- 1 Administrator/SYSOP
- 2 "Icewedge"
- 3 Timeline
- 4 Icewedge
- 5 Vandals for today
- 6 AmesG & Talk:Homophobia
- 7 Disgraceful behavior
- 8 90/10 rule
- 9 University of Wisconsin's minority composition
- 10 Hi Andy
- 11 practised/practiced
- 12 Slavic Leadership
- 13 Russia
- 14 Dear Mr. Schlafly
- 15 Thanks!
- 16 Examples of Bias in Wikipedia
- 17 NAMBLA's link
- 18 FA
- 19 Enforcing the Commandments Equally
- 20 Material copied from a site that only permits copying without alteration
- 21 Problem
- Aschlafly, I'm really enthusiastic about becoming a sysop. I understand you could help me with that. If you look at my contributions as "AmeriCan" and my previous contributions as "CoulterMan", you'll see that I've not only added highly informative additions to existing articles, I've also created some great new articles. Thank you. -- AmeriCan 19:26, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
- [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship] niandra 19:48, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
What should we do about this vandal. He is nothing but trouble and changes his ip to get back in over and over...yeah I know - no life whatsoever. I just thought you might know a way to end this. Thanks. --<<-David R->> 22:40, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
- It's more than one person. They seem to want attention. Not much going on in their lives, I suppose.
- They're easy to block. Sometimes I report their IP addresses to their ISPs also.--Aschlafly 22:50, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
- Just FYI, the most parsimonious explanation is that it is the same person. I am pretty sure it is, the reason they appear to be different is that they are using proxies to access the site. The IPs will then belong to the proxy and not the individual. There are mechanisms to find the true user but they go beyond what I imagine is worth it for vandals. Tmtoulouse 22:53, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
- Uhm? if you are refering to that runescape account there was talk earlyer, i hope you guys had some other evidence allso than just the account name icewedge. As its quite common word, actually even checked it on the World of Warcraft server i personally play on, and it allso had an character called icewedge. As much as i hate vandals this action might just as well made some kid really sad. Timppeli 23:13, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm pretty sure there's more than one, or even more than two, because during one of the waves of attack, a second vandal showed up, and one of the other vandals posted a message saying "which one are you"? DanH 01:11, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
- At some point they have to work on their multiplication tables!--Aschlafly 01:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
I think they should start with spelling and grammar! Have you seen their postings? DanH 01:17, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
- It's amazing what our schools produce today!--Aschlafly 01:21, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
ewedge Icewedge's wikipedia account. A couple of vandals have posted on his discussion page. Perhaps more will congregate there, and some sort of information can be discovered through there. Reaganomist 17:05, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
In case you hadn't figured it out, it was me that put in the timeline information for 25th April.
I have now also added some comments on when a new day starts. Perhaps the timeline could be updated a bit sooner each day?
Philip J. Rayment 11:36, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
- Yes, thanks much! I agree that we should update it sooner for our friends across the date line.--Aschlafly 11:38, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
I feel sad for the poor goy with the runscape account. I dont think any one in our group has an account called "ice wedge" on runescape. If its even true thats thres a runescape account called that. I belive you lie i looked up "ice wedge" and there were no results on the highscores. W00t Vandalism.
Vandals for today
- I'll take care of any mess that remains from those users, who have been permanently blocked.
- Thanks for your efforts, Tims.--Aschlafly 15:49, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
- Andrew: I took the liberty of deleting a number of pages that they newly created, most of which had distinctly unedifying names. On the other hand, I restored Jimbo Wales, the content of which was perfectly acceptable (though sparse) before the vandals got to it.--TerryHTalk 16:11, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
- Thanks much, TerryH! That means I can spend the time generating new entries. All vandalism is blocked for a while now, and we can focus on building efforts.--Aschlafly 16:38, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
- no problem, thanks for blocking. Had to laugh at the edit on my talk page:).--TimS 15:52, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
AmesG & Talk:Homophobia
Andy, would you mind if I unblocked User:AmesG for discussion on the Homophobia talk page? We've been communicating by e-mail, and he may have some useful input in what is probably going to be a difficult article to recreate. RobS 16:04, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
- Sure, you can bring Ames back early if you like. His block was for a week and that is up soon anyway.--Aschlafly 19:29, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
- Thanks Andy; he has final exams this week so may not be active right away. At least we know there is one editor out there doing his homework! RobS 10:34, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
I have been observing your disgraceful behavior on the Breast cancer page.
