User talk:Aschlafly/Archive11

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
See also my Wikipedia essay, [1] which is gentler and more to the point.
They also have a policy on "Civility" - which I think was recently updated. --Ed Poor 19:09, 29 March 2007 (EDT)


Could you inform this user of general etiquette around places such as these. This uses repeatedly removes other user's comments from their talk page, usually when the entries require an answer. I really don't place this behavior in the books of being a useful sysop. niandra 19:44, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I'll follow up personally with User:Conservative, Niandra. Thanks.--Aschlafly 19:51, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
I also don't think it's in the books to ban me three times without cause (three of his four bans were immediately overruled by other sysops). That's right, THREE. When will you ever have a serious talk with him about it general Conservapedia etiquette?-AmesGyo! 19:45, 29 March 2007 (EDT)


Mr Schafly i wanna post some pictures but i cant because when i save, it says it wouldnt copy, i dont know if it is the server or me. i need some help, i dont know if you can help me. --Will N. 19:49, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

plz someone help!!! --Will N. 19:49, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

  • MountainDew posted, somewhere, that image files can't have more than a three or four character name, I believe.....--~ TerryK MyTalk 19:50, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

o thank you let me try that. :) --Will N. 19:53, 29 March 2007 (EDT)


Personal appeal to AS: If you are interested, I would like to work with you on any medical or science related articles you may wish to include. If you want me to write them, fine, but I was thinking of a more advisory role to avoid edit wars. I think my expertise could be of use to you.--PalMDtalk 19:55, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

That would be great!!! I'll see what we can do.--Aschlafly 20:23, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Niandra has withdrawn....

I really think it's time you stepped in publicly, Andy. This was a well-reasoned, bible class teacher, didn't strike me as involved in drama..... --~ TerryK MyTalk 20:40, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

oh knows what happened? i wasnt paying attention, can we fix this? cause if she was part of the origanl people to startr this, i think we should try to get her back. --Will N. 20:58, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Will, please run a spell-check on your stuff.
Niandra will be missed, that's for sure. I hope and pray she can return.--Aschlafly 21:04, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

sorry cant help but misspell. its my thing that people remember (see what i mean!). i hope she comes back. --Will N. 21:06, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

She said that Conservative is the main reason. So it's the sum of him owning articles, locking articles and banning users over content disputes, evading uncomfortable discussions about articles he owns, deleting every comment on his Talk page that criticizes or questions him, and locking his Talk page occasionally. --Sid 3050 21:14, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

is this all true? i didnt know all that went on! is it true though? --Will N. 21:23, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, Will, it's all true, and I have to back Andy up on the spelling & such :-) -AmesGyo! 21:25, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
Will, if you're seriously interested, check the histories of User talk:Conservative and Theory of evolution to see how material got removed or how pages got locked and owned. Also check Talk:Theory of evolution and its archives to see the complaints about his behavior. It will take a good while, though. Conservative has built up quite a history. --Sid 3050 21:30, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
  • To hope and to pray isn't enough. God granted man free will. God is not the Administrator of this project, although I hope he guides us all to do the right thing. --~ TerryK MyTalk 21:43, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
I hate to go public with this, but it's true. Conservative is driving legitimate editors away like flies. MountainDew 22:55, 29 March 2007 (EDT)


I have serious problems with this Sysop, as I have already quite clearly stated to you in a personal email. He has protected his own User Talk page, for no reason, with an edit summary of "OH NO :P".[2] There was absolutely no reason to do this, and I request that you unprotect it. GofG ||| Talk 22:04, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I noticed you archived your page. I assume you are getting to answering my question? GofG ||| Talk 22:20, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

User's Talk Page

This issue has come up several times, most recently in the item above, but I feel this needs to be addressed separately from any users. In the Wikipedia culture, one's talk page belongs to Wikipedia and someone can be banned based on how he manages his own talk page. Critics of Wikipedia have suggested that this policy is a way for the Wikipedia mob to intimidate someone by harassing him on his own talk page. It can feel like being picketed in your own home, perhaps.

