User talk:Aschlafly/Archive34

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search



Hi, I believe this new user is a vandal and should be blocked: "Leprechaunjg". Thank you Taj 22:12, 2 December 2007 (EST)

Add another one: "Georgio" Taj 22:19, 2 December 2007 (EST)

Page and category titles.

Mr. Schlafly, there no longer seems to be any standardisation in the case of page titles or categories. During Team Contest3, I compiled a list of all the current pages and noticed many articles with the same name but different title case. As a volunteer member of my company's Editorial Board on their internal wiki (which has over 20,000 registered editors) I have been involved with discussions about how we should handle the case of articles titles, acronyms, abbreviations etc. For us, the issue was ease of use for the individual editors, which largely meant that title case should reflect the case of the text as it would appear in normal sentence and hence simplify wiki-linking. I understand that the present Conservapedia manual of style calls for all words to have an initial capital letter but very few articles comply with this standard. Whatever is the standard here it should be adhered to otherwise editors will have no idea how to create the correct link. If this is not taken care of soon then I foresee that things will become chaotic especially as the number of articles increases. As moving/renaming pages is a sysop duty/privilege perhaps you could designate/recruit one (or preferably two) of your current administrative team to take care of this. I understand that Ed Poor has some experience with wikis but would hesitate to impose such a task on him without his explicit approval. BrianCo 14:45, 3 December 2007 (EST)

Great points, Brian. I'd like others here to build on your insights so we can reach a consensus on how to handle this issue.--Aschlafly 15:33, 3 December 2007 (EST)
There has been extensive discussion on this at Conservapedia talk:Manual of Style. In summary, four editors, including three sysops, expressed a preference for titles to be in lower case (proper nouns excepted of course), but the policy was written by the one (former) sysop who thought differently. I would definitely agree with a change to this policy, and would be willing to help with changing (back) article names. Philip J. Rayment 21:42, 3 December 2007 (EST)
I think I agree with Philip - although frankly we could go either way on the issue. I mean - by default Conservapedia doesn't always use title case - I mean look at the title of this page: User talk:Aschlafly, however at the same time, obviously the namespace is a different beast, and therefore maybe we should apply titles in the same way that ... well everyone else does titles - in title case. Again, I could go either way--IDuan 21:45, 3 December 2007 (EST)
I tend to agree with Philip and Iduan. DanH 21:48, 3 December 2007 (EST)
If you want some help on changing them back please let me know. If I'm going to be here I mise well contribute. Aziraphale 18:00, 4 December 2007 (EST)
Azi, I know that you were an invaluable editor in categorizing many articles. I would also be prepared to help change article titles to conform to a standard. However, the current configuration of Conservapedia excludes ordinary editors from contributing to this. It would appear that the current consensus is for lower case except for proper nouns. I would whole-heartedly support this. Bear in mind however, that changing articles titles is not just a case of moving article names to the correct case, it also entails checking the "what links here" page and effecting edits on linked articles to make everything nice and tidy. OK this might be a major task but with the three volunteers (at least) so far it could be tackled reasonably quickly. BrianCo 18:38, 4 December 2007 (EST)
Please proceed as you think best.--Aschlafly 18:10, 4 December 2007 (EST)
Mr. Schlafly, perhaps you could direct that comment to a particular individual who could coordinate the issue. It would appear that there are several editors here who are willing to do something useful and only need the starter's pistol to get on with it. I know that sysop rights are not given out lightly but perhaps move rights could be conferred on participating editors. BrianCo 18:50, 4 December 2007 (EST)
I suspect that when many pages were altered from lowercase to title case that the links to those pages were not altered anyway, so in those cases there's no need to alter them back. But certainly there will still be many that do need altering.
Short of Andy creating a new category of user who can move articles, how about I (and any other interested sysops) move the articles and you two (BrianCo and Arizaphale) do the "tidying up" of the links to those articles.
Perhaps we can create a project page somewhere to co-ordinate this. But the first(?) thing we should do is rewrite the policy, which I think is a protected page so that's up to me (or another sysop) anyway.
By the way, my opinion on the case of titles extends to articles only. I don't have an opinion about categories, as you don't link them in text, so there is never a need to write [[Category:Something|category:something]]. However, consistency would be a help, so I guess all title case or all lowercase would be a good idea. Anybody got any idea of which is in the majority at the moment?
Philip J. Rayment 20:42, 4 December 2007 (EST)
The previous decision on categories was to have each word start in upper case. A lot of work has been done already in this direction, so it would be a shame to undo it. Learn together 21:23, 4 December 2007 (EST)
Philip if you are prepared to take on the task then your suggestion is a good one. With reference to Learn together - to standardize 20,000 articles I'm afraid the options are either a lot of new work or undoing of old work. BrianCo 02:46, 5 December 2007 (EST)
Meaning no disrespect to TK, I didn't like the every-word-capped decision when it was made. Clearly from my contribs list I went along with it just fine, but if it's going back up for a "vote" then I vote go back to cap'ing first words only (except proper nouns and whatever other exceptions I'm not thinking of). Standardizing the articles and categories shouldn't take more than a month if you can get even four people who are chewing on them with some consistency. More people = less time, natch. Aziraphale 19:12, 5 December 2007 (EST)

Here is the category listing: As Learn together stated, they are mostly in upper case. And a few categories are duplicated, because one of the words in the category starts with an Upper Case, and one with a lower case letter. An example of this is the Category: Central American Countries, (upper case C) and the Category: Central American countries (lower case c). So I agree it's a good idea to have consistency, to avoid this problem of duplication. Totally agree on the article titles, only the first letter should normally be Capitalized. Taj 22:29, 4 December 2007 (EST)

It's possible to alter our software configuration to let ordinary users move articles, but I assume that was turned off due to problems with vandals abusing the move function. So why not promote a couple of trusted users to sysop? (If you only want them to use sysop rights for "moving" articles, I'm sure you can simply tell them, "Do not use your blocking powers." I personally would trust anyone who promised to use only the move function and not the block function; there's little risk, because the moment they betrayed this minor trust their sysop rights would be taken back. I really doubt that any of our longterm categorizers or "wiki gnomes" would suddenly be filled with power-lust. Sysop rights are not like Frodo's ring! ;-) --Ed Poor Talk 07:11, 5 December 2007 (EST)

I've rewritten the policy. Note that it only ever applied, and still applies, to article names, not category names nor section (subheading) names. There is no existing formal/written policy on those. Philip J. Rayment 01:06, 6 December 2007 (EST)

I've created a page to manage this, here. Anybody who wishes to can participate. Philip J. Rayment 09:52, 6 December 2007 (EST)

Category capitalisation

I've started a discussion on this at Manual of Style#Capitalisation of categories. — Philip J. Rayment 06:06, 11 December 2007 (EST)


Andy, I'm hesitant to state the glitch in the site here - and if you would be willing to do another way then I think that would be the safest option, however, again, I've found a glitch in the site that may soon become very problematic assuming vandals realize it - so should I go ahead and say it here and leave the information in public? I feel like that would be the worst thing to do - however you don't want to communicate in private - so perhaps it's the only solution. If you can think of a better alternative to this, then please respond, if not then I'll post the info here within a few days - and I suggest you delete and recreate your page (while taking out the info) to make sure no one can see it.--IDuan 22:14, 4 December 2007 (EST)

Write a private email to one of the sysops to forward to Andy. They will bring it to his attention. Learn together 10:50, 5 December 2007 (EST)
Alright will do (by tomorrow). Thanks LT--IDuan 19:14, 5 December 2007 (EST)

Editting locks

Hey, does the entire website get locked from time to time? I tried editing last night, but the site wouldn't let me. Jinxmchue 09:20, 5 December 2007 (EST)

Yes it does. This is explained in the Editor's guide, which is linked from the welcome notice on your talk page. Philip J. Rayment 09:25, 5 December 2007 (EST)
Ah, so it is. Guess I just kind of glossed over that part. Me not smart. Thanks. Jinxmchue 10:33, 5 December 2007 (EST)


Please block hades123. thanks. Luke 18:10, 6 December 2007 (EST)

Just joined Hello

If there is something you can send me to get started I would be very pleased--ConservativeWill 11:59, 7 December 2007 (EST)


I would love to try my first article on Council on Foreign Relations. It fits perfectly into my personal knowledge and interests.--ConservativeWill 12:09, 7 December 2007 (EST)

Censorship of conservative facts

Joaquín Martínez is censoring Conservative facts contrary to Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia number 9. We do not allow liberal censorship of conservative facts. Please put a stop to it. CillaHunt 10:32, 8 December 2007 (EST)

The entire page on Culture of Scotland should probably be deleted, frankly. I see your point but you can pursue it on the talk page. Thanks.--Aschlafly 10:37, 8 December 2007 (EST)

User:JOwen is repeatedly removing well sourced[1]. Concervative facts about the abortion Holocaust from the Genocide article. CillaHunt 14:08, 12 December 2007 (EST)

CillaHunt, I suggest you try some less controversial edits and contributions for a while to build credibility. Then let's revisit your issue above. Thanks.--Aschlafly 14:39, 12 December 2007 (EST)
Does that mean that if I make numerous less controversial edits and contributions for a while the argument for including the abortion Holocaust in the Genocide article will become more credible?
CillaHunt 16:01, 12 December 2007 (EST)
I mean that if you become a serious contributor then you will not look like a provocateur, and in general disputes will be more likely to be resolved in your favor. We are a meritocracy.--Aschlafly 16:05, 12 December 2007 (EST)
I see. The more I contribute, the more weight my Conservative facts will carry. I will be as merry as I can in future. CillaHunt 17:07, 12 December 2007 (EST)
We don't want contributors with a bad attitude. This is a community for learning and improving. I look forward to seeing what, if anything, you contribute towardss those goals.--Aschlafly 17:11, 12 December 2007 (EST)

...6 times as liberal...

