User talk:Aschlafly/Archive10

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I have corrected the American History Lecture One with respect to John Smith, based on the criticism by PF Fox. Thank you. I have also archived everything that was here. Let's keep this page for constructive comments and suggestions.

Conservapedia, from its inception, is an educational and informative free resource for students and adults alike. I encourage everyone here to explain and teach for the benefit of others. I have personally taught more than 120 students at virtually every level. Perhaps ironically, I've found that the benefits of earnest teaching are almost as great for the teacher as for the students. Those who have improved the entries here can attest to that, I'm sure. And the benfits to those who learn from your insights are immeasurable.

One day a decade from now there will be people who thank you for explaining something to them on Conservapedia. It may be a struggling student who has no access to other resources, or it may be an adult who was confused by school. I thank you for them, but some of them will thank you also.--Aschlafly 12:46, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

American Civil War article length

When editing this article, I got the little warning blurb stating that the page would have a problem loading on some browsers due to length...and I believe I am one third done with it right now. The way it's going, this will be the largest single article in Conservapedia. Should I continue it as it stands, or break it into separate articles? Personally I am for a single article. Karajou 14:19, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

For what my two cents are might want to consider doing a highlight paragraph or two for each year and then creating a separate article for each where you expand upon it. If not for the file size, then for readability. Also, you're doing a really nice job. --Dave3172 14:23, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
I know exactly what novelist Shelby Foote faced back in the 1950's when he was asked by Random House to write a small, one-volume entry on the Civil War for their encyclopedia on American history. The war was just too big, as Foote discovered, and he convinced the publishers to let him write a fuller work, which is his 3-volume The Civil War: A Narrative.
To me, this article must have the detail necessary for the reader to delve into it for a good thirty minutes or so of reading, yet small enough that it doesn't crash the server's hard drives! Battles will be dealt with rather briefly, considering that this is an overview of the war, and each battle will be given a separate article (you should see the Gettysburg one...the guy who wrote that single paragraph thought it "scholarly"!). Karajou 14:37, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Perhaps allow both to users? A full-size version for browswers that can can handle it, but also links to smaller articles (e.g., Civil War Summary for those who prefer that? Either way, it will be tremendous having this topic covered in detail here.--Aschlafly 14:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
That's a great idea. The more user-friendly you make the experience, the more likely the visitor is to come back.--Dave3172 14:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Ohhhh...there will be links...and links...there's about 10,000 major and minor battles in this war, not to mention bios, and weapons, and ships, that submarine thingy...I'm gonna die just thinking of all the work involved! Karajou 14:58, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
If you pull it off, I will be incredibly impressed. It's hard enough to cover just one battle. I cannot imagine covering an entire war.--Dave3172 16:05, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Made a decision. Going to split the article into three to five different articles, each one covering a different year of the war. Just my desire for plenty of meat for a balanced reading diet. Karajou 17:48, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, five articles now. I got the pages set up and waiting, and the whole should be done in a couple weeks. Karajou 18:03, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

The first article is done. Year 1861 is next, to be ready by Friday. Karajou 21:59, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm really forward to seeing your work on this, Karajou. We'll put it on the front page when ready.--Aschlafly 22:02, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I hope I'm not "showing off here" by posting mundane notes as to which articles are done, etc etc etc. I just believe, and it's been ingrained in me via the Navy, that the boss has to know everything that goes down, good or bad. That includes whatever is placed within this website. Karajou 10:02, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

You're not showing off, Karajou. You're inspiring all of us. Thanks so much.--Aschlafly 11:14, 29 March 2007 (EDT)


Just letting you know that "Pi Day" and "Pi Approximation Day" are legitimate holidays (my university's math department just celebrated Pi Day), and are fairly notable (See this article from USA Today). At least the pi memorization aspect of the article should be kept, and User:3.1415926... should be unblocked, with a note asking him to improve our math articles (which are in serious need of improvement). ColemanFrancis 17:32, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

