User talk:Aschlafly/Archive12

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Conservapedia's mission

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 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 benefits 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)

I agree. I have learned so much by teaching my students it is incredible. I am so greatful that I have had the opportunity.--CWilson 16:49, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Andy, I laud your goals of education. It truly is the best thing one can do. However, teaching something good and useful is important. So, in keeping with the educational goal of this site, you have outstanding questions about article quality linked here. I think they need to be answered so that the site can be a good educational resource. TerryK proposed e-mailing you, but I know you would rather address the issue publicly.-AmesGyo! 16:57, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
  • I suggested emailing Andy about his article? About teaching? About site policy? I'm confused now. --~ TerryK MyTalk 23:53, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Karajou

I would like to complain about Karajou. Karajou has gotten seriously abusive and aggressive with me. I would not bring this up to you except that he says he has your blessing to do so. Karajou has been extremely unkind to my politics. After I stated on my talk page that I was a conservative Democrat (my family has been Democrats since FDR) Karajou has written to me. 1. That Democrats can't be Christian. 2. That I am going to Hell. 3. That I am no longer able to write on Conservapedia about the subjects of the Bible or abortion and that he will kick me off if I do.

This is what Karajou wrote: "Ashlafly knows what's going on and he's backing me up. I'm laying down the law right now, and you're going to follow it or leave. There will be no disrespect of the Bible; there will be no twisting of the Bible to suit a personal perverted message. You will not edit any article pertaining to the Bible or the subject of abortion. This is final, and the debate is closed."

I have no real interest writing about abortion. It is so emotionally charged and difficult to discuss openly. However, I am only on this site to lend my expertise about the Bible. I never claim to be anything special, but I dare say it would be difficult to find anyone who has read or discussed the Bible more then me, since I have for over 10 years at my Church every day after school to kids! Please clarify with me: 1. Is Karajou's abuse acceptable? If so I don't want my students on here. 2. Does he have your blessing for this as he says? 3. Are Democrats, even conservative Biblical literalists not welcome on Conservapedia? 4. I am not allowed to edit certain articles now? If so I am leaving. --CWilson 17:04, 30 March 2007 (EDT)


I would be disappointed to see you go. You have been a strong contributor to this site. MountainDew 17:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)


CWilson, obviously I don't know you. You are certainly entitled to your opinions. If you choose to leave, I certainly wish you all the best.
Several of your statements seem over-the-top. You have taught at your Church every day after school for over 10 years? I don't know a single Church that has such a program. Did you really claim that the Bible supports abortion? I have never heard anyone credible take that position. At one point you said, "Be aware I am a Young Earth Creationist and a Biblical Literalist and I think these views need to be represented more. If I am an admin I hope to be like 'Conservative' who is a very good admin." That strikes me as sarcastic.
Time is short. Karajou is a Sysop for a good reason, and I do support him. Thanks.--Aschlafly 17:47, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Just a note... CWilson is the person who Conservative recommended for Sysop last week. Myk 17:51, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Link to nomination - Conservative was not the only one supporting CWilson. --Sid 3050 17:54, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
I have to question the assertion that one would go to Hell for voting Democrat. MountainDew 18:00, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
You've never seen a Church with an after school program? Wow. Do you even go to Church? How about St. Augustine? Is he credible enough for you? I have not read too extensively in my life, but I have read the Enchiridion, where Augustine states my view that abortion is OK in the first trimester and very questionable afterwards. I like a lot of the editors on this site for a lot of reasons. I like Conservative because he seems to want to advance the understanding of the Bible in many important areas and is honest about it. I like the edits he has done, although I am not privy to the complaints. I don't find that sarcastic. I also want to advance biblical understanding, and I think he does a fine job dealing with the Bible literally. I have also grown to like AmesG and other liberals, even though we two differ, because he is an honest man who discusses his opinions. There are a lot of good people on this site. I used to think Karajou was among them. True, I don't know you, but if you think its OK for someone like Karajou to censer me for political reasons (I thought this site was apolitical?) or heap abuse upon my beliefs without cause or backing, to cal me unChristian and say I'm going to hell, then I think you've got some big problems, not only with the site but with your self. I have seen many people leave this site recently that I like, because personal animosity has gotten very bad, it seems, and you do nothing to stop it!--CWilson 18:14, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
I may not agree with CWilson on many things, but he's got an excellent point there. Covering your sysops is nice and fine, but there are boundaries, and this is one of the cases that may very well step over said boundary (I haven't read the entire discussion, but what I saw was pretty bad). You should at least take the time to dive into things instead of just saying "I trust the sysops". --Sid 3050 18:20, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't have a long history with this site, so it's possible that I don't know all that there is to know about this conflict. However, Karajou has in the past praised CWilson's edits (see here), so this controversy seems to stem solely from CWilson's comments on a talk page. I don't agree with CWilson's views on abortion, but he has not inserted it into any actual articles based on his edit history (in fact, all of his edits seem pretty fair), so there's really no justification for threatening to block him, or from banning him from editing articles on the Bible or abortion. I think both CWilson and Karajou are significant contributors to the site, and I would hate to see one or both of them leave due to what seems to be a needless conflict. ColemanFrancis 18:47, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Damning someone to Hell isn't his job, or the job of anyone here. Karajou knows that. I don't think one or two intemperate words should be worthy of this attention. Vanity is a Sin. --~ TerryK MyTalk 19:13, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
What I still what to know: 1. Are Conservative Democrats not welcome here? Because if so I think you should call it Republipedia. 2. Am I being prohibited from editing certain articles henceforth because Karajou has decided he doesn't like me anymore? I['d appreciate an answer. Thanks.--CWilson 19:50, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

No, you are not going to go away. I am withdrawing my complaint against you officially and telling you publicly that I am sorry for treating you in the manner I did. Although I still think you are wrong concerning what is said in the Bible, I should have done better to recognize that such a topic could have been done in the spirit of debate, rather than assume a "back-door attack" as demonstrated during the past couple months by those who simply hate this site and everything it stands for. Karajou 20:18, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, CWilson is going away. I'm going to block him. After a close reading of his postings above and his edits, I do not believe him. I think he is hurting this site. Reread at how he answered my doubting his claim that he "taught at [his] Church every day after school for over 10 years." No such program exists. That's an obvious caricature.
So everyone who defended CWilson above now howls in protest. Folks, take a close look at CWilson's spellings. Remember, he claims to be a teacher.
Still not convinced? Take a look at this edit by CWilson, and his stated reason for it: here.
I'll wait 30 minutes before blocking CWilson, to give him a chance to apologize and for others to comment. CWilson, all the best to you.--Aschlafly 22:41, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
His last edit was about 3 hours ago, so giving him 30 minutes is a tad harsh - he's most likely not online right now.
The edit you present happened roughly two weeks ago, and nobody dished out a ban when it happened. And an edit of that degree shouldn't lead to a ban, or if so, just an hour or half a day at max.
Seriously, this is ridiculous. Do you know every church program in the United States? If so, you can surely show us a list with them so we can verify your claim that it doesn't exist. I'm not saying that his claim is definitely true, but when you want to assign a ban based on your claim, you should prove it.
Keep an eye on him if you must, but the guy got a sincere sysop nomination that was backed by another contributor. It's way over the top to ban him now for... uh... your gut feeling. --Sid 3050 23:04, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
I just got online. I have responded at the bottom of the page.--CWilson 23:07, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
"Folks, take a close look at CWilson's spellings. Remember, he claims to be a teacher." No offense to you, Aschlafly, but you're a teacher as well and I've seen you misspell things. We're all humans here, and mistakes happen. Jrssr5 14:02, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Presidential Election

I have to confess, I don't know how a breakdown in battleground states merits mention on the Presidential Election page [1], nor do I know why my deleting it was improper. There are no sources, it's completely original. And while the statistics given are verifiable, their influence on the upcoming election is not. As 2006 proved, trends change. There's nothing in your analysis to suggest that the Democrats will win the same states in 2008. Every election is a new election. The analysis of background states is out of place. Myk 17:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

