alright, howabout a banner that displays the Con-Commandments so that your editors will start following them instead of bending them to fit an agenda? The point of an encyclopedia is to inform, not sway people to a certain point of view. Even if that is the case, you have rules right on your main page illustrating how an article should be presented, I felt that these articles(as well as others I was going to plaster) didn't fit the bill or follow the rules.Acronym
- You're the first person in a year and about 370,000 page edits to post such a ridiculous banner. So, no, that does not require "rule". Moreover, the banner was wrong: the liberals entry is accurate and you have not identified any error in it. We don't allow censorship, or downplaying, educational truth here.--Aschlafly 13:58, 20 January 2008 (EST)
Wow, I am the first in so long, must mean I am like the messiah or something then aye!? Also, if you wanted educational truth on these pages, why have a disclaimer explaining that you aren't liable for "incorrect information"? I have an issue with this blanket statement:"A Liberal is a believer in many of the following political positions:" soooo... Rudi Giulliani is a liberal, because he believes in: taxpayer funded abortion?
In that track you could label a "conservative" as one who believes in the opposite of everything a liberal does...but what of those who believe in a combination of these 'tenets'? A distinction between social liberal, economic liberal, and any others seems appropriate. I keep thinking of something I keep reading from sysops: "keep an open mind" oh well.
- Right, Rudy Giuliani is a liberal. There are liberal Republicans, you know. By the way, you should sign your name using the signature button above the edit space. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 14:51, 20 January 2008 (EST)
Okay, well, what about his stance on the death penalty and immigration-following "typical" conservative train...is he NOW a conservative? My point is you can't put everything into two categories. --A.C.R.O.N.Y.M. 16:08, 20 January 2008 (EST)
- You could say the same thing about science: "you can't put everything into __ categories." But categories are useful in science, and also in politics, and just because there may be exceptions that should not prevent characterizing and categorizing political positions. If one wants to go the know-nothing route with respect to describing the liberal ideology, then Wikipedia is a better place for that.--Aschlafly 21:06, 20 January 2008 (EST)
- Shall I now accuse you with using "liberal style"?--Taking things out of context AND misquoting me! I said TWO (2) II categories were not accurate representations of things. I do not disagree with categories, just under-representations of them.--A.C.R.O.N.Y.M. 21:35, 20 January 2008 (EST)
- So, we're focusing on the two biggest categories. What ... should be have separate category for people who think that secession should be allowed or want animals declared to be human? It makes sense to focus on the two biggest and most important categories.--Aschlafly 21:43, 20 January 2008 (EST)
You are straying a little far, slow down. I am just thinking instead of focusing, like you said, on the two "biggest" categories, realise that there are parts in these categories that are very important. Someone who wants privatized social security but is against the death penalty cannot be considered "conservative" or "liberal", but both economically conservative and socially liberal. Also: What would make secession illegal? Animals aren't humans, but as living creatures, shouldn't they be respected as humans are? And, just because things are BIG, relatively, doesn't mean they are IMPORTANT.--A.C.R.O.N.Y.M. 21:58, 20 January 2008 (EST)
- Animals are part of God's creation, and we are supposed to look after God's creation, not abuse it, but we shouldn't treat animals as humans, because God put humans above animals, giving humans "dominion" over the animals. Philip J. Rayment 22:46, 20 January 2008 (EST)
- Please don't get in on this conversation... thank-you --A.C.R.O.N.Y.M. 17:08, 22 January 2008 (EST)
Request for night editing rights
Can I please have night editing rights? I live in the UK, so the nighttime lockdown presently means that I can't edit in the morning, which is frustrating. (If you'd prefer that I get more experience and build up a longer track record before you can trust me with the rights, then that's OK; I wasn't sure if there was a required minimum number of edits or anything like that.) Walton One 13:52, 20 January 2008 (EST)
