User talk:Aschlafly/Archive28

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Congratulations!

{{TopScorer|3363|1}}

Conservapedia.png Top Scorer
For a Score of 3363, The Highest Recorded Score in The 1st Conservapedia:Team contest
Geo.Complain! 23:03, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
Thanks much!!!! I really appreciate the honor!!!--Aschlafly 23:10, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
Congratulations Andy! Fox and I tried to give you a run for your money, but somehow it seems fitting that you got top honor. ;-) Learn together 13:34, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
Great job Andy! You really set the example for everyone here on Conservapedia. --Crocoite 13:43, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
Thanks much, Learn together and Crocoite! Both of your efforts helped propel your team to victory over mine. Well done! In Christ--Aschlafly 14:37, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Final Scores

In case you didn't see on my talk page...the final scores for the two teams was 9618 for Team1 and 5384 for Team2. And congratulations on winning the award...you definitely deserve it! You were on doing tons of edits when no one else was, and you made more then half of the scores for your entire team! DeborahB. 23:33, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Wow, Deborah, your team destroyed us! What happened??!!! My Team2 definitely needs to analyze this and regroup!
Actually, it was due to your tremendous effort, and that of your teammates. Congratulations!!!!--Aschlafly 00:05, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
Your team should have won due to your tremendous effort alone! DeborahB. 00:09, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

This is vaguely sickening, but well done nonetheless :)-Tir

Question

Are you going to have the team contest again or was it a one time thing? Thanks, DeborahB. 10:08, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

! !

--Sysop-TK /MyTalk 15:42, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

...explanation please? :) DeborahB. 15:44, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
Absolutely, Deborah, we'll be having more contests. The records from this past contest were made to be broken!
But first, our team2 is going to try to trade with your team1 to get you on our team! In Christ--Aschlafly 16:00, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Hahahah! And they say boys are competitive! I'm game, but next time family stuff won't keep me gone, and you'll be sorry! :p --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 16:02, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
 :) :) DeborahB. 16:09, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
If I hadn't been on vacation for half the contest, our results would probably have been much more competitive. I would love to have another contest. ~ SharonTalk 17:08, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

New on recent pages

Is this too emphasised? It's easily reversible, so let me know. Niandra talk 10:16, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Wow, Niandra, did you do that? That's amazing. I love it!!!
You're better at this than I am now. By chance, do you know how to create a new category? For example, I'd like a Category:peer review . In Christ--Aschlafly 10:24, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
Niandra, if you're not sure how to do it, I could...just let me know. DeborahB. 10:25, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
Just like this? Category:Peer review, it's on the recent changes.. Niandra talk 10:31, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
Niandra, did you simply create a blank new page with the name "Category:peer review"? (I thought I had tried that with another new category a day or two ago, and that it didn't work). Thanks! In Christ--Aschlafly 10:34, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
Yes, it took me a while to figure it out too. You have to write something/anything into the text box - meaningful or not. You can simply delete it after or explain what the category is for. Niandra talk 10:37, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
fwiw, a category is also automatically created if you put an article into a category. For example, if I went to article "cocker spaniel" and placed the double-bracketed "category:cute widdle doggies" at the bottom, "cute widdle doggies" would now be a category with one member. Not sure if that helps or not... Aziraphale 12:26, 27 July 2007 (EDT) <-scattergoried...

I forgot to claim credit for my edits during the contest. I bet we would have won . . . :P --Ed Poor Talk 16:04, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

User JS

The Javascript I have is the same as on my Wikipedia account. I adds several useful tabs to the top of pages. The only JS in there that really important in Lupin's Popups. If anything else will be a problem I'll remove it. SigmaEpsilon 15:25, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

There's also a special editor called "wikEd". The only important part is the last fews lines, which are thh popups. SigmaEpsilon 15:31, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
Please do some edits and establish a track record here before running code. So far, I don't see a substantive edit yet by you. Let's gain some confidence first. Thanks.--Aschlafly 15:33, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Any added code needs approval on CP. Would you be so kind and indulge those (like me) who are not too technically inclined, and explain each feature it adds, and why you find them useful? Thanks! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 15:34, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
A quick remark from somebody who made his account WAY back and only lurked until now:
It should be mentioned that the deleted entries were user CSS/Javascript. It's code that merely alters the user's perspective of things (for example to change colors in the layout or inserting a custom button somewhere) and has no effect on the site itself.
Tons of people on Wikipedia use them, and I'm fairly certain quite a few people here use them, too. It's all about productivity and flexibility. I think such things should be embraced, not stomped down. --NekoD 16:03, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
  • NekoD, perhaps that would be easier (embrace) if the people who were so technically proficient had a matched ability to communicate? Even your post doesn't actually explain what the changed view might be. I understand some scripts used on WP actually skirt user rights and enable those using it to "rollback" and other features typically available only to Administrators. Is that not factual? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 16:17, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
I'm not intimate with the inner workings of the software or all its user scripts. However, "rollback" is not terribly hard to accomplish if it's merely "undo all edits by whoever last edited the article". I wouldn't count rollback as a "user right", more of a comfort that's reserved to some users who might need it.
As for the scripts in question, maybe you should ask the people who already use at least one of them? For example, I believe User:Philip J. Rayment, User:Ed Poor and User:Fox, three of your fellow sysops, all use Lupin's popup script, so they should be able to explain nicely what it does (I don't know myself, but it shouldn't be too hard to find out).
As for me telling you what exactly would have changed in the CSS section - yeah, that's kinda difficult when the entries in question have been deleted. ;) --NekoD 16:30, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
Fine, and thanks. But a polite guest does not immediately start rearranging the furniture upon arriving at a new house. Users who show a commitment to the project and make some contributions can then consider doing more. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 16:39, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
This isn't arranging the furniture, I think. It's mostly picking the own wardrobe. I think the user scripts are a productivity boost (if they were useless or damaging, I doubt that three or more of your top editors would use them). Since you like economics, think of it as an investment (with incredibly low costs) into better production methods. The earlier you make those, the sooner they pay off. :) --NekoD 16:43, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
I would have been happy with someone, anyone, explaining who the heck Lupin is, and what kind of popups does he make. The fact that you show some other Admins here using whatever that is, certainly doesn't mitigate a new user installing it, nor the other Sysops not sharing something that aids productivity with the others, IMO. See? I am completely equal opportunity in calling to task those who deserve it. ;-)----Sysop-TK /MyTalk 17:20, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
I'll leave it to you to poke your fellow sysops, but lemme see... after following a few links, it appears that Lupin's script is this here - "Navigation popups is a script, written in JavaScript (source), that offers easy access to article previews and several Wikipedia functions in popup windows which appear when you hover the mouse over links."
Hope this helps to shed some light into this issue :) --NekoD 17:39, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
  • It certainly did, NekoD. Thank you! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 18:09, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

