Wikipedia's bias! So, I DO expect that you either:
(1) admit that Conservapedia is biased, and publicly state it on the main page, or,
(2) stop censoring facts!!
Does it even have to be noted that facts that are 50 years old are nonetheless true? Does it shock you that the ACLU did some things that you agreed with, that there may be shades of gray at play here? Or do you agree with racism? I admit that the ACLU is controversial in more modern times, since it often seeks to remove religion from the public sphere. I admit that people disagree with this, and your ACLU article, then, just like any objective piece, is free to "teach the controversy." However, you cannot censor out any mention of the many good things that the ACLU has done! Anything less would be just like the "mainstream media," not noting the "good news" from Iraq, which I know you have decried!
Remember that one of the messages of religion is that the truth cannot be silenced, and will overcome everything in its path. If you censor facts, are you truly doing the work of God?--AmesG 00:23, 9 March 2007 (EST)
 ::I divided the page into sections and added info on Abortion. I think it makes the page more concise. Geo. 00:21, 9 March 2007 (EST)
Good change. I'd like to add another section on polygamy, which the ACLU defends, when I get a chance. I did change "Right to Choice" to "Right to Choose", which I think is the more common expression,--Aschlafly 00:28, 9 March 2007 (EST)
Consider adding a section about racism, which the ACLU fought for 50 years, and still fights.--AmesG 00:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)
Tell you what, create something and post it on my talk page, if it is factual. I will put it in. Geo. 00:35, 9 March 2007 (EST)
Sweet, thanks man. I'll draft it with good care, as I always do, and post it to you tomorrow. Now, I should be reading Con Law... --AmesG 00:42, 9 March 2007 (EST)

8 Million Dead

Please check the bottom I put the source down there, since I didn't know how to link it right, I assume it's the same as the wikipedia? But didn't see that option so, that's why...Have you read: Plato's The Republic, Hesiod's "Works and Days," Thomas More's Utopia, Voltaire's Candide, Edward Bellamy's Looking Backward, Ernest Callenbach's Ecotopia, Frantz Kafka's The Trial, Eugene Zamiatin's We, and Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale?

Small edits

Sorry, Mr. Schlafly,

No, I'm very much a (flawed) person. My mind tends to skip ahead when I'm writing, and also I think of other ideas when I re-read my writing.

Yes, I often use the preview function (and then edit there), or my numbers would be even higher. I'll try to do better and cut down some on the database operations...

...On the bright side, I'm increasing the edit counts for your site... just kidding, just kidding...  :^) --Knowthetruth 02:31, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Category or template for essays?

Maybe we should introduce an "Essay" or "Opinion Piece" category. Things like Da vinci code (and The Da Vinci Code, which is a different article), National Cancer Institute on Abortion, Gun Control Essay "Gun Distribution: More Than a Shot in the Dark", and possibly more seem to fall out of the "concise" aim of the encyclopedia and could do with at least a Category or maybe a template at the top (saying that this is a possibly unbalanced essay and not an encyclopedic article). Just a thought I had when I stumbled over the Cancer Institute thing. --Sid 3050 11:48, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Question about copying full works