Your arrogance seems to know no bounds. You questioned a doctor on his qualifications in a field where you have EXACTLY NONE. And then you just steamrolled right over him and locked the page in support of your own inaccurate edits.
My attempt to compromise (which, frankly, was generous to you, having regard to the very marginal nature of your views) was just ignored.
What is particularly disturbing is that it is a page which is giving out inaccurate medical advice on a very serious topic. It is quite apparent that you are just blinded by your religious prejudices and care nothing for accuracy.
Frankly I would leave this site immediately were it not for the facts: (1) that I imagine it would give you some pleasure; and (2) there are some decent people here who I do not wish to abandon. --Horace Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship#Support_2|Vote Horace for sysop 19:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
P.S. I note you have not yet voted for me to become a sysop. Probably just an oversight on your part. Better hurry before you miss out. --Horace Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship#Support_2|Vote Horace for sysop 19:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
- Horace, there seems to be no limit to the determination by liberals to conceal from women how abortion increases risk of breast cancer. It's been education to me to observe this liberal determination to conceal this indisputable fact. Note in abortion how an expert for the industry even admitted a link on cross-examination. You didn't work for the tobacco industry 50 years ago, did you?
- Hiding information is part of the liberal game. Play it on Wikipedia, not here.--Aschlafly 19:29, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
- Your "P.S." really fit well with the rest of your comment!--Aschlafly 19:29, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
- Look, I'm not a doctor. But neither are you. PalMD, on the other hand is. My research (such as it was) indicated that your views were marginal (to say the least). What you are proposing is essentially a conspiracy. Certainly your views have some support but not by any serious cancer institution that I could find. Your motivation is obvious. I just ask that you refrain from behaving in such a high-handed manner. Particularly where the subject matter is so serious. --Horace Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship#Support_2|Vote Horace for sysop 19:44, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
- (1) Well if you're a doctor I have no problem with you questioning medical opinion. Go for it. Andy is not a doctor. In this case he was the one displaying arrogance and chutzpah. Furthermore, my blissful cluelessness still seems to be more in line with mainstream medical opinion than yours and Andy's so far as I can tell.
- (2) My respect is not due to anyone who does not earn it. --Horace Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship#Support_2|Vote Horace for sysop 20:01, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Dear Aschlafly, on my talk page you queried Jrssr5's calculation of my talk to edit ratio. I am curious how the 90/10 rule is calculated. Is it by letter count, word count, by the number of times the "Save page" button has been clicked or is it just arbitrarily invoked when someone who gets in the way of conservative facts needs silenced? Since you seem to be the chief ideologue here perhaps you could shed some light on the method of calculation. Perhaps you could be kind enough to reply at Conservapedia_talk:90/10_rule. Thank you for your time sir. Auld Nick 04:54, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
University of Wisconsin's minority composition
(Discussion here moved to Talk:University of Wisconsin-Madison)
I know you aren't looking for more sysops just yet, but I'm sure you'll want to think about making me one. (Sorry, just a little cheek ;-) ) Anyway, I have thrown my proverbial hat in the ring here [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship] to see if I have support from this community. I know some of my early edits had you worried, but I've matured an now hope to make real progress on this site. I know you want the same, so I look forward to your vote/decision. Have a great day! Flippin 13:50, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
- Flippin's a good choice. Good to be back, by the way, and I'm sure you'll like my new legal edits. I've thrown my hat into the ring too. I know we disagree, but one thing we agree on is that the idea of "checks & balances" in the Federal Constitution is a good one to structure an organization around. Perhaps I am a balancer, if I may humbly suggest, along with several other good, moderate editors on this site.-AmesGyo! 13:56, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
AFAIK practise is a verb, practice is a noun. I changed it so that the correct part of speech was used. "In the United Kingdom, “practice” is the noun, “practise” the verb; but in the U.S. the spelling “practice” is commonly used for both, though the distinction is sometimes observed. “Practise” as a noun is, however, always wrong in both places: a doctor always has a “practice,” never a “practise.” "http://wsu.edu/~brians/errors/practice.html
Why AvengingAngel? I don't know.It was the first name to come into my head. So far I have not nuked anyone. Is there a problem? --AvengingAngel 19:16, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
- I'll continue the conversation here in case others want to join in. "Practise" is not recognized as an American spelling. See . Why change it to a non-American spelling?