Hello- I was wondering if you could explanation a little bit more about how wikipedia is 6 times a liberal as america in general? How does that compare to other liberal website, like the dailykos blog? Also, how did you get the number 6? I'm not sure how measured liberalness. TRipp 17:55, 8 December 2007 (EST)

How would you measure it? I think the explanation on Bias in Wikipedia is clear.--Aschlafly 17:58, 8 December 2007 (EST)

Wikipedia's ratio of 3:1 for liberals to conservatives is six times the ratio in the American public of 1:2 for liberals to conservatives. --Ed Poor Talk 15:41, 9 December 2007 (EST)
Try visiting User:Ed Poor/math if you have trouble with fractions! :-)

No I think I understand fractions pretty well. The issue, I guess, is that I don't see how you got the ratio of 3:1 for liberals to conservatives on wikipedia. Here are the links you gave - these are the same links from the Examples of Bias in Wikipedia page, and it looks to me like 1) the numbers are the same, and 2) the numbers are both so small as to be meaningless. Liberal Wikipedians and Conservative wikipedians. Is there something I am missing here? TRipp 15:18, 10 December 2007 (EST)

I think Mr. Schlafly underestimates the liberal to conservative ratio at Wikipedia. I think it's more like 20 to 1. --Ed Poor Talk 16:49, 10 December 2007 (EST)
Perhaps, but it looks like he is using incorrect data - the number of self identified liberal wikipedians is equal to the number of self identified conservatives. Am I missing something? He claims the numbers are 3:1 but they look to me like they are 1:1 TRipp 18:03, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Can anyone else help me out here? Also, somehow my links keep getting deleted, so I'll post them again but if they don't work, it's the same links that are in Examples of Bias in Wikipedia under note 76. Compare Liberal Wikipedians and Conservative Wikipedians. And please don't delete my links...TRipp 22:54, 10 December 2007 (EST)

It appears to me that Wikipedia has deleted or discouraged the political self-identification in order to conceal its liberal bias. At the time of the analysis in Bias in Wikipedia, three times as many Wikipedians self-identified as liberal rather than conservative. Frankly, the overall (non-self-identified) ratio is probably even worse today.--Aschlafly 23:21, 10 December 2007 (EST)'s just...I don't really know why anyone will believe you when you say 6 times as liberal, unless they remember when there were more liberal users. I don't even know if I think it's possible to quantify these things (I mean, if I might think I'm more conservative than say, Mitt Romney, but am I twice as conservative? I don't know.) TRipp 23:42, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Why not quantify it??? Surely you don't think quantification should be censored! As to Wikipedia trying to conceal its self-identifications, please complain to Wikipedia. There should be a history file that remains available to see the past history. If Wikipedia deleted it, then you know whom to criticize.--Aschlafly 23:50, 10 December 2007 (EST)

I guess I don't know enough about statistics to know if you are even, well allowed to quantify it by the rules of math. Can you say that say, I love small government twice as much as you do, and three times as much as a liberal does? Maybe, I don't know. I guess I just think that it comes off a little weird, saying wikipedia is 6 times as liberal as america at large when there's really no way to measure how liberal wikipedia is, except by the numbers you say they used to have.

I find the claim that it is impossible to quantify how liberal a group is to be a type of liberal denial. We quantify things that are far more difficult and abstract than that, such as entropy, productivity, consumer satisfication, approval of the president, etc.--Aschlafly 09:26, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Alright. Well would you say Wikipedia is more or less liberal than say, the daily kos or other liberal hotbeds? For that matter, where is Conservapedia on the spectrum? Are we as conservative as the American people? Is Bill O'Reilly more or less conservative than Michelle Malkin or Ann Coulter? And of course, because you think these things can be quantified, these answers will need to be quantitative. Don't think I'm trying to insult you, I like this website but I just think in this instance saying that wikipedia is exactly 6 times as liberal as the american people (especially given the fact that the data for that no longer exists, apparently). TRipp 20:27, 16 December 2007 (EST)

New articles

Champion cup for Ed

Mr. Schlafly, I have started 21 new articles in recent days: Fragging, Sophie's Choice, Women wearing pants, Anthony Robbins, Jerry Seinfeld, Sedition, Cured, Amazing Grace (movie), David Ben-Gurion, Smaug, Baggins, Black riders, Elrond, Saruman, Theoden, Eowyn, Drum, Disney World, Indoctrinate, Atheism and agnosticism, Radio (movie) --Ed Poor Talk 16:28, 9 December 2007 (EST)

Wow, awesome, Ed! I think you've surpassed me the past few days! Godspeed.--Aschlafly 16:52, 9 December 2007 (EST)
That Champion Cup is awesome, Joaquin! And very well deserved, Ed.--Aschlafly 22:38, 9 December 2007 (EST)
Great job Ed!--IDuan 23:50, 9 December 2007 (EST)


Andy could you check out User:GDewey for me? So far he hasn't made any bad edits or anything - but the name is obviously getting alarm bells from me at least. Thanks--IDuan 23:56, 9 December 2007 (EST)

Different one

Lol - could you deal with this (it's a broken redirect)--IDuan 23:26, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Article of the month

Proposal sent by conservapedia mail. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 23:24, 11 December 2007 (EST)

We are planning to have a team to update "The article of the month", maybe each week (Featured article).
The members of the team are:
  • Crocoite.
  • Maestro
  • Learn together
  • Me
and probably Deb.
We plan to make each month a list of articles, and one of us will update it every week. What do you think?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joaquín Martínez (talk)
Sounds like a fantastic idea, Joaquin! I'm all for it.--Aschlafly 09:09, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Andy, please take a look to: Stephen Dubner --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 18:05, 16 December 2007 (EST)

Great work, Joaquin!--Aschlafly 18:23, 16 December 2007 (EST)


Hi Andy,

It has been my understanding that a wikilink should be created the first time a meaningful word is used within an article, but not thereafter. I've noticed that in some recent edits that you've started wikilinking words each time they are used, not just the first time. Is this the policy you desire us to follow?


Learn together 04:05, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Wow, I didn't know that. Isn't it the case that the more wikilinks, the better? Doesn't that make it easier for the reader to click and find more info? I welcome the thoughts of others on this issue.--Aschlafly 09:15, 12 December 2007 (EST)
I think this should be a flexible rule. If the article uses the word many times or the article is short, then the word should only be linked the first time. If however the word is used, say, once at the beginning and then at the end of a longer article, then it makes sense to link it both times. Common sense should prevail. Ajkgordon 09:24, 12 December 2007 (EST)
Good suggestion, Ajkgordon. Thanks.--Aschlafly 09:25, 12 December 2007 (EST)
I've always been of the practice of only linking the first use, but occasionally linking instead the first significant use, and possibly linking a second time for a significant use much later in a longer article, i.e. roughly what Ajkgordon is suggesting. Philip J. Rayment 09:32, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Wikipedia and wikisource ...

I understand that you don't like people to link to wikipedia, or use material copied from it, but is Wikisource acceptable? I generally find that it loads large files more quickly than other places. --JOwen

I think we would disfavor that, because the future of Wikisource is unknown. My own view is that Wikipedia will not last in its current form through 2008. In my opinion there is just too much instability and liberal bias there. My preference is to link to more reliable sources that will be there with greater likelihood in the long term.--Aschlafly 13:36, 12 December 2007 (EST)


I made an edit to the SNCC article, changing its definition from Marxist Leninist to Civil Rights group. I hope this is acceptable as I have just found out one of the principal contributors is a Sysop here. ModerateCatholic 15:46, 13 December 2007 (EST)

That edit seems to censor information. Saying a group is a "Civil Rights" group is almost meaningless. Al Quaeda supporters may consider it a Civil Rights group. Was the SNCC Marxist-Leninist? If so, then let's say so.--Aschlafly 16:21, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Its not as simple as that. They most certainly were a Civil Rights Group in the beginning, but evolved into a black nationalist group later. And I am not censoring information - I'm inserting common sense. I'm all for improving articles, but it should represent the truth, not audacity. ModerateCatholic 16:28, 13 December 2007 (EST)

I changed it again. Is that acceptable? ModerateCatholic 16:41, 13 December 2007 (EST)
Looks good. I improved it further. Thanks.--Aschlafly 17:09, 13 December 2007 (EST)