It's factual and highly informative. Do think anything there is wrong? This is the type of relevant, useful, enlightening information that Conservapedia is here to provide.--Aschlafly 17:33, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
No. It's not. What way the battleground states went in 2004 would belong in the 2004 election... and it would, of course, have to be sourced as per Commandment 2. What is going to happen in 2008 is at best a matter of conjecture and is a heckuva lot more complicated than just saying this is the way elections went in 2004, this is what happened in 2006, this is what will happen in 2008. We don't even know who the candidates are, electoral math is a long way away. Myk 17:37, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
The overwhelming majority of the states in 2000 voted the same way in 2004. My political science professor said that 2000 was when the "culture war" started being dominant in presidential politics, and barring a Giuliani nomination, I would expect the trend to continue on 2008. I do find it relevant. MountainDew 17:45, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Your professor is right, that is when the culture war started dominating. And as your professor will tell you, backlashes to dominance are not uncommon. But the information on that page is not comparing trends from 96->00->04. It's comparing 04->06. Apples to oranges. And while the raw data is verifiable, the analysis is not. Myk 17:49, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
  • The trends of the past election cycle are always relevant to the next. You did good, Andy. Predicting elections has more in common with reading tea leafs than science. I have a board in my office with a half dozen likely permutations. All of us who are at a certain level, who do this for a living, are finding (in the polling data) great contradictions. And still, even starting earlier every four years, barring some tragic event like 9/11 again, it will still come down to the final few months (after the conventions) to accurately predict results. As for candidates, while waiting for Thompson and Gingrich to decide, it has become like water torture to see who will oppose Clinton/Obama. --~ TerryK MyTalk 17:58, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
But Tk... is there a source for that? Is the analysis verifiable? Those are commandments, not suggestions. Myk 18:00, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Guys, some questioning of authority is good, but to constantly dig at the Wizzard, out of frustration with other issues, isn't productive, is it? There are so many other topics! --~ TerryK MyTalk 18:14, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Which didn't answer the question. Obfuscation does not reflect well on any one! Myk 18:45, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Every individual, has the natural right not to answer. That isn't obfuscation. --~ TerryK MyTalk 18:55, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Commandment, dude. Those are inarguable. Clear and concise. You praised the analysis, are there sources, is the analysis verifiable. I can't edit it because it's protected now. You're a sysop, you can.Myk 19:00, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
  • I keep telling you guys, Andy is a big boy! Get a hold on your constant demands for instant gratification. When he has the time, I am sure he will put up the links to his figures. YOU can find the citations, and slap them on the talk page. Then they could be added. Or would people rather just argue, for the sake of argument? --~ TerryK MyTalk 19:16, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Hi. Welcome back to the real world. That analysis (a longer version of it, actually) was deleted about two and a half weeks ago. For all the same reasons I have listed here. For the same reasons I deleted his analysis of Rudy Giuliani. If it doesn't have a source, if it isn't verifiable it doesn't go up. I was told off for improperly deleting it and when I brought it to his attention I was told "The analysis is accurate and what people are looking for when they come here." That doesn't answer the simple question of whether or not the information has a source (it does not) or if the analysis is verifiable (it is not). And it is an article linked to from the main page. Good show.
No source exists for the analysis because it is unverifiable. And I'm certainly not going to do Andy's work for him.Myk 19:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
It is verifiable: look at the results from 2004 and 2006. Logical, undisputed extensions of verified results are fully acceptable. We don't embrace Wikipedia's selectively liberal enforcement of its citation requirement. If 2+2=4 is accepted, then we don't need a citation for 2+3=5. We're not going to censor the statement that 2+3=5 simply because someone doesn't like it. The reader can evaluate the logic and make his own decision. No one is misled by the entry.--Aschlafly 23:36, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
To be fair, Andy, it is your commandment that says to cite sources. Not my commandment. Yours. It doesn't say except when the information is common knowledge which, by the way, election results per state generally aren't anyways. It says, Always cite and give credit to your sources, even if in the public domain.
Plus you're comparing apples to oranges in your analysis. Independents are renowned for voting for candidates, not parties. That's why they're independents. In 06 they were voting for senators and governors. In 08 they're voting for a president. Apples and oranges. And if you look closely at this talk section here, you'll see you did mislead Mountain Dew who didn't read it closely and thought you were comparing 00 and 04 elections.Myk 00:17, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
Myk, I'm not ignoring your comment, which I agree has merit. I just don't know what to do about it. You are taking the position that is selectively enforced at Wikipedia, where anything unsourced, even if it is completely logical and compelling, can be deleted for ideological reasons. I don't think our rules say that here. We welcome logic here. We even welcome original work here when properly disclosed. I'm convinced that one reason (not the only reason) that Wikipedia bans original work is to allow ideologically motivated censorship.
I don't have the answer yet, and I think this issue will need to be revisited by many people here as Conservapedia grows. Thanks for raising it.--Aschlafly 19:30, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Please note

SYSOP Hojimachong is trying to put in a "evolution is fact" book in the recommended books section of the Theory of evolution article. I thought you should be aware of this. Conservative 17:51, 30 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Right. Lets forget the fact that the book in question (Biological Evolution, DJ Futuyma, 1979) is one of the most relevant if not the most relevant to the actual content of the article (evolution, not why evolution is wrong). And the author, DJ Futuyma, has a B.S. from Cornell, and an M.S. and PhD from UMich. I would assume this is a credible resource in writing about the topic at hand, given the fact that it's relevant, well-sourced, and written by a widely respected author. --Hojimachongtalk 17:53, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
How many pages do you need this posted to? And when is that panel going to decide about what content should be in the page? --Mtur 17:55, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Please be aware that Conservative has now deleted a reasonable request from his talk page here. this request was probably the best way to resolve the issue. --Hojimachongtalk 17:57, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Has the panel been informed of any of the evolution issues? MountainDew 17:58, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
  • All texts, covering all theories, should be included, IMHO. We cannot save anyone's soul here by one article. God will provide enlightenment as He wishes, in His own time. --~ TerryK MyTalk 18:17, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Yknow, I'd for once just like the sysops to stop playing the "My ego is bigger than your ego" game and get along.--Elamdri 18:47, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
There's a difference between the "ego" game and actually trying to resolve a content dispute. And it is pretty annoying when every edit you make is reverted. --Hojimachongtalk 18:48, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservative, this is an encyclopedia. We're obligated to show all resources available for learning about evolution. The fact that you disagree with them doesn't make them invalid. I'm sure you've been wrong lots of times - quite sure in fact - so we should let users decide for themselves. Right? I'm not going to even press that evolution is fact.-AmesGyo! 20:09, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

AmesG, people are learning about the Theory of evolution at Conservapedia. They are just not learning what you want them to and we will see what the panel decides in regards to this issue. Conservative 20:30, 30 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Is there any word as to when this panel will convene, and if further non-consensus edits will be made before then? --Mtur 20:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Conservative, people are learning about your twisted bastardization of the theory of evolution, the one you create to lie to yourself so you can live happily in your self-contradicting world, ignorant of the writing on the walls. What they are not learning, though, is the way that the real world thinks about evolution, and the way that evolution relates to modern science. Modern science - I'll say those two words again.-AmesGyo! 20:32, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
  • On that we agree, Conservative. I can't see why people are fixated on one issue, when there are so many other pages that need to be created or expanded upon. --~ TerryK MyTalk 20:30, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

link spams?

ummm everytime i try to add links to my pages i get a msg telling me its spam...did we change something ? do links need to be approved by someone now? or are they no longer allowed? wondering... --Wally 19:58, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Homology locked already

And within a short time of the article being created, Homology suddenly had out of context quotes and was locked by Conservative. This was previously being worked on by individuals who were coming to an understanding of what to include. This type of behavior is very childish and does not promote communication and help the students get a proper understanding of what the subject matter is at hand. Furthermore, with it becoming apparent that anything that Conservative does not like gets edited by him and then locked makes it discouraging for anyone to contribute. If you want this to be Conservitive's approved wiki - continue on with this path. --Mtur 21:19, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

In less than fifteen minutes, this shining example of an article has gathered 2 OOC quotes and 7 AiG refs! Hopefully it will become the fifth most-viewed page, so we can shower rewards and favor upon Conservative. --Hojimachongtalk 21:21, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Given that it's also a fairly significant term in mathematics (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Homology.html) there should probably be a "disambiguation" page or something similar... Airdish 21:23, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
There was foolish edit warring going on. If I am not mistaken, the creationist(s) were titling their info as the "scientific view" and the evolutionists were doing the same. I see this as posturing on both sides. I put an end to it. This "title debate" seems to go on in every unlocked article. I think it is rather ridiculous and makes Conservapedia look like a food fight. Conservative 21:24, 30 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Prior to this edit, the edits were being discussed on the talk page. With the exception of minor corrections it was not the 'evolutionists' that making the edits. It is unfortunate that you did not join in the discussion on the talk page before making your edits. --Mtur 21:32, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

With you around, it's always a food fight ended by one user locking himself in his cave because he can't take getting spaghetti on his shirt. Anyways, it's correct that creationism is not a science.-AmesGyo! 21:25, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

It appears as if the "title debate" was the result of AmesG. I think he should be blocked for the childish game he plays in his "title debates". Conservative 21:31, 30 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
And I know you should be blocked for foolishly blocking me three times already just because you don't like me.-AmesGyo! 21:32, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Conservative, it doesn't help to start attacking people, especially people who are - I believe, honestly - trying to improve the integrity of this site and bring some rigour to the debate. Airdish 21:36, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Official complaint about TK/TerryK (sysop)

I'll make this one short since I don't know how long I'll stay unbanned:

  1. TK blocked me for adding wiki-links and the stub template to dead-end pages.
  2. He unblocked me after a few minutes (forgot to unban my IP, though) and started to harass me on my User Talk page for fixing a few cases of accidental censorship that happened when the sysop David R added templates to a few pages.
    • The irony is that I offered my help to him on his Talk page before all that happened because the template had also been added to his Archive (removing two words in the process).
    • The even bigger irony is that he's complaining about a template I did not create, request or anything else. I just repaired a few edits that accidentally removed a few words and fixed things to do what a sysop had intended. Apparently, that makes me responsible for the sysop's actions and thoughts.

I'm not actually complaining about the block I had received (although it was COMPLETELY unjustified). I'm complaining about his attitude, his inability to actually check a few article histories to verify that his block is justified (it wasn't), his unwillingness to read and check what people tell him on his Talk page, and his paranoid ranting at the guy who only fixed things a sysop accidentally "broke". Please don't tell me that you support him. You gave sysop powers to a total idiot. TK might be a good editor, but he should not be trusted with this sort of power. --Sid 3050 21:23, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

In defense of CWilson

Andy - you've made two arguments as to why you're going to block the above-referenced user: you think he's lying about his church program because you don't know about it, and you think he's lying about being a teacher because he has made spelling errors.

The fact that you don't know about the specific church program he works for is not evidence of its nonexistence.

Additionally, you've committed spelling errors before, and I remember correcting a few of them. You're still a teacher, and nobody questions that.