- As to the user id., it's not a confidence-builder. First thing that came into your head??? Really??? What brought you to Conservapedia with an "avenging" frame of mind?--Aschlafly 19:24, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Wow, and what would be a "confidence builder"? "JesuslovestheUSA? ApplePieAndDeadMoslems? Hardon4Jesus? Why not crawl back under your rock and go back to preaching pseudo-christian hate to impressionable children. I mean, nowhere in the Bible does it say GO USA!11 or BIG BUSINESS IS TEH GOOD!11. Quite the reverse. And I'd keep schtum about your NAMBLA membership too.
- (i) Not that I am arguing, but it does actually say Main Entry: prac·tice Variant(s): also prac·tise as a verb. I had not come across this before, and if you see my edits, I was correcting typos and other incorrect elements. (ii) Why do uyou want to be so negative about my epithet. Angel is half of it; there's and adage about cups being half empty or half full. If Florence Nightingale http://www.florence-nightingale-avenging-angel.co.uk/ can be called an avenging angel, then it cant be all bad!--AvengingAngel 19:32, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
- We value honesty here. We really do. I don't feel I'm receiving that and will give you a final opportunity. If you want to say that you're a liberal enemy of the site but will abide by the rules and have an open mind about what's here, then that may be acceptable. Game playing is not.--Aschlafly 19:55, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Absolutely. THANK YOU!!! I'll post it now.--Aschlafly 23:21, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
- Weren't you just condemning Russia a week ago for being a totalitarian dictatorship?-AmesGyo! 23:46, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
- Totalitarianism is the lesser of two evils when compared to T3h Gay, it seems. --Gulik2 01:20, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
Putin just withdrew Russia from a major arms treaty in response to US missile defense systems being installed in Europe, thought you might be interested.--Elamdri 23:29, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Dear Mr. Schlafly
Thanks for fixing my user talk page! --Tash 17:00, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
While you're updating Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia anyway, could you please do something about the statement in point 6 that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public. The correct ratio between the numbers stated is 2.27, not 6. Cheers. --AKjeldsen 18:58, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
- I've debated or explained this far more than 6 times, including an interview in person this afternoon with a Wired reporter. A sensible scale for liberal quotient (or bias) is the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a population. That scale has a range from 0 to infinity, just as the Kelvin scale has for temperature. On this liberal bias scale, the ratio is 6.
- Of course you could pick other arbitrary scales that decrease or increase the ratio, just as one could devise any temperature scale he likes. But the most sensible scale renders the ratio of 6.--Aschlafly 19:34, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
- I am afraid I don't quite understand your answer, sir. The information given is that there are twice as many conservative Americans as there are liberal ones, and three times as many liberal Wikipedians as conservative ones. In other words, disregarding those who are neither, we have 67% conservatives and 33% liberals in the US, and 25% conservatives and 75% liberals on Wikipedia. The ratio between 33% and 75% is 2.27, regardless of anything else. --AKjeldsen 19:42, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
The most sensible scale involving arbitrary numbers & snap judgments? Oxymoron.-AmesGyo! 19:35, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
- Number's don't matter, we use the Liberal quotient formula...... a bit hedonistic, don't you think? Hojimachongtalk 19:54, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
Schlafly - your answer is entirely circular. You've been asked to explain how you find the ratio of liberals to conservatives is 6. Your answer is "ratio of 6." You were asked to provide backing for your assertion, and all you did was repeat your assertion. You're allegedly a Harvard trained lawyer - you know better. --JeffersonDarcy 19:58, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
- Darcy sounds like me! I like the cut of his jib. Anyways, yeah, looking at the "liberal quotient" article, it seems that there's no actual math involved. Funny! Well, then, I declare that this website has a liberal quotient of 30. Prove me wrong, kids.-AmesGyo! 20:00, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
No one above has proposed a sensible alternative to my definition of a "liberal quotient" or "liberal bias." Until someone does, this discussion is futile.