This seems a fairly straightforward issue to me. I have seen no definition of genocide outside of this site's article that requires that genocide be carried out by a government. The UN has not defined genocide this way, and the State Department states explicitly that genocide occurred in Bosnia. [1] Based on these facts, I think the definition in the article should be corrected, and the Srebrenica massacre should be reinserted as an example of genocide. What are your thoughts? SSchultz 21:44, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Do you have any further comment on Joaquin Martinez' talk page, Andy? SSchultz 23:14, 13 December 2007 (EST)


Right now we have an above average article on homeschooling. With that being said, I know that Google rankings are not necessarily synonymous with quality article, however, at the same time the Google algorithm often does judge how well an article is meeting public demand for various pieces of information. Currently, our homoschooling does a good job of telling people the benefits of homeschooling. However, it apppears as if the top ranked Google articles are primarily "how to" and available resources on homeschooling. In short, it appears as if the people looking for information on homeschooling are already sold on the concept they often merely want to know the best way to do it. Now I would grade our homeschooling article an A minus and it is ranked #40 by Google of millions of articles. The problem is, however, that the top 5 Google rankings get the lions share of internet traffic. Given that the top 5 Google rankings often get the lion's share of web traffic I put some suggestions at Talk:Homeschooling in regards to improving our homeschooling article. I think making the conservapedia homeschooling article a top 5 search engine article would bring in a lot of editors and thus improving this article should be a top priority. Conservative 15:47, 14 December 2007 (EST)

homeschooling article


Right now we have an above average article on homeschooling. With that being said, I know that Google rankings are not necessarily synonymous with quality article, however, at the same time the Google algorithm often does judge how well an article is meeting public demand for various pieces of information. Currently, our homeschooling does a good job of telling people the benefits of homeschooling. However, it apppears as if the top ranked Google articles are primarily "how to" and available resources on homeschooling articles. In short, it appears as if the people looking for information on homeschooling are already sold on the concept they often merely want to know the best way to do it. Now I would grade our homeschooling article an A minus and it is ranked #40 by Google out of millions of articles. The problem is, however, that the top 5 Google rankings get the lions share of internet traffic. Given that the top 3-5 Google rankings often get the lion's share of web traffic I put some suggestions at Talk:Homeschooling in regards to improving our homeschooling article. I think making the conservapedia homeschooling article a top 3 search engine article would bring in a lot of editors and thus improving this article should be a top priority. Conservative 15:47, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Let me play devils advocate here for a moment; Should we try to appeal to the masses at the expense of quality? I'm worried, that like the homosexuality series, the Homeschooling article could turn to sensationalism. ModerateCatholic 16:01, 14 December 2007 (EST)

I believe the hope is that it is not an either/or situation. And I think, if you know Andy's background with the homeschooling issue, that he will be very appreciative for the volume of work and research that Conservative can bring to an article, but at the same time will work closely to ensure that the quality standards that he expects are adhered to. Learn together 14:31, 15 December 2007 (EST)
Right. Thank you.--Aschlafly 15:48, 15 December 2007 (EST)
ModerateCatholic, there is a big difference in regards to asserting the homosexuality series of articles are sensational and demonstrating that contention. Secondly, I merely said the homeschooling article doesn't give enough "how to" and what resources are available for homeschooling to those who want to know more about homeschooling. Also, this information is apparently what the public who wants to know more about homeschooling are seeking in terms of wanting to know more information about the subject of homeschooling.Conservative 18:24, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Mountainous Liberal Bias

Hello, I am concerned as to why you edited an article I wrote with the reason of removing [liberal bias]. Though I agree that the article was improved, I do not see how my writing had liberal bias. If you could tell me your reasoning, maybe this could be prevented in the future. BlotchesRepent 23:29, 14 December 2007 (EST)

I wasn't saying the liberal bias was due to you. Thanks for your edits and improvements. By the way, in an unrelated scheduling issue, soon we'll have to go offline to general editing, so see you early Saturday!--Aschlafly 00:13, 15 December 2007 (EST)


Hey Andy - I'm not sure if we're still mourning over the last contest or not - but I think it'd be nice to start a new one up - to symbolize that we've moved on and to test out the new scoring system - thoughts? Thanks so much, --IDuan 22:54, 16 December 2007 (EST)

Great idea, Iduan. Now that we've surpassed 20,000 entries, how about a new contest that focuses on improving entries? Godspeed.--Aschlafly 00:28, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Now that Conservapedia, with its 21,000 articles, has clearly established itself as the foremost source of educational, clean, and concise information generally available on the internet, perhaps it is time to endeavor to inform the Conservative community about this unparalleled resource. This could be done as part of a competition. Perhaps with two sections. The first establishing how much this unparalleled resource is recommended and used by the Conservative community, the second publicizing this unparalleled resource to and amongst the Conservative community. Such matters have immediate relevance when it comes to search-engine rankings.

In order to establish how much this unparalleled resource is recommended there could be a competition to find positive links to Conservapedia.

For a simple positive link. 1 point
For a link recommending Conservapedia as a serious source of educational, clean, and concise information 5 points
For a link from a review recommending Conservapedia as a serious source of educational, clean, and concise information 10 points

In order to publicize this unparalleled resoure to, and amongst the Conservative community team members could email Conservative websites asking them to include a link to Conservapedia.

For a simple positive link. 5 points
For a link recommending Conservapedia as a serious source of educational, clean, and concise information 10 points
For a link from a review recommending Conservapedia as a serious source of educational, clean, and concise information 15 points

CillaHunt 12:00, 17 December 2007 (EST)

New articles

Hi, just joined. I have created two new articles. The first, Scholasticism is entirely original, and unconnected with anything in Wikipedia. The other, Categories (Aristotle) is a modified version of something I did for WP, but I was the original author in any case. I was told I would need permission in the latter case, possibly. WilliamofOcham 11:57, 17 December 2007 (EST)


Is there a reason that you are reverting me regarding my friend and mentor Robert Dicke? Brans-Dicke is special relativity in the limit case, and is not per-se inconsistent with general relativity. (GR is a special case of Brans-Dicke with no vaccum scalar). The Nobel going to Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson was because the nobel goes to discoveries, not explainers - they discovered the CBR, while Dicke explained it (and was going to find it in a matter of months, but bygones.) Physicsnut 15:22, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Wikipedia articles on conservatives

I have written over a hundred Wikipedia articles on conservatives. Seven are under fire right now though they have been on the board for a year to a year and a half. I tried to send these to Conservapedia Sunday night but was blocked for "copying Wikipedia" though they were my original articles. Please let me know if you want some of these articles. I know you might not want them all, but all are fairly well written and edited.

Also, I edited the "Phyllis Schlafly" article on Wikipedia a few days ago. I think that I improved him. Take a look at it when you get some time. The changes could have been reverted.


Bhathorn 19:56, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Copying of one's own contributions on Wikipedia to here is allowed and welcome. Simply note in one of the entry's talk page that you are don't that, so we can refrain from deleting it and blocking your account. Otherwise, it's natural to assume it is an unacceptable copy. So please do copy your material from Wikipedia to here ... before someone deletes it on Wikipedia for not being liberal enough!--Aschlafly 20:02, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Upload Request

May I have upload rights to load chemical structures in an organic chemistry nomenclature article I am working on? Thanks--Able806 09:09, 18 December 2007 (EST)


I don't mean to push any changes to the site, but I think that installing a forum at, say, would be conducive to discussion in a way that wikis aren't. And no, I'm not suggesting that we emulate you-know-where…

My concept is essentially as follows:

  1. You install phpBB, a highly secure, open-source forum engine written in PHP, at the above location
  2. Create a variety of subforums designed to facilitate debate and discussion, as well as questions about the site
  3. Place a link in the "master control" sidebar
  4. That's it :)

I would like some feedback on this, if possible. I would love to use a forum, and believe that it would serve as a better medium for the Debate pages. --SimonA 13:51, 18 December 2007 (EST)

I wouldn't like a separate forum, as it would mean yet another site to visit, check out, and reply to. (That's just my personal opinion, by the way, not an official answer.) Philip J. Rayment 04:08, 19 December 2007 (EST)
For the same reason, I'm not keen on yet another forum. WilliamofOcham 08:51, 19 December 2007 (EST)
Well, technically, it's harder to mess up a forum than a wiki, and it's infinitely easier to use for discussion. --SimonA 19:06, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Domino Theory merge

There are two Domino Theory pages, Domino theory and Domino Theory. One has the "T" capitalized, the other has it lower case. The latter is more complete. I do not know how to merge them, and I am not sure what naming conventions are appropriate (as far as which title should be kept). I could do a redirect, but I thought that a merge and delete would make more sense. Boomcoach 14:04, 18 December 2007 (EST)

There is a couple of templates that can be used to suggest this, {{merge with}} and {{merge from}}, although I guess they're only applicable where there might be disagreement about the merge, which should not be the case here.
Merging simply involves copying the relevant content from one to the other, and changing the one not being kept into a redirect to the other. Any editor can do this.
The Manual of Style says that article titles should normally be in lower case, so Domino theory is the one that should be kept. Fortunately in this case, that one is the more complete article, the one with the longest history, and the one with a non-empty talk page.
Philip J. Rayment 04:24, 19 December 2007 (EST)
I have deleted the information on the smaller page, and done a redirect to the properly titled page. I do not have access to delete Domino Theory. I do not know if you want to delete the page, or leave it as a redirect to avoid the problem recurring in the future. Boomcoach 08:47, 19 December 2007 (EST)
I assume that you determined that there was nothing in Domino Theory that wasn't already in Domino theory (or it wasn't worth keeping)?
No, you can't delete it. I could but I won't, because leaving it as a redirect is useful in case anyone types the capitalised version into the search box. Lot's of articles have alternative names for this and other reasons. And yes, it would also prevent this happening again.
Philip J. Rayment 08:58, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Conservative hysteria

I know the article started out as vandalism, but as I explained here, there might be a reason to keep the article around. Let me know what you think. Jinxmchue 15:02, 18 December 2007 (EST)


Okay, I don't get your issue with this. What about relativity do you have a problem with?