I was away for the weekend and I'm back now. The popups script does what NekoD described, showing a preview of a page when I hover over a link. It also allows quick editing of that linked article without actually clicking the article and then clicking edit. The rest of the code adds tabs (like the "edit" tab) which allow several normal features to be accessed with one click. On an article page, these tabs will: show the most recent diff for this page, show all changes since I last edited this page, and purge the cache for this page. On a user page, the tabs show a user's contributions, show move and block logs for that user, and show an edit count for that user. The edit count won't work on this site, so that tab can be removed. The script also adds and "[edit]" link to the top section of an article (the introductory part before any headings) so that I can edit that section without having the edit the entire page. The final part of the script is the most complicated. It adds a "rich text" editor the the edit feature. The rich text editor highlights wikicode, making it easier to read, and allows for automated typo fixing as well as find/replace within the edit box. It should be noted, as NekoD said above, that this has NO effect on Conservapedia itself. This is merely for my convenience and doe grant me any admin abilities whatsoever. The CSS page merely affects the colors, text formats, and arrangements that I see on Conservapedia and again, has no effect on any other user. If any of this is a problem please let me know. I apologize for making such a ruckus so early in my time with Conservapedia and look forward to working with the other users here improve Conservapedia. SigmaEpsilon 17:10, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

OK, thanks, but let's see some substantive edits first before we get fancy. I look forward to learning from your edits. In Christ.--Aschlafly 18:50, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

small request

Dear Andy,

A article which is getting a lot of traffic is ranked 12 by Google. I would like it to climb higher. Could you change the "table of content" colors for the articles to being blue text on white background instead of the ugly purple text on white background. I think that would help. Conservative 17:42, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. I'd help if I knew how to do this. Any ideas?--Aschlafly 17:44, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Conservative, are you talking about the Table of Contents on the Wiki, or some template added to the article? You would need to post a link to whatever article it is. If it is CP's own built-in table of contents, PhilipRayment or Ed Poor would most likely know how to accomplish this. Warning: What you are asking, if CP's own table of contents, any changes would be wiki-wide, and apply to all articles. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 18:03, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
What I am referring to is the table of contents that appears on all Conservapedia articles that have sections. For example, when you go to the homosexuality article the first thing you see is the table of contents which uses pink/purple writing on a white background. I would prefer that the lettering be blue instead of pink/purple. Conservative 21:53, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
It's that color because you, Conservative, have clicked on it. Your browser shows you that you've already been to that page by changing the color from blue to, oh, let's call it puce. New visitors will see the blue unless and until they also click on the link. There is nothing to "change". U2 22:01, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
Can you change it using your own preferences?--Aschlafly 21:57, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
It's blue for me. Are you using the monobook skin? Niandra talk 21:58, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
It would be a wiki-wide change. Niandra talk 22:00, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
On every computer I have ever edited Conservapedia (and there have been a lot of them) it is pink/purple lettering. We need to make Conservapedia more appealing for the average user and get rid of the purple/pink lettering in question. Conservative 22:01, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
What do you suggest? Niandra talk 22:03, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
Scrub that, if you have Firefox, go to Tools, Options, Content tab, then Colors.. you'll be able to change it there. Niandra talk 22:17, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Conservative, it will appear the same, no matter the computer, unless and until you go into your "Preferences" here, and change the "Skin" to Monobook. --Sysop-TK --Talk 2 Me 22:26, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
Monobook doesn't change it. If he follows my instructions, they will change the colours for his viewing only. Niandra talk 22:27, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
It seems to me as if Wikipedia can have a tasteful blue lettering on their "table of contents" for various articles that we should be able to do the same thing. I don't think we should force people who are not computer saavy to have to fiddle with settings. Please let us get rid of the "pink/purple" lettering in our "table of contents" for our articles. Since I have used a wide variety of places to edit Conservapedia by now and they all have the "pink/purple" lettering for the table of contents for articles, I think it is a problem.Conservative 19:06, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
We'll look into it. Thanks. In Christ--Aschlafly 19:13, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
Thanks. Conservative 19:24, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

FBI defence

I'm revisiting you herre today to check up on the status of your FBI investigations, but I see you've archived that thread. No matter - I would simply like to again offer my professional services to you in this matter. I am a solicitor well versed in defending individuals against the FBI, and am very familiar with cases such as yours, as I've made it my speciality over the past 15 years or so. I notice your wiki references the Gravois Mills case [1] - this is a very similar case to your own, and I have spoken with the pastor involved in that case. Despite being a different area of the law, the FBI does indeed view vandalism of physical property the same as vandalism of online property. I understand that you may appreciate discretion, and I will observe that. Please contact me off list if you are interested. DrJoshWeinstein 18:26, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Where would you be contacted, Dr. Weinstein? Your IP Address, 85.92.130.117, is located in the Netherlands. You must have a very impressive practice! --Sysop-TK --Talk 2 Me 18:35, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I am indeed located in the Netherlands - I'm taking a vacation with family in Utrecht, since you asked! You may contact me via my email address off this thread if you wish. DrJoshWeinstein 18:41, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

Wow, and you're posting at nearly 1am on a Sunday morning there while on vacation with your family!!!! Good "doctor", perhaps Wikipedia would be a better home for an "expert" like you. You seem far too "clever".
By the way, good "doctor", "solicitors" don't practice law here in the United States. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 18:56, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

Uhm....yes, it is indeed 1am on a Saturday night/Sunday morning, but what's so strange about being up after midnight with a nice glass of wine by my side and my wife and I playing backgammon? As to 'solicitor', yes, you've spotted that I am a UK-based solicitor - 'lawyer' in American terminology. I also practice law in the US, by the way, and I'm sorry, I should have pointed that out sooner. I have an office in Washington DC. BjornBenny 19:00, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

Thank you

Thank you for this warm welcome. Hope you will find my presence useful to your project.