What is the official word in regards of copying full works into articles? Articles like Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act, United States Constitution, Farewell Address and As You Like It (which I found only because they're among the longest pages on Conservapedia) copy the full text of the work in question into the article body. Even ignoring copyright concerns, I think this goes against the conciseness goal, and it would be easier to just link to the work in question (assuming that it's free and online) after giving a short summary. Just asking before doing so to avoid being warned/banned as a vandal for removing 95% of some articles. --Sid 3050 12:02, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Those full-length copies are all appropriate and helpful and in the public domain, and thus free to copy. Links would not be adequate for the first three examples. It is very helpful having the full text here. So please don't delete the first three, and I'd leave the fourth up also. In general, in the early stages of a project such as this, deletions of useful information are very much discouraged. Add rather than delete. Thanks.--Aschlafly 12:30, 9 March 2007 (EST)
There is a difference between keeping information and bloating. I don't see one reason why linking to a nicely-formatted full text might not be "adequate". The Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act is completely unreadable because MediaWiki auto-formatted the pasted blocks (ironically enough, this looks kinda pretty on As You Like It), resulting in a document that has to be scrolled sideways for each line. All articles basically lack proper formatting (other than linebreaks) and come without navigation. Yeah, the resulting articles (after the removal) would be reduced to stubs, but I'd prefer that over blind copy-pasting.
However, as per your wish, I'll leave the articles untouched. In any case, thanks for the quick reply. --Sid 3050 13:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)
You're right about the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act, but I don't know how to link to statute. The federal database (Thomas) uses an ever-changing link system, I think, making permanent linking impossible. If you can fix that, then I'd appreciate it. The other two are very important and worth having in-house, I'd say. Thanks.
Well, there are other sites that could be used, like this or this site (result of a quick Google search). It's not quite as... impressive as the official government site, but I trust the text to be the same. --Sid 3050 13:49, 9 March 2007 (EST)
And I guess I'll try to add some formatting at least to the Constitution if it's here to stay (not sure how much the Farewell Address can or should be formatted... we'll see). --Sid 3050 13:52, 9 March 2007 (EST)
Thanks much. One huge advantage to having our own copy is that we can add links to discussions, or otherwise annotate it. It also avoids the embarrassment of a broken link to someone else's site.--Aschlafly 13:54, 9 March 2007 (EST)


Glad you enjoyed the News of the Day! Next they will be calling soda a fruit. ~ SharonS 15:20, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Theory of Relativity

Hi Aschlafly,

Could you please expound upon what you propose as an alternative to relativity? If find this edit to be disturbing, and wonder what element of relativity you take issue with.

I also would like to apologize for the combative nature of the previous version of this post. Geekman314(contact me) 16:47, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Linus (I like your name!), that edit was a quick reversion of another edit that deleted factual explanations representing hours of my work. We generally don't delete facts here, and certainly not scientific facts. The reversion unfortunately deleted some good scientific explanations, but some those explanations should be have been described as theories rather than observations. Feel free to improve while adhering to facts. Thanks.--Aschlafly 16:55, 9 March 2007 (EST)
Ah, had I only seen this earlier… Geekman314(contact me) 20:00, 10 March 2007 (EST)

You banned me?

Hi Aschlafy.

On the page "liberal", I was writing some facts, that are true as I know. After that I was banished for a whole day. You also deleted what some other people were writing in the article. Why this censorship? You know to whom that remids me? In horrible dicatatorships they have censorships like that. I think that you have some good education? So you should know some of the most horrible dictatorships. Burning books, ... --Bodenseemann 16:48, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Thanks for your inquiry, and please accept my apology for any overzealous blocking. We don't block editors for political views. 99% of our blocks are limited to vandals and posters of obscenity. But occasionally there is a block, preferably brief, for entries that violate our rules. Otherwise our rules would mean nothing.
The page "liberal" is factual and the result of quite a bit of thought. I don't think it should offend anyone. Some of the edits -- I'm not sure if this includes yours -- were inappropriate. For example, an entry says that liberals supporter taxpayer funding of abortion. But then someone added to that same line "funding of drug abuse." That has nothing to do with abortion and simply degraded the quality of the entry. We strive hard to maintain high quality here.--Aschlafly 16:52, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia article

I am somewhat familar with Wikipedia and know the most embarrassing cases of liberal bias and unscholarly activity. I added some jewels to the article Examples of Bias in Wikipedia that I think you will appreciate reading as it offers some glaring examples of embarrassingly unscholarly behavior that can only be attributed to glaring bias.

Here is what I added:

In the mid-20th century, one of the few "authorities" to assert that Jesus as a myth was a Soviet Encyclopedia.[10] Wikipedia currently writes in its article on Jesus the following: "A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus."[11] Now it is certainly true that a small amount of scholars assert this matter but it is also true that it is a minuscule amount of scholars and none of them are historians which Wikipedia fails to mention. And what does Wikipedia offer in regards to a mythological Jesus that never existed? It offers a article which has a section titled "Specific arguments of the theory" and has had a long history of having warnings like "This section may contain original research or unattributed claims."[12] Why does the article in question have a long history of warning to its readers and why doesn't Wikipedia seem to want to do anything about it? In addition, Wikipedia would be hard pressed to cite a current reputable encyclopedia which prominently cites in its Jesus article a statement like "A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus." in its first two paragraphs. What current encyclopedia other than Wikipedia spends time on the proposition that Jesus never existed and does such a unscholarly job of presenting this matter?