I realize there are good reasons for having rules about one's own talk page. But we're not Wikipedia, and it seems to me that a man's talk page is his castle. :-) . It's his own room, his own car, his own basement, his own office, etc. It's his, limited only by our rules against obscenity. I've even allowed our detractors to thumb their noses at us on their talk pages, giving it special deference.

Maybe this reflects the tension between personal property and communal property, which is so big at Wikipedia. But does anyone disagree with Conservapedia parting ways with Wikipedia here?--Aschlafly 22:33, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

What about blanking it to hide criticism? I think that stifles debate.-AmesGyo! 22:35, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
It is one thing to manage one's talk page to make it readable. It is quite another to remove other people's questions [3] [4] [5] of you or protecting it [6]. This stifles communication which is all the more necessary when opinions differ. --Mtur 22:42, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Blanking old, irrelevant, or inappropriately made comments should be fine, and even encouraged. But deleting legitimate criticism disrupts conversations, misleads users looking for criticism, and further discredits the project as being unopen to criticism, even within it's own community. I understand where you're coming from in not wanting to be like Wikipedia, but this whole "we can't be too similar" fervor cannot get in the way of what is obviously best for the project. Deleting legitimate criticism (yup) only serves to unnecessarily disrupt the flow of things. And, why would users delete legitimate criticism from their page if for any reason other than to avoid answering, because they know it is legit and they can't come up with a good response? --Hojimachongtalk 22:45, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Even if we say that the Talk page owner can do whatever he or she likes (which I don't agree with, as per the comments above), protecting it goes too far. Sysop powers should be kept separate from editor activity. --Sid 3050 22:47, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

The rule at Wikipedia about blanking to hide criticism applies to one special case: when a user pretends they haven't been warned about rules violations. Such as 3RR for edit warring.
But there's also the rule there about Civility - no harassment, etc.
I'll endorse Aschlafly's "talk page is your castle" thing. But if someone won't communicate and won't collaborate, it's not a matter of "I can't barge into his living room and make him talk!" He's just refusing to work together.
We need more congeniality, because it leads to team work - which is a tremendous help in writing encyclopedia articles. --Ed Poor 23:04, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
I appreciate Ed's clarification about the rule on Wikipedia, but in practice it seems to result in communal ownership of one's personal talk page. I've seen a lot of that on my talk page in the past (not now). I think someone should be able to lock or blank their talk page. I suspect that Wikipedia editors misuse its rule (as in other cases) to bully people they disagree with. Here, I think we should say that a man's talk page is his castle.
This is not just a philosophical distinction. GofG is "outraged" because David R. locked his ... own castle. Maybe it's my fault for not defining rights better here. Someone should be able to lock his own castle, even if he's wrong.--Aschlafly 23:10, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
Can we at least get a page where normal users can request to communicate by proxy (admins could communicate the comments after determining the legitimacy of the comments)? --Hojimachongtalk 23:12, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
Is it possible to give us all that ability to lock our own talk pages? Or is this something that some sysops are going to use to try to end discussion? If it is just a sysop privledge and it is being abused in a way to remove communication then one needs to look at should a sysop who refuses to communicate with others be a sysop at all? --Mtur 23:13, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
I personally think that David R should be desysoped for this obvious abuse of power. There have been arguments that others have abused power before, but none have been as blatant as this. I also fall in line behind adopting Wikipedia's current rules for User talk: namespace pages. GofG ||| Talk 23:00, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
What has DavidR done to invoke this criticism? --Hojimachongtalk 23:01, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
At least Conservative had a reason to protect his userpage. David_R protected it for no reason that I can percieve. I would not be so furious, but with an edit summary like "OH NO :P[7]" I am thorougly outraged... GofG ||| Talk 23:06, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I think that's a fair rule that Andy suggested. If somebody wants to hide their warnings, we can go back and look at them anyway through past edits. MountainDew 23:11, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I guess I don't understand why archiving is so onerous? It takes a couple extra mouse clicks but then there's a clear record. And that applies to harassment, too. If it's vulgar, of course delete it, but otherwise just strike it out and leave a record of it. Aside from the systemic problems entailed with deleting information that can later be built on, it does little good for the reputation of the site for a user to obfuscate and erase criticism. Myk 23:24, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
Conservative said that he wanted to protect his because he was going to be gone and didn't want anybody asking for help and expecting it while he couldn't be there. MountainDew 23:25, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
That's the problem; he didn't leave for longer than the normal day/school cycle without editing, it was a bad excuse to protect. --Hojimachongtalk 23:26, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
As far as my leaving goes for a temporary period of time, I had an unexpected change of plans. Conservative 23:38, 29 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Thanks for your views in the longer post right before this, Conservative. --Hojimachongtalk 23:39, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
I thought my deleted post was too long in length, but I would agree with Andy when he said: "Critics of Wikipedia have suggested that this policy is a way for the Wikipedia mob to intimidate someone by harassing him on his own talk page." Conservative 23:41, 29 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
AHA! No post on a talk page is too long in length, unless it's a rant. Post away, my friend! --Hojimachongtalk 23:44, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
  • I agree with Andy. I would also like participate in helping him define users "rights" and help define Sysop obligations. I don't think a Sysop should be able to lock their talk page, as taking the position incurs an obligation to communicate with users. --~ TerryK MyTalk 23:45, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
Some would argue, radically, that it also entails the duty to not arbitrarily ban users. But that's just crazy 'ol liberal me.-AmesGyo! 23:54, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