I am not a native English speaker, nor do I contribute from the US, so you won't see me often here.

Sporean 13:25, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

we need an article written from a conservative point on a key issue

I edited the article on Wikipedia so the article Examples of Bias in Wikipedia would be highlighted more. I wrote "Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias - especially on matters relating to the Culture war." Well I found out that the Culture war article has been blanked out and prevented from article recreation. I think this is a big mistake since the Culture war going on in America is the primary reason why Conservapedia was instituted. Can I enable the article Culture war to be created. I think such a article might help us get more Bill O'Reilly fans since they call themselves "Culture Warriors". Conservative 13:36, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Great idea. Please do as you suggest. Thanks! In Christ--Aschlafly 13:37, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

question

(Retrieved from User talk:SharonS on July 30)

How do you take something off the spam filter and how do you put something back in the spam filter. I want to make a change to the homosexuality article and I am having some problems. Conservative

I forget how to do that. I'll pass your question on to Mr. Schlafly. Thanks, ~ SharonTalk 06:19, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

Contest, take 2

Hey there Andy,

As we all know, Conservapedia has a respectably large number of articles, but let's face it; many of them are stubs, copy-pastes from government sources, or filled with grammatical mistakes. The first contest was very successful in making people create new pages, and I think another contest which only gave points for improving existing articles would be greatly beneficial. I haven't thought about the finer aspects of this idea, but I wanted to see if you liked the idea.

"Godspeed" (I need my own signoff), -ηοξιμαχονγθαλκ 12:38, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

I agree. We should have that second contest to see who could 1) improve existing articles, and 2) create new articles from scratch. The catch would have to be that no cut-and-paste of anything (except direct quotes and images) is authorized; everything written would have to be the writer's own words; and the judges would also look at the spelling, grammar, sources, etc. Karajou 12:45, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
That "from scratch" caveat when making new articles is a very good idea, IMHO. --ηοξιμαχονγθαλκ 12:52, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
I agree, so long as the the improved articles are fully sourced and contain many citations linking to other websites. We might want to consider adding points for users who provide more than three (just a random number) outside sources. Maybe one point awarded for adding the "uncited" template, but 5 points for adding more than 3 outside linked sources. --Sysop-TK --Talk 2 Me 14:05, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
My unsolicited two cents - adjudicating a quality contest in bulk would be nearly impossible (but not totally - I have an open mind!), so may I suggest a contest (if contests are how you want to go) where an article is assigned to a team (so 2 teams = 2 articles) and then they're given a week (or however long) to improve it. At the end of the week a distinguished panel of judges would decide the better article. Winner! Lather, rinse, repeat.
I can see it being done NCAA bracket-style, with smaller teams (say, two people) and more of them, advancing through the brackets to reach a grand finale, etc. This would take longer, and you wouldn't have thousands of improved articles at the end, but I'm not sure that ANY method would yield a quick fix to bulk improved articles. Perhaps each week a team would be assigned 5 articles instead of 1? EDIT TO ADD: more than one article per week also helps minimize the possibility that one team simply gets a "better" article to expand. Aziraphale 14:14, 30 July 2007 (EDT) <-Confessions of a Dangerous Mime...
  • We also need someone to judge signatures, and propose a rule that they must be clearly readable in English, without having to click on them to see who is posting. :p --Sysop-TK --Talk 2 Me 15:29, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the good suggestions above. Let's brainstorm more about how to conduct the second contest. However, I do feel compelled to add that there is nothing wrong with copying reliable government material. The entire legal profession and much of the scientific profession consists of copying from authorities. Once, while working for the government, I put a statute in my own words rather than copy it. My supervisor properly criticized me for doing that.

The command "don't copy!" is usually appropriate, but there are important exceptions. Note, by the way, that Wikipedia copied tens of thousands of entries from archaic, out-of-date, old encyclopedias. No one seems to be complaining about that, which actually deserves complaints. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 17:03, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

Hi Andy, I'd just like to share some quick thoughts I had at the end of the last contest that I believe would also work well with what Hojimachong would like to see above. How about if all alterations to articles that deal with spelling errors, typos, BCE/BC changes, or removing links to wikipedia or answers.com count as larger article edits? As a natural scoring part of the contest, your participants will be keeping their eyes open for easy grammatical fixes that would improve our perception to the outside world as well as continuing to contribute content edits and new articles that will help us grow. ;-) Learn together 17:45, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
I like Aziraphale's idea, with small teams being focused on a small number of articles. This way, we could select important articles (like Capitalism, Communism, United States, World War I, Love, Christianity, Politics, Economics, etc.) and assign them to the groups, with specific types of improvement meriting points (a spelling correction is 1 point, grammatical changes are 2 points, refs are 3 points, etc.). Shall we move this discussion to another page, perhaps?
P.S., TK, I was going to use Arabic ;-). --ηοξιμαχονγθαλκ 18:52, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, Hojimachong, and I have a response based on your suggestions but I'll wait for the conversation to move to another page. :D Aziraphale 21:13, 30 July 2007 (EDT) <-patience is a virtue...
  • Arabic, eh? Well, they do tell me Cuba is lovely, no matter the time of year! Muhahaha! --Sysop-TK --Talk 2 Me 23:46, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

--şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 21:28, 31 July 2007 (EDT)==Friendly Fire and partisan wrangling==

Andy, I don't think there was much "deceit" involved in the Pat Tillman case. It's probably more a matter of public relations and morale: don't rush to publicize the possibility of a friendly fire incident. With newspapers using terms like "fratricide" (which sound like deliberate murder), and with the Abu Ghraib thing going on, it's understandable that they'd want to take it slow.