- We'll take a look at your edits. Thanks for contributing and asking.--Aschlafly 13:56, 20 January 2008 (EST)
- Done, Iduan. And congratulations on a great contest ... that you initiated!!!--Aschlafly 20:53, 20 January 2008 (EST)
- Done, and thank you :D! Yeah I'm really glad it turned out as nicely as it did ... only a few minor problems that are easily resolvable. I mean obviously the point system is far from perfect - I'm sure there are many critiques you and other editors have, but I think it's a start. And congratulations on scoring an unbelievable 1426 points!--IDuan 21:02, 20 January 2008 (EST)
- It is a fantastic start. Your rule system was a big improvement, and we'll improve even further next time. I learned an enormous amount from my editing during the contest. Thank you!--Aschlafly 21:06, 20 January 2008 (EST)
- That would be super, Ben. It would be great if you could join our team. We're planning a "rematch" with the other team and we'll beat 'em next time. In the meantime we'll figure out how to improve the rules. Once we settle on the new rules, hopefully in a week or so, we can rechallenge them. Your suggestions on rule changes are welcome.--Aschlafly 09:14, 21 January 2008 (EST)
- At the beggining of each contest, the captains of the teams choose the team's players. You get put on whichever side chooses you!! :P --~BCSTalk2ME 09:22, 21 January 2008 (EST)
Ben, it would be great to have you on our team in the next contest! Steve joined our team in the last contest, and did very well. It's good to see you editing again! ~ SharonTalk 10:19, 21 January 2008 (EST)
- Steve, it is a fascinating case. A decision will probably be issued in June. I'll be adding to our entry further, and you should feel free to do likewise!--Aschlafly 13:53, 21 January 2008 (EST)
- That is a really exciting case, and a well-written article, too, thanks for it! Andy, I saw the City of New York on the amicus list, and think I know why they're filing for the gun control side: don't they have a case pending against gun manufacturers right now? Do we have an article about that? And, I'm gearing up for Contest4.5 (?). Do we think it'll happen?-MexMax 20:11, 21 January 2008 (EST)
Take a look at my recent edit history. I have been unable to get on due to night time edits, but I think my contributions still continue to be useful to conservapedia. I'll join the contest too if I get night time edit privileges first. Thanks. SW♠·♥·♣ 23:04, 21 January 2008 (EST)
Deletion of liberals on Wikipedia who want their entries deleted
The more I look into this the more I see a pattern. Wikipedia willingly deletes articles about liberals when the subjects don't want a biography but refuses to do the same when conservatives or neoconservatives want their articles deleted. May I send you an email detailing all the cases? SkipJohnson 16:35, 22 January 2008 (EST)
Hey Andy, to avoid confusion, I thought I'd just make you aware that at the same time you were reverted the Nelson mandela edit of User:WindarLarches, I was also, I, before you had made the warning, had blocked the user per what I thought was inexcusable vandalism. Obviously though, after I saw that you had warned him and decided to give him another chance, I retracted the block--IDuan 19:30, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- Hey - could you give me an ok on everything I'm doing, I've started this relatively big project where I'm putting Template:University on every single university page. Examples include Harvard University, Columbia University, University of Connecticut, and University of Southern California. If you could take a look at them and just give me an ok to keep going, I'd appreciate it.
- Oh, and one other thing: I'm also doing relatively boring start articles if we don't already have an article on an university. They require a bit of research, and thus every article has unique numbers, but beyond that the formula is really generic, as you can see in University of Maryland and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill - is it ok that I'm creating those types of articles (I've written 6 total)? Thanks, --IDuan 19:54, 22 January 2008 (EST)
Major vandal attack under way!