CWilson is a good editor. He should stay, unless better reasons for a block can be provided. --Huey dun gotcha 22:47, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

One, I want to accept Karajou's apology. I believe him firmly to be a good man. I'm sorry you got upset, Karajou. Two, I'll leave banning entirely up to you. I don't want to be on this site if you question my character. One of my two jobs is supervising an afterschool program at my Church. I'm sorry if you are unaware of these programs--you will find them all over. I did a Google search and found hundreds. Like this [2] or look for yourself [3] If you have a pastor go ask him. I'm sure he'll have heard of him unless you're in the middle of nowhere. You're going to criticize my spellings too? I'm sorry, sometimes I'm sloppy. I try very hard, but I don't have the benefit of a university education. I'm self taught. I didn't even get to get to go to high school. I got a GED. Also, it is no secret I am a biblical literalist and a young earth creationist. Do I have doubts about fossils and the fact the Earth is billion of years old, yes? Do I have apologies to give? No. I don't think I treated anyone unfairly. If you do then please cite. Otherwise, if you're going to ban get it over with. I'll be happy to leave if that's the way you feel.--CWilson 23:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
CWilson, I didn't believe you when you claimed to be a teacher, and I still don't believe you. Your edit of the Earth entry was a silly mockery of Christianity. I suggest you apologize to everyone here before you are blocked. But that's up to you. I do believe in free will, and we won't hold a grudge whether you apologize or not.--Aschlafly 23:24, 30 March 2007 (EDT)


Hey CWilson, hey Andy.
I think CW, what we got here is "failure to communicate". See they're still tender after the BORF and Richard things which you apparently missed, (for the most part), and can be quick to jump on anyone whose credentials seem a bit odd to them. Still, I'd advise you (CW) to stick around and post like normal, I don't think they'll bother you if the edits are to their liking.
As for you Andy: This here is the internet, what you see isn't always as you perceive it. There are liberal minded folks here, some of them maybe even sysops, but it doesn't always show in their edits. It is very difficult to get a "read" on a person's character based only on what one sees one the internet, this is especially true on a wiki. As it is, you're the "boss" around here, but your style is inconsistent...I think that is your doing but only so far as ALL the "rules" are not codified. People need to know what the rules are and how they're enforced. While the rules are fine as far as they go, they do not give a sense of boundaries which is what rules are for in the first place. It's sort of like putting up fence posts and then leaving the rails off: A)It doesn't do any good and B) it makes the people who put up the fence posts look stupid.
The above is just my 2¢ and you're free to take or leave any or all parts of it. -- Crackertalk 10:01, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
Thanks Cracker, but I've already wasted enough time on this. My comments above on this matter are sufficiently explanatory. I'm focusing on adding and improving entries today.--Aschlafly 10:14, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
And, of course, CWilson has already been blocked for a week so it's moot. Myk 11:36, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I decided to see if I could make some significant improvements to the abortion article

I decided to see if I could make some significant improvements to the Abortion article. I found something significant that was missed. Conservative 23:22, 30 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Revert war over maintenance

(sigh) Requesting sysop assistance because TK is creating a double redirect:

I have attempted to fix this double redirect two times, and both got reverted by TK. I assume he sees my routine repair as an attack on his User Talk page, so I need sysop authority to get the permission to fix things. The page is now also protected in its broken state, so I definitely need a sysop now.

So: I officially request the opinion of sysops User:Aschlafly, User:TK, User:Conservative, User:CPAdmin1, User:CPWebmaster, User:Ed Poor, User:David_R, User:AustinM, User:Geo.plrd, and User:Tsumetai to get a poll of roughly 33% of all sysops for this undoubtedly critical change to a User page.

All replies should be left at User_talk:Sid_3050#Double_Redirect_Poll for easier evaluation of the results. --Sid 3050 09:50, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Science Classroom

I have a proposal to open a science classroom. The idea is to have experts in science (and I mean standard, practical science) answer basic science questions. It would not be a place for ideologues to leave their views or smear others. It would not be a place for non-mainstream science, e.g. creationism...as it is still not considered mainstream, it needs its own classroom. For example, someone could ask how scienice explains "x", and someone could give the standard answer. I wish to separate out the controversial issues, because there are plenty of places for that. If anyone is interested in collaborating, especially wikigeeks who would have an idea how to set it up, let me know.--PalMDtalk 12:35, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes. Something "interactive" sounds good: it would depend though on registration being open MOST of the time (I'm going to guess that anon. ip posting would never take around here). IOW, if they can't register to ASK a question they'll go elsewhere quickly. -- Crackertalk 12:57, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, Im happy to get started if someone has a format.--PalMDtalk 13:29, 31 March 2007 (EDT)


Andy, I'd like to know what you think, as youre the boss around here.--PalMDtalk 14:48, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I think this is an excellent idea. A key difference between Conservapedia and Wikipedia is that Conservapedia strives to be more educational. PalMD has suggested a good way to move that one step forward. Further suggestions on this theme are welcome.--Aschlafly 15:07, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Im thinking about starting it as an experiment, perhaps opening a subpage under mine and trying it out...any objections?--PalMDtalk 15:12, 31 March 2007 (EDT)


Ok, I have it up and running, if anyone is interested. User:Palmd001/Science Classroom

Request unprotection of Jesus

Would you consider unprotecting Jesus? A month ago, you protected it with the summary "too much vandalism on this page, hence a temporary protection", and there are more people to watch it for vandalism now (I've added to my watchlist at least). The article is pretty short and could definitely use some expansion. --Interiot 14:41, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Done as requested.--Aschlafly 15:04, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
Thanks. --Interiot 15:05, 31 March 2007 (EDT)


Policy proposals

I have created a half dozen policy proposals (see Category:Proposed Conservapedia policy). The intent was to codify what you and other senior staff have already indicated you'd like us all to do.

Would you like to take a look at these and provide some feedback? --Ed Poor 15:16, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Those look great, Ed, IMHO. Can we edit them to add small things that have also been made explicitly clear on this talk page, or yould you like them pristine for Andy? --Hojimachongtalk 17:05, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
Please add! :-) --Ed Poor 17:07, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
Wow, those are fantastic, Ed!!! I particularly liked your one about how cites to journalists are not always authorities. Wikipedia is atrocious in converting a journalist's (baseless) opinion into a factual assertion simply by citing to the journalist.
One thought on the uploading one. For some reason, I think we have a maximum of about six characters for our uploads here, and you can't tell from the error message. "Anita_Bryant.jpg" failed as an upload for me, but "AnitaB.jpg" for the exact same file worked. Unless you know what I'm doing wrong, you might want to add that to the policy examples or explanation.--Aschlafly 19:20, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for the feedback, it's an honor to be here. By the way, I've updated Wikipedia's article on Conservapedia [4] and left a comment there on my first 18 days as a 'Conservapedian'. (A Wikipedian's experience) --Ed Poor 19:28, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Big on Lincoln

Added the complete text to Lincoln's fast proclamation article that is advertized on the main page, with additional material. Karajou 15:20, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Thank you!!!!--Aschlafly 23:23, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Huey gunna getcha

I upped his ban to five months because he's repeatedly been sending me nasty emails after Ed temporarily blocked him. Would you object to me banning his new name as well? MountainDew 17:55, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Are you talking about me? Do you really think that I'm Huey_gunna_getcha? --Huey dun gotcha 17:58, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
Already blocked by another Sysop, appropriately so. Thanks.--Aschlafly 19:04, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Footnotes - technical help

Hey, Andy!

Conservative created a page at Conservapedia:Footnotes - technical help to show users how to insert footnotes. I helped to flesh things out for him, and I think the result is quite nice.

Could you edit Help:Editing for us? The current content of the "Adding References" section could just be replaced with a note saying "To find out how to add references using footnotes, see this Help page."

The result should lead to a slightly less cluttered Help:Editing page, I think. :) --Sid 3050 19:20, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Done as requested. Thanks for the suggestion.--Aschlafly 19:25, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
Awesome! :) --Sid 3050 19:26, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

User:Sanity

He's been blocked already as a sockpuppet of an infinibanned user, User:edittext. If you look at Sanity's user page, the signature at the bottom is "edittext". --Hojimachongtalk 19:35, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Smart move! Well done.--Aschlafly 20:03, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Bureaucrat position

I would hate for Conservapedia's managerial system to have a bottleneck in terms of decision making as the website grows. I also believe that there should be way to resolve disputes between Sysops without having to "send a message to Andy on his discussion page". After all, I would hate to see Conservapedia to be a pain in neck to Mr. Schlafly.

Here is what I propose:

State somewhere on Conservapedia that the "Bureaucrat position has authority over the Sysop position and that Sysops have to defer to Bureaucrats in relation to Conservapedia disputes".

If you wanted you could also have a Sysop appeal process where the Sysop post his disputation regarding a Bureaucrat's decision at some standard place on Conservapedia. Some entity can overturn the Bureaucrat's decision if that entity believes it is justified. If the decision is not overturned the Sysop can assume the Bureaucrat's decision was upheld.

I believe such a managerial plan would provide the delegation that is necessary for Conservapedia's future growth. Conservative 21:44, 31 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

And what if the bureaucrat's ruling is in opposition to the Commandments? Nobody would be able to overturn this if they agreed with the Bureaucrat ideologically. --Hojimachongtalk 21:57, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
The appeal process could handle any Bureaucrat egregious behavior. If the behavior was egregious disciplinary measures could be taken. Conservative 22:25, 31 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

I beleive I suggested last week that such a process is needed, and am happy to agree with Conservative. Since the Bureaucrats are responsible for the site, I would assume they are at least partially responsible for the Commandments. Someones decision has to be the final one, so it really isn't something to worry about. --~ TerryK MyTalk 01:33, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia's Most Visited Pages

Though Wikipedia uses Wiki software, why isn't there a "Statistics" link so that visitors can see what its most visited pages are? Is there a less obvious way for the public to access this?--Aschlafly 21:53, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Where is Conservapedia's statistics link? I would like to see it. Conservative 21:54, 31 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Conservative, here are CP stats. Andy, WP is on a month-by-month basis. March is here. Some are vulgar, though, so be warned. --Hojimachongtalk 21:56, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
Andy, lots of things work here that don't work on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia has so much traffic, they have to turn things off. Statistics are one of the things that Wikipedia has to turn off (several other Special Pages don't work there either). --Interiot 21:58, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
Interiot, what makes you think that Wikipedia "has to turn off" its statistics page??? Do you seriously think that the numbers are too big for the computer to handle? Surely you jest. There are more plausible explanations.--Aschlafly 22:18, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
Actually, it has some truth. Wikipedia's main page gets over 30 hits per second. The constant updating of cached information slowed down the server so much, that when they accidentally turned it off one day, it was noticably faster. --Hojimachongtalk 22:21, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Recording and displaying page counts is child's play and does NOT place any extra load on the server. Incrementing a counter takes less than 1 millionth of a second. If they can "serve the page" - which takes 1,000 times as much computer power as counting the "hit", then ....

Jimbo originally made me a developer so I could study the database schema and the software, to find ways of speeding up the servers. I come up with several ideas, but the development team was leaderless and anarchic and couldn't be persuaded even to TRY any of the things that worked so well at ABC.