The fact is, they announced that friendly fire "probably" killed Tillman the month after his death. --Ed Poor Talk 20:26, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

The military has always understated friendly fire in high-profile cases, partly out of respect for the victim. Friendly fire is also understated when guards respond to a robbery or assassination attempt. The law does not care who fired the fatal bullets, and teh attackers are criminally liable for the deaths regardless. These are not examples of great deceit.--Aschlafly 20:31, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
  • The General responsible has been censured. The truth is, due to their (Tillman's Unit) covert mission, most in the Chain of Command believed they could not give out those details at the time. On second look (hind-site), the Army decided that was wrong, and the man responsible may well have one of his three star's removed because of it. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 21:28, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Spam filter problems

Is ezinearticles.com banned for some reason? I added a reference from there a while ago, but now when I go to edit that same page it says that http:// ezinearticles.com triggers the spam filter. Should I look somewhere else for a source, or is it inadvertantly in the filter? Thanks. Jazzman831 20:23, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Page Request

Hello,

A few days ago a small group of us tried to create a page on a local conservative activist named J.R. Hedrick to have the page deleted. We read the guidelines and adjusted our page and were hoping we could ask the conservapedia staff to reconsider. We currently have the page wewantjr.homeip.net if you could take a few minutes check out the website see our reasoning and message and reconsider it would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions or would like a shortened verstion of our reasoning feel free to email us at wewantjr@yahoo.com .

Who is this? Please sign your postings using the signature bar, and please also check your spellings before posting.
I did an internet search on "J.R. Hedrick" and found nothing of interest, so I wonder if this is a joke.--Aschlafly 00:31, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Apparently so. DanH says he is the President of a High School Young Republican club. Important, to be sure, but perhaps not exactly encyclopedia material....;-) --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 01:37, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
I don't envy those of you sysops who will be going over the current article database looking for unencyclopedic articles. *wipes brow* Aziraphale 02:08, 2 August 2007 (EDT) <-what you mean "we", white man?

why was Sysop:Talk deleted

Why was Sysop:Talk deleted? I have been told that many of the Sysops IM each other or call each other. I do not have IM capabilities and I am not able to tie up my phone line. Can we have a Sysop:Talk page again? We don't necessarily have to discuss "top secret" stuff there. Conservative 13:09, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

Vandals lacking a life of their own, and who do not respect privacy, found a way to read the Sysop:Talk page. I agree with you that we should have it anyway (with a warning), because vandals cannot write to it. But other Sysops decided simply to delete it so that there was an unexpected loss of privacy. In Christ,--Aschlafly 13:17, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
I will return the page with a warning. Conservative 13:19, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

Putting Conservapedia on conservatives' radar

A lot of conservatives don't know that Conservapedia exist. Some of those conservatives that don't know that Conservapedia exist would contribute to Conservapedia if they knew Conservapedia existed. I have a plan on letting more conservatives know about Conservapedia.

Here is my plan:

A lot of people go to their favorite websites via search engines. I know that I often enter Conservapedia through Google. Accordingly, I think we should work to get our articles on the following news organizations higher in the search engine rankings: Fox News, WorldNetDaily, NewsMax, and Cybercast News Service.

One way to do this is to create articles with multiple sources for these articles since the search engines penalize articles that come too much from another webpage source (Our Cybercast News Service article comes from one source). Secondly, we should feature these news organization's Conservapedia articles on the Conservapedia main page which would drive these articles internet traffic up which would give them higher search engine rankings. We could do this via a Conservative News Organization section near the top of the Conservapedia main page.

Any feedback? Conservative 13:46, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