I think I have it under control, but I may not...-MexMax 21:03, 22 January 2008 (EST)
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
Hey Andy, can you give me a clock on how much time before editing is turned off, I was going to do some more templates, but they require at least 8 minutes each, and I don't want to do one if I'll get stuck lol, thanks--IDuan
- Hey, Andy, are you going to leave night on again tonight? If not, could you give me a time (same reason as above)--IDuan 00:19, 24 January 2008 (EST)
the 25 Worst Court Decisions
- Good effort, though I'm sure it ranks so high.--Aschlafly 00:54, 24 January 2008 (EST)
- That's worse than the Dred Scott decision which gave the court's approval for slavery? What about Plessy v Ferguson and the separate but equal doctrine? It isn't even on the list. What about the Sacco-Vanzetti conviction where two men where executed essentially on anti-immigrant sentiment? SSchultz 21:57, 24 January 2008 (EST)
- So, if Roe v Wade were overturned tomorrow it would cease to be the worst court decision? Plessy v Ferguson was stare decisis for close to 60 years. It had a huge effect on jurisprudence and was a decision with no prior precedent built purely on racism. Thanks for recommending I remain open minded, I'll have to remember that when discussing disease prevention, genocide, or the shaking of children to death. It seems I'm closed minded in those areas. SSchultz 22:23, 24 January 2008 (EST)
Andy, do we have two templates that are for the same thing? Template:PM, Template:Prime Minister. If this is wrong, would you mind unlocking the articles so I could work on fixing it (this might take me a while)? Thanks--IDuan 00:29, 24 January 2008 (EST)
- Still here. Unlocked as requested. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 00:53, 24 January 2008 (EST)
Ahh, thank you! I'm actually done and I haven't even made any edits - I know that sounds strange, but I was searching through the code and trying to figure out ways to combine them through the code alone, but I realized after doing a few that it would probably be faster, and less of a drain on the server, if I just went through every page Template:PM linked to and replaced it. Thanks so much anyways, as I wouldn't have been able to figure that out without testing a few, once I'm done, I'll put a note here and if you want, you can delete Template:PM (which is the one I'm replacing since it's obviously the lesser of two templates - see Tony Blair and Edmund Barton) --IDuan 00:59, 24 January 2008 (EST)
- Ok, it's going to take me a long while to do all of those, in fact if you could somehow post a request of users to help switch Template:PM to Template:Prime Minister -I'd greatly appreciate it, as it gets very confusing with all the different parameters, but I'll try some more tomorrow, I'm off to bed early tonight, good night, I'll see you tomorrow--IDuan 01:13, 24 January 2008 (EST)
I'm using a free trial version, and it keeps telling me information Im sending out is not encrypted. I don't know much about ssl or tsl or "secure sites", and the firefox help menu doesn't answer all my questions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StevenM (talk)
- Just answer no to the encryption warnings, and permanently turn off those messages with that answer option if they bother you. No need to encrypt postings to a publicly available site!--Aschlafly 12:28, 24 January 2008 (EST)
- That's... misleading. The thing is that as far as I know, Conservapedia does not support encryption (and neither does Wikipedia, I assume). However, this doesn't mean that there is "no need" for it. Suppose somebody intercepted your Conservapedia password as you send it without encryption and then silently hijacks your account (and let's hope that you didn't use that password anywhere else). Encryption could have prevented that. Likewise, imagine somebody intercepting private Conservapedia mails.
- I freely admit that it's not likely, but it's foolish to say that you don't need encryption when dealing with sites you send passwords and other personal information to.
- Yes, turn off the message, but keep in mind that there is a non-zero risk whenever you're working without encryption and that there can be significant damage if somebody exploits this. --Jenkins 12:46, 24 January 2008 (EST)
- Thanks Mr. Schlafly, I dont think theres much danger even if someone did steal my account. --Steve 13:17, 24 January 2008 (EST)
- Free trial version of Firefox? I don't think there is such a thing. Firefox is free, full-stop. Encryption is site dependent. As CP doesn't have encryption, then Firefox is correctly informing you that you are sending out information that is unencrypted. When you get the message there should be a dialogue box that has a check mark that you should select if you don't want to see the message again. Ajkgordon 13:46, 24 January 2008 (EST)