OK, I've honored your request. 3.1415926... is fully restored. Hope he can make some serious edits. Thanks for letting me know. By the way, I love math myself.--Aschlafly 18:14, 28 March 2007 (EDT)


The current archive was created in the wrong spot. It's at Aschlafly/Archive9 but should be at User talk:Aschlafly/Archive9. If a sysop moved it, I'd be quite delighted. --Sid 3050 14:34, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Done. Although I don't think moving articles is a sysop-only operation, unless the page is protected. Tsumetai 14:36, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Thanks! And it became a sysop-only action less than a week ago: Archived discussion --Sid 3050 14:39, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
So it did! Thanks for pointing that out. Tsumetai 14:40, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Done, apparently.--Aschlafly 14:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Um... I couldn't help but notice that you just vaped a few replies spread over the entire Talk page... accident or a new "no chit-chat" rule applying to the page? --Sid 3050 14:46, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Nothing intentional. I just moved everything. Much of the chit-chat seemed to be either inappropriate for this page, or unproductive. I left it as long as I could. Time to move on to more productive topics.--Aschlafly 16:20, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
No, I meant this edit. --Sid 3050 17:19, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
That was an unintentional replacement, but it's just as well. That "edit" was the result of an edit conflict, not an intentional deletion.--Aschlafly 18:20, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Repaired. --Sid 3050 18:26, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Bot request, I think

Conservapedia:Commandments currently says that search engines may be classified as bots. Do you classify any script that reads data from the site, but doesn't make an edit, as a bot? (I don't know if it's useful to classify read-only scripts as bots, since they're mostly undetectable and unintrusive unless they generate way too many page hits)

Anyway, if so, could you approve these two tools, neither of which make any edits:

Read-only bots are fine, unless someone else voices an objection here. Thanks.--Aschlafly 16:20, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
As i wrote it, it only applies to editing bots. [[User:Geo.plrd|<font color="red>G</font>[[User_talk:Geo.plrd|<font color"white">e<font color="blue">o</font>.]] 01:09, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

People and Events?

I thought this was supposed to be an encyclopedic site? Yes, I have made many short article starts, but that is because I don't feel like spending all my time writing about conservative people and events. I don't think any of my pages were bad additions to this project. Thus, I plan to continue. Flippin 16:38, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I have to agree here - one of the real strengths of Wikipedia (they do have some!) is the way people contribute short stub articles which others expand into full articles. Looking at Flippin's edit history, he/she's not created anything controversial, and at the moment the site is way too heavy on politics and weak on general knowledge. Tracy C Copeland 17:13, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
This is a quality site. We don't want a million entries of junk. Wikipedia has far too many silly entries and we don't want to imitate that.--Aschlafly 17:15, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes, frivolous entries are unhelpful, the only thing I would have to add is that there could be a justification for someone starting an article in order to instigate debate and/or have other, more expert people revise and complete it (i.e. the article's existence causing someone to see what's written and then wanting to contribute and fix it up). but, yes, short articles about unimportant subjects are less than useless. Airdish 17:20, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I think you have other things to worry about other than short articles. Although evolution is still getting better (I think?)-AmesGyo! 17:21, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