And what did you think of my forum idea? --SimonA 18:48, 18 December 2007 (EST)

User Voldemort

He is a vandal. His revisions to the article Scorpion were a joke and he vandalized User HelpJazz's profile. I just thought that this should be brought to your attention. Thanks.

Fermat's last theorem page

I was looking on this page. You added the note about it using the Axiom of Choice. I didn't remember this being used by Wiles, so I did a little digging. The link you provide actually references someone else claiming to have found a simpler proof, using the Axiom, not that Wiles used it. Unless you tell me not to, I will make a change to that page in the next day or so, to reflect this.

I did a little searching for the newer proof, and it does not appear to be anything that has actually been presented. The claimant is suggesting that Fermat intuitively used the Axiom in his own proof, and is trying to duplicate the sort of proof that Fermat may have had, as Wiles used quite a bit of math that was not developed in the 1600's. Boomcoach 15:47, 19 December 2007 (EST)

"Wiles’ proof used some mathematics that depends on the Axiom of Choice," from the cite in the entry. Don't conceal that from readers as the biased [Wikipedia]] does.--Aschlafly 17:56, 19 December 2007 (EST)
That particular cite is a blog. The sentence comes from the semi-anonymous blogger anonymously quoting a personal e-mail. If that claim is correct, there's got to be a better source than that--a research paper maybe? Using questionable "a friend-of-a-friend told me so" sources is behavior often seen on Wikipedia, and I hope such behavior isn't tolerated here.--Recorder 19:47, 19 December 2007 (EST)
No mathematician doubts it. Wiles relied on contemporary and controversial mathematical techniques, most of which in turn relies on the axiom of choice. This foundation for his proof should have received more publicity, but the lack of admission is not a denial.--Aschlafly 20:14, 19 December 2007 (EST)
That's great! Then finding a good source should be no problem. If all mathematicians believe it, it should be in a textbook or research paper somewhere. If I want to learn more about how the axiom of choice relates to Wiles' proof, where can I go? Ideally, it would be somewhere besides an anonymous e-mail to a blogger.--Recorder 22:33, 19 December 2007 (EST)
You speak in non-sequiturs, and seem to think that if something is downplayed or censored, then it must not exist. Sorry, we're not fooled here.--Aschlafly 23:09, 19 December 2007 (EST)
I don't mean to cause trouble. I'm sorry if I have. After reading some articles here, I'm genuinely curious about how the AOC relates to Wiles' proof, and I would honestly like to find out more. Are there books written on the topic? Perhaps you can recommend the same source that you read to find out about this issue?--Recorder 23:16, 19 December 2007 (EST)
You say you don't mean to cause trouble, and I'll take your word for it. But I am puzzled as to why you are demanding that I tell you where you can read about how Wiles' proof depends on the Axiom of Choice. Wouldn't the defenders and promoters of Wiles' proof on university faculties and in math graduate programs be a better place for you to start? Let me know how forthcoming they are.  :-) --Aschlafly 23:55, 19 December 2007 (EST)

(unindent) The reason I asked here was because 1.) The current cite isn't very helpful; 2.) You're a contributor to the article; 3.) You said that no mathematician doubts it, which implies that you know the field well enough to recommend some reading material; 4.) If the ties between Wiles' proof and the AOC are being censored or downplayed, as you say, then I wouldn't necessarily expect much information from the community that's doing the censoring. I thought that perhaps you had read an interesting article on the topic written by an expert. But I can look elsewhere if needed, as you suggest. Thanks.--Recorder 10:26, 20 December 2007 (EST)

I did read an interesting article by an expert who has a blog, and I cited it for you. You seem surprised by the revelation that Wiles' proof depends on the Axiom of Choice. Lots of people are surprised by that, even though in hindsight such reliance seems inevitable. But rather than blame the lack of admission of this by university mathematicians, you seemed to blame this site for publicizing the truth! Wouldn't it make more sense to thank the source of truth -- Conservapedia -- rather than criticize it? Take care and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 20:35, 20 December 2007 (EST)
If you're referring to the same citation, maybe you need to look at it again. You're relying on a one-line excerpt from a personal e-mail received by the blogger. The "expert" (your words) who wrote the blog lists his profile, and mentions nothing about being a mathematician. I'm having an extremely hard time finding any specific information about how the AOC relates to what Wiles did. I've repeatedly asked you to provide other sources, but you haven't done so. I won't be surprised at all if what you say is true--but if it's true then somebody other than you ought to know. I'm interested in finding out who that somebody is. If I turned in a paper claiming that something is true, and then provided a blog as a citation for it, I'd expect to get an 'F'. But you seem to want to rely on that kind of citation.--Recorder 17:06, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Hello all

Hello Andy, all; yes, I'm back. I don't want to rake muck, but I think we all know why I went on "leave of absence", and I didn't wish to make any big scene at the time; I have been calling in regularly as a reader however and... "recent events" see my wanting to return. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 18:04, 19 December 2007 (EST)

It's seems I'm the last to learn these things! I didn't know why you left or else I would have done something about it then. I can easily guess the reason now. Enough said, and welcome back.--Aschlafly 18:14, 19 December 2007 (EST)

College Republican

Wait? I've been looking around CP so far, but y is there a new sysop after he hasnt even really edited? Steveh 22:13, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Rarely, but occasionally, we promote based on demonstrable achievement outside of Conservapedia, as in rallying and educating College Republicans in this instance. There may be more occasional examples. Do you qualify? We'd be happy to promote you also if you do.--Aschlafly 23:08, 19 December 2007 (EST)
Hi Andy, who exactly is College Republican and how exactly did he/she become a sysop so fast? --Tash 19:51, 21 December 2007 (EST)

Ummm... the named user also seems to be quite inactive. Needless to say, I think that the choice of him as a sysop is a insult to many of the longtime contributers of this site.--Tash 08:48, 22 December 2007 (EST)

The rights will be revoked if not used productively, and I am also investigating a better way (other than Sysop powers) to attract conservative College Republicans to get more involved with the Main Page. Suggestions are welcome. Tash, I'd particularly welcome more substantive edits and insights on this site from your account. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 11:54, 22 December 2007 (EST)


Mr. Schlafly,

Now that school is out for Christmas break, I have a lot more time on my hands to edit. You may have noticed my contributions over the last couple days. However, I stay up later than midnight, when editing usually cuts off. I was wondering if you could grant me editing rights so that I can contribute to my full potential over break.

Thanks for your time, HelpJazz 23:48, 20 December 2007 (EST)

I have the same thing in mind, but different reason, I'm in Australia, and over here, the editing cuts off when it's only 4:00 PM about. --m s s b 5 7 // blah ! // this was my fault 00:02, 21 December 2007 (EST)

I'm brand new here, are any of these courses going to be back in 2008. Just a fifty year young conservative who lives and works in a community that is 99.9% liberal(Yellow Springs, Oh.)and needs all the education/knowledge possible so I'm able to walk among these people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Erieman (talk)

Welcome, but your comment above is your only edit. Hopefully you can soon make some substantive edits for your benefit and ours. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 16:54, 21 December 2007 (EST)

I have talked with Crocoite about the ability to upload images since I would like to contribute immensely to CP. You can see that I've been focusing on particular areas because of my exposure to them. Let me know if you have any problems with my request to upload images. Thanks. Hak 19:11, 21 December 2007 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly,

I hate to be a bother, but I would like to know if you will grant me night editing. I could have gotten in some good editing last night but I couldn't because editing had already been shut off.

Thanks, HelpJazz 22:18, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Page move request

Please will you move the page Scilly Isles to Isles of Scilly. Isles of Scilly is the formal name and is used in the UK post office format for the address:

If you enter as an example "Hell Bay Hotel", "Bryher" on the above link it gives "ISLES OF SCILLY". Many locals find the name "Scilly Isles" irritating and consider it incorrect.