- Thanks Mr. Schlafly, I dont think theres much danger even if someone did steal my account. --Steve 13:17, 24 January 2008 (EST)
- Thanks for the tips.--Aschlafly 14:02, 24 January 2008 (EST)
Hey Andy, first of all apologies that I haven't been around lately; I've been a little sick but getting better. But I had a question about using my newly minted block ability (thank you again!). I've blocked obvious vandals for infinite, obviously, but I've been using it in line with my own thoughts as to the best option, for non-obvious vandalism, and I wanted to get your opinion to make sure it's in line with site protocol. For example, where I see users being insulting, I tend to give them a short block to cool down, and a very short block (30 minutes) to people who are obviously "edit-warring" or pushing their liberal views without discussion. Is that appropriate? Your guidance is appreciated!-MexMax 21:29, 24 January 2008 (EST)
- Short blocks make sense for inappropriate edits that do not rise to the level hopeless vandalism. Often I try to warn first. We don't block purely for ideology unless it leads to rule violations.--Aschlafly 21:48, 24 January 2008 (EST)
- Unprotected Genocide for you. Found nothing at Phillips_Academy. Perhaps someone beat me to it!--Aschlafly 18:47, 25 January 2008 (EST)
- Yep, Joaquín Martínez beat you to it. Philip J. Rayment 05:23, 26 January 2008 (EST)
- I'm done - thanks--IDuan 18:53, 25 January 2008 (EST)
Even more -there's a lot here - can you delete everything in this? Just so you know I put a delete tag on most of them just to get rid of the vandalism (I'm also going to tell other sysops since there's so much). Thanks--IDuan 16:27, 26 January 2008 (EST)
- Done as requested. Thanks. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 18:35, 26 January 2008 (EST)
Thanks - and now I have a question. Why are we keeping Template:AboutC and Template:Tfa around? I was looking through Help:Templates and I noticed that we still had that.--IDuan 19:11, 26 January 2008 (EST)
- Oh and one more thing - since this category was only recently re-opened, it's kind of going without attention - so would you mind taking a look at Category:Move requests (as there are more or less a dozen in there now) and could you also try to get the word out to sysops to check on that category? Thanks so much Andy!--IDuan 23:57, 26 January 2008 (EST)
- I just deleted the templates, when I replaced them a while ago, I must have forgotten to delete the old ones. Jallen 07:06, 27 January 2008 (EST)
Andy, given my Conservapedia:Sysop contest/Nominations/Iduan|recent nomination)) (with full support barring a "no vote"), I want to again ask for sysop rights. I'm not going to spend time again going over all the reasons I deserve them - because that'd be a waste of your time, and I've already demonstrated why I need them; but I would like to ask you to just look at my contributions. I've spent a great amount of time improving Conservapedia and the only reason I want sysop rights is so I can improve it even more. I'd like an answer tonight, but all I need is a simple "yes" or "no" answer - no explanation required - through email or my talk page, and while I'd rather have a yes - and while I can assure you that if you give me a yes I will not disappoint you at all, I'd would be much happier with a "no" over no response at all. Thank you so much, --IDuan 00:11, 27 January 2008 (EST)
- Since CollegeRepublican has not been productive for over a month perhaps his rights could be given to Iduan. You did say on 22 December with regards to CollegeRepublican that "the rights will be revoked if not used productively", although perhaps just over a month is too short a time in which to judge productivity. On the other hand one must be cautions about granting power to those who actively seek it.Iduan may simply abuse such privileges in order to get his way when it comes to edits. He may also be an agent from the other place doing a lot of minor edits in order to gain more rights so that he will then be in a better position to indulge in mischief. SimonJones 11:23, 27 January 2008 (EST)
- SimonJones, you haven't yet contributed to a substantive entry. You've been nothing but talk, talk, talk here, something liberals love to do. How about contributing something of substance first, and then maybe afterwards you'll be in a position to give advice?--Aschlafly 11:32, 27 January 2008 (EST)
I have expanded the above article tonight and noticed that this addition made on 18th July 2007 is word-for-word the same as the passage in the Wikipedia article at the time. A dubious statement has since been removed from the end of the passage by User:DanH.
It is important information regarding Swansea and the history of Christianity in the United Kingdom and I do not feel able to check and re-write it accurately. Thanks, Barclay 19:30, 27 January 2008 (EST)
Hillary's Hollywood Values?