They didn't design the software, it just grew - by accretion - the way an oyster creates a pearl. We will never have to turn off our statistics, and we can customize the software any way we want. --Ed Poor 22:35, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Ed's obviously right. And to answer Hoji, a statistical update every hour rather than every second could resolve any loading issues anyway.
Folks, let's be candid. Wikipedia's image of popularity would go up in smoke if the public could see what people (especially teenagers) are really going to Wikipedia for: sex and gossip.--Aschlafly 22:41, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
What others use a resource for is irrelevant to its value. I use Conservapedia partially for amusement, and partially for personal gratification, but does that make it a comedy site? No. Please let's not attack Wikipedia about nothing.
BTW: [5]. Can't believe you guys couldn't find this. Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 14:25, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
Is there a way to see the top 20 articles at Conservapedia? The top 50? The top 100? I would like to see them so I could have the opportunity to work on the most viewed pages. Conservative 22:49, 31 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Conservative, this is standard in Wiki software. Under "special pages" click "More ...", and then click "Popular Pages". You can view every page's popularity that way. Wikipedia doesn't want the public to see that for it, for obvious reasons. That entry is magically missing from Wikipedia's special page list, even though it uses the same wiki software.--Aschlafly 22:54, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
SELECT TOP 20 pagecount, title FROM page
ORDER by pagecount DESC
SELECT TOP 50 pagecount, title FROM page
ORDER by pagecount DESC
SELECT TOP 100 pagecount, title FROM page
ORDER by pagecount DESC

That's how I'd do it, off the top of my head. I'd have to check the table names and field names, but that's the correct syntax. --Ed Poor 23:07, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I have taken several computer programming classes and used statistical software but I have no idea how to get the top 20,50, and 100 articles at Conservapedia given your instructions. Can you provide a link I could click on like Hoji did? Conservative 23:15, 31 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Top 100. --Hojimachongtalk 23:16, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, Hoji. I shoulda thunka dat.

  1. Main Page ‎(715,520 views)
  2. Examples of Bias in Wikipedia ‎(162,086 views)
  3. Theory of evolution ‎(91,126 views)
  4. Index ‎(61,403 views)
  5. Dinosaur ‎(52,158 views)
  6. Kangaroo ‎(50,683 views)
  7. Homosexuality ‎(45,041 views)
  8. Abortion ‎(37,858 views)
  9. George W. Bush ‎(33,913 views)
 10. CE ‎(28,582 views)
 11. Jesus ‎(27,583 views)
 12. Atheism ‎(25,972 views)
 13. Bill Clinton ‎(25,794 views)
 14. Liberal ‎(23,332 views)
 15. Islam ‎(21,769 views)
 16. Articles for Deletion ‎(20,748 views)
 17. Creationism ‎(20,497 views)
 18. Charles Darwin ‎(18,426 views)
 19. Debate topics ‎(18,371 views)
 20. Unicorn ‎(17,630 views)

Baa, I feel sheepish. --Ed Poor 23:21, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I applaud that spirit of cooperation and sportsmanship! :-) Now let's seize this opportunity to call a cease-fire on the Theory of Evolution page. I'm a bit miffed at my own edits have been largely removed from that entry! Anyway, this is something for the student panel to decide, and I know it has been working on it. A status quo for when the student panel began looking at it a few days ago makes sense, so that it is not considering a moving target. Thanks for your cooperation.--Aschlafly 23:21, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Baffling

I would like your view on the current edit war over Theory of evolution. This edit has been subject to many rollbacks recently. As you can see, the first version includes a quotation. The second version contains a mined quotation which could be used as the definition of quote mining. Though you may all hate the theory itself, changing the meaning of a quote to support a view that the quote didn't support in the first place cannot be morally or intellectually honest in any way, shape, or form. If you view User Talk:Conservative, you will see that I have been extremely forthcoming regarding an open discussion over the edit. Each time, Conservative deletes my questions, mentioning either "previous incivility" (an obscure incident several days ago inspired by the lack of communication), or his "previous comments on this" (which don't exist or are completely irrelevant, I don't know, since he hasn't pointed to a specific one), or "let the panel decide" (in which case User:Conservative continues to edit the article after saying that nobody should edit it). This is a completely terrible injustice to an even more terribly article, and your view would be appreciated. The behavior of Conservative is extremely childish and unbecoming of somebody in such a trusted position. --Hojimachongtalk 22:50, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Obscure incident to whom? Since it was my talk page it is not a very obscure incident to me! Conservative 22:53, 31 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Apparently it was, considering you deleted it without calling attention to it at all, until now, when it becomes convenient. --Hojimachongtalk 22:55, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
Due to a lack of communication? I got your incivil message loud and clear at my talk page. Previously you said it was due to anger. I suppose you are going to retract that now.Conservative 22:56, 31 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
No, I'm not going to retract that. It was out of anger then, because I was angry that you weren't communicating. This is a perfect example of Argumentum ad hominem. Why don't you answer the actual question posed, i.e. why you are mining a quote without explanation? And why do you refuse to engage in conversation until now? Is Andy's talk page special in some way? --Hojimachongtalk 22:58, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
I think what we have here is a failure to communicate! LOL Please stop sending me messages on my talk page because given your past incivil behavior, I have no desire to receive it. Conservative 23:01, 31 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
I have stopped. That's why I posted here. Your behavior is astounding, Conservative. The edits you are making only serve to undermine this site. You have been incivil in the past as well (by wantonly deleting comments that you don't have a good answer for), though here I am, attempting to communicate with you. Grudges don't work on a Wiki.--Hojimachongtalk 23:03, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
Hoji, I don't think you like my conservative edits to Conservapedia. I can live with that. Evidently though some people want to read conservative edits supported by footnotes that are an alternative to Wikipedia and the stats show that. I suggest you go to your liberal cacoon at Wikipedia if my material offends you.Conservative 23:24, 31 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
This is Conservapedia, I know that. It's not "let's take a perfectly good quote and completely change it to fit our own narrow views"opedia. I could say "I hate raccoons, but not turtles" and you could change it to say "I hate...turtles". True, I said it, but that doesn't mean it's true. The changes you applied to Theory of evolution changed the factual meaning of the quote, which is inappropriate, and makes the quote no longer a valid quote. --Hojimachongtalk 23:27, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Hojimachong is ignoring your ceasefire request regarding theory of evolution article. the edit war continues

Hojimachong is ignoring your ceasefire request regarding theory of evolution article. The edit war continues. He wants to add evolutionists leaning material and delete creationist material. Please do something. I would appreciate it. Conservative 23:41, 31 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

This is meant as a distraction to the quote mining and wholesale gutting done by User:Conservative. I will defend all of my edits to Theory of evolution, mainly due to the fact that they added to the encyclopedic and educational value of the article. --Hojimachongtalk
I think it makes sense to preserve the status quo as the students evaluate this. Hoji, can you highlight your proposed edits in a separate entry for the students to consider? They are trying to be fair about this and have done significant work already in reviewing and discussing this. Thanks.--Aschlafly 00:09, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

We don't need users like AmesG. Here is a beauty from AmesG

Here is what AmesG said regarding material he posted in regards to it's veracity:

"I honestly had no idea and just wanted to pick a fight." [6]

Do we really need users who care so little about whether their material is factual or not? Do we need users who are so pugnacious that the facts don't really matter?

I say we cannot afford to babysit AmesG anymore. I think AmesG needs to be banned for about 3 months and hopefully upon his return he will have a higher standard in respect to the veracity of his edits. Conservative 01:22, 1 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

In all fairness, that was what I said but not the whole statement. The whole statement was using one edit I made (that I did have a source for) to mock your general disregard for facts. I had a source for that edit, I was just using it to prove a point. I never edit without the facts, Conservative. You do.-AmesGyo! 01:29, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
You never gave your source. You have yet to give a source. You had no idea whether the statement was true as the talk page shows (see above footnote). Conservative 01:32, 1 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Mr. Pot, it is a pleasure to meet you. I go by "Mr. Kettle." You never submit to a challenge over the veracity of your statements. Why should I?-AmesGyo! 01:33, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for your inartful dodging. Conservative 01:34, 1 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Ditto. So I'll allow myself to be critiqued when you do? Fair? I'm willing to be an open book. I have nothing to hide.-AmesGyo! 01:34, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Res ipsa loquitor.-AmesGyo! 02:18, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
Take a look at the series of articles on Rome, the Roman Empire, the Roman Kingship, the Roman Republic, all of those. Notice the high quality content? That's all AmesG. 'Nuff said. If anybody needs monitoring, it is users who mine quotes, misrepresent opinions to suit their own views, and mindlessly censor facts. --Hojimachongtalk 02:43, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I wish I had more done on those so far, but so busy. Thanks though Hoji! Another few sections for the Republic today hopefully.-AmesGyo! 11:04, 1 April 2007 (EDT)


Every time a user demands that another regular user be banned, it makes me want to leave the site. MountainDew 15:32, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

The pic problem

Trying to upload public domain pics and images for use in articles is a perplexing pain in the posterior. Out of about ten successfully installed and used, I have been prevented from uploading upwards of 80 times due to "errors" or other such stuff. It sounds too much like Mr. Scott is having trouble with the beam-up button! Karajou 12:28, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I've had success shortening the name of the images to 6 characters or less.--Aschlafly 13:20, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
Maybe it's not just the length... plenty of images have been uploaded with more than 6 characters. [7] --Interiot 13:30, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
True, I've tried with 6 and less characters, and it still has not worked. --Hojimachongtalk 13:31, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
The only thing I can offer is that, in my experience, simply re-pressing the Upload button NEVER EVER WORKS. Changing the file name and trying again often works, but not on the first try, and I have no clue as to what changes are most likely to achieve success. Dpbsmith 13:43, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
I've been lengthening the name; shortening the name; putting in hyphens; taking out hyphens; adding numbers; subtracting numbers...maybe it's because I have a little gnome on the inside of my laptop and it doesn't like me anymore. I guess I better start feeding the gnome real food instead of dog biscuits! Karajou 15:20, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
why don't you try properly configure the wiki server software. Jaques 15:22, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Panel & Quote Mining

Please be advised that here there is a petition from a few of us about the way the evolution article should be addressed. I am sure you will take it into account. Also, I wonder if you could give us a statement about how "quote mining" should not be practiced on this site.-AmesGyo! 13:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