But it seems that the only articles you do want are those with a conservative bent, not just informative. If that's the case, why not say so rather than threaten to block me because I add topics for later expansion? If you stop to think for a moment, if all you ask for are articles that are done, or have "heft" then this site would take about 4,000 years to develop. By putting in logical connections, topics that need to be addressed (who doesn't need to know what a sister is in all its uses?) then you stop even the most engaged from contributing. Someone has to pioneer, you have only 6K pages right now. This is how that number increases. My topics may be bland, but we can't all develop Aristotelian topos for everything. Did the article for Ronald Reagan come out fully-formed? What about Dinosaur? I suppose if adding content will earn me a block, then I should welcome it. Flippin 17:22, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Andy/Airdish, I certainly agree with you on some - perhaps most - of it (we certainly don't need an entry for "Olivia Newton John", for instance), but some of his creations ("Clothes", "brother" etc) seem to be the sort of thing there ought to be articles on. I do think it would be better if he wrote more than just a dictionary definition for each item though (and if he's copying direct from a dictionary, as seems to be the case, there are copyright issues as well).Tracy C Copeland 17:44, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
In point of fact, I copied nothing. I do, however, have a degree in creative writing. Thank you for letting me know it is working. And I challenge you to explain why ONJ is not important. Flippin 17:26, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
I quote your entire entry here - "One of the stars of Grease and a singer from Australia.". Even Wikipedia would speedy-delete that.
Flippin, your replies look almost sarcastic. This site strives to be a helpful resource. Show some reasonable cooperation with our goal or else it will become necessary to block your account. Thank you.--Aschlafly 17:29, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Sometimes I wonder if we really need this encyclopedia at all, given that all of the truly useful answers any of us need, for any question, are all contained within the Good Book. I think we should consider a society with a single book: the Bible. Wouldn't that be lovely, to an extent? There wouldn't be any more debates about how old fossils are, or whether gay people should get married or have abortions, because we'd have clear answers. And that would be swell. DunsScotus 17:29, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Until one of you caught a bacterial infection, or disagreed with the majority. Then... ick. See, human society is about living with different people. I don't think biblical literalists *get* that so much.-AmesGyo! 17:31, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

What was untrue? I know little more about the woman, admittedly, but it might be a subject of interest for some due to the popularity of that reality show, whatever it's called. Flippin 17:30, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm not discounting the need for articles on "("Clothes", "brother" etc)", I was trying to defend him somewhat, i've contributed my fair share of short articles, but something like loaf is not only too short but it's wrong. Surely the unit for measuring bread is slice; and then we've got the units of crust and how many crust units make up one flesh unit? There's a slippery slope, that's all I'm saying. Though there's a slippery slope in most areas of life, so we should probably be used to it... Airdish 17:31, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Further, I hold an MFA in creative writing from MSUM, so that was not meant to be sarcastic--it is true. Flippin 17:32, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't mind the creation of stubs per se. I'm notorious for doing that at Wikipedia. But I try to make them a bit longer than yours: "female sibling" would be branded a "sub-stub" there. I also check back to see if the seed I've planted has grown. And when people give me direction, I take it. I'm a very cooperative guy. Someone, please give me an assignment!
I'd love to see a page with a lot of well-organized red links. I mean, a list of family relationship terms would be good: brother, sister, father, mother, uncle, aunt, cousin, etc. --Ed Poor 17:34, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
How about the Lie Algebra E8? Airdish 17:37, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
It could be argued that there's nothing more conservative than a short article, because it leaves the most unsaid, or subject to further revision. Only liberals, who believe in dominating discussions and driving out dissent, would publish quickly, and in full. DunsScotus 17:36, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
I think it might work if doubters went to the example of pen to see what I mean to do. Flippin 17:38, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
That's a nice entry. Thank you. More of that is most welcome.--Aschlafly 18:16, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Maybe the article has been changed since you took care of it Flippin but I saw no sources for any of those facts and a clear opinion that "Fountain pens are still sold to persons of exquisite taste, who recognize the distinction that these delightful instruments carry." Myk 18:56, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Flippin, I wrote the pen article as it is. You only wrote the first section, and then a stub line about how the ballpoint pen was invented in 1936. Oh, and fountain pens rule, that line should stay.-AmesGyo! 18:58, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Just an IP question

Are the users DunsScotus and GodisGreat from similar locations? The duns account was created 14:12, 22 March 2007 and GodisGreat account was banned on 19:07, 21 March 2007. I'm mostly just curious - they seemed rather similar in style. --Mtur 18:36, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I'll check PhilipB 18:37, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Nope, different IP's. PhilipB 18:38, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Threatening Huey