Hi. I'm posting this here because it's appropriateness for the front page (even the talk page) is, uhm, problematic, but I thought it might be of interest. Hillary Clinton has chosen for her campaign a song called "When the Lady Smiles", by the group Golden Earring. Problem is, the video for the song depicts the rape of two women, one of them a nun. Oops. The video was graphic enough that it was banned by MTV. I won't post a link here to the video, but it's out there if you Google it.--RossC 10:29, 29 January 2008 (EST)
- I watched the beginning of it on YouTube. The band's lead singer portrays a commuter on a subway. He ogles a girl's leg. Then he fantasizes that the middle-aged nun has a younger woman's face. I stopped watching when he began assaulting her.
- But is this a bona fide campaign song, or was it merely one of half dozen pop songs played (audio only) by local organizers of a small event?
- Let's not scrape the bottom of barrel looking for dirt - that's so petty, and not worth the effort anyway. How about an article comparing the candidates' stands on major issues of interest to conservatives? --Ed Poor Talk 21:55, 3 February 2008 (EST)
- Sorry, I was distracted. Will do today. Thanks.--Aschlafly 13:03, 29 January 2008 (EST)
Hey Mr. ASchlafly - can you update the # @ [[Conservapedia:Sysop_contest]]? I just realized it was outdated. Oh, and btw, this site is awesome - I just came here from CP - and it's just awesome in comparison (sorry a lot of my edits have been to the contest stuff - it's only because i think the system is so cool, but I plan to work on normal stuff soon)AriHatcher 23:32, 31 January 2008 (EST)
- Wow - 25,000? You must not like any of the current candidates at all lol, thx for the updateAriHatcher 00:17, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Alright, I'm going to start cleaning up the scoring method based on issues last time, and I was wondering - are we going to start the next contest soon? Should I set it up? Because frankly, all that has to be done to the scoring is some fine tuning, then the captains will be the two people that scored the highest (LearnTogether and yourself), and then we can just find a judge. You and LT (assuming you both accept) could presumably start the draft tomorrow (we don't really need a list of interested users again - I'll put it up, but certainly we should allow captains to draft users that are not necessarily in that list). I know this all seems kind of fast, but trust me, I'm confident I can set up everything by then. My schedule is completely free today - and really all I have to do is:
- Fine tune the scoring
- Get the word out (easy - I'll put a note on each user's talk page and I'll put a note on the main page, and I'll recommend it as a breaking news story)
- Copy the most wanted list again (wow have you seen the one from last time? We got a lot done!) (I can do this tomorrow during the draft, as we only need it by the time the contest starts - which would be Monday).
So I mean, I can do all the dirty work - and all you and LT would have to do is pick on Sunday, and we'll start the contest on Monday. What do you think? (P.S. - I'm going to start refining the rules now, but that doesn't mean that I'm starting the next contest without your approval - just so you know)--IDuan 13:49, 2 February 2008 (EST)
- Great suggestion, Iduan. I'm not sure we can start it quite that quickly, and would like to fine-tune the rules a bit first. Let's discuss how the rules can be improved first.--Aschlafly 15:44, 2 February 2008 (EST)
- Ok, fair enough, and you're probably right - today and tomorrow would be the only day to discuss the rule changes - and that might not be enough, maybe Wednesday would be a better start time ... but nonetheless, just so you know, I'm going to go ahead and create the contest 5 page (like I created the contest 4 page last time - just so people can discuss the rules)--IDuan 15:51, 2 February 2008 (EST)
Alright - have a look - Conservapedia:Contest5 - the changes I made are all based on issues we had in the last one or the contest before that, but obviously feel free to mark up whatever you like--IDuan 15:56, 2 February 2008 (EST)
Andy, typically this doesn't happen to me - but I can't get the phrasing right to what I added to the George W. Bush article. Given that it's such an important article, would you mind taking a look and seeing if you can improve it? Thanks, --IDuan 12:59, 3 February 2008 (EST)
- Thanks Andy - the consistently/persistently thing and the addition of the liberal bias link makes that a lot better ... mind at ease :D. (I'm not even going to comment on the fact that I spelled do due - because that might be the most embarrassing edit ever)--IDuan 14:21, 3 February 2008 (EST)
- Iduan, can you send me an email offline?--Aschlafly 14:29, 3 February 2008 (EST)
At WP there's a discussion over this image; we're wondering whether, when you say that you 'release the rights to it', do you mean that you have put it in the public domain, or GDFL, or some other system? Thanks. --JOwen
- Wikipedia can use it without restriction, as is Conservapedia's general approach to copyright issues. Too bad Wikipedia doesn't adopt the same unrestrictive policy.--Aschlafly 11:57, 4 February 2008 (EST)
- Licensing arrangements provide more of an incentive for collaboration than merely putting something into the public domain.