Also, as User:HelpJazz pointed out, if you type "Scilly Isles" into Yahoo, the only results that come up are ones for "Isles of Scilly". I originally contacted him/her not knowing that he/she isn't an admin. Please see this link:

Thanks. Barclay 09:22, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Done. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 09:27, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Upload rights

Greetings, Andy,

Is there any chance of upload rights being bestowed upon my humble person? I am of the opinion that it would greatly increase the quality of my articles. --SimonA 12:41, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Hello? --SimonA 17:39, 26 December 2007 (EST)
SimonA, your contributions are welcome but I've seen little of substance. Mostly it has been talk. Upload rights are given after there have been substantive edits that permit sensible review. Thanks and I look forward to your future edits.--Aschlafly 19:24, 26 December 2007 (EST)
That's cool. Thanks. --SimonA 18:33, 27 December 2007 (EST)

Political Compass

BTW, what's your Political Compass result? --SimonA 16:42, 22 December 2007 (EST)

I took a look, and found each question imposes a liberal assumption on the person taking the survey. I could not find any question on the first page that would not be objectionable in a court of law, or at a political debate. The test then bars access to future questions unless responses are provided to the loaded initial questions. I'll pass.--Aschlafly 16:52, 22 December 2007 (EST)
Yeah, my dad thought that it was designed to make people give liberal responses too. Sorry to seem pushy, I was just curious what people would get. --SimonA 17:20, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Image upload permission

You haven't responded to my request for permission to freely upload images. Can I have that privilege? Thanks. Hak 20:50, 22 December 2007 (EST)

You've only made minor edits to a few dozen entries, mostly colleges. Your user profile conveys no information. Uploading privileges are earned and not simply given away. How about some more edits, and more substantive edits, and then letting me know what you have in mind?--Aschlafly 21:46, 22 December 2007 (EST)


Hi. I have a question, and yes it is a bit weird, but is there a way for me to be able to edit during edit locks? Because the only time I get spare time to go on my computer is when the editing locks are on, plus I'm in Australia, and editing is locked usually 4:00 PM where I am, and this prevents me from, well, editing articles and joining discussions on talk pages etc. I had to change all my plans for today just to post this message! --m s s b 5 7 // blah ! // this was my fault 22:04, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Hello again, can you please reply? Not to sound bad or anything, but it's been a little while now. If you have things to do and that's why then that's fine. Thanks. --m s s b 5 7 // blah ! // this was my fault 20:25, 30 December 2007 (EST)
Overnight edit privileges are earned. You have a ways to go. I look forward to reviewing substantive contributions by you. You don't need to try to be funny anymore, as in your latest edit. Thanks.--Aschlafly 20:38, 30 December 2007 (EST)
Funny? What is funny about my latest edit? --m s s b 5 7 // blah ! // this was my fault 20:50, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Request (again)

Mr. Schlafly, I haven't heard yet about night editing rights yet. Is there some reason keeping me from deserving them? I think I've done a lot of good editing and I can contribute even more to the site if I could edit later. Thanks again, HelpJazz 20:59, 24 December 2007 (EST)

HelpJazz, thanks for your contributions, but I don't yet see a compelling need for overnight editing. Maybe with more substantive contributions and more of an explanation of the need then it can happen. Thanks and Merry Christmas, and I look forward to reviewing your edits further.--Aschlafly 21:43, 24 December 2007 (EST)
May I ask what you mean by more substantive contributions? Since I got home for winter break (about a week and a half ago), I have made about 350 edits, and have been cut off several times when editing was turned off. I stay up later than midnight most nights and I can be more useful if I can edit on my own time. This is especially true when I get back to school; last semester there were weeks at a time where I could hardly edit at all during the day but I had free time at night. HelpJazz 14:50, 26 December 2007 (EST)
I know it's not my place to butt in (especially not as a new guy), but I'll do it anyway. Judging by my observations, current observable traffic during the late hours is quite low (thanks to few people with edit rights being around), and it doesn't appear as if all the other editors compensate by being more productive during the hours editing is enabled. So people who could have contributed a lot are suddenly hindered.
But even accepting this limitation, it would only make sense to give seasoned users like HelpJazz (who actively contributed to this site since September) the right to edit at night. What's the worst that can happen? Even if he suddenly lost his marbles and somehow vandalized everything in sight for hours (which in itself seems to be unlikely, both because he seems like a good guy and because people with block rights are active in those hours, too), it would take a sysop a fraction of that time to rollback the damage and deliver a block.
It seems to me that the potential gain from him being able to edit freely outweighs the costs of cleaning up behind an unlikely vandal strike. Just my two cents for your consideration. --JakeC 15:24, 26 December 2007 (EST)
Andy could I please have a response? I would like to know what more I need to do to prove myself to you. It seems like I'm going through a lot more hurdles than others have to get the same or more than what I'm asking for. HelpJazz 16:39, 27 December 2007 (EST)
HelpJazz, your repeatedly requests ignore my repeated explanations. What is needed is a track record of substantive edits along with a compelling reason, such different time zones, to justify overnight editing privileges. Your contributions are highly valued and welcomed, but I do not yet see a justification for overnight editing. With a stronger track record and justification that could change.--Aschlafly 19:37, 27 December 2007 (EST)
Mr. Schlafly could you please clarify as to what you mean by substantive edits? I've made over 1600 edits (~350 in the last few weeks) and I can't see what differentiates me from, say, Dewey who has made 250 edits total and has been blocked for a month an a half. If I knew what you meant by substantive perhaps I could do more of what you are looking for. Thanks, HelpJazz 21:03, 27 December 2007 (EST)

How many of his edits have been reverted by admins? --Ed Poor Talk 22:03, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Merry Christmas

Andy, Merry Christmas from Vancouver, WA. --Crocoite 08:58, 25 December 2007 (EST)

Crocoite, a very Merry Christmas to you also!--Aschlafly 10:02, 25 December 2007 (EST)


I unprotected dozens of articles today. Please check to make sure none of these had been protected at your request. --Ed Poor Talk 19:22, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Excellent idea ... and thank you!--Aschlafly 19:31, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Please give this person user rights to upload pictures


Please give this person user rights to upload pictures: This person is upgrading our Intelligent Design article. Does a person have to be a Sysop/Admin to be able to upload pictures? I do think that when this article is upgraded and promoted it could potentially bring a lot of additional web traffic to conservapedia. If you could give this person picture uploading privilidges it would be greatly appreciated. Conservative 18:44, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Best wishes

Thank you so much Andy. Happy 2008 for you, your family and our project. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 21:39, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Night edit rights


Could I edit at night, and upload images, please? StephenW 21:46, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Could you make me a member of Upload? Thanks. StephenW 23:29, 31 December 2007 (EST)
I've looked at some of your edits and they're good. What do you plan to upload?--Aschlafly 23:43, 31 December 2007 (EST)
First, an image for my user page. My last edit may not be good, but I thought it was funny. Bad British teeth. Anyway, you can always remove me from the group if you think I am abusing my privileges. StephenW 23:58, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Night edit rights revisited


I keep getting locked out at night. Let's suppose I turn out to be some sort of vandal...everything could be fixed anyway. On the other hand, I am unable to contribute during the day due to other obligations (work/family). So, in light of these, it seems the calculated risk would be to give me night edit rights and hope I continue to contribute (free labor, after all). StephenW 22:33, 3 January 2008 (EST)

And did you know about Gus Solomon? This man was amazing and multi-talented. StephenW 23:24, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Discussion moved

(discussion moved to Talk:Evangelical atheist)


Would me editing the communism article be considered a conflict of interest, or is there no problem with the said action? --AngryCommunist 12:15, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Upload Rights

Would I be able to gain upload rights? I have images that I've made that I believe would be beneficial to some geology-related articles. BlotchesRepent 11:11, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Please start by using your real name, and hopefully making more contributions than you have. Then let's consider uploading. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 11:31, 3 January 2008 (EST)
I'm sorry, but I have qualms about using my real name online. Anyways, thanks. I'll about what I can to for adding more to the site. BlotchesRepent 11:54, 3 January 2008 (EST)

block vandal

User:GoObama. The name says it all! ThomasB 22:51, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Main Page

Am I overdoing the godless celebrities thing on the main page? I thought we might do an article on how liberal morality combines with crass commercialism to provide an incentive for Sodom and Gommorrah style nuttiness. --Ed Poor Talk 18:50, 4 January 2008 (EST)

It pushes the limits of decency, but it's OK. It is startling and makes an important point about the celebrity culture.--Aschlafly 19:31, 4 January 2008 (EST)
I would say that consumerism is responsible for a host of societal ills, but I doubt that that's a popular opinion around here ;). --AngryCommunist 21:51, 4 January 2008 (EST)
What's not likely to be popular, is the "solution" that your username implies that you would put forward. Five-Year Plans were shown not to work, and never to work--unless by work you really mean to make people stand in line in freezing cold weather for bathroom tissue.--TerryHTalk 21:59, 4 January 2008 (EST)
Friendly. --AngryCommunist 22:09, 4 January 2008 (EST)
The record of the abject failure of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to so much as feed, clothe, and house its own people, or to protect them from crime, is quite clear, and well-attested. The time for denials is long past. To refrain from reminding people of that record would be no act of friendship. Neither do I ever consider myself able to retain any man's friendship by telling a lie, or by allowing a man to continue to believe a lie without protest.--TerryHTalk 22:36, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Communism is obviously a failure when compared to capitalism - it never has worked and it likely never will (well, I guess you could say that it's working in China - but I think people in China would disagree with you). It is nice in theory, but so ridiculously impractical that its obvious why all but three or four countries are capitalist. That being said - capitalism, which again, I do see as the best, also has it's ups and downs - but perfection is an impossible achievement. Now as to the celebrities - I think that it's a combination of social demand and godlessness that drives the insanity of such celebrities as Paris Hilton and Britney Spears.--IDuan 22:56, 4 January 2008 (EST)