The upper echelons should not lord it over the lower echelons. I hope we will all emulate our project sponsor, who has made everything available to us without charge and who is genial, fair and consistent.

In the couple of weeks I've been here, I've seen a lot of complaints and hurt feelings. I've also seen a ton of hard work being done. Some people pick a topic and chug away at it, producing articles like our masterful American Civil War series.

Others guard against vandalism, an essentially thankless and never-ending job. It must be a relief for sysops when senior staff turn off new account creation.

But the real hard part is collaboration, especially on the dozen or so "hot item" articles. I got no easy answers for anybody, but in my experience a willingness to "agree to disagree" goes a long way. --Ed Poor 23:53, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Agreeing to disagree is fine when all users are willing to compromise at NPOV. Which I always have been. I think we need an NPOV commandment.-AmesGyo! 23:54, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
That conflicts the basic ideals of Conservapedia, it's supposed to be biased. --Hojimachongtalk 23:56, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
Is it?-AmesGyo! 23:56, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
If it is, I think we need a clear statement on the front page. Caveat emptor.-AmesGyo! 23:57, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Ames, I would submit that it's hard for regular users to have enough information, in many cases, to determine what is arbitary, and what isn't. --~ TerryK MyTalk 23:59, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh, if you're looking for arbitrary bans, look at the ones that Conservative made against me. Based on ideology.-AmesGyo! 00:01, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Why are warnings or criticism from nonsysops not given the same weight as warnings or criticisms from sysops? And, not to belabor the point, but the warnings and criticisms Conservative deleted were from sysops. (sorry... I'm replying to the things that Conservative deleted. Myk 00:12, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Folks, I've been busy putting all new links on the front page. Perhaps this comment might shed some light, however. Conservatives don't believe in a direct democracy. Liberals don't believe in it either. Businessmen don't believe it either. Almost no one really believes in one man, one vote, one unit of influence. User:Conservative largely wrote the entries that rank #3, #5, #6 and #8 in popularity here. Agree with him or not, that is entitled to some deference, don't you think? AmesG, you're great and we welcome your contributions, but do you have any entries that rank so well? Whatever the reason, the results are hard to dispute.--Aschlafly 00:46, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
No, he is entitled to no deference. His contributions rank so well because they are a laughing stock. I am surprised you are not aware of that. --Horace 00:52, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Andy you know very well why we're getting those hits from Conservative's articles. Becuase they're hilarious, absolutely hilarious, and make a mockery of YECs and a mockery of conservatives by association! They're also completely uneducational and intellectually dishonest. Saying that the fact that they get attention is still, nonetheless, good, is like saying that a kid who draws on the walls and smashes vases is still "good" because, at least he's getting attention! My edits are listed on my talk page; I urge you to have a look at them. You'll find them fully cited, not quote mined, educational, and nonbiased. Good luck. Oh, and what are ranked #1, 2, 4, 7, and 9? Honestly, Andy, it's educationally negligent for you to be willfully blind to the poor quality of those articles. Your poor, poor students! -AmesGyo! 00:56, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Andy, controversy sells on websites, like TV and newspapers. I have to agree with the others, the traffic, as viewed from blogs and postings on other sites, are driven out of derision, mostly, and of course the topics; no matter who wrote them, they would be among the top hits anywhere, due to schools demanding papers on the subject. Unlike my fine contributions to the Harding page! :p --~ TerryK MyTalk 00:59, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
AmesG, you protest too much, and have no support for your claims. Surely you don't think visitors are going to #2 Bias in Wikipedia or #9 abortion for entertainment value too.