Andy - I do not understand where your hostility to me comes from. I have provided numerous quality edits at this site. I am here for the same purpose as you, but you continue to threaten to block me for "sarcasm," which has not yet been clearly identified. If you want to point me to one of my disruptive posts, maybe we can start to have a useful conversation about this. --Huey gunna getcha 18:42, 28 March 2007 (EDT)


The cover of Time, April 2 edition......"Why we should teach the Bible in Public School" [1]

"To some, this idea seems retrograde. Citing a series of Supreme Court decisions culminating in 1963's Abington Township School District v. Schempp, which removed prayer and devotion from the classroom, the skeptics ask whether it is safe to bring back the source of all that sectarianism. But a new, post-Schempp coalition insists it is essential to do so. It argues that teaching the Bible in schools--as an object of study, not God's received word--is eminently constitutional. The Bible so pervades Western culture, it says, that it's hard to call anyone educated who hasn't at least given thought to its key passages. Finally, it claims that the current civic climate makes it a "now more than ever" proposition. Says Stephen Prothero, chair of the Boston University religion department, whose new book, Religious Literacy (Harper San Francisco), presents a compelling argument for Bible-literacy courses: "In the late '70s, [students] knew nothing about religion, and it didn't matter. But then religion rushed into the public square. What purpose could it possibly serve for citizens to be ignorant of all that?" The "new consensus" for secular Bible study argues that knowledge of it is essential to being a full-fledged, well-rounded citizen."

One again MSM is making the Bible ok, so long as it's teachings are secularized, turned into fables, not the Word of God. --~ TerryK MyTalk 00:27, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I think it's a perfect idea. Church is where good Christian kids can learn about Gods word. If you let the Bible be taught in school as God's word, then would you have any basis to object to the teachings of the Qu'ran or the Upashinads as God's word? --Hojimachongtalk 00:43, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Exactly so. Except that, to prevent charges of bias, the Quran will be taught as God's Word, we wouldn't want charges of cultural/racial bias, would we? --~ TerryK MyTalk 01:14, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Nice thought, if it is passed. <font color="red>G</font><font color"white">e</font><font color="blue">o</font>. 01:20, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't know if I like the idea. Some public school teachers no doubt will water down or attack the Bible. On the other hand, it might get kids reading the Bible for the first time. Strict guidelines would have to be put in place to make sure that the proper things are being taught. MountainDew 01:24, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
When you read Greek mythology in school, was it ever "attacked"? Did the teachers attack anything when reading Huckleberry Finn or the Great Gatsby? I doubt there would be any attack and if anything people would be more upset about it being read as a collection of stories. If you regard it as a piece of literature that represents a people and their beliefs, there isn't anything that one can attack, but rather study and get a better understanding of what people were thinking when it was written. --Mtur 01:30, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
The difference is, nobody really follows Greek mythology anymore. The temptation would probably be there for some teachers knowing that students do revere the Bible. But you're right, the Bible is a very important piece as literature as well, and as long as the distinction was made between literary and theological opinions and aspects of education, this would be a worthwhile class no doubt. MountainDew 01:35, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
This is a perfect example, in my opinion, of what User talk:Aschlafly should not be used for...
For the topic, I personally think we should keep religion in the home. In the home, you know exactly what your kid is taught. In school, well, who knows what they're going to teach the kid about the Bible? Unless you trust the teachers to the extent of a minister, then I wouldn't let the teacher teach my kids about the Bible. GofG ||| Talk 07:22, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
  • So, GofG, Andy's talk page is the wrong place to call his attention to an interesting article, in your opinion? Hmmmm.....thanks for the input. --~ TerryK MyTalk 17:05, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia Violations of Privacy Laws

Hi Andy,

Your website as currently configured is violating the laws of California and several other states since you are allowing anonymous third parties access to IP information on your users. You appear to currently have configured in your LocalSetting.php file for your MediaWiki installation CheckUser as follows:

$wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['checkuser'] = true;
$wgCheckUserLog = false;

Setting this up this way allows any Sysop access to the Special:CheckUser page and allows them to obtain the IP address information on your users. Despite the fact that your user pages report "checkuser" group as restricted, in fact it is not.