Good idea, Conservative. There are a lot of things that could be done to raise our profile. Andy's media appearances certainly correlate to increased traffic but we can't rely on him to keep putting himself on the line. Good referencing of articles can certainly help. I notice that your articles generally do well in this department. BrianCo 17:41, 6 August 2007 (EDT)
Well, here are a few thoughts... they mostly focus on "Duplicate content" (and how it may lead to punishment by search engines) that was mentioned somewhere. I'm no expert, but since this spot isn't exactly a high-traffic zone right now, maybe this will spark some additional discussion.
  • Do stubs hurt CP? And I'm not talking about CP's definition of a "stub" (which effectively grinds down to "Stubs don't exist - we have concise articles"), but rather of the intuitive definition (using my intuition... which may have liberal bias :P). For exaple... Stock. This article has... 8 words, an external link and a category. To top it off, the 8 words were copied from another website (I'll get to that part later). Now, this is just my guess, but it should be worth investigating: Google apparently crawls the entire page, including all navigational links and disclaimers. To Google, the page Stock only looks marginally different than (for example) Venture capital (8 words copied from the same source, the same external link, the same category). Yes, the difference boils down to 8 words. Plus a few more if you count the headline changes. It's possible that, to Google, the pages are 90% (random guess) identical. I know CP values "concise" articles, but I think we should at least have articles with more words than you find in the navigation boxes in the left column.
  • Glossary definitions and large-scale copying. I know this puts me on Andy's "No presents for Christmas" list, but I think it's not terribly smart to have such quantities of copy-paste jobs. I'm not talking about legality here (I'm sure it's allowed to copy from .gov sites... but I saw some people muttering stuff about copyrighted Baseball glossaries, among other things...), or about reliability (It's very possible that "Toluene is a colorless liquid of the aromatic group of petroleum hydrocarbons, made by the catalytic reforming of petroleum naphthas containing methyl cyclohexane"... not that I understood most words of that sentence...), but I'm rather talking about "Does this actually help the user?" and "Does this improve search rank?" I think the answer in both cases is "...probably not." First of all, it's duplicating parts of the content of another Google-crawled website. In some cases (like the war ships, I think), it's copying basically a complete copy of another Google-crawled page. Additionally, glossary definitions tend to be short. This might be all kinds of bad. Again, I'm no expert, but it's something that makes me go "Hmmmmm". Furthermore, these definitions are only useful as long as they are complete and interlinked. For example, there is no article on cyclohexane, which makes it somewhat hard to follow the above definition, reducing that article's (and the site's) usefulness considerably since I have to leave CP to actually understand the CP article. This might (and should) change over time, but right now, user experience sorta suffers.
  • Are the "deleted and protected" articles crawled? Yes, they are. Google crawls the page both in the "follow the redirect" and in the "don't follow the redirect" mode, which most likely leads to a few hundred 99% duplicate pages on this domain. This could be avoided with some wiki knowledge. Considering that you guys got people like Ed "I edited on WP even before Jesus was born" Poor, I'm surprised that nobody suggested things like Cascaded Protection (along with the protection template) to prevent articles from being recreated. It's certainly not trivial (I couldn't easily explain the technical background), but I think it would be worth it since it would be an elegant way of doing this without creating actual articles to be crawled by Google.
  • Index pages like Law Terms H. Use categories and get rid of these extreme stubs. All the empty index pages are effectively duplicates of each other, and they add nothing to the user experience since the categories would do the exact same thing (with the additional advantage that they auto-update as soon as an article is categorized). Furthermore, they count towards the X thousand "educational, clean, and concise entries", which I at least find a bit ridiculous.
Aside from that, the goal should be to create quality into the width if you want to get and keep readers and new editors. Right now, the approach seems to be "quantity into the width and quality into select spots", which is awesome for readers who happen to query exactly these spots, but sorta leaves the other people standing in the rain. There are problems that prevent this issue from being fixed by simple wishful thinking and inviting people to join, but that would be off-topic here (and this post is long enough already). Again, I'm no certified expert on Search Engine Optimization, so some or all of my guesses might be off. However, I think they're at least worth to think about since they also effect how users see CP. --MStort 19:01, 6 August 2007 (EDT)
MStort, I think you've already been blocked for other reasons, but I'm going to respond for the benefit of legitimate users here. First, traffic is not our main or even second goal. To take liberty with the famous biblical insight, what does a man gain if he increases his website traffic but doesn't know the difference between "effect" and "affect"? (see your last phrase above). In other words, we are a site for learning, not trying to attract as many eyeballs as possible. Wikipedia goes for the eyeballs, we go for the minds.
Second, we don't want to be dependent on Google for traffic. Google can and will cut off anyone who endangers their profits. That's us in the future, which is why we're not going to waste much time trying to be more dependent on Google. Right now 85% of our traffic comes from sources other than Google, and we like it that way. Godspeed and hope you can become a legitimate user here one day.--Aschlafly 21:47, 6 August 2007 (EDT)
Not to mess with your metaphor, Andy, but the eyeballs (assuming they aren't being obscured by eyelids) transmit optical images directly to the striate cortex, via the optic nerve. So the information goes directly to your brain, without you being able to make the choice. Something else controlling your body? Sounds awfully liberal to me. --Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğθαλκ 02:51, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

Andy, I sent you a urgent email address.

Andy, I sent you a urgent email address. I am leaving shortly and would appreciate it if we could talk about this matter.Conservative 20:36, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

categorizing articles

Hi! :)

Thanks for adding a new article. Please, though, categorize your articles when you create them; while there are those of us who will go through and clean-up the uncategorized articles, you know your subject better than we do.

For a list of categories, go here: Special:Categories. To add a category to your article, type two open brackets, then "category:" followed by the category you want. Just add two closed brackets and you're done! You can add as many categories as you feel are appropriate. Thanks!

PS The above is clearly boilerplate, and I know you're the big cheese around here. Still, you're likely to be a better judge of categories for your articles than someone like me who comes around afterwards, soooOOOo... Aziraphale 12:26, 6 August 2007 (EDT) <- merci buckets!

Ha ha, you caught me entering a new page without a category! Thanks so much, I've categorized it now, and also categorized someone else's. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 12:32, 6 August 2007 (EDT)
I am writing this down on my calendar! But a good atonement, Andy! --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 12:34, 6 August 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, not trying to "catch you out" or anything. As I described to another editor, I see myself as tying strings around people's fingers. And I thought the list shrunk faster than I was typing, thanks for catching the other one. :) Aziraphale 12:36, 6 August 2007 (EDT) <-I'm only one man! :p

A small request

Dear Andy,

I just sent you a note from my hotmail account. I wanted to share the same information to the Sysops of Conservapedia but I forgot to copy the email. Could you respond to that email using the reply feature so I get the carbon copy of the email I sent you? It would be much appreciated. Thanks. Conservative 12:55, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

Courtesy notice

Please see this. NiGHT 21:17, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

Liberals don't really respect privacy, I'm afraid. Lord bless you.--Aschlafly 21:40, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

Exactly.

Well, all that is important is that the intent to keep them private was there. If vandals and terrorists wish to exploit the Wikimedia software, that isn't our doing, nor does it make what they do moral. And if someone knows about that exploit, and alerts others to it, perhaps they should also be communicating what it is exactly, and perhaps offering a "fix". At least that's my opinion. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 21:44, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

There isn't a real "fix" to this feature. This "feature", which I won't mention here, can be used to read any protected namespace, no matter the restriction. (Unlike the MediaWiki API, which does a permissions check.) It's not a bug, because the feature is doing exactly what it was designed to do. NiGHT 22:51, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

Yippie aye yo ki yay!

I just found out that the number one search engine in the United States ranks the Conservapedia Theory of evolution article #5 out of about 26 Million articles written on that subject. That is why the article is likely getting the traffic it is now getting.