It makes me cringe when I hear people say it was nice in theory. It was as nice in theory as it was in practice. If you critically examine the Communist Manifesto, you will see that almost every right outlined in our Bill of Rights which we hold dear to us, is trampled by communism. The Communist Manifesto is one of the most well-written documents that I have ever read. But that is also why it is also one of the most dangerous. --David Rtalk 23:04, 4 January 2008 (EST)
David's right: communism is terrible in theory as well as practice. In theory it is theft, it is materialism, it is atheism and it is denial of opportunity. It's hard to imagine any worse theory.--Aschlafly 23:56, 4 January 2008 (EST)
When I say good in theory I don't mean to say "It should be good, but in reality it's not" - I mean more, it's a nice little fantasy to have everyone equal - but it's just impossible, and the awful means communism uses in order to try and achieve that fantasy are testament that to that.--IDuan 00:25, 5 January 2008 (EST)
I once saw an atheist (I think) compare Christianity to communism or socialism (I forget which; perhaps it was the latter), and he wasn't being disparaging when he said that they were quite similar except that communism/socialism believes in all being equal by force, and Christianity believes in all being equal through love. I think there's a lot in that. "By force" means, as Andy said above, theft. So although you can simplify the difference to a single point like that, that single point makes a big difference. And I think looking at it that way supports Iduan's comment about it being good in theory. Philip J. Rayment 00:44, 5 January 2008 (EST)
Nothing in Christianity supports materialism, materialistic equality. Communism, in contrast, is entirely based on materialism. Those are differences in theory.--Aschlafly 19:31, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Now, now, let's not fight on Andy's user talk page. That's what debate pages are for [ducks and runs]. --Ed Poor Talk 22:58, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Oh wow - sorry, I didn't even notice this was Andy's talk page lol, I just saw the diff ... hey isn't the wyoming caucus tonight or something (I know the debate is tomorrow) ... [ducks and runs].--IDuan 23:00, 4 January 2008 (EST)

I'm thinking about starting a debate page for this. --AngryCommunist 23:59, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Intelligent Design page ready for upload

Hi Andy,

I have been working for the past 6 months at Conservative's request on a new Intelligent Design page. Recently you gave me picture uploading rights; thank you.

The page is now at a stage that it can be uploaded for public viewing in Conservapedia. As noticed recently by Ed Poor, my intelligent design page is much, much better than the current page. I'm confident that my intelligent design page will be one of your most popular. However, as this page represents my heart and soul, I want to continue to edit/build over time, which means I want to have editing rights after posting to Conservapedia (I understand the page will be blocked to prevent vandalism).

Can you please upload this page but give me editing rights? I'm new to wiki, so I'm not sure exactly what I'm asking for, but "admin" or "sysop" rights might be it.

I am willing to edit and create other pages, but intelligent design (and special creation) is my passion, and that is why my page exhibits the depth and quality that it does. Due to time constraints I will probably not be a prolific Conservapedia writer in other subjects.

Freedom777 21:17, 4 January 2008 (EST)Freedom777

I encourage you to include some of the references, insights or quotes that are in our current Intelligent Design entry, which seems pretty good to me. With that in mind, you can simply overwrite your version onto the existing version and continue to improve it.
The entry is not locked and there is no need to complicate this with Sysop privileges. There hasn't been a problem of vandalism with the entry, and you can make it one of your "Watched" pages so you see whenever it is edited.--Aschlafly 21:22, 4 January 2008 (EST)
And if ever a problem arises with vandalism, that forces us to lock the page--well, you just submit your uploads to any sysop--me, for example--and I'll upload it for you.--TerryHTalk 22:01, 4 January 2008 (EST)

HPV vaccine controversy

Andy, I took radical steps with the HPV vaccine article today. I moved the page to Gardasil, the brand name of Merck's vaccine. Then I moved it "deeper", hiding it in the "subspace" under the talk page at Talk:Gardasil/draft.

All I left in "mainspace" is a stub:

  • Gardasil is a vaccine that protects girls and women from HPV infection. Campaigns to inoculate schoolgirls with the vaccine have attracted an immense outcry of criticism, particularly from conservatives.
  • Only admins can edit this article. A draft that all contributors can edit is at Talk:Gardasil/draft.

My intention is that User:SSchultz and others can collaborate on the "hidden draft" until the major problems are fixed. Then we can move it make to "article space".

I hope I'm not confusing anyone with this plan . . . :-) --Ed Poor Talk 10:34, 5 January 2008 (EST)

The draft is very unorganized. How about we save all the references we have, and then start a completely new draft? ThomasB 12:04, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Ed, there is probably 40 hours of work in the original HPV vaccine entry, with information generally suppressed by Merck and liberals. It's referenced on our front page. We welcome alternative proposals but can't we keep the original in place while alternatives are considered?--Aschlafly 13:06, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Oh, sorry. I had no idea how much time had been invested. (I actually thought my plan was saving time (!) but I'm "easily led".  ;-)
I can undo all that moving around then. --Ed Poor Talk 19:48, 5 January 2008 (EST)
No problem. I already restored HPV Vaccine ... with as many of your revisions that I got to.--Aschlafly 19:58, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Public School Morality

What was wrong with the change I made to the Public Schools article concerning morality?--Jimmy 23:25, 5 January 2008 (EST)

I already explained the reversion (which I did not do) on the relevant talk page.--Aschlafly 23:34, 5 January 2008 (EST)
Well nuts, hate when I mess up like that--Jimmy 23:38, 5 January 2008 (EST)


I just joined. How do you add the little boxes on your user page saying your religion (christianity, duh) and other stuff?

Imitate how others did it. But change your username to something polite first, or you will be blocked.--Aschlafly 11:12, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Is there a way to change my username? (sorry, i am new)

I can do it for you. Give me your new username and I'll move your account. Thanks.--Aschlafly 11:25, 6 January 2008 (EST)


Done!--Aschlafly 11:33, 6 January 2008 (EST)


Could you please change my user name?

Could you change my user name to Stephen? Thanks. StephenW 21:17, 6 January 2008 (EST)

That name is taken. Try adding one or more initials from your last name.--Aschlafly 21:20, 6 January 2008 (EST)
How about StephenW? Thanks. StephenW 21:30, 6 January 2008 (EST)
Done as requested. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 21:48, 6 January 2008 (EST)
Thanks, even my history was changed. Outstanding. StephenW 21:52, 6 January 2008 (EST)


Hello, I was just thinking that it might be a nice idea to try out the new contest rules in Contest4 - do you mind if I go ahead and set it up - or do you think more time is needed?--IDuan 22:53, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Sounds great to me. I wonder if some more planning this time about rules and selection of teams would be a good idea! Godspeed.--Aschlafly 23:01, 6 January 2008 (EST)
I agree - barring any objection from you, I'll create a brief draft of the Contest 4 - and on the talk page we can sort out all the specifics and all that, and then after that's all done we can set a date for it to start!--IDuan 23:08, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Done! - See Conservapedia:Contest4 and Conservapedia talk:Contest4--IDuan 23:45, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Andy - how would you like me to go about getting attention for the contest? Should I just put a note on the main page talk that we're deciding the layout and we need other user's input? Anything you have in mind I am up for--IDuan 13:10, 7 January 2008 (EST)


Just so you're aware, I have sent you an email- although if you're more comfortable in using the wiki as a medium them I'm perfectly willing to have the conversation here.--IDuan 00:07, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Biblical Knowledge Debate

Dear Andy, as you may know, I've challenged user:JOwen (and he's accepted!) to "throw down" regarding his claim that atheists know more about the Bible than evangelical Christians. While I'm very confident in my knowledge of the Bible, Biblical history, and Biblical scholarship, I wonder if you'd be willing to help me if I get stumped. I may need the help :-) -MexMax 17:53, 7 January 2008 (EST)

I can help, and if I get stumped, then my students will answer for me!--Aschlafly 18:13, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Could you do this

Hey Andy - can you delete this - Stephen Ewen - it took me a while - but I finally realized it was an attack page on a CZ editor--IDuan 22:39, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Thanks. Done.--Aschlafly 23:15, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Exactly what I'm talking about

As I stated before, you refuse to acknowledge anyone's facts if you personally disagree with them. You also censor these facts, and don't let anybody else's voices go through. The people who are reading this, think: do you really want an encyclopedia that is run like a dictatorship, rather than a democracy like Wikipedia? Aschlafly, if you really believe your rhetoric, respond. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Furiously (talk)

Contribute first, then consider criticizing. So far, your contributions are zero.--Aschlafly 00:03, 8 January 2008 (EST)
His "contibutions" so far included vandalism under several other user names and two IPs: Furious, Garroga, Yoohool, CHEESE, Imisam, Goo, Nanda, Makky, and the afore mentioned Furiously. Karajou 05:48, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Block of Calcnerd314

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

I am writing to you regarding the block of my previous username, calcnerd314. After making edits to several articles, I found that I had been banned and that you had sent me a message telling me "to advance the liberal belief system on wikipedia, not here."