- Wikipedia's approach to "free licensing" of text derives from the Free Software Foundation's philosophy of mutual sharing. First applied to computer software, the GPL made it possible for developers to get "credit" (praise, appreciation, bullet points in their resume, etc.) for their donated work. It also made it impossible for anyone to create a derived work which they release without sharing.
- This turns out to have been a great incentive for computer programmers to collaborate on all sorts of projects, large and small. There's even been a free alternative to the Microsoft Windows operating system developed - properly called GNU ("Gnu's Not Unix") but more often called "Linux" (see Linus Torvalds.
- The amount of free software out their is huge, and much of it is significantly better than any commercial alternative. Some of it is public domain, but quite a bit of it is "free licensed" under GPL. Every bit of software that makes Conservapedia possible - the GNU/Linux operating system which your server runs, the MySQL database which holds all the article versions, the MediaWiki software used to enter and display articles. --Ed Poor Talk 11:38, 12 February 2008 (EST)
- Ed, the system you describe works well for software development, but not for encyclopedias or other documents. I don't know why Wikipedia thought that the exact same cumbersome system needed for maintaining and improving free software would make sense for a mere 1000-word educational entry.--Aschlafly 15:34, 12 February 2008 (EST)
contest point system
Andy - I wanted to make sure you knew about this change since you had already looked at the rules system before I made it - and I don't want you to feel like I'm blind-sighting you. BrianCo brought up the fact that many users were not organizing their points well, and it was causing problems for both himself and, presumably, the judge. So, I added the same very basic point layout I reccomended in Contest4, however this time we're also saying that any user that does not use this or a similar method will have 20 points taken off their score. I feel like this warning will also compel the team captains to keep their players in line - and it'll make the judges' work a lot easier.--IDuan 00:33, 4 February 2008 (EST)
Uhhh - remember when I said I could try and set up the contest in one day? Thanks for not holding me to that - because even now we're not that near to being ready (especially since Learn Together - a captain, hasn't shown up for a while ...), although it's too bad - I have like a thousand ideas for articles that I don't want to write next so I can get big points in the contest :) --IDuan 22:27, 4 February 2008 (EST)
Hey Andy - can you unprotect Template:Progress for a while? I'd like to standardize its look (this might take some time - but I should be able to quickly revert any vandalism that might happen while I'm working)--IDuan 23:52, 4 February 2008 (EST)
- Thank you! I didn't do the best color scheme possible - but it has the look :D --IDuan 00:04, 5 February 2008 (EST)
Just to let you know I will usually never do this, however I just sent you an email with private information in it - and if you could respond just to confirm you got it I'd appreciate it.--IDuan 00:13, 5 February 2008 (EST)
moccasin - small request of not much importance :p
hi Andy, I created some pages earlier today, among them was mocassin. Since then, I discovered that while "mocassin" is an accepted alternate spelling, the more common spelling is "moccasin". (with 2 c's, one s). Could you please do me the favor of having a sysop either change the name of the page, or make a "redirect" page (I don't know how to do this yet) to "moccasin"? (or if it's ok, leave as is) I'm sorry for the confusion. Thank you very much for the assistance. Taj 00:05, 8 February 2008 (EST)
- Done. Thanks.--Aschlafly 00:11, 8 February 2008 (EST)
- Much thanks! :) Thanks to Geo for helping too, you guys are fast! Taj 00:13, 8 February 2008 (EST)
Hey Andy - I think there's only one more issue that needs to be solved on Conservapedia:Contest5 (whether or not breaking news edits should count) - so why don't we assume that the captains will draft tomorrow? (As of today, the captains would be you and Learn Together - however I'm not sure whether Learn Together is here or not - if it ends up that he's not here we can always just go down to the next highest scorer - Fox, thoughts?)--IDuan 16:12, 8 February 2008 (EST)
Andrew, I was wondering how you would substantiate the claim that the American public is twice as conservative as it is liberal after the recent primaries? These seem to indicate that the American public is at least twice as liberal as it is conservative. User: Jeffjeff. 23:09, 12 February 2008.