But you do raise a question: what percentage of the visits to Wikipedia are for gossip purposes? Perhaps 90%? Speculation, I agree, but no more so than yours. I know this: no one comes to Conservapedia to hear gossip, while many go to Wikipedia for that reason.--Aschlafly 01:01, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Andy, you worry too little, and have no support for your claims. So we're on the same ground. But as support for my "speculation," look to all the blog entries and media coverage of your site. Those are generating the largest number of hits, no question. Their listeners... what do they go to, and why? Think it through yourself. But by all means, if you think that Conservative's contributions represent good scholarship worthy of an encyclopedia, okay it. But if you ever want this to be taken seriously, you'll do something about it, and soon. And if you ever want your KIDS to learn what good scholarship is... well, you get the point. Do you?-AmesGyo! 01:07, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
It's pretty easy to check where the links are coming from: [8] [9] --Interiot 01:13, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Ouch.-AmesGyo! 01:19, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Wait; did you actually think that people were coming to our "popular pages" to gather information and gain knowledge? Erm, sorry to burst your bubble Andy, but right about now, nobody outside of this site likes Conservapedia. Let's try a Google News search, with 128 results in the past month. I challenge you to find one positive or glowing remark in there. A Google Blog search shows 3,870 major blog hits. Again, I doubt that any of them are positive. I have faith that Conservapedia could theoretically gain credibility, but given the current trends, I am becoming more and more skeptical. This idea that terrible editing (grammar-wise, spelling-wise, quote mining all over the place, failure to accept the notion that other people might hold opinions which aren't exactly the same as yours (I won't name names, I think we all know who I'm talking about), constant gutting, abuse of sysop priviliges, etc.) ought to be rewarded by "deference"? Sorry, but I tried to look for it, and there is absolutely no logic in that argument, is there? I really, really, really don't want to sound like I'm nagging, but honestly, where do we draw the line? --Hojimachongtalk 01:32, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Folks, you're welcome to your opinions, but they are not supported by any facts. The links provided above total only about 200 ... out of over 1 million on Google. Conservapedia has more page views by orders of magnitudes higher than its liberal critics. The liberal blogs are tiny in popularity compared to the page views we see here. Just a small fraction of our page views are coming from those blogs and news items, and many of those are people who really do want to hear the conservative side. The fact that "Bias in Wikipedia" is rank #2 tells you a lot about why people are coming here.--Aschlafly 01:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Even if all that is true (which I doubt) the fact remains that Conservative writes idiotic articles which he then protects. What are you going to do about it? --Horace 01:49, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
What needs to be supported by facts? The New York Times, The Houston Chronicle, NPR, Taipei Times, etc.. I didn't think we'd need to show that all of the traffic is coming from these articles, which all describe Conservapedia as a "good place to go for a laugh". Do you actually think, Mr. Schlafly, that these articles are not responsible for say, at least 75% of the traffic here? --Hojimachongtalk 01:50, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Let's get out of this rat-packing, I am not comfortable with it. Those of you with thoughts should email Andy, not turn this place into a lynching. Now, since I have been very vocal about my misgivings about a certain Sysop, you know my comments aren't made to protect anyone. Andy is an Attorney. I suggest he do what most Attorney's do, and as many non-Attorney's do, like myself, and turn the matter of talking to Conservative about attitude and style, over to his assistant. ;-) --~ TerryK MyTalk 01:55, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
The capacity for human self-deception is limitless, huh. Anyways, so what's the answer, Andy? Are you condemning your site to obscurity or opening up the Evolution article?-AmesGyo! 10:12, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Sysop privileges and responsibilties