AKjeldsen's calculation relies on this implicit definition of liberal bias: the number of liberals divided by the total population. That alternative scale is inadequate because (1) it fails to address the relative number of liberals compared to conservatives and (2) it reduces the scale to the range of 0 to 1. Would we want a temperature scale confined to the range of 0 to 1? Of course not.--Aschlafly 22:03, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
- Andy, AKjeldsen's scale resulted in a rating for CP of 2.27: that's not between 0 and 1 :-P. Also, I hate to say, but we don't have to propose an alternative to your ridiculous rating system. Our alternative is "no ridiculous made-up number systems."-AmesGyo! 22:05, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
- This "6 times" issue seems to be a issue that comes up over and over again and I don't see it ending anytime soon. The "6 times" claim is a key claim of our fifth most popular article which is Examples of Bias in Wikipedia. I think we should try to resolve the whole "6 times" issue by having the panel arbitrate the issue. Conservative 22:19, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
- Logic isn't decided by majority vote, though I'm confident the student panel would reach same logical conclusion that I have. Ames, AKjeldsen's scale does limit itself to the range of 0 to 1. He assigns a value on that scale to the American public, and an other value to Wikipedia, both of which are limited to that range. Then his ratio of the two liberal biases is 2.27. My scale, or any sensible scale, would not limit itself to the range 0 to 1. Our temperature scale does not, for example.--Aschlafly 22:25, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
So... you argue that "Akjeldsen's scale does limit itself to the range of 0 to 1," and separately & concurrently that "his ratio... is 2.27"? You see that 2.27 > 1, correct?-AmesGyo! 22:27, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
- Ames, I'm not going to waste my time argue simple mathematics with you. Read, and reread, the above. Find Akjeldsen and see if he agrees with you.--Aschlafly 22:33, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
- Measuring speed in units of c goes from 0 to 1. That is a perfectly sensible scale for measuring many things.
- Silly. Look at your speedometer sometime.--Aschlafly 23:05, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
- Could you please identify the 'liberal quotient' of the following groups:
- 4 people: 2 conservatives, 2 liberals
- 1.--Aschlafly 23:05, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
- 3 people: 1 conservative, 2 liberals
- 2.--Aschlafly 23:05, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
- 104 people: 2 consertives, 2 liberals, 100 moderates
- 1. The moderates add nothing to either side.--Aschlafly 23:05, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
- 103 people: 1 consertive, 2 liberals, 100 moderates
- 2. Ditto.--Aschlafly 23:05, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
- Would it be odd to have the same value given to #2 and #4 or #1 and #3? --Mtur 22:36, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
- No. By definition, the moderates add nothing to either side. They are sheep.--Aschlafly 23:05, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
- I'm not sure I agree with your statement there. Could you comment on one more LQ situation? 100 moderates, 1 conservative, no liberals. What number would this be? --Mtur 23:23, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
- No. By definition, the moderates add nothing to either side. They are sheep.--Aschlafly 23:05, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
- Other examples of limited range measurements:
- angles (0-360 degrees, or 0-400 grads, or 0-6.28 rads
- Not limited to 0-1.--Aschlafly 23:05, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
- Absorbance/transmission of light through a medium: 0-1
- By definition it is fractional to have its meaning.
- Reliability: 0-1 (ever hear of 5 nines reliability? Thats 99.999% uptime)
- --Mtur 22:50, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
- Maybe you're on to something. Conservative = reliable. :-)--Aschlafly 23:05, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
- Measuring speed in units of c goes from 0 to 1. That is a perfectly sensible scale for measuring many things.