Here is some background:

"Yahoo is considered the number one search engine above all other search engines. Yahoo search queries make up approximately 28% of all search engine traffic. And just in raw traffic reported by Alexa rankings, Yahoo! demolishes competitors such as Google and MSN." taken from : http://www.seochat.com/c/a/Yahoo-Optimization-Help/Search-Engines-and-Algorithms-Optimizing-for-Yahoo-Search-and-AltaVista/

I found out from Google Ad Words that the phrase "theory of evolution" is about the most popular term to find information about that subject. It is way more popular than the word "evolution". Here is www.google.com ad words: https://adwords.google.com/select/KeywordToolExternal

As you can see can see Yahoo ranks our "Theory of evolution" article #5: http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=theory+of+evolution&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

Conservative 18:45, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

Wow, that's phenomenal!!! Thank God ... and User:Conservative.--Aschlafly 18:56, 8 August 2007 (EDT)
Plus read this: http://www.seomoz.org/article/search-ranking-factors#f28 Given that we are such a new site we are doing very well. Conservative 19:10, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

standing

You've put up a lot of standing cases recently! Are you making that argument in a big case?  :) --ColtsQuinn 20:21, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

No, but maybe I should be! Standing arguments are winning with increasing frequency. :-) Godspeed.--Aschlafly 20:31, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

1.5 million main page views

check it out; 1.5 million main page views. Guess who number 15,000,000 was? Yeah, that's right, me. Woohoo! --Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğθαλκ 02:42, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

  • number 1,500,000 was you Hoji. Jallen talk 02:44, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia courses

I've been having trouble finding the links to the courses you're running on here this fall, which gave me an idea: Maybe we could put links to them on the front page, which might also increase the number of students. DanH 16:43, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

Dan, that's a great idea. Perhaps you'd know best where to put them on the main page. I don't want to interfere with our breaking news. Perhaps the left side would work better? Please do what you think is best:

Conservapedia:American Government 101
Conservapedia:The Supreme Court
Conservapedia:Critical Thinking in Math

I'm hoping you can contribute as a teacher, Dan! Godspeed.--Aschlafly 16:59, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

I put a link on the left side of the front page for now; if you or anybody else has any ideas for a better place to put it, that would be great. I'd love to help with the American government/Supreme Court classes, although I don't know that I would necessarily be qualified to help teach the math course. DanH 17:05, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

Thanks much! Maybe occasionally we can move it higher for a day and then back down. Your offer to help is particularly appreciated. Personally, I've learned more teaching than I have as a student. I've heard other teachers say the same thing. It's very enlightening and extremely rewarding intellectually.--Aschlafly 17:11, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

What

I honestly don't know what you mean - I have been contributing to this project to my knowledge- could you perhaps give me a link with the "problematic" edit? I looked at my contribution - and I have created stubs, but I don't believe any warnings - however I disagree with your opinion that stubs are useless, as currently stubs make up a lot of conservapedia - so creating an article like January 1 is something that I would do again if I had to. I'm just really not sure what the problem is - but if you were to point it out to me I'd be incredibly grateful - regardless of whether or not we disagree.--Iduan 18:44, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

I looked at your contributions today, and found a serious of insertions of the form {{fact}} or more obnoxious banners. I haven't found a substantive contribution yet. You just did January 1, which is fine, but there's room for improvement. Look at my contributions if you need an example. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 18:51, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Ok, I guess I understand your concern - however I think adding {{fact}} is sometimes useful - and the reason I created the banner (which I wouldn't describe as obnoxious) was because I saw a page that would need so many {{fact}} tags that it would look ridiculously bad - and I also provided other reasons on the templates page. In my mind I would say template namespace contributions are relatively important, but if you disagree I will take that under consideration - however you should note that most of my edits have been to articles - including substantive edits to Cuba, so I don't really think it's fair to say if you one day come in here and use the fact tag how it's supposed to be used, you get a "warning".--Iduan 19:02, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
I looked at your edit to Cuba and did not find it to be substantive. In fact, I had to revert it because it did the same thing I complained about elsewhere.
This is a substantive project. I repeat: look at my edits if you honestly don't get it yet. Godspeed.-Aschlafly 19:20, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
I know what edits typically look like- but I, unlike you, also know why we have the "This is a minor edit" check box, because minor edits are just as valued as larger edits. Again, I have done both large and small edits - and you have no ground to say that I can't do the latter, but I'll make a deal with you. You find a policy that says "don't add {{fact}} to pages or don't make minor edits, and I'll cease--Iduan 19:30, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Fact citations are applied sparingly in Conservapedia. It is preferred for the editor to give more detailed discussion in the talk section as far as specific areas of difficulty, why there is a belief there is a difficulty, etc. Creating new articles or adding constructive information to existing articles is viewed favorably and sought after. Sometimes it's not whether or not something is intrinsically "right" or "wrong" as much as how does it fit with the vision of the site as a whole? I am betting if you applied yourself to creating new articles, that you could be a positive contributor in the eyes of the editors and the users of the site. Learn together 20:41, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
That's a nice way of putting it, but rest assured that if any part of my vision is blurry, I'd like to "focus" on seeing some corrections. Why, just last year I made a mistake! ;-) --Ed Poor Talk 21:06, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Ed Poor, that was a huge deceit on your part! I proved conclusively, that you were not wrong in the example you allude to! --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 14:26, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

Our Main page emphasis should change if we want to get more contributors plus....

Andy, it seems to me as if some very valuable contributors to Conservapedia are teenagers (For example, I seem to see Additioner on the Conservapedia system a lot and Additioner makes a lot of useful edits). Also, I have read that a majority of editors at Wikipedia are teenagers and college students. This is not surprising since young people have more time at their disposal generally and they are more computer saavy.

Now I can remember my teenage years and it seems to me that a lot of teenagers are not interested in politics. From what I have read most teenagers don't vote. I believe it is fair to say that a very large part of our main page is devoted to politics and the culture war whereas the Wikipedia main page while focusing some portion on politics (liberal politics) is not nearly as political as our main page. On the other hand, I have read that the people from MoveOn.org have considerable activity at Wikipedia so it seems as if there is some political activity going on at Wikipedia so I see no reason that older conservatives should not be active on Conservapedia as well as young people who are interested.