Given that a sysop has additional privileges it would be a good idea to detail what the additional responsibilities of the sysops are. In theory, these are the individuals who are used to represent the best ideals of a site and how other editors themselves should behave and conduct themselves. These users are held to higher standards than other editors in conduct with dealing with others and with integrity of edits. A sysop misusing his or her privileges is at least as critical of an issue as whatever a non-sysop can do. ... And so, can we (the editors) get a description of the duties and responsibilities of a sysop? I assume it is more than "you are made a sysop can you can edit such and such." What additional rules does a sysop have to follow that normal editors don't (because we don't have the powers of a sysop) --Mtur 00:05, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Do keep in mind this isn't Wikipedia. Sysops, in theory and practice, could be chosen not only for superlative editing skills, but particular talents in editing, writing, organizing and even just being good at ferreting out vandalism, overt or covert. --~ TerryK MyTalk 01:02, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm fairly sure that Sysops are more useful in areas of vandalism fighting, organizing, etc. because the Sysop tools actually help those areas, while they do nothing to contribute to help the sysop write articles. GofG ||| Talk 06:47, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Also, what exactly does Wikipedia have to do with anything about what he said? GofG ||| Talk 06:50, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
  • His logic and premise is Wikipedian. When appointing us, Andrew's number one charge is to block users quickly, and for infinite time, for vandalism, overt or covert. He has also said we are to be vigilant in keeping articles in accord with the Commandments, the Conservative point of view. Mtur then went on to explain to us, just what a Sysop should be....which just follows what I have read on Wikipedia. Does that answer your question, GofG? --~ TerryK MyTalk 06:58, 30 March 2007 (EDT)


I just got back from a mission and I was talking to my students about Conservapedia and several of them are very interested in helping your project. However, they cannot creat accounts on your site! Is there any way they can get accounts? Also, I was thinking: wouldn't it be a good idea if students had special accounts so we could tell if they were students? That might be a neat idea, although I don't really know how widely it would be used...--CWilson 01:07, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Registration is only closed now late at night and early morning (Eastern Time). It's open during the day and early evening. Also, you can email the webmaster or me (I'm at aol) for manual accounts as desired. Thanks much.--Aschlafly 01:10, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
I have students myself but am lukewarm about identifying them, for obvious reasons. Maybe as we become more secure we can reconsider that in the future.--Aschlafly 01:11, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

No worries, Andy.....MountainDew, Hoji and myself can keep the vandals out at night! --~ TerryK MyTalk 01:20, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks much, Terry, I really appreciate that!!!--Aschlafly 01:21, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
I tend to be on at night too. <font color="red>G</font><font color"white">e</font><font color="blue">o</font>. 02:25, 30 March 2007 (EDT)