MTur, that's one of the many ways in which the scale is intellectually specious. Andy, I know we disagree on a lot, but I never thought we'd disagree on 2 being greater than 1. But here we are. If you look how this all started, it started BECAUSE Akj said that the proper measurement was 2.27... not 6. I'm sure you're running to the main page to correct it now.-AmesGyo! 22:42, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
- Ames, this is not Wikipedia and we do not permit bullying on one's own talk page. Your comments are particularly unjustified and you run the risk of being blocked if you continue to post similar comments here.--Aschlafly 23:05, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
I don't think it's fair to call moderates "sheep." I am sorry if I have offended you, but you've just offended the majority of America... -AmesGyo! 23:08, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
- And the citation for majority of America - http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=548 --Mtur 23:11, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
I guess I did mean plurality, not majority. Sorry again for insulting you, Andy, but please be respectful of (1) legitimate criticism and (2) political philosophies not your own.-AmesGyo! 23:13, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
- Ames, get off my talk page with your misguided bullying. Thank you.--Aschlafly 23:18, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
- Dittoes to pretty much everything AmesG said; but, that said, why not take this to the talk page on Liberal
idiotquotient where it won't get archived in a day or two? This user talk page gets flooded... I will comment there momentarily. Human 23:37, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
- Dittoes to pretty much everything AmesG said; but, that said, why not take this to the talk page on Liberal
- I tried to express the Liberal Quotient a little in the article a little better Andy, tell me what you think?--Elamdri 23:52, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
- Great effort! I made a minor correction and then added a section.--Aschlafly 00:16, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
The example still should not say 6 times more liberal than the american public. the measure of how liberal something is should be measured as liberals against the whole, not measured as liberals against conservatives. Measuring how salty a solution is you measure the salt against the whole, not salt against sugar. --CPAdmin1 00:58, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
Also, where is AmesG's "misguided bullying"? I looked, but I couldn't find it. --CPAdmin1 01:00, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
- This doesn't belong on my talk page. There is an entry liberal quotient and it has a talk page. Ames repeatedly posted unjustified comments here, with a disrespectful tone. We do not tolerate that one's talk page.
- CPAdmin1, you can propose an alternative metric for liberal quotient or bias on its talk page, but I suggest you read the entry first.--Aschlafly 01:17, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
- I read the entry. Your definition just compares liberals to conservatives, with no comparison to the whole. By your logic, 3 liberals, 1 conservative, and one million moderates, is the same as 750 thousand liberals, 250 thousand conservatives and 4 moderates, even though the second group is much more liberal. --CPAdmin1 01:21, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
- Don't know why you think the second group is much more liberal. By definition, moderates are neutral. Your definition treats 50 liberals and 50 moderates the same as 50 liberals and 50 conservatives, and that is clearly false.--Aschlafly 01:25, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
OK, lets assume that 1 liberal and 1 conservative offset each other. and say LQ = (L-C)/T where L is liberal, C is conservative, and T is total number. This gives a scale from -1 to 1 with 1 being totaly liberal and -1 being totaly conservative. --CPAdmin1 01:30, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
This would give about .43 for wikipedia and -.15 for the american public. so I am not sure how many times more liberal that would make it. --CPAdmin1 01:41, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
- That doesn't work, because your scale goes negative. There is no such thing as negative bias. A good scale is from 0 to plus infinity, just like the scientific scale for temperature (Kelvin).--Aschlafly 01:39, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
It should go negative if it is more conservative than liberal. --CPAdmin1 01:42, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
- No, a negative bias is nonsensical. It's self-contradictory.--Aschlafly 01:44, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
- I think what CPAdmin is trying to say is that if their is a liberal quotient, then there must be a conservative quotient as well, that kicks in when the liberal quotient bottoms out. Therefore, a group with 1 conservative an no liberals would have a conservative quotient of 1. A group of ten conservatives and 2 liberals would have a conservative quotient of 5.--Elamdri 04:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
OK, I'm too lazy to read through the buffer here, so if I'm treading covered ground, hang with me.