It seems to me that if we want a large encyclopedia to be created that our main page should be less political. Conservative 15:22, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

I think the political news is great (of course I'm not a teenager either). I would recommend shortening the Breaking news section and adding a link to "More Breaking News" where those interested (like me) could see additional Breaking news that won't fit on the Main page. --Crocoite 15:52, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

Next, I suggest we contact homeschool organizations and get the young conservatives involved more with Conservapedia. I think such a outreach might be sucessful. Perhaps, church groups could be contacted as well and get their young people involved. I say this because it seems to me that we have gone pass "Phase I" generally which is creating some of the more dominant culture war issue articles though some could be fine tuned (Theory of evolution, homosexuality, abortion, etc.) and we need to go to "Phase II" which is getting the less controversial articles created so you can be a more useful encyclopedia. Conservative 15:22, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

I would like to see more teenagers interested in politics, and many of them who don't understand fiscal issues or may not be as passionate about them may be drawn to the culture war issues you mentioned. Not wanting to de-emphasize politics and alienate thosre readers who are thus interested, perhaps we could bring up how they interplay with politics, so we could bridge them, because I think we can agree that they are not at all separate from politics. (Of course, evolution is not as much of a political issue as the others.) DanH 16:07, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

DanH, I would like to see more teenagers interested in politics too. However, the politicians and others have tried to make this happen many times and I believe it has failed and will continue to fail. While I did engage in a pro-life rally as a college student, I just don't believe I was very political as a young person. I don't think I was unusual at all. I think we need to de-emphasize the politics on the main page if we are going to be a viable encyclopedia. More importantly, I think we should stop courting the liberal press (although they have come to us sometimes) and radio and focus more on outreach to young people. By the way, I am not saying that we should not preserve our conservative character. Conservative 16:16, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

Here is something you might want to incorporate into Conservapedia - Conservatives more generous that liberals

Demolished, with hard data: the myth that liberals are more generous and "compassionate" than conservatives: http://www.conservativebookservice.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6989

Conservative 14:34, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

Robert Byrd

An editor is having trouble removing dead wikilinks from dates in the article. Both he and I tried to get them out, but we were told that the spam filter was blocking us. Could you do it? Bohdan 22:04, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

The file can be edited now. You can make any changes you like. Thanks.--Aschlafly 22:07, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

My deepest apologies. No humor, offense or disrespect was intended. I will from now on only mark the dates on years that are close to the birth of our Savior. SkipJohnson 14:02, 15 August 2007 (EDT) p.s. I know I'm not a funny person. I agree that if that were a joke it would be a singularly unfunny one.

Thanks much and I look forward to learning from your edits. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 14:09, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

Nighttime edit rights

I will understand if you'd still be a bit wary of a new editor with barely a dozen mainspace edits requesting edit rights for over night but I happen to work nights and on my nights off I'd like to contribute more. As it stands I get an hour or two before the locks click in. I'll keep plugging away until you find it useful to include me. I just noticed that weeks go by before people are added to the overnight list. Samwell 00:19, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the suggestion. I took a look at your edits and we'd like to gain a bit more confidence. You can always work offline and then upload quickly once we reopen editing. But, like the others, you can gain overnight editing privileges soon enough.--Aschlafly 00:24, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
Fair enough! Blessed night to you! Samwell 00:30, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

Copyright Violations

Hi Andy, just wondering if there was any news on my message at Conservapedia:Desk#A-10_Thunderbolt, the entire article and possibly one picture is a direct copy and paste from a site which does not release its content for public use. I'd rewrite it myself but I don't know much about aircraft and I really wouldn't know where to start. And while you're at it you may want to have a look at History of American football, it's been tagged for "speedy deletion" for nearly two months! EQ 10:21, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

OK, I've deleted both for now, pending further review. I note that no copyright owners complained about these entries. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 12:45, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
EQ, your post is seemingly a deceit. The site you pointed to has the following notice:
"Limitations of Use: The web site www.aerospaceweb.org, any additional sites hosted by Aerospaceweb.org, and the contents of the aforementioned sites are the exclusive property of Aerospaceweb.org ("The Author") unless otherwise noted. All contents may be used for PERSONAL and NON-PROFIT PURPOSES only and should be attributed to Aerospaceweb.org. Any requests to use these contents for commercial purposes should be addressed to the Author.

The site specifically states it gives full release to private parties AND non profit organizations. And you had to have seen that statement, if you indeed did check the site. A copyright notice at the bottom of a page, saying "copyright" is not in, and of itself, prohibiting use by everyone. You need to actually read their posted terms. Accordingly, I have added the required attribution.--şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 13:45, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

I believe it is in reference to the images on the site which are from the gallery[2], which itself is from http://www.paulnann.com/ and the associated http://www.paulnann.com/conditions.asp . None of the requirements for use are honored - ask first, copyright to the original artist, and link to the site. --Rutm 13:55, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
Correction, one looked similar... not from the site I mentioned though. Still, need to identify if the image is copyrighted by aerospaceweb or is from another site that aerospaceweb is using with permission. --Rutm 13:59, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Yes, you do, and the corrections have been made, if you bothered to check. Please do not turn small items into big drama, okay? The original poster here was wrong. Totally wrong. In your haste to post finding a fault, you were also wrong, and corrected what you said, but didn't bother to actually re-check the article and pictures. How much better would have been a helpful suggestion, rather than making your post a matter of finding fault! You could have added the needed attributions, but chose instead to post. That bothers me. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 14:10, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
The schematic is from aerospaceweb that is certain... the other two pictures I can't find on areospaceweb at all. Could you please verify that and update with the proper attributions? In the mean time, could you compare the text of the second fourth paragraph of the A-10 Thunderbolt page here with the third through fifth paragraphs here? --Rutm 14:21, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Your thinking is that on something so written about, millions of words, one could never run across exact of very similar wording about whatever subject? I will repeat again, this time wording it as an instruction from a Site Administrator: Rather than posting on the Owners personal talk page, you should be doing what an editor is supposed to do, which is EDIT. And by that I mean not posting finding faults, but researching and fixing. Here we are interested in doers and solutions! Is that not reasonable? Also, EQ should not have been posting here either, but on the article's discussion page. I hope I have made myself very clear. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 14:42, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

I was reading the copyright notice as being for "personal and non profit" use only, rather than "personal or non profit". In other words not only does the site have to be non profit (as we are) but it also has to be personal (which we aren't). There seems to be some conflict about the exact meaning of the same wording, perhaps it could be resolved by sending an email aerospaceweb and asking for clarification. If it was allowable under the policy then I stand corrected.