I also added this:

Wikipedia has as its official policy the following: "If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone." [13] Yet what does Wikipedia do in relation to its article on Young Earth Creationism? It currently offers a article on the topic listed under the category "Pseudoscience". [14] What reputable encyclopedia uses such an unencyclopedic tone for an article in regards to creationism? Wikipedia has a history of using the word "pseudoscience" in relation to its article on young earth creationism as a simple check to its log on the article shows. [15]

Conservative 18:26, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative

My "warning"

I am carbon copying this from my message I left at [16] in response to this message on my talk page [17].

I didn't just randomly delete creationist material, I deleted unrelated material INCLUDING "old earth" material. I provided what I thought was a well reasoned discussion in regards to my decisions, particularly in regard to something that is NOT currently "policy." Rather then contributing your perspective to the discussion or changing official policy to coincide with the material you WARN me??? I think your using your admin "stick" a little to haphazardly. Your citing me in an official position in regards to a good faith effort dealing with an extremely grey area of policy and not just a warning but a out and out threat to just block me. Find me ONE edit, just ONE edit I have made that reflects anything but an effort on my part to increase the respectability of this site. There maybe some disagreement over the best way to do it, but a warning is not the way to deal with good faith edits. I will accept the "official" proclamation in regards to the material on the article, but I would respectfully ask that the warning be removed as premature.

To be honest, if the dialog I started on the speed of light deserves a warning, I rather just be blocked nowTmtoulouse 18:30, 9 March 2007 (EST)

I don't know the details here, but obviously try to get along and be cautious about deleting someone else's well-presented work. One of my complaints about Wikipedia is how it deletes work so quickly and apparently apparently arbitrarily. Also, remember this is "Conservapedia", not Wikipedia.--Aschlafly 19:08, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly, the issue is NOT about the content. I have no problem with being told that the policy of the wiki is to include it. But at the time of the edit there was NO clear policy guidelines and I made a good faith edit to improve the quality of the project. Your admin issued a warning and a threat of a block over this. This is about the ABUSE of the sysop privilege. I made no vandalism, did not remove information in good faith, did not remove only one sided arguments, I gave a specific reason for my decision and called for the community to come and discuss it and arrive at a consensus. Everything about my actions so tell you that I was trying to do what was best for the wiki in the context of what the current policy was. Why warn me and threaten to ban me? The ONLY answer is that my edit was not one that your admin liked. Think very long and carefully about whether your admins should be warning and block constructive edits and users ONLY because they don't like the edit. There is a VERY good reason why this is a VERY bad precedent. Warnings and blocks should ONLY be used under violations of established rules not merely over content disputes that did not fall under a current policy. Your admin effectively one a content dispute by telling me if I disagreed I would be you really so no problem with that at all?

I see a serious problem with it, and until its address I can not in good faith continue with your project. Which is unfortunate as I was enjoying it. I had a lot to contribute in my area of expertise, an area you will likely not find someone with knowledge and interest in for a long time. Many of your most constructive editors have ideology you would disagree with. I would imagine many of them will depart if gestapo admin tactics continue.

I implore you to analyze your policy carefully. You once said something along the lines of: lets focus on adding content not removing content.........maybe you should focus on capturing users not pushing them out. Thank you for your time and good luck in the future. Tmtoulouse 21:10, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Tmtoulouse, I urge you to reconsider. Before you arrived I undid a block of someone immediately whom I did not agree with (and had not blocked). There is no end to the evolution bickering and you may be right here. It is impossible for me to spend time on it right now. Please stick around and give the process we have here a chance to correct injustices. Thanks.--Aschlafly 21:18, 9 March 2007 (EST)
If conservative withdraws the warning and threat of a block, water under the bridge, and I will keep working on this project. Tmtoulouse 04:01, 10 March 2007 (EST)


When I went there there was a mix of facts and highly biased statements. When it was restored, the biased statements had been removed. --John 20:55, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Here's the differences between the current version and the one I saw ( Statements like "Democrats are mostly communist sympathizers anyway" need to be cited, bare minimum. --John 20:58, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Ah, I see. Please accept my apologies. I was confused by how the "diff" shifted the new paragraphs down on the page, making it look like entire paragraphs were deleted. You're absolutely right that the claim about Democrats was inappropriate and should be removed. Thanks.--Aschlafly 21:06, 9 March 2007 (EST)


Aschlafly, I'm not trying to be hostile. Your worldview differs from mine, and I respect that. I was simply taking issue with the bias in your version of Theory of Relativity. I offer the olive branch, and express my desire to cease our conflict.