AmesG, when you say "quote mining," do you mean anything more than "the systematic and deliberate use of quoting out of context?" Dpbsmith 13:44, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
I think it's "The systematic and deliberate use of quoting out of context to completely misrepresent the position which the speaker actually took, or to reverse the actual meaning of the quote via abridging huge portions". --Hojimachongtalk 13:46, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Quoting out of context through creative use of ellipses is "quote mining." For example, did you know that Conservative actually thinks I'm quite competent? Here's the quote - "I say...AmesG needs...respect [for] the veracity of his edits."-AmesGyo! 13:51, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I could swear there was something in the Bible about 'not bearing False Witness'. Or is that one of the parts we're supposed to ignore when inconvenient? --BDobbs 15:37, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
"Quote mining" is not a legitimate term, but seems to be a phrase invented by and for promoters of evolution. Every day, millions of times a day, people use the quotes of other people. And thank God they do! There is nothing wrong with it. If a quote is truly taken out of context to give it a different meaning then intended, that let's see the proof of that before criticizing the use of someone's own words.--Aschlafly 19:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
They say that when they don't like the way a quote is used. Sometimes they say it even when the quote is used legitimately, but they (or the person who said it) realize that it was an unwise admission of something they wanted to hide.
In climate science, there was that guy's quote about "scary scenarios" who complained he was misunderstood or taken out of context or something. I'd have to dig it up. --Ed Poor 19:49, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
I refer to Stephen Schneider. --Ed Poor 19:50, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, quoting is indeed important, but it is not to be done disingenuously. Quote mining can be done by either side of a debate, and regardless of who does it, it stifles full discussion on the merits by obscuring someone's perspective. Could you simply say that such intellectual disingenuity won't be tolerated?-AmesGyo! 19:52, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Getting back to Stanford's Professor Schneider, here is a quotation from his own website:
Tell me if I'm 'mining' it. --Ed Poor 19:57, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
I think it's mined in that it eliminates the context - the context is an ethical dilemma which places the author in an uncomfortable doublebind, while the mined statement makes it sound like he's fine with it.-AmesGyo! 20:15, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
AmesG, with all due respect, there's no such thing as "quote mining." Check out the dictionary yourself here. The term does not exist. It's an attempt to censor someone's quote. That is almost never a legitimate purpose.--Aschlafly 23:59, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
Umm, quote mining does exist. Just because it's not in the dictionary doesn't mean it's not real. But if Merriam Webster is to be used as the litmus test for real words, then as an extreme example "Young Earth Creationist" isn't real either. And as for censoring someone's quote, taking quotes out of context to fit your purpose is essentially censoring too by taking out what you don't agree with to make it more appealing. Jrssr5 14:23, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
The term is not in the dictionary and I have never heard anyone (other than a promoter of evolution) use it. By its own words its meaning is unclear. Your other example is clear.
An encyclopedia should not use made-up, unclear terms. Don't you agree?--Aschlafly 14:43, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
It may not be in the dictonary, but it is in common usage on the web. a bit about thimerosal and autism where quotes are "mined" and taken out of context. Be it jargon or saying "this quote is taken out of context and the original context which you can read here (some link) shows completely the opposite of what is claimed to have been said" - it is still the same thing. --Mtur 14:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't care what term we use for it, but it does exist, and it is a well-understood terms among wiki-folks, and many other people involved in written debate. Call it "Betty" for all I care, but saying "we never heard of it" is unhelpful and disingenuous.--PalMDtalk 14:57, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll agree that an encycolpeida should not use non-sensical terms, but limiting yourself to straight dictionary terms won't work. What quote mining means is fairly obvious, when you mine something, you're extracting it from something else. So quote mining is taking a quote out of another body of text. And the term has been used enough here for everyone to understand what it is, unfortunately not enough people have learned not to do this. Jrssr5 15:02, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Lacking acceptance by a dictionary, the term "quote mining" means different things to different people. Some people object to using a quote against the speaker's current wishes, or those of his supporters. When people object to "quote mining" I think they are objecting to using the quote at all.
That is what the words themselves indicate: mining the quote does not imply a use of out context. It simply means extracting and using a quote. I don't think the term means using the quote out of context. I'm not aware of any of the quotes here being taking out of context, but certainly welcome specific examples. But a word of caution: the examples better prove their case, and not simply be that the speaker earlier or later expressed a different view.
This confusion illustrates why non-dictionary (and non-self-evident) terms should not be used.--Aschlafly 15:12, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Ok, how about "contrary, selective, out of context usage of a quote"? Whatever the case, there is quite a bit of it going on in some articles. --Mtur 15:15, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
There have been plenty of examples shown on numerous talk pages. I don't have time now to search for them, but they're out there, in fact I seem to recall some on your own talk page.
As for the meaning of the quote, most searches will show that is the accepted defintion, a similiar word being Contextomy. Jrssr5 15:24, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

HELLO? link spams!!!!!!!!

link spams?

ummm everytime i try to add links to my pages i get a msg telling me its spam...did we change something ? do links need to be approved by someone now? or are they no longer allowed? wondering... --Wally 17:32, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Testing:

http://www.microsoft.com MountainDew 17:34, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Wally, it looks like it may depend on to what you are linking. Can you indicate that?--Aschlafly 18:57, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
Mediawiki software from Wikimedia foundation comes with a spam blacklist.Jaques 08:26, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

board stats

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

I read this regarding board stats:

"There are 4,544 registered users, of which 31 (or 0.68%) are Sysops."

Is there anyway to tell how many users are "active users"?

Conservative 20:14, 1 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Make me a sysop, to make it 32. I have broad connections with the populace and the support of many. I could make you proud.-AmesGyo! 20:22, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
Will there ever be a database dump available? If so, something akin to WikiStats could be generated, to answer the question of how many people are active. --Interiot 20:31, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
Another interesting stat might be how many have been blocked. Myk 20:53, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
We make all the wiki stats public. If you just tell us what more we need to do to make something public, we'll do it. But Wikipedia suppresses the key statistic of its popular pages. Increasingly I'm suspicious about visits sex-related entries driving up Wikipedia's traffic, and I wonder how much of that is by minors. Wikipedia is preventing public scrutiny of this by deleting those stats from the wiki package.--Aschlafly 23:56, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Sysop nominations

I don't know if I've been around here long enough for this, but I'd like to nominate User:Interiot for sysop. He's been doing a lot of maintenance work and recommending article moves and deletions (all of which made sense to me and which I did). I think it would be easier to let him do these maintenance operations himself. --Ed Poor 20:40, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Please ask User:Philip J. Rayment to be a Sysop. He is very patient and mature and would make a good Sysop. He is also in Australia and could help protect the website at night. Conservative 22:08, 1 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

I have seen his stuff and his comments. I too think him a fine candidate for sysop. Crackertalk 22:10, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
I dont like his views or opinions, so he must not be that bad...I say let him in.--PalMDtalk 22:14, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
I just went and read Philip's user page at Wikipedia, [8] and reviewed some of his contributions there. I second Conservative's motion. --Ed Poor 22:20, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
So many conservative sysops! For some balance, I nominate PalMD001, or in the alternative, me.-AmesGyo! 22:17, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve.--PalMDtalk 22:19, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

One of the things I think makes him useful is that, although I think his origin beliefs are wrong, he is very well read, well educated on the topic, and not close minded to science as a whole. I may really eat my words and regret this.PalMDtalk 22:24, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for everyone's recommendations here. We'll look into this immediately, and I'll run this by our student panel.--Aschlafly 23:57, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Planned parenthood and sysop conflict

Dear MR. Asclafly,

A sysop deleted my material for the article Planned Parenthood. The sysop said my sources were not credible. Yet all my sources meticulously cited their statements.

Secondly, one of my sources had a picture of an aborted fetus. I might be able to find a source to replace it, but do you have a problem with a source that has a pic of an aborted fetus. Perhaps the Sysop I am in conflict with may be a liberal that erased my material for on idealogical grounds but I am not sure.

Lastly, do you like my additions to the Planned Parenthood article and would you like me to transfer it to the abortion article?

Conservative 00:49, 2 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

I think that the link to the picture of the aborted fetus should be included, but perhaps we should put up some form of a warning on the page, such as WARNING: Link contains graphic imagery. MountainDew 00:51, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
I also added external links which have been eliminated, replaced, and eliminated again several times. [9] Crocoitetalk 00:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
I'll take a look. Don't expect me to do Planned Parenthood any favors here!--Aschlafly 01:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Please don't do them any favors :) MountainDew 01:15, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, I recognize the place of pictures like those in the abortion debate, and they may be informative to adult women making their decision. But those are not meant to be shown to high school children. They're offensive, disgusting, and purposefully inflammatory. I hope you will put your agenda second to your children, and decide that images like that should not be linked from a site targeted at highschoolers.-AmesGyo! 01:16, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
REPLY TO ALL: This takes more thought and discussion. I find the current entry to be far too favorable to Planned Parenthood, which profits immensely from advertising and performing abortions in predominantly minority communities and in receiving massive government grants for its other work. That needs to be brought out more in the entry. The other Sysops who are editing this entry are among our best, and they will accept factual statements. The Sanger quotes are offensive but I have to admit that they are quite old at this point. Including them under a separate section seems appropriate, as Ames apparently did.
I haven't seen the precise image discussed above but I'm confident I know what you're talking about. I rarely agree with Ames about anything and probably disagree with Ames' motives for his objection here. But I may actually agree with his stated objection nevertheless to displaying an offensive photo of an aborted fetus here. Perhaps a link with a careful warning would be better. I think to think more and perhaps pray about that specific issue.--Aschlafly 01:40, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, Andy. I think our motives are actually quite similar, almost all the time; we just go about it different ways.-AmesGyo! 01:43, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, Ames. I've commented further on the discussion page for Planned Parenthood, where this discussion should continue.--Aschlafly 01:49, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

My Mother said to thank both of you, Andy and Ames. Books, you have to decide what to put in, and what not, based on sensibilities. With the Internet, that is the magic, we can choose not to display pictures, but link to them. --~ TerryK MyTalk 02:08, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Pornography on Wikipedia