As for posting here, I had originally posted to the Desk/Copyrights, but no action had been taken for a couple of days. I'm under the impression that the removal of copyvios as fast as possible is beneficial for both parties, so I thought it best to raise it here. My apologies if that was the wrong thing to do. EQ 20:26, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

  • Yes, imprecise English, but American English. In the future it is always best to post to the article's discussion, or notify a sysop on their talk page. Mr. Schlafly is the site owner and has workers like me and the other Sysops to maintain the site. As for copyright violations, I agree we want to handle those ASAP, but it isn't a life-or-death matter that would require immediate removal.--şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 20:53, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

Interesting article for front page

Mennonites threaten to abandon Quebec

The province insists the group's children must go to a sanctioned school. Leaders say they'll leave the province rather than conform..."But when they threaten to take our children and put them in foster homes, that's beyond what we can accept," said Goossen, 56...."We don't agree with the emphasis on evolution, which we consider false; we don't like the morality standards; and we don't like the acceptance of alternative lifestyles," he said, explaining the Mennonite community's opposition to the curriculum.

This deserves more attention. DaiseyCutter 22:27, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Thanks Daisey! The article is posted. --Crocoite 23:59, 17 August 2007 (EDT)
Good. I just found another version of the story that at places seem more straightforward here.
For the school to be legal, the teacher would have to be certified and Quebec's official curriculum would have be taught.
This "lemmings in a pit" lack of critical thinking, an intellectually lazy movement whereby most go along to get along, is getting ever closer to our boarders. First, government officials in Germany kidnap a home-schooled child as an example to others who consider home-schooling, and now Quebec is threatening to take action against parents who dare to shelter their own children from the evils of schools imbued with humanistic counter religion. Remember, in Canada, some Dr. Dobson programs are barred as "hate" speech (and Dr. Dobson is about the least hateful person I know). Also, in Canada, sex education is taught in elementary schools, including introduction and promotion of "alternative lifestyles", and in secondary schools includes prurient how-to instruction (e.g., mechanics). DaiseyCutter 10:32, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

List of liberal Wikipedians

Just fyi :-). --Ymmotrojam 23:51, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

I'm confused here. All three of the users you listed self-identified as "conservative". DanH 00:48, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

Right. But conservative nonetheless. Maybe like Zell Miller? DanH 01:53, 18 August 2007 (EDT)


What is this list for? --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 01:55, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

I should add my brother. DanH 01:56, 18 August 2007 (EDT)


Question

Andy, do you know what the minimum sentences are for aggravated arson and possession of explosives? Some guys at my school are being charged with those and one of their friends wanted to know.--Elamdri 00:22, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

Elamdri, they need to hire their own attorneys. The sentences will depend on which state this happened in, and the length of sentences will depend on the criminal details. For the benefit of others here, I can come up with some general information (not specific legal advice) later. God help them.--Aschlafly 09:35, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

Article Image Uploads

Hi. I migrated the Spacepol article, I spoke about as planned and wondered if we could grab the logo and catalogue images. I have them on my hard drive, but couldn't upload them without a Sysop. I left some notes about my editing plans on the Spacepol page talk. Also, could we convert one of our existing info boxes into a company or organisation infobox? Or is there one already that I didn't happen to see? Thanks! --ExFin 15:25, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

  • The link to templates in the info box, top of your talk page, should help you find one. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 19:14, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

Editor not letting article discuss liberal bias.

Please see [3]. SkipJohnson 11:41, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

You could take it up with me before running to someone else. As I said (twice) the edit needs to follow the guidlines. I'm not stopping the article from discussing liberal bias, I'm keeping the article from making a baseless (and false) tangential smack at liberals and Wikipedia. Please read the guidelines. They clearly state that you need to attribute opinion or disputed facts. That a WP lawyer cleans out vandalism of his page somehow means that liberals bias Wikipedia is not a fact; it is a claim. Jazzman831 11:47, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
Both above make good points, and opened my eyes to a changing of the guard at Wikipedia: a new attorney, described as a liberal, has taken the helm and is restating Wikipedia policy in the New York Times. He unabashedly edits his own entry and publicly states that anyone else can do likewise. This is a change ... a big one.--Aschlafly 12:25, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
The fact that letting people edit increases bias is so obvious it shouldn't need a citation. Furthermore, this should be noted in the article because it is part of a general pattern, edits by Godwin, Jimbo Wales, Dem HQ, the New York Times. There's a clear pattern here. SkipJohnson 16:31, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
Andy if you don't mind, I'm going to move this to the relevant talk page. Jazzman831 22:41, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

United States National Academies

I'm having a disagreement with TK about the National Academies. Their articles are currently categorized under "US Government" and I have twice pointed out that the Academies are not, in fact, a part of the government. (I created the article on the Institute of Medicine). He is essentially stating that a government contractor is a part of the U.S. government. This means Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Pearson Analytical Solutions, and a host of other contractors are also a part of government, which clearly is not so. I'm trying to make the articles I come across as factually accurate as I can. Can you help me out here?--Porthos 15:03, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

  • Porthos, never bring stuff like this to Andy's personal page. That is why we have Administrators here. You know better. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 15:30, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
Personal tools