Andy, a ratio of 3 liberals to 1 Conservative (3:1), which is the old "three times as many liberals" figure is equal to 75% liberal. 1 liberal to 2 conservatives (1:2), which is the figure given for the American public, is equal to 33.333… 75%/33.333≈2.25, do the math. If your going to wave around your definition of "liberal bias", understand that it's absurd and falacious. No liberals in the group is not no liberal bias, one conservative to one liberal would be no bias - in the group population. And simply because an editor is liberal doesn't mean that their edits are, which would be the only means by which the encyclopedia could possess a liberal bias. --Hacker
(Write some code • Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA) 08:09, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
It seems that this liberal quotient concept suffers from some confusion between absolute scales and relative scales. An absolute scale can obviously use any measuring unit that makes sense, and go as high as necessary. The temperature scale is an example. But the moment you're comparing the members of two different groups, as on the Examples of Bias page, you're talking about a relative scale, which by necessity is a question of fractional ratios and the relationship between them. --AKjeldsen 08:20, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
- Fine, propose a scale that you like better than mine. But it's obvious that the scale should not consist of negative bias (an oxymoron) or assign the same liberal quotient regardless of whether the non-liberals are moderates or conservatives. Also, I don't think the scale should be limited to a range of 0 to 1, just as temperature is not.
- No alternative yet proposed meets these obvious criteria.--Aschlafly 08:54, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
- I am not talking about a scale at all, mr. Schlafly. You are of course free to use whatever kind of scale you wish for measuring liberal bias. I am talking specifically about the statement on the Bias in Wiki page that claims 75%/33%=6. This is obviously incorrect. It has nothing to do with scales. It's a simple question of the relative size of two different groups of subsets. This is elementary arithmetics. I strongly suggest that either the number is corrected or the paragraph is reworded so it makes sense. --AKjeldsen 09:07, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
- Your number is simply a ratio of the percentage of liberals. It is not a ratio of liberal bias using any meaningful definition of that metric.--Aschlafly 09:20, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
- I know, but that's what the paragraph says as it is now. I suggest rewording it if you want it to say something else. --AKjeldsen 09:23, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
- No, it doesn't say that. It says "Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public," which means Wikipedia's overall liberal bias is six times greater than that of the overall liberal bias among American public. That is not the same as your statistic that there are __ times more liberals on Wikipedia than in the American public on a percentage basis, because such a claim fails to factor in the number of offsetting conservatives.--Aschlafly 09:29, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
- But the number of offsetting conservatives is inherent in the statistic itself. In your own words: twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal" and three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative". You are describing the ratio of liberals to conservatives in the two sets, then comparing the two ratios. --AKjeldsen 09:35, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
- It is inherent in my statistic, but not in yours. Also, your approach arbitrarily limits your scale to between 0 and 1. I've explained repeatedly why that is undesirable, just as it is for temperature.--Aschlafly 09:47, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
- I do not have a scale. I am simply comparing ratios. In the paragraph, you posit the two ratios of 2:1 and 1:3. Converting to fractions of liberals, we get 1/3 and 3/4. Common denominator is 12, thus 4/12 and 9/12. Dividing, 9/4=2.25. QED. --AKjeldsen 10:15, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
- AKjeldsen, I've explained flaws in your approach again and again. I'm not going to repeat myself any more here.
- Your contributions to this site appear to be in violation of our 90%/10% rule. I suggest you make some substantive improvements before engaging in more talk.