I must say, I am greatly offended by your comments. I am not a liberal, and I have nothing but the highest regard for my fellow academics. My editing attempts have merely been pointing out uncited statements, and removing phrases that are potentially offensive or unsubstantiated.

I have sought to advance no belief system. Again, I am not a liberal. I am a moderate, but I have great respect for those who espouse more conservative views than myself. On that note, I must say that your comments also offend me as a Catholic. To make unfounded assumptions about a fellow Christian academic without allowing them the opportunity for thoughtful discourse is lamentable, and contrary to the spirit of unity to which Jesus calls all of us.

While I do not doubt that legitimate vandalism has been done to this site, I think it is despicable that you would condone the silencing of those who seek to do nothing more than bring to it academic rigor, intellectual credibility, and Christian dignity. As a graduate of some of the finest educational institutions in the nation, and as a follower of the Lord, I would expect that you would respect me enough to allow me my contributions.



A word of advice

Dear Mr. Schlafly:

I must begin this message by telling you that the idea of creating a site like Conservapedia is truly good. It's an alternative to places like Wikipedia and other reference websites, where young people could easily find dirty words or, as you've put it, only liberal points of view.

I don't mean that dirty words should be erased from the vocabulary, nor I'm against liberalism. But for students, as well as for everyone, alternatives and differents points of view should be available. The problem starts when a personal agenda fully replaces the honorable mission of providing quality information. This information may be subjective or biased; it is like that everywhere. However, that is nothing compared to sysops insulting users, being unethical, racists, violating copyrights, being antisemitic, and worst of all, banning anybody who dares to oppose them. Most sysops here might have their own agenda, including you. That's just fine. It happens on Wikipedia too, even on a more dangerous level.

Vandalism is persistent, we know that, but that's no excuse.

Mr. Schlafly, if you were less fundamentalist at managing Conservapedia, this website would be better and more popular.

Sincerely, Aletheia 20:19, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Losing edits


I've lost edits and also been unable to log in at certain times due to night time restrictions. I've also emailed you.

Lastly, would you like me to edit non-controversial topics, or controversial ones (e.g., ones in which I can kill liberal bias)?

Thanks. StephenW 23:17, 8 January 2008 (EST)

I don't understand your statement that you've "lost edits." As to night editing, that's a privilege based on a review of one's substantive edits. We can take a look at yours. (Also, I fixed your heading to say "losing edits," not "loosing edits.")
You're welcome to edit anything. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 23:39, 8 January 2008 (EST)
By losing edits, I mean I type a bunch of stuff, working, using show preview, get something good, hit save page, and find out that I've been blocked from editing (due to the time). I understand and appreciate the desire and need to treat night time editing as a privilege, but on the other hand I feel as if you're looking a gift horse (me) in the mouth. StephenW 00:14, 9 January 2008 (EST)
One other idea, if you could make my editing end at 01:00 EST on week nights, 03:00 EST on Fridays and Saturdays, that might be the best. It will give me an excuse to turn the computer off. StephenW 00:16, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Hey there Stephen, since I have some Wiki experience (and some small experience on this wiki) I think I might be able to help you. I think a problem here is a basic misunderstanding as to what "edit" rights are. "Edit" rights are not tied to an automatic clock, and are not adjusted per user. Rather, "edit" rights reflect a serverwide condition. That is, at any given point, the owner of a Wikiproject (a Siteadmin) can restrict editing to only users possessing certain rights. Thus, Andy chooses to set the server to accept work only from users possessing "edit" rights at certain times - often at night, when the sysops are asleep, or when a major vandal attack occurs. Thus, your individual "times" cannot be set, unfortunately, since your ability to edit is contingent only upon whether the serverwide switch is set to "all" or "'edit'-group only." Versatility of management is a prime feature of MediaWiki software and is applied differently by different sites (compare Conservapedia with CreationWiki).
Also, you say you've "lost" edits. I might be able to offer some advice. If you see that you're unable to edit, after typing something in, your work is not lost. When you reach the "blocked" screen, simply hit the "back" button on your browser, and your text should still be there. Then, copy the text, and paste it into a word document, to re-submit later. That way you won't "lose" any work. Hope I helped...-MexMax 00:35, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Thanks to MexMax. But I guess I'd prefer those night time edit privileges. StephenWU·T·C 00:12, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Confused Brit

Could you please explain what a caucus is? Also, how do the American elections work?

Try this: caucus. I improved it for you.  :-) --Aschlafly 15:36, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Thanks for the link :-) your politics are so different to ours; our system was invented in the 1200s!!!

IRA question

I was just wondering why you reverted my edir to IRA? ApGriffith 19:17, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Are you anti-British, and/or pro-terrorist? ApGriffith 20:46, 9 January 2008 (EST)
That made me laugh. No, the name-calling won't work here. Post unbiased material that is supported with cites. Deleting informative material, as you did with gun control, is a good way to get your account blocked. Please abide by our rules.--Aschlafly 20:49, 9 January 2008 (EST)
I just gave ApGriffith a short block for doing that to the gun control article. --Crocoite 20:52, 9 January 2008 (EST)
On the other hand, his edit comment did correctly point out that the claims in the paragraph were (largely) unsupported by the references (which our rules also require), and his edit was reverted without any explanation. Philip J. Rayment 21:36, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Wikis do not allow the means to "explain" during a reversion. ApGriffith deleted an entire informative paragraph, likely for ideological reasons, rather than attempting to improve it. There may be better cites than the ones used, but the appropriate approach is to used them, not censor information one doesn't like.--Aschlafly 21:42, 9 January 2008 (EST)
There's other ways to explain, including using the "undo" link and putting in an edit comment. But my point was not that an explanation should have been provided so much as that without one it was hardly fair to block him for reinstating his edit. Philip J. Rayment 21:52, 9 January 2008 (EST)
His "edit" was the wholesale deletion of a paragraph. The reason for the reversion -- to restore information -- was fairly obvious. A block, a mere day in this case, was appropriate for someone who insists a second time on removing information. I didn't do the block but it was fully justified. In addition, ApGriffith's edit to Irish Republican Army was pure polemics and obviously inappropriate (which he also reinstated after a reversion). He'll get a chance to improve when his short block expires tomorrow. Let's see if he makes genuine encyclopedic contributions.--Aschlafly 22:38, 9 January 2008 (EST)
I realise you didn't do the block: my comment was a reply to Crocoite saying that he had done the block! Of course it's obvious that the revert was to restore information, but what's not obvious is why that information should be there in the first place—and therefore why it should be reinstated—, not being "unbiased material that is supported with cites". Philip J. Rayment 23:19, 9 January 2008 (EST)
The material is supported with cites, and as far as I can tell none of it is even disputed. ApGriffith didn't even say what he doubted about the information. I think it's obvious that the deletion of the factual information was ideological, and that is obviously not allowed here. When he insisted on deleting again, after a reversion, both for that entry and another, the appropriateness of a block was self-evident.--Aschlafly 23:25, 9 January 2008 (EST)
The claims that gun controls was the cause of a shift to the left is not supported by the references. And that is the whole point of the paragraph, and if you think that it's not disputed then you've forgotten the discussion on that matter that you took part in on the the talk page just two weeks ago.
The deletion may have been ideological, but it may just as likely have been due to the claim being uncited opinion.
Philip J. Rayment 00:22, 10 January 2008 (EST)
I removed it because it was unsupported by any references and in any case made no sense. Fear of being vulnerable to crime has never induced voters to shift to the left - indeed quite the opposite. If people feel vulnerable to crime, surely logic dictates that they would shift to the right? ApGriffith 11:43, 11 January 2008 (EST)
Where did your concept of "fear of being vulnerable to crime" come from? Not from the paragraph you repeatedly deleted, which talks about how voters "lost their instrument of self-defense and became more emotionally dependent on government." That unquestionably does cause voters to shift to the left.--Aschlafly 12:28, 11 January 2008 (EST)
Aschlafly, I'm interested in your "policies increasing dependence on government leads voters to the left" idea. But I'm a little confused about something. When a left-wing government gets into power, presumably that government will enact a number of left-wing policies which will increase reliance on government. And yet it's very common for a left-wing government to be replaced by a right-wing government in the next election round or two. How is that apparent paradox explained? Thanks. Ajkgordon 12:33, 11 January 2008 (EST)
I can't think of anything other than gun control that increases reliance on government by all voters. Other leftist policies, such as increasing welfare or government benefits, only support some voters while imposing new burdens (e.g., taxes) on others.--Aschlafly 13:44, 11 January 2008 (EST)
Do you have any sources to back up this idea? The opposite, of course, may indeed be true - in countries where gun crime is endemic and rampant, voters might be more willing to support right wing parties, so it is in those parties' interests to promote gun ownership amongst the public and have as many guns in circulation as possible. If people in the UK, for example, really wanted more guns then parties would exist to cater to that desire. But the overwhelming majority of people do not want to see more guns. ApGriffith 14:04, 11 January 2008 (EST)
Thanks, Aschlafly. I shall ponder. Ajkgordon 14:21, 11 January 2008 (EST)