I'm not about to scour Wikipedia for pornography, but the very first entry I checked (A.S. entry - hope you adults can figure that out) greeted me a pornography piece of "art" that was not even appropriate for the entry. Even I was surprised by this, despite all that I know about Wikipedia and its history. Kids flock to Wikipedia daily, and are its biggest users. There is no disclaimer, no warning, no screening, no nothing to protect the kids. Can anyone else shed light on this???? I've added an entry to the front page here that raises this issue.--Aschlafly 01:19, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't know much about the subject because I don't spent much time on WP, but I do know that Jimbo Wales objected to a certain inappopriate image/diagram on one page and said "there shouldn't be any question", but the general consensus from the rest of the users of Wikipedia was one of anger, that Wikipedia should be a free for all that does not engage in censorship. It was viewed as a censorship issue rather than a decency issue. MountainDew 01:27, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Right, he's got it. It's designed as the epitome of the free market.-AmesGyo! 01:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Barf. It's designed, evidently, to the the epitome of the "Wisdom of the Crowd". --~ TerryK MyTalk 01:41, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
As a side effect, I'm sure a lot of young kids are learning about the birds and the bees not from their parents, but from Wikipedia. If you don't know what sex is, you probably have no business looking it up online, in my opinion. MountainDew 01:52, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
You're right, MountainDew, but kids don't have the sense and restraints of adults. That's why there are many, many laws protecting kids until they have more maturity. It's not just a matter of "learning". It's also a matter of protecting kids against exploitation, deception, misinformation, obsession, etc.
My problem with Wikipedia is this: why doesn't it disclose up-front that it has adult images, and why doesn't it disclose its most popular pages as provided by the Wiki software?--Aschlafly 02:11, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
The statistics pages are easily searchable. A search for statistics leads here: [10]. The first line of the article says, "This article is about the field of statistics. For statistics about Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Statistics." Click there and you get this page: [11]. And the first line under Automatically updated statistics is: [12]. That link gives you all the info you you're looking for. When I was searching for a bit of information about wikipedia, I think it was about the "6x as liberal" "statistic", I performed exactly that search. I never even thought to look in "special pages" because I didn't know what that meant. Presumably, a user with a modicum of sense would proceed exactly as I did and find the results as quickly as I did (about 30 seconds).
Further, what kind of entry is that on Examples of Bias in Wikipedia? How encyclopedic are questions? Could it be that Conservapedia is really trying to reach here? Is it possible that Conservapedia is spreading gossip?
As a proponent of homeschooling, I can only imagine that you are a proponent of parental control of a child's use of the internet. My niece and nephew are 12 and they use wikipedia to help find sources (they learned from their uncle to just use it for sources, never as a source itself). You know who helps them with it? Their mom or their dad. And you know who has the password to the computer? Their mom and their dad.
And as a former teenage male who predated wikipedia, I'll tell you now. It's not so hard to find pornography that I needed to look for ancient Indian or Japanese prints. Myk 02:32, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Oh, and as has been pointed out to me: [13]. You'll find statistics under "S" for statistics. Myk 02:35, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, that does seem to directly link to the top 100 viewed pages on Wikipedia. So it's not completely hidden. Still, it's surprising it's not easier to find, unless there's something they want to hide. MountainDew 02:38, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

MD, it's linked to from special pages and from a search for statistics. Where is conservapedia's? I've never looked for it. Myk 02:41, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics MountainDew 02:42, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

So while wikipedia has several different pages listing most popular pages by month as well as other usage stats, conservapedia lists the 10 most popular pages. What is conservapedia hiding in the rest of the Top100? Is there something revealing in number 67? Are kids coming to conservapedia to learn about homosexuality (8) and abortion (9)? What else are kids coming to conservapedia to learn about? Myk 02:47, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
MediaWiki's built-in PopularPages support depends on a database update for every page view (by default) or every N page views on average (N is configurable). That works fine for a small-traffic wiki, but is increasingly hard to keep working as the traffic increases. As described on [14], WikiPedia runs with many many servers spread over several geographic areas. Very few of the servers talk to the master (writable) database at all. Additionally, there's a Squid proxy layer that handles approximately 75% of the traffic, and that percentage will be heavily biased towards popular pages. Combining all of that, generating accurate page popularity numbers is likely a semi- or wholly- manual, time-consuming process. Jtl 03:24, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Myk, the following link shows the 50 most popular pages at this web site

Conservapedia has a link to Special:Specialpages on every page. It's in the 'toolbox' on the left side. 'Special pages' has a link to Popular pages - although you do have to scan an alphabetical list to find it.

Does Wikipedia have a 'popular pages' link as we do? --Ed Poor 08:10, 2 April 2007 (EDT)


Jtl, as a database programmer I can assure you that recording the page views need not be increasingly hard. I discussed this issue extensively with my fellow developers at Wikipedia (when I had Developer rights and could directly read the database schema).
The 'consensus' was that page views should be recorded in the same database which kept the article text. This, however, would be terribly inefficient. My proposal to record page views in a separate database was not taken up. Also rejected was my idea of scanning the logs once a day on a separate computer.
I think that there is something like the latter idea in place now, but it's only updated once a month. It could easily be programmed to work in real time. You could see what time of day each article was most popular; whether Christianity was viewed more often on Sunday or Judaism on Saturday, etc. The web logs also show what part of the world each 'hit' comes from. What country's residents are looking at Wikipedia's Iraq War article? What country's residents are editing the Terrorism article?
Don't blame the software. Like gold, software is infinitely malleable (well, almost infinite!). It all depends on people. If they put their heads together, people can solve almost any problem. --Ed Poor 08:24, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
I was responding to "why doesn't it disclose up-front that it has adult images, and why doesn't it disclose its most popular pages ""as provided by the Wiki software?"" and ""Statistics" and "Popular pages" are standard features in the wiki software used by Wikipedia and Conservapedia. But Wikipedia conceals this information from the public" on the Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia page. Yes, the software could be modified, but it's not as simple as just enabling an existing feature, as the page at the time strongly implied.

Sites supporting terrorism as a source?

I didn't realize this until earlier, but one of the sources on the Planned Parenthood page is armyofgod.com, a site that has a "monument" to Olympic bomber Eric Rudolph, and Paul Hill, who shot up an abortion clinic. I think that allowing terrorist-supporting sites (Rudolph is a terrorist anyway you slice it, and did not limit his bombings to abortion; he also targeted nightclubs) opens our project up to unnecessary criticism, and that no doubt we can find different sources for the same information. MountainDew 02:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Excellent catch, MountainDew. Please delete that link and I'll add this to prohibition to our rules. Thanks again.--Aschlafly 02:25, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
I don't want to end up getting into an edit war with Conservative, because I know he is adamant about his beliefs, which is admirable, but I am afraid that the Planned Parenthood article is going to end up being an edit war. We have had a lot of factual information removed from the article, and replaced with a lot of anti-planned parenthood material. Now, I made a comment, that I don't think that Conservatives sources are credible (And I did make the mistake of not explaining why, my fault) because they are themselves user created and run pages, without any serious backing. Now, Conservative has stated that these sites have cited their sources, but that is only a third party validation. I think it would be better to visit the material cited on THOSE pages, verify that the content in those sources is the same as the page that cited them, and then use the original sources for our citations. It's a simple matter of who would you trust more: You're cousin's diary telling you that her friends said something, or her friend telling you? Second hand sources need to be more cautiously approached, and its not just Conservative. God knows I'm guilty of it too.
On another note, some of the page links on the abortion pages link to websites where pictures of aborted fetuses are prominently displayed on the page. I think this is an abomination under God and ethics. I don't think we should support this behavior so I propose that we make it policy that links to offensive or graphic sites such as abortion pages like this and maybe pages like Orgrish are banned under the Commandments. Thank you!--Elamdri 02:38, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
I might need a hand with this, I have a bad feeling I opened a can of worms...--Elamdri 03:31, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

The article is better than when I went to bed last night, but still outlandishly biased.-AmesGyo! 09:57, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, also, I think the articles gives too little credit for good things that Planned Parenthood does. I have many friends (who have never had sex) who use Planned Parenthood for cheaper birth control pills, to regulate their hormones and control what would otherwise be excruciatingly painful cycles, if you know what I mean. They also use Planned Parenthood for annual gynecological exams at a discounted rate, since having a private practice doctor do the same exam is significantly more expensive. I think we can disagree about abortions, but I think women's health is an absolute positive, and something that Planned Parenthood does well. The article should say so.-AmesGyo! 10:16, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

The Morality of Copyright

Andy, quick question since I'm honestly confused by now.

I remember you stating that we should try to be original and that 1:1 copying is not okay. Not even (or especially not) from Wikipedia, which has a fairly relaxed copyright view (compared to the usual "Copyrighted, do not copy" stuff).

Here's a quick timeline and scenario for you, and I'd like you to point out where I went wrong. The article in question is Morality, and I urge you to take the time to check the (short) article history.

  1. There had already been a (short, but sourced) article in place.
  2. TK replaced the entire article with an article that copied 1:1 (with a few minor rephrasings in the middle) from three sources:
    • Link 1 for the first three paragraphs
    • Link 2 for the entire part until the section break (with minor rewording since the original addressed a reader mail)
    • Link 3 for the entire "Law" section
    • First link (and two small additions) again for the References
  3. I noticed the largest part immediately (only noticed the other two later on) and reverted to the version without copyright issues.
  4. TK reverted back to his version and locked the article. He then added a one-liner to transform the largest copy-paste job into a "He said" quote and copy-pasted from two more sources, creating an article that (almost) ENTIRELY consists of copy-pasted material:
    • Link 4 (the cited sources) was copied 1:1 for the Buddhism section
    • Link 5 for the Jews section (although they might have copied 1:1 from the book TK cites - in any way, he did not write that himself)
  5. I gave things a day to see whether things would improve. When they didn't, I managed to alert two sysops: Ed Poor and Elamdri.
  6. During a discussion with them, Ed said that TK had told him that he had the permission of Brewton (author of the large "He said" section).
    • This is stated nowhere in the article or Talk page (in fact, TK never bothered to post on the latter)
    • It also doesn't explain the four other sources he copied from.
  7. When they unlocked the article, I reverted back and added a stub'd Religion section, where I linked to the Brewton piece as a beginning of a compromise.
  8. Today, I see that the article is locked and that it got reverted to TK's version again. At the same time, I got a message from TK on my Talk page:
There are all the needed citations there. Andy has specifically posted that copying material is okay. FYI, editors traditionally do not write, they compile and organize material from others. The revision isn't done. You secular-progressives need another hobby. Of course I requested permission for the copying, and I fail to see where my not understanding what Sid was asking of me, makes anyone question my honesty. Shame on all of you. --~ TerryK MyTalk 01:26, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

(Plus a copy of the Brewton mail, which appears to have been sent during my one day of waiting - definitely not before TK's first edit that copy-pasted the source)

Now, Andy, I really want to know where you said it's okay to copy. I know it's not in the rules, because the first rule ends with "Do not copy from Wikipedia or other non-public domain sources.".