And my comment was actually intended to refer to the referal to the citation of the article on Wikipedia in Examples of Bias in Wikipedia, although I did not make that clear.

Oh, and I appreciated your non-combative welcome. I fully expected to be flamed.

Geekman314(contact me) 22:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Linus, thanks for your gracious comments. Look, I'm here to learn and your contributions are valuable. Let's see where this takes all of us.--Aschlafly 22:38, 9 March 2007 (EST)
I just realized that your edit was a revert. Although I don't explicitly agree with your decision to revert, I'm sorry for attributing the version to you, it was extremely unobservant. Here's a (rather hackneyed) picture of a dove with an olive branch to provide a nice graphic respite on this page.
My apologies.

Bacon's Rebellion

As it is directly linked from your Examples of Bias in Wikipedia page, someone should look at Bacon's Rebellion. I know absolutely nothing on the topic, but that article is not a good example for Conservapedia being an alternative to Wikipedia version.

Sorry I appear to have shown up and started criticizing. I found it rather frustrating that I could not find any way of communicating earlier in the week, and have a list of things I found while trying to find a way in. We're getting toward the end of my list now. --Scott 22:48, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Scott, welcome! You have me working overtime here. I responded to your complaint about copyrights (and I see I need to respond yet again), I added a privacy policy per your complaint about privacy, I've pondered your complaint about access, and I just looked at the entry for Bacon's Rebellion about which you complained, and which I found to be refreshingly concise and informative.
How about adding some content? You seem very bright with enormous potential. I look forward to seeing your substantive edits. Welcome again.--Aschlafly 22:56, 9 March 2007 (EST)
If the second paragraph is "refreshingly concise and informative", it assumes a lot of prior knowledge of American history that I don't have. It also fails the second Conservapedia commandment. The wikipedia article is referenced to paper sources, so it is harder for me to read those sources to improve this article. I'll see if I can find something. --Scott 23:08, 9 March 2007 (EST)
Scott, I was being a little facetious about the Bacon's Rebellion entry. It can surely use improvement, and please do whatever you like with it. But we do value conciseness, and quantity is not quality. Regardless, welcome.--Aschlafly 23:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)


I'm thinking we should ban ATB. We've reverted practically all of his edits ( and they tend to be deeply insubstantial and deeply biased. --John 22:59, 9 March 2007 (EST)

He hasn't done anything really bad yet. I plitely told him to improve his level of work. if it goes on longer he should be warned and then blocked. --TimSvendsen 23:01, 9 March 2007 (EST)

  • Sigh* I'll keep an eye on him. Geo. 23:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Conservapedia and the bible

I seem to have inadvertantly caused some anger and upset in my edits and arguments particularly with respect to the speed of light article. All I was trying to do was provide a alternate explanation of physical phenomena that is consistent with Genesis. This is something which, as I am sure you will agree, Wikipedia does not allow. I, and I'm sure other users, consider the Bible to be a important (and accurate) source of knowledge on a range of issues. I do not think it unreasonable to use the Bible and scholars interpretations of the Bible in articles and I find it regrettable that such citations are frequently removed by authors whose worldview is different (and dare I say liberal). Could we have clarification of the extent to which the Bible may be used? My apologies for any offence caused by my edits.

--AustinM 06:02, 10 March 2007 (EST)
Note: The Speed of Light article is a particularly bad example because the additions are not even backed by AiG anymore. It was quite correct to remove the information.
In general, I'd prefer it if such Creationist-centric discussions stayed in their own articles instead of bleeding uncontrollably into other articles. The Creationist issue at hand is not the speed of light, but rather the Starlight problem, so a discussion about it should take place there instead of spreading tiny hints of Creationist doubt in other articles. (Disclaimer: I am one of the involved parties of the speed of light article) --Sid 3050

User ericblair is liberal troll

Articles by user ericblair [18] are unbalanced and a clear attempt to mock Conservapedia.