This should be set to the following instead.

$wgGroupPermissions['checkuser']['checkuser'] = true;
$wgCheckUserLog = false;

This setting will restrict checkuser access to just those members of the checkuser group and not all 'Sysops', and allow those with Bueaucrat status to assign checkuser permissions to users on a case by case basis.

As it stands, you are violating several laws in the States of California, Nebraska, Oregon, and several other states. Many of these states also have Civil Case law that will allow you to be sued if you claim your status is an "ISP". I realize that New York laws only address State Websites on the matter of security.

You may wish to consider fixing this. As it stands, you are now open to litigation from anyone who has edited on this site for allowing anonymous third parties accross state lines access to personal information. In California, the damages are statuatory.

Wikipedia does not operate this way, and checkuser is highly restricted due to legal concerns.

I'd be interested how you found it out (assuming that it's true - I have no way of checking and am not familiar with the MediaWiki code), since your account comes without sysop rights (which apparently are needed, if I followed you correctly).
Not directly connected to the technical part, but connected to the Privacy Policy: How is "Conservapedia does not sell or share any information about users, except as necessary to report obscenity or vandalism to authorities." compatible with (for example) the previous mainpage posting about Brown University? I also think you published parts of IP addresses and ISP information of accounts in a few cases. That was hardly necessary in my eyes. --Sid 3050 14:32, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
And in answer to this question, "we" does not include anonymous sysops unless Andy wishes to waive his immunity under Section 230 of the CDA. If all of these anonymous editors are "we" and they all have checkuser access, then his immunity is waived as an ISP -- he becomes a publisher at that point. Defamation claims are probably not valid here, but ISP's are governed by strict laws related to privacy esspecially in California.
Anonymous access of:
States that 'Sysops' have access to Checkuser
From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups "Sysops", "Check users".
Return to Main Page.
It's also a common problem for people setting up MediaWiki who do not know what they are doing.
Ah yes, I should have thought of checking that page. Thanks for clarifying, that looks indeed like a serious mistake in the config. --Sid 3050 15:34, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
These are interesting postings, but they raise more questions than they answer. For starters, there is no signatures to most of the comments above, making it difficult even to assess their credibility. No specific laws are cited either, and certainly none in New Jersey or New York, the only states where this system is arguably subject to jurisdiction. That said, I'm always interested in learning about specific laws, with specific citations.
IP addresses are available to many of us for reporting abuse, and I can't imagine any law prohibiting that. This is an educational site and it does not engage in data mining, which I suspect is the concern of any laws in this field. I welcome additional comments.--Aschlafly 17:40, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I am a Admin on MySpace. The position entails many of the same functions as here (less the enjoyable writing and too much hedonism), and we can check IP's, etc. There isn't a violation of privacy, per their TOS. MySpace is based in California. --~ TerryK MyTalk 17:51, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Alright Andy, I do not have to educate you on the Commerce Clause and Federal Jurisdiction over matters of diversity from other states, and you have access to the laws of these states. Also, you know very well that any damages anyone may experience will be subject to the jurisdiction in which gave rise to these incidents. If you want to grant anonymous users access to private information with a misleading privacy policy (no terms of service specified here?), that's also your call. Just don't be shocked when one of these anonymous 20 year olds gives out info and gets themselves sued along with the owners of the site. You should fix your config, BTW. RW3 17:53, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

As a thought experiment, Andy, I could get you jurisdiction only in NY & NJ, but could drag you by venue anywhere. Maybe choice of law, too. No TOS, unless I'm not aware of one.-AmesGyo! 17:55, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