Hello again, so I was looking through the contest discussions, and I updated Conservapedia:Contest4 a lot based on them (I've added a purpose and rules section), so I think we will be able to start relatively soon. In fact, there are really only two major topics I see that are unresolved: how to do wanted pages and what should the point value be for copy and pasted pages. For the wanted pages, I know you weren't a huge fan of the list idea, but I think Shanon may be right - there might not be any other way - and given that this is our first contest since the 'Wanted pages incident' - I think it might be best to not take any chances. For the copy and pasted pages, I think whatever you think is best we should go with, as if we do, and if the wanted pages thing is resolved - then we can start the contest this weekend (pick captains tonight or tomorrow, then do the draft saturday, start at 12 sunday?). Thoughts?--IDuan 22:57, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Great work, Iduan! I defer to whatever you think is best about the wanted pages and copy and paste. Starting at 12 Sunday sounds great to me.--Aschlafly 00:02, 10 January 2008 (EST)
Alright - i've asked the top two contributors for last time to be the captains (same thing I did last time) - and everything should be set by Saturday-IDuan 00:25, 10 January 2008 (EST)

New articles

I probably should have saved these for the contest but:

SALT, Tommy, Keeping up with the Steins, Speed (movie), Evolution and creationism, Racial profiling, Walter Williams, Charter school, Economic class, Stryper, Disinhibition, John Dewey, Discipline, Health, Creativity, Interstate commerce, English terminology, Sex education, Falak Jamaani, Agent handler, Lossless, Rivendell, Fatty Bolger, Azores, Riga, Hollywood Walk of Fame, Ken Kesey, Naboth, Amtorg, Columbia Records, Al Sharpton, Poor, Denethor, Twelfth Night and Wing nut --Ed Poor Talk 00:48, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Wow, that's phenomenal, Ed!!!! You set the standard very high for the rest of us to try to meet.--Aschlafly 09:01, 10 January 2008 (EST)


If you recall, last night you asked me if I would be acceptable to a change of my username. I have come to the conclusion that I would have no issue with the name "MakeTomorrow", if this is acceptable.

Thanks, AngryCommunist 21:42, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Done as requested. Thank you!--Aschlafly 21:46, 10 January 2008 (EST)
You're welcome, and thank you! I'll have to devise a new signature now… :) --AngryCommunist 21:58, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Example of Bias #14

I was mistaken about the spelling error... sorry! I initially read the sentence differently, thinking "to articles" was intended as "two articles". But upon rereading it makes perfect sense as the former... Anyway, a silly mistake on my part, apologies for any trouble. Feebasfactor 12:13, 11 January 2008 (EST)


Andy, as LearnTogether has deferred, and as you are the next highest scorer - assuming you're willing you're the team two captain! Congratulations!--IDuan 15:43, 11 January 2008 (EST)

Ah, great!!! I ACCEPT!--Aschlafly 15:49, 11 January 2008 (EST)
Oh excellent - it'll be really nice, especially given the new layout, to have someone who has had experience not only on CP, but also in the captain role. Good luck!--IDuan 16:03, 11 January 2008 (EST)

Hey Andy - what is the draft format? We should probably post that on the contest page for clarity in the event of future contests (if there isn't an established draft format - maybe we should just do a 1:2:2:2:2 ... type thing - whatever you think is best)--IDuan 21:04, 11 January 2008 (EST)

I think 1:2:2:2 for drafting works well. Do we allow selection beyond the draft list? There are many contributors who are not yet on the draft list. We should encourage them. I'll do so with a few now.--Aschlafly 22:28, 11 January 2008 (EST)
I would think so yeah - I mean any contributor who wants to participate should certainly be available for choosing, I mean really whatever you and BrianCo are comfortable doing I'm more than up for!--IDuan 22:59, 11 January 2008 (EST)

Assuming you're ready for this: I'm going to go ahead and leave a note on BrianCo's talk page telling him to draft one player whenever he's ready (since he's the team one captain we'll give him first pick)--IDuan 15:53, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Ok, he's picked - whenever you're ready--IDuan 16:15, 12 January 2008 (EST)
Thanks. I'll pick now.--Aschlafly 16:40, 12 January 2008 (EST)

WAIT!!! uhoh, andy - you pick 2 - not one!--IDuan 16:47, 12 January 2008 (EST)

UK Homicide statistics

You edited the Gun control article by adding the phrase "but deaths by sharp instruments was much higher" with reference to [2]. It would be helpful if you stated the year to which you were comparing 2005/06. (The relevant page of the linked document is p. 16) Jalapeno 17:59, 11 January 2008 (EST)

Death by sharp instruments was much higher ... than death by guns.--Aschlafly 22:17, 11 January 2008 (EST)
Thanks, I misunderstood Jalapeno 10:29, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Conservative Facts

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

I am curious about the definition of a "conservative fact." You note in your commandments that nothing is allowed on the website that is not "true and verifiable," but the idea of a "conservative fact" seems to contradict this. I have shown this site to some of my devout Catholic friends, and they have been offended by the way that anyone who is not a fundamendalist Christian is portrayed as not being conservative enough. These friends of mine are conservative, and trust in the Lord as their savior just as much as I am sure you do. I know that I will probably be banned for not being a Young Earth Creationist, but I wanted to take this opportunity to let you know that I have prayed for you that you might be more open to the thoughts of all your fellow Christians, even those with slightly different views.



Prayers may be better spent in asking for personal guidance. Perhaps you should ask why you believe you would be banned for not being a Young Earth Creationist and what events that took place in your life caused you to seek out this conclusion. And, based upon the number of devout Catholics who are valued and trusted contributors, just what was it you were fixating on that led you and your friends to miss the strong respect that Conservapedia gives to Catholicism. Peace Learn together 18:42, 11 January 2008 (EST)
Supporting Learn together, if you believe that you will be banned simply for not being a YEC, how do you explain all the non-YECs editing here? Philip J. Rayment 05:57, 12 January 2008 (EST)
To be fair, it's pretty difficult to make edits here if they disagree with YEC. While it might not get you a ban, it certainly is a catalyst for having one's views on gun control, liberalism, school prayer and abortion questioned. Ajkgordon 16:29, 12 January 2008 (EST)


Hello - I'd like to request night editing rights as I am based in the UK and it is sometimes frustrating to have to wait until the early afternoon before the site is unlocked - also I work from home most of the time, and a couple of articles is a good way to get me set up for the day! Thanks for your consideration, Bradlaugh 08:48, 12 January 2008 (EST)


At your service captain! (oh and just to let you know - you get one more pick before BrianCo chooses)--IDuan 16:56, 12 January 2008 (EST)


What do you think about starting the contest immediately on Sunday as opposed to twelve noon - and then still ending it noon of next Sunday? The only side-effect is we would give people more time to edit (not to mention the fact that i'm starting to build up some articles now that I'd like to get in as soon as possible :D)--IDuan 18:29, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Terrific idea. It's silly to have people wait. Let's start Sunday without restriction on time of day.--Aschlafly 18:32, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Shaken Babies

Why did you [3] revert SScultz's edit there? I read The Conservapedia Commandments, and he hasn't broken any identifiable rules. ...RingWraith 19:39, 12 January 2008 (EST)

He posted opinion and even a link to a name-calling cite. Yes, that does violate the rules. He was blocked for 3 days primarily for his own name-calling in other edits, which he continued even after being warned.--Aschlafly 19:44, 12 January 2008 (EST)
A site listing "questionable periodicals" that aren't recognized by any respectable medical organization isn't a "name calling" site. He also linked to other, more recognized and respected medical publications. It sounds like you are trying to silence a viewpoint that opposes yours - that, certainly, is an abuse of administrator privileges, and I will be reporting your activities at Conservapedia:Desk to get third-party opinions. ...RingWraith 19:50, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Andy, just so you're aware the above user listed you here Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse--IDuan 20:00, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Andy, as you were involeved I think you should know that I blocked this user for a day so he could hopefully cool off. He suggested not one (you trying to silence opposition) but two (admins and myself being in "cahoots" with you in doing this) conspiracy theories, and I felt that it had become trolling--IDuan 20:18, 12 January 2008 (EST)
Oh and obviously feel free to take more/less action if you feel necessary --IDuan 20:19, 12 January 2008 (EST)
Iduan, I trust your judgment. Increase the block if you like!--Aschlafly 20:25, 12 January 2008 (EST)

More on the contest

Andy - apparently Brian and you have a huge time difference (I got an email from him saying he had gone to bed before you made your second pick) - so aside from the choices he emailed me (3 - so if you pick your next to i'll be able to pick one more for him) - he'll be finishing the draft tomorrow. Nonetheless, I'm going to tell everyone to still plan on starting Sunday - as people don't need to be on a team in order to score.--IDuan 20:36, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Is that ok with you?--IDuan 20:43, 12 January 2008 (EST)
That's perfect. I was thinking the same thing. The beauty about this type of contest is that the games can start before the teams are finalized. In fact, maybe it's better that way! I'll pick again now.--Aschlafly 21:07, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found
Personal tools