Thanks. We'd already blocked him for a month--Aschlafly 08:54, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Talk:Cheesy potatoes

You might want to look at this. IMHO a frivolous but harmless article that was probably created in good faith, maybe by one of your homeschoolers. No political or religious subtext. Dpbsmith 13:30, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Yes, I drew the same conclusion. I don't know the person who entered it, but he or she is probably a student. It's harmless. My inclination would be to leave postings like that up, at least for a few days, because they may give someone confidence on their way to more substantive postings. But I'm fine with whatever other people decide here.--Aschlafly 14:11, 10 March 2007 (EST)


See the discussion page for Ronald Reagan.

Quick link for stressed admins: Talk:Ronald Reagan. Oh, and SmithHall, it would be awesome if you signed your talk page edits with four ~ signs (or just clicked the second-to-last button in the toolbar above the edit field). :) --Sid 3050 14:02, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Assistance wanted by not expected

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

I am doing some additional work on the Theory of Evolution article. I want to provide material that strongly suggest biology is against the theory of evolution.

Here are some sources I am using now regarding biology/theory of evolution: [19][20][21][22]

If you want to help out in this new section I am creating please let me know. Conservative 18:16, 10 March 2007 (EST)conservative

I do want to add material about this issue soon. Let me see what I have. My guess is that I'll create a new section or new entries.--Aschlafly 18:25, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Forget those sources I gave. I am taking a new tack. The topic is still biology and macroevolution. If you do any more composing on the article please cite credible sources. Here is a new tack I am taking: "Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques"2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action." [23]

Conservative 19:54, 10 March 2007 (EST)conservative


This screen name in itself seems suspicious, and his edits seem to be overly polemic in nature. I think they're designed to make conservatives look bad. For instance, his claim that Rush Limbaugh wasn't *really* addicted to prescription drugs isn't really defensible. MountainDew 20:24, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Update: His edits to Newt Gingrich (regarding how his extramarital affairs are supposedly morally defensible) leave no doubt about his intentions. I warned him. MountainDew 20:29, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Evolutionary Theory article and some good news

I really liked much of the material you have added to the Theory of Evolution article. I hope you don't mind that I deleted your most recent material. I only did it because you did not source/support each of your claims using sources. I think this article is going to be atttacked. Lets not let our guard down. I added some great material to the evolution article just now that I think you are going to really like. By the way, when you type in "Conservapedia" into you now get over 2,000,000 hits which is a first! And, if you type in the two words "conservapedia" and "evolution" you get over 200,000 hits. By the way, I have yet to click on a evolution and conservapedia link via google that actually provides links to the article. It seems as if they are afraid to link to it. LOL Conservative 21:00, 10 March 2007 (EST)conservative

Oh no, you deleted my work??? Can you find somewhere else to put it??? Change "hypothesis" to "conjecture" in it if you find another home for it.
Tomorrow morning a big story about Conservapedia hits the biggest newspaper in Toronto. I spent a long time being questioned by the reporter. Post as much as you can tonight in anticipation. There shouldn't be any problem with your copying your own material that you've posted elsewhere.--Aschlafly 21:11, 10 March 2007 (EST)
I will try to source/support your material tonight.We have to stick to the Conservapedia commandments though and support our material (have facts). I do think though that you added some good quality material to the article in the past. Best wishes regarding the results of the Toronto publication. Conservative 21:20, 10 March 2007 (EST)conservative
I would agree with you that things that defy an evolutionary explanation via plausible means weakens their position but it does not falsify their position. For example, creationists could not give a plausible explanation regarding how we get starlight from distant stars until recently. However, at the same time the argument of Irreducible Complexity which also defies materialist explanation is a strong argument because it argues for design (Paley's Watch). Anyways, here is the "sandbox" that I am using to work on your material: User:Conservative/andyresearchrequest Conservative 21:38, 10 March 2007 (EST)conservative
Personal tools