- The most liberal candidates on both sides were crushed by huge margins: Edwards on the Democratic side, and Giuliani on the Republican side. McCain is more conservative than most of the Republican frontrunners, though conservatives still have valid concerns. Obama and Clinton seem indistinguishable ideologically. Today Clinton was calling for universal health care, while Obama was not being as liberal. That contest seems to have devolved into a debate over race rather than ideology.
- If you need convincing about how conservative the American public is, take a look at our headline today about gun rights.--Aschlafly 00:06, 13 February 2008 (EST)
Mr. Schlafly there still appears to be something wrong with the site. There is a funny message in the top left-hand corner and fonts are very large. Also the main page is now incredibly wide. BrianCo 08:49, 13 February 2008 (EST)
- I see that too - if it helps the message in the top left is: #$wgGroupPermissions['*']['edit']=false; ?> IDuan 08:57, 13 February 2008 (EST)
- No problem with the site from my browser. There is a small error message in the top left-hand corner which will be fixed. It doesn't interfere with anything.--Aschlafly 10:01, 13 February 2008 (EST)
I must say I am having the same issue. I am using IE7 and the fonts and size of the windows are all different. When I am editing a page the text returns to seminormal but it is still very different than from 3 days ago.--Able806 10:11, 13 February 2008 (EST)
Still on hiatus
Andy, only have a minute to stop by. Still on hiatus. going through a massive reorganization of a business I had to retake control of. May have a few hours in the next month or two, hopefully.
God bless, and I'll have a mountain to catch up when I get back. RobSmith
- Thanks, Rob. We miss you!--Aschlafly 20:40, 13 February 2008 (EST)
In the news
I thought about putting this on the Main page but wanted to run it by you first. I think this site would be valuable to our Conservapedia editors. FelonSpy.com - Search for violent criminals in your neighborhood It's a free search so I don't believe it's advertising. You can either reply or post it yourself. --Crocoite 20:25, 13 February 2008 (EST)
- Interesting, but let's pass on that, for several reasons. That site may install cookies or spyware on visitor's computers. But even if it doesn't, not all felons are violent or still dangerous. In fact, I think most felons are not dangerous at all. In general perhaps people should be less scared of their neighbors, not more so.--Aschlafly 20:40, 13 February 2008 (EST)
- Interesting site. Not sure that it is entirely serious. Did you notice their disclaimer: "Apparently we care more about your well being than your own politicians and their stupid laws do, but that probably doesn't come as too much of a surprise to you. Give money to anarchy societies anonymously, it's the only way to protect yourself". And their link to this site: [link deleted] I might just bookmark that. --HMayo 21:06, 13 February 2008 (EST)
- Oops. I hope I didn't just spoil a joke you were playing on Mr. Schlafly. If so, sorry. --HMayo 21:14, 13 February 2008 (EST)
- You're clueless, HMayo. See if you can contribute something substantive. At the rate you're going, you'll be blocked for inadequate substance.--Aschlafly 21:18, 13 February 2008 (EST)
- Yes... clearly I am the clueless one here. --HMayo 21:26, 13 February 2008 (EST)
Actually Andy - at first I thought the site was serious - I mean there was no indication it was a joke, and I even tried looking up my street (there were two "criminals" - surprisingly neither of which I knew). However after seeing HMayo's comment and checking again, I noticed that everything was different than the first time I looked it up - all of the names and places had changed. Now I'm not saying Crocoite knew about his in any way - and HMayo it's obviously inappropriate to take the accusatory tone you did, but, just for everyone's information, I do believe the site is fake.--IDuan 21:27, 13 February 2008 (EST)
- Of course it's a fake. That's obvious from a first glance. Ajkgordon 04:48, 14 February 2008 (EST)