I tried editing, I tried the article Talk page (repeatedly), I tried solving this with other sysops. TK insists on using his sysop powers to make himself stand above the questions, so I need your help. Either tell me that it's okay to do 1:1 copies (Hey, it would make my life here MUCH easier - no more pesky rewording and such, just copy and paste!) or do something about TK's continued power abuse and attitude. --Sid 3050 05:07, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Unfortunately for you, Sid, I provided a copy of my email to Tom Brewton, and two days later his response, to Andy. The one where he says, it isn't copyrighted material. And he hopes we will use it. In fact use anything from his site. Left out of your diatribe above, and as Ed Poor will be happy to confirm, you reverted the article (the first time) as I was putting it up. Then you asked for it to be unlocked, once again making unsubstantiated charges. You were warned by the Sysop unlocking it, to keep my material and add yours, and that you were on a "short leash" in your editing. In fact two Sysops told you directly not to remove my material, but add your own. You didn't do as requested, did you? The post by Andy, referencing copying, is right here, in his archives, btw. I wonder if in reading all your drama posts, this is a place where Brewton (Who I invited to participate) will feel comfortable?--~ TerryK MyTalk 05:56, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
You maybe should read all of it next time. Elamdri later on explicitly agreed with a revert. And this is also about the four other sources you copied. Okay, one of those is a list (to which you actually linked - gasp!), so I'll be gentle there (even though you didn't even bother to transform your copy-paste job into a Wiki-list). But you NEVER made a statement about the three remaining sources. Nor did you mention anywhere in the article that you're copying them word by word. Oh, and by the way - any statement about copying from Brewton BEFORE getting his reply? And I supplied a link to the section on my Talk page. Assuming that Andy is going to read it, he can see exactly what had been said.
Congratulations, you avoided all the open and critical questions and instead asserted that you're right and I'm wrong. Like I said: If Andy explicitly tells me that your practice of writing articles is okay, then awesome. It'll make life easier for many people here. Just find a good source - and copy it! Five minutes for a high-quality article! --Sid 3050 06:16, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Sid, like Ed said, you really need to step back. The opening paragraphs are clearly attributed. The rest is here, at the bottom of the page:
References Cathrein, Religion und Moral (Freiburg, 1900); Fox, Religion and Morality (New York, 1899); Devas, Key to the World's Progress (London, 1906); Idem, Studies of Family Life (London, 1886); Balfour, Foundations of Belief (London, 1895), Part I, i; Catholic Truth Society's Lectures on the History of Religions (London, 1910);Laws of Justice, Hammurabi; Moral Models from Mainstream Media. By Thomas E. Brewton; Buddhist Morality, Dr. C. George Boeree; Media: Their Structure and Moral and Public Policy Import, by John M. Phelan; Imitating God-the Basis of Jewish Morality, By Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveichik; Modern Jewish Morality, A Bibliographical Survey, Greenwood Press; Internet Modern History Sourcebook.Retrieved from [[15]]

Throughout your two days of tantrums, you have accused me of being drunk, stupid and a fool, and I am happy you provided a link, so all can see your name calling. I never blocked you for that, although many here have told me I should have, and instantly. FYI, take a look at a dictionary for what an Editor does. [16] Editors typically take other's writings and adapt, organize and add context to them, before publication. Most do little original writing. And finally, if not for your drama yesterday, about me blocking you by mistake, I would have finished the article on Morality. However, I feel you need to be informed, since you posted on the talk page your annoyance that I was not there "defending" myself and explaining, that your expectations are too high. I work and travel, so I will never be able to live up to your expectations as to how quickly I must finish articles. --~ TerryK MyTalk 06:51, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I provided links to sources that prove that you didn't write more than... fifty words (being VERY generous) of that article yourself. Even with the permission (which you apparently didn't have when you posted that stuff in the first place), please prove that the other sources are public domain. Considering that the Catholic Encyclopedia (from which you took the first paragraphs) come with an EXPLICIT copyright notice, that should be hard.
Like I said, this isn't about you banning and harassing me for no reason. This is about you ripping off sources and pretending that you wrote that stuff yourself by withholding the links that point to easily accessible versions of those sources.
Even the first part of your list of references was copied from the Catholic Encyclopedia. One of the books in your list is IN GERMAN (Cathrein, Religion und Moral (Freiburg, 1900)). How good is your German? Did you actually read the source you cite? If so, which part of that German book applies to the article?
You could've just let me silently revert your little copyright trainwreck, but now you insist that you actually wrote all that yourself. You ignore EVERY pointer to the other FOUR sources you copied from and only cling to your "One guy eventually said it's okay after I copied from him, so I'm invulnerable."
All I want is Andy to say "Yes, it's okay to copy 1:1 from copyrighted sources and claim that you wrote it yourself" or "No, TK seriously messed up there." - It's that easy. --Sid 3050 11:00, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Comment: We all need to remember that copyright is automatic. The original author doesn't need to hang a "don't copy my stuff" sign on his material. Absent a "please do copy my stuff" sign, copying which doesn't fall under fair use should be removed immediately. It's better to be overzealous in removing potentially illegal material than it is to be lax. Tsumetai 11:07, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, a simple "Yes, copying 1:1 from copyrighted sources is okay!" or "No, we should not copy from copyrighted sources!" would suffice. It's been more than 12 hours by now (counting only this call for action - the issue started more than two days ago), that should be more than enough time for a simply Yes/No statement. --Sid 3050 18:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Sid, your attempt to be "clever" falls a bit short. You were told days ago, permission was granted to copy the entire website, if that was needed. You know that. Ed Poor told you, and so did I. So, it is not something that has anything to do with Copyright, much as you try to make it. In most places, lack of a response is taken for the complaint lacks merit, and is not worthy of consideration. Andy knows it wasn't a matter of Copyright infringement, so what is there for him to add? Self-important demands, and giving time deadlines isn't exactly the way to ensure a response. Anywhere. --~ TerryK MyTalk 18:41, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
(groan) So you're saying that EVERYTHING on the Morality article comes from Thomas E. Brewton? Did Brewton write the Catholic Encyclopedia article on "Morality"? Did Brewton write the entire "Morality, Justice, and Judicial Moralism" article for the Friesian School? Did Brewton write "Modern Jewish Morality" (which you cite for the Jewish Morality section) or "Imitating God-the Basis of Jewish Morality" (where I found it word for word)? Did Brewton compile the list you copied from the "Buddhist Morality" page?
If all answers are "Yes, he did, and I can prove it!", then you have my sincere apology. Considering that I don't spot Brewton's name ANYWHERE in those FOUR sources, I think you will have some problems with your proof.
Please stop avoiding the problem I highlighted since the very beginning. This is NOT about Brewton. You are NOT invulnerable because you got ONE guy's permission. --Sid 3050 18:56, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Sid, this is the end of my trying to speak reason to you. I have yet to finish the page, mainly due to your drama. Everything there was sourced and attributed, open for all to see. It matters not one wit, if some list about Buddhist thoughts on Morality, which btw has several Google entries, was changed by me, making point one, point five, and so on. There was no intellectual or moral deceit. Your objection comes down to it wasn't done as you would like it done, as you demand it be done, as you are used to it being done. Good ideas, no matter if placed verbatim on a page or paraphrased, are still good ideas. All that is important is it helps the user, and is properly sourced. All of my citations were correct. In copying an explanation far superior than most I have read or ever could hope to write as eloquently, I also used their original sources as well, going way beyond what is normally expected. In your anger over anyone daring to challenge how you see this place, you have resorted to name calling, gross exaggeration and unfounded character assassination. Repeatedly. Moreover, you come to Andy's page and actually demand an answer. It is all for your personal self-aggrandizement and a need to hand out retribution to me, because you failed to communicate what your were doing, and were blocked for a short while. Your continued petty snipping only makes you look small and petty. Your actions do not present those of someone who claims to be here to help. You have emailed me before, pleasantly, yet once I failed to understand your invasion of my personal talk archive, all you have been about is public posts, ridicule and slander. Hardly the actions of someone with pure intentions. Perhaps instead of going this route, you should have contacted me and attempted to teach me about the system, and get my thoughts personally. All water under the bridge now....--~ TerryK MyTalk 19:44, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
TK, this might come as a shock to you, but you started your copy-spree DAYS ago. The article STILL violates at the very least three sources (like I said way before, the Buddhism list is just a list, so it's not THAT critical in my eyes). Conservapedia articles are not your dumping spot for stuff you plan to work on later. That's what offline copies are there for. Every change is logged and open for everybody to see. This stuff is now a part of Conservapedia, and it violates the first Conservapedia Commandment: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable. Do not copy from Wikipedia or other non-public domain sources."
Yes, I demand that you do things as I say in this case, because you broke the Commandment and I didn't. I'm sorry if you see that as "TK vs. Sid", but it's "TK vs. The Rules".
If you realize that you can't put the thoughts into proper words, USE THE TALK PAGE. People there will help requests in the form of "I think we should include this and that, and here are possible sources, but I don't think I can phrase it properly on my own".
You claimed multiple times that Andy said it's okay to copy 1:1 from copyrighted sources (okay, you only said that he said it's "okay to copy", but you copied 1:1 from copyrighted sources, so it's quite implied). I'd like to see where he said that, or I'd like him to verify it. I remember Andy asking people to "be original" when writing articles even when it came to copying THEIR OWN stuff. Your behavior goes COMPLETELY against anything I remember Andy or the rules saying.
Oh, and you didn't answer my question on the Morality Talk page... when you compared me to "Herr Gobles" (right before you called me a "wiki-nazi"), did you mean Joseph Goebbels or not? --Sid 3050 20:00, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Eureka! I have found it! Planned Parenthood isn't going to like this!