- I agree, there seems to be little reason to carry on with this. Oh, and by the way, I'd like to point out that by my count, I have made about 105 edits to articles and debates, including some quite extensive work on the medieval subjects, and only about 80 posts on talk pages. Personally, I don't think that's an unreasonable ratio. --AKjeldsen 11:09, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
- OK, fine. Thanks.--Aschlafly 11:14, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
Earlier there was a user who tried several times to add a link to NAMBLA's website in the article of that name, and this user was given tacit support and approval by others for his actions. There are people in Conservapedia, including Andy, who WILL NEVER TOLERATE any site that advocates child molesting, and I don't want to hear the excuses as to NAMBLA's so-called intentions. If I see anyone post a link to a child-molesting site, I will assume they support child molesting and they will never be allowed in this website again. If I see direct evidence that such an editor may be more involved in child molesting then providing a link, then Andy will be notified as well as federal and state law enforcement. Karajou 00:01, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
- Amen. Thank you, Karajou.--Aschlafly 00:07, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
- The entire talk page for NAMBLA was deleted by me, and the above warning inserted in its place. Karajou 00:13, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
- Perfect. You might lock it also, if you haven't already done so.--Aschlafly 00:16, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
- Locked. Karajou 00:23, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
This article was nominated for deletion AFD NAMBLA. After some discussion, it was clarified with the user who created the article  that NAMBLA was in violation of Commandment 1 , and NAMBLA was not an "issue advocacy" group. Ample evidence supporting that was presented  and endorsed by two other editors.  The creator of the article was blocked for edit warring after recieving sufficient warning. DanH and I discussed the length of the block,  as I think the user who created the article and linked to site may not have understood it was in violation of the Commandment 1 until the evidence was presented. My initial instinct was to delete the page entirely, but the discussion on both pages in question I think proved beneficial. RobS 02:54, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
- It's important to take a stand on moral issues. We are not Wikipedia; we have not pledged to refrain from judging. We are free to endorse or condemn groups and activities as we see fit.
- I believe that the 'nambla' issue will be a turning point for Conservapedia. --Ed Poor 09:16, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
Are the featured articles chosen by you to make a political point, or are they chosen based on the merit of the article? --Hacker
(Write some code • Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA) 07:53, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
Enforcing the Commandments Equally
Hey Andy. I was disturbed to see here your brother, Roger, use a homosexual slur term, largely recognized as a term of derision, on an article page. I do not believe that we should include such offensive terminology in articles, even descriptively. No doubt you agree; the Commandments say that insults won't be tolerated, and Conservapedia should not give aid & comfort to hate-filled rhetoric.
I hope you take appropriate action. Please base your action not on your personal feelings about the group that Roger insulted, but rather your commitment to a respectful atmosphere at Conservapedia. By taking action, you will demonstrate your commitment to equal enforcement of the Commandments; otherwise, you will demonstrate your commitment to one point of view, at the expense of "discrete & insular minorities." Thank you.-AmesGyo! 11:26, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
- I think this will be dismissed as an attempt at "liberal censorship". --Hojimachongtalk 12:00, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
- Obviously I recuse myself from any disputes concerning my brother. That said, it is equally obvious that we do not impose political correctness here, Ames. Go to a university for that!--Aschlafly 12:09, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
Who is the correct person to go to, then? And the last I heard, being against slurs wasn't to be for "political correctness" - it was to be for respect.-AmesGyo! 12:30, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
- The use of the term seems to be as part of an argument, not using the word as a slur. That would seem to make it a different situation. That said, using the term seems to run afoul of the rule that Conservapedia is family-friendly. JoshuaZ 12:35, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
Material copied from a site that only permits copying without alteration
I think the article American Friends Service Commission should either be protected or deleted, as it was copied from a site that licenses it for copying under cc-by-nc-nd. That license allows copying only if no changes are made. I'm guessing that "no alterations" is unacceptable to Conservapedia and that the article should be deleted, and in any case you've already said that wholesale copying, even of public domain material, is inappropriate. Comment at Conservapedia:AFD American Friends Service Commission... or take whatever actions you deem appropriate. Dpbsmith 13:30, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
- Protect it, I guess? How's that sound?--Aschlafly 14:18, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
- P. P. S. You might as well remove the Deletion Notice... Dpbsmith 15:57, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
Mr. Schlafly, recently, there have been accusations that i am involved with "icewedge" . these are false. when i see him here, i put messages on his talk pages questioning his spelling in an attempt to distract him. I also revert his edits. These accusations are offensive. As far as his post on my talk page, i admit it looks suspicious but i have no idea what it means. I assure you i am not involved.Bohdan 15:46, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
- Thanks Bohdan. I didn't ever think you were involved in vandalism.--Aschlafly 15:50, 28 April 2007 (EDT)