There is your answer from TK above. Sysops are allowed to access IP addresses on MySpace, and it's based in California! Look, our rules are clear: abuse this site and your IP address will be reported to the authorities. And any one of our several dozen Sysops can do that. Be forewarned.--Aschlafly 18:02, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
(unsigned, harassing entry deleted)
Folks, I'm not going to allow unsigned harassment on my talk page. Give me a citation to an applicable law and I will show you how we already comply. Also, respond to TK's comment above. Failing that, further harassment will result in blocking of the offending account. Thank you.--Aschlafly 18:45, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
They are trying to make it about lack of TOS, which is a red herring. Many courts have conflicted rulings (what few definitive rulings there have been), as without access to the ISP's database (released by law ONLY to law enforcement or Court order), merely having the IP address, doesn't give anyone more than a large geographic area. I have read several rulings on this over the past couple of years, and their is real conflict among Judges, as to just what privacy expectations one has using the Internet. They are never as restrictive and denizens of the web think they should be. That said, it is my experience that people who are the most concerned with "privacy" are the biggest disruptor's. ;-) --~ TerryK MyTalk 18:48, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm fine with developing a TOS, but it will say the same thing that our rules say with respect to disclosing IP addresses of those who abuse this site.--Aschlafly 18:53, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
What about you disclosing the origin of some vandals? That is not covered anywhere. You explicitly published info you promised only to share with the authorities. More than once, if memory serves me correctly. --Sid 3050 19:10, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
I've never published a full IP address, though I don't think any law prohibits it for security purposes. The FBI publishes "Wanted" posters of accused criminals presumed by the law to be innocent, and what users freely provide (IP addresses) a website in most jurisdictions can freely repeat.
I do publish the city, country or university of a vandal, but no one can trace an individual based on that information. There is nothing "private" about the name of a town or school. Surely you don't think that Brown University has a "right to privacy."--Aschlafly 19:30, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
I think that things like the area I live in are covered by privacy, yes. It's personal information, and your policy says that you will only give it to authorities and only in the case of vandalism/obscenity. Having you going "USER SID FROM THE GERMAN TOWN XYZ HAS DONE THIS AND THAT" is a pretty clear violation of my privacy. My private information is NOT limited to my full IP. It's not up to you to simply tell anybody what ISP I'm using or where I'm from. Especially when you consider that you encourage users to pick names that are close to their real names. --Sid 3050 19:40, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
Sid, you're welcome to your opinion, but there isn't a judge in the world who hold that someone has a right to privacy in the name of the city he lives in, or the university he attends. Far greater invasions of privacy occur every day and there is nothing improper or illegal about it. Companies are making billions of dollars selling highly personal information about all of us. Have you ever complained about that?
As I mentioned above, the FBI posts highly personal information about alleged wrongdoers still presumed to be innocent in the eyes of the law.
I think we're beating a dead horse here. You can have the last word, Sid, and then it's time for all of us to move on to other pending issues.--Aschlafly 19:48, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

(unsigned threatening entry deleted)

Andy, I'm not positive, you may wanna ask Ames, he is a lot more knowledgeable than I am, but it seems to me like he's just using the threat of legal reprisal to scare you.--Elamdri 19:05, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
I do think it's baseless harassment. But it's pretty well researched, which is scary. But seeing no reply, I'm guessing he's just messing with you. It is fun to have a legal hypo to play with. God, I miss Procedure.-AmesGyo! 19:34, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
Isn't legal harassment itself a crime?--Elamdri 02:14, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Rule Against Advertising

A user came on here and started advertising his company today. After we objected, he told me that there was no rule in place against advertising. Could we maybe mention that in the Conservapedia Commandments or something just to cover that base? MountainDew 16:15, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Seems obvious, but I'll add it now to a rule just in case. Thanks, MountainDew, for the suggestion.--Aschlafly 18:03, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Suggesting again - no personal attacks rule

I've pointed a few times to the "no personal attacks" rule that Wikipedia has [4]. One of the useful bits here is the extension to "no legal threats" [5]. I suspect that this would also apply to the site itself. --Mtur 19:00, 29 March 2007 (EDT)