Dear Mr. Schafly,

I did several hours of research on Planned Parenthood and found conservative sources that I believe demonstrate that Planned Parenthood targets minority communities. A conservative news organization did a analysis of Census data and the locations of Planned Parenthood clinics. Here is the research (unedited by liberal Sysops) and I included it in the abortion article: http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Conservative/plannedparenthood

I also found charges of Planned Parenthood practicing racism in the above link. Conservative 06:22, 2 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

  • Good work, Conservative! If you need more sources along those lines, just let me know. Goodness, I thought all of that (about PP targeting minority communities) was to the point of being a truism by now. They are also in the forefront of stopping Doctors from informing the authorities if they believe the child was the victim of rape or incest. That's how much they really care. --~ TerryK MyTalk 06:56, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Terryk, you should do some editing at the abortion and Planned Parenthood articles then. Conservative 07:00, 2 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
For the record, I never said they didn't target minority communities and I never said they weren't racist. I just wanted a more structured, less inflammatory article. I'm perfectly happy with the way it is now. I do not support Planned Parenthood in any way shape or form.Nsmyth 07:01, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Thanks, all the same, Conservative, but I have my hands full with the Secular-Progressives other places! You seem to have them riled up, because they want this place to be like Wikipedia, and are embarrassed that godless people laugh at this place. They completely miss the point of this being here, I guess. I apologize to you for posting you were being too rough on some. From my own experience the last two days, I don't think you've been nearly hard enough on some of the instigators, and neither has Andy. --~ TerryK MyTalk 07:15, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
That's funny. I thought this site was supposed to not have a liberal bias, not have a conservative bias. Please tell me, why exactly is this site here? Myk
  • Exactly. Conservapedia provides a voice to the millions who are not recognized by Wikipedia and MSM, as having a so-called "valid" point of view, namely Christians and Conservatives. That Conservapedia allows opposing philosophical viewpoints at all, is something Wikipedia rarely does. C. P. Snow observed that western culture had degenerated into a "argument culture"; posts here prove it. Some believe any thought other than Liberal or approved by MSM, is bias...--~ TerryK MyTalk 17:44, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia article

I am disappointed that my thoroughly sourced edit to Wikipedia was reverted without explanation, despite my asking for it at talk:Wikipedia over a day ago:

What was wrong with this edit? It cited sources, identified when potentially rapid-changing pages were accessed so that page history could be checked to see what they said at the time, and they can be rechecked in a few months time, and included the full text of a quote which could otherwise be taken out of context. I may not be around for a few days to see the answer to this. --Scott 11:24, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I assume that you have been slow in answering simply as I said I may not be around to see the answer for several days. It turns out that I have come back to check twice, as I want to know the explanation. If proper sourcing is not acceptable, I will go away and join the people who laugh at this site.

There appear to be three common responses to people who saw news or blog articles about Conservapedia:

  1. Look at a few high-profile articles and laugh - the ones linked from the front page are often prime candidates
  2. vandalize the site because they can
  3. Try to help to make this into a serious resource

I chose the last option. I started by making a pain of myself by listing a number of glaring procedural problems identified while I was unable to create an account. Some of these have been acted upon, such as considering copyright and privacy issues (thankyou). Since then, I have only made attempts at serious edits to improve your site. I have been criticized for failing to provide a source for my proposed addition to Abortion (on talk:Abortion since the article was locked) that claimed that people who don't have sex won't need an abortion as they won't be pregnant, and that if people do get pregnant and don't have an abortion, then they will have a baby. I have been ignored trying to add material to Homosexuality (also locked) that I had removed from Marriage as it was inapropriate there, and I have been reverted for providing updated information with access dates for sources on Wikipedia.

Other Wikipedia editors who have tried to help you have received similar poor treatment. Perhaps you should add to your Conservapedia:Commandments that people are not permitted to be be active contributors to both Wikipedia and Conservapedia. Then we would stop trying to help bring your project up to a standard where your claimed comparison has a chance of validity. --Scott 09:24, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Scott, I apologize for not responding sooner. I was in a car for over ten hours yesterday, and the limited time I had on the computer was spent updated the Main Page, adding some entries, and responding on this page and the Bias in Wikipedia talk page. I did not see your comments on the Wikipedia talk page, and I apologize.
I also regret that the rollback feature on Wiki does not allow comment to explain why. So let me elaborate here and now.
One of your changes seemed to be incorrect. You changed the name of the company from "Bomis" to "Bomis.com", which I think is wrong. Other changes were unsupported and opinionated, such as saying that "The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica contained 40,000 articles many of which were used to kickstart the project in English, which now has over 1.7 million articles on a much wider range of subjects." That lacked support. Moreover, is copying OK to "kickstart" a project? No, of course not, especially when attribution is not prominently given for such wholesale copying.
You also added superfluous detail unsuitable for a concise entry. Note that being concise is one of our main goals. Then you praised Wikipedia for making an article about an obscure rock band "much longer." Why would anyone want a longer article about something that is inappropriate in short version? That change was contrary to the point being made, and contrary to one of our goals here.
I welcome your contributions here. We all do. But please conform to our rules. Also, while we are all very patient, was it really necessary to launch into an attack on Conservapedia on my personal talk page? Note that on Conservapedia, we respect users' talk pages more than Wikipedia does. Please see Differences with Wikipedia.
I apologize for my 24-hour delay in responding to your comments on another talk page, and hope you can reconsider your view towards Conservapedia.--Aschlafly 10:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Main page disgust

Sir, I comment on the statements made on the main page of this site:

Tip to Brits: don't make American President Jimmy Carter's mistake of 1979 and fail to protect your embassy.

The exploitation of my country men and woman's plight for cheap political points is exactly what the Iranians are doing. They, however, managed to do it without being patronizing and condescending. I ask that you consider the effects before putting such reprensible comments on the main page again. Nematocyte 12:12, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

There is nothing condescending about that sentence. It expresses genuine concern and information. Your criticism strikes me as being politically motivated. I can check your other edits here but I expect you have been critical for political reasons in the past also.
We don't censor material here for political reasons, and I'm not changing the main page based on your comment.--Aschlafly 12:27, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Ill use the opportunity and ask about the first statement on mainpage about the bedbugs. It strikes me really weird to see something like that in frontpage of on encyclopedia. Is it Conservapedias view that public schools should be shut down and this is partly because of bedbugs? Dont think statement like that has a place in an encyclopedia. Timppeli

You might be right.--Aschlafly 13:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
I'll delete the bedbug link now. Thanks.--Aschlafly 14:43, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Nice to hear, thanks for your time. Timppeli

Britain's schools censoring History

I'm sure this is happening in America also. Schools drop Holocaust lessons to avoid offence Crocoitetalk 13:04, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for that tip, which I just posted on the Main Page.--Aschlafly 13:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for posting it on the main page. Here's another very enlightening article from the Daily Mail which explains that the schools are worried about offending Muslim pupils. Notice that the London Times article left out the part about offending Muslims. I figure it was intentional politically correct language since they used the phrase "... children from certain races or religions". Teachers drop the Holocaust to avoid offending Muslims Crocoitetalk 15:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Even more informative. Thank you! More generally, that upper right quadrant of the main page is for news like this that liberal media ordinarily filter. Please send me something new each day, if you can!--Aschlafly 15:59, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
I will be on the lookout. This is fun! Crocoitetalk 16:10, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm sorry but holocaust denial cannot be a "belief" set. Why is it that people tout separation of church and state, but only to Christianity? I don't want children to be censored in school from this information, just because it offends the Muslim students. This stems from culture wars, not religious beliefs. This is almost as bad as Sikh students being allowed to carry Kirpans in schools.--Elamdri 16:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Sorry to disappoint everyone... but this is either a hoax article or a misunderstanding. The (compulsory) Twentieth Century World History module of Britain's National Curriculum still includes "Weimar Germany" and "Nazi Germany" as two of the four compulsory subjects in GCSE year (age 15-16).Tracy C Copeland 16:33, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

A hoax article in both the London Times and the Daily Mail??? Wow, that would be some massive hoax. The date on the articles is April 2, not April 1.
This is no hoax. Welcome to Conservapedia, where everyone's eyes (including my own) are opened about what is really going on the world. You bet British teachers are scared to teach anything considered offensive by their Muslim students.--Aschlafly 16:40, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

In California a like proposal has been circulating as well. They intended to teach about the Nazi's, but tread lightly on the "Final Solution". How does teaching about the Holocaust offend observant Muslims? It doesn't. It offends citizens living in Muslim countries who hate Jews. Next, I suppose people will want to cut out all discussion about Israel. --~ TerryK MyTalk 16:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

This issue is analogous to atheists saying they are "offended" by prayer in school. But if they reject the existence of God, how could it possibly offend them? It doesn't. Feigning ideological offense becomes a way to censor.--Aschlafly 17:16, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Birth Control

Andy, I need someone who is knowledgable to add the religious perspectives to the article on Birth control, hopefully without starting a massive edit/revert war. Just the facts about Catholicism's views, and the diversity of views in other religions. I don't think the article is complete without that info. I left a blank section for it. Thanks.--PalMDtalk 14:03, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

aborted babies pic source - I found substitute links. Problem solved

aborted babies pic source - I found substitute links. Problem solved Conservative 16:35, 2 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

HELLO? link spams.....

i'm starting a write up on constructed languages one resource thats lists many examples is www.langmaker.com...i would have no idea why this would be blocked...i tried a number of other urls and it seemed to block everything i typed in. maybe we could adjust the spam block list to be just porn or racsit or wikipedia stuff? im talking about clickable also not just a text list... --Wally 17:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

...are you sure the problem is on Conservapedia's side? www.langmaker.com Works for me... What the... O_o --Sid 3050 17:17, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Read here and (linked from the first source) here why it was marked as spam and how they are considering to revert their decision. I suggest de-blacklisting it since this looks like a pretty obscure reason to put it on the global blacklist here (from what I read) --Sid 3050 17:23, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

okay i went over and put in my two cents...questionable reasons i agree.....instead of relying on another wiki for blacklisting shouldnt we create our own here at Cpedia? wondering --Wally 01:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Personal tools