User talk:Aschlafly/Archive39

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Radiometric Dating

I'm sorry, but you still haven't responded to my responses on the radiometric dating page.--Phillipps 22:08, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Request / question

Andy: If I list for you my redeeming qualities along with support from several sysops, can I have night editing rights? If so, from how many sysops will I need to get support? Thanks in advance, HelpJazz 00:49, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

Andy, since you haven't replied I figured I'd just go ahead and make my list. Last time I asked for edit rights you asked for my substantive contributions, so I hope now to show you that I have indeed made substantial and useful contributions. I have made several thousand edits to this encyclopedia, many of which were minor, but helpful, edits such as grammar, spelling and formatting. (For example, I have been helping Philip in his article renaming project). Additionally I:
I have contacted 5 sysops with whom I have had a lot of interaction to ask for their support. If you need more I can ask others.
Thank you for your time, HelpJazz 01:18, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
  • For what it is worth, I Support. Bohdan 01:38, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
    • Support. DanH 01:39, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
      • Support also. I am not a sysop, but I would like to say I have only seen good work from HelpJazz. Taj 02:50, 30 March 2008
      • Support While I do not know what discussions and considerations take place behind closed doors, simply based on longevity and performance it would appear this would be warranted. Learn together 11:51, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

There's only one kind of person who merits night-editing rights, and that's someone whom we trust not to make a lot of radical embarrassing changes "while the cat's away". Now, I might not agree with everything HelpJazz writes, but it's rare that I've had to undo any of his changes in recent memory. And, in general he has a helpful attitude. Why not try the experiment? --Ed Poor Talk 16:15, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Unseen things

What was so silly about the ones I added? They seemed quite appropriate to me. "The Economy" is just as 'unseen' as Evil or the Invisible Hand, and Russel's teapot is Unseen by definition. And a nation is unseen, unlike the real estate and people that make it up. --Gulik5 23:34, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

Your examples are lacking the clarity and quality of the other examples. For example, the teapot reference is both obscure and silly.--Aschlafly 17:12, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Liberal beliefs et al

How do you justify conservative principles and beliefs as opposed to liberal beliefs? I try not to endorse either for the purpose of neutrality.

The same way that one justifies a statement that "2+2=4" rather than "2+2=5". Logic, often confirmed by observation.--Aschlafly 17:15, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Why do you believe that censorship of classroom prayer by unjustifiable?

The burden of supporting censorship is on the censor.--Aschlafly 17:15, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Also, do you believe that a solution to the ToE argument would be to teach creationism alongside evolution, without credibility given to either?

Parents should decide in a free country what to teach.--Aschlafly 17:15, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Thank you so much. --LyraBelaqua 16:27, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

New Atheism Article

Hello Aschlafly, have you seen the atheism article that I made here? I have not included criticisms (many repetitions and little order in the original), but they could go on the end or in a "Criticisms of Atheism" page.--Phillipps 18:17, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, it has been deleted. If you would like to see what I had, I have put a summary of what I had on the Atheism talk page.--Phillipps 18:50, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Geology

There are statements which border on the ridiculous in the Geology article that I think seriously undermine the credibility of Conservapedia. The author of the most flawed of these statements has long staked out an agressive editorial position on this page.

Please see my talk comments on the same page and let me know if Young Earth Creation Geology (considered crank-science or a joke to most geologists) is the favored position of Conservapedia. I parted ways from Conservapedia for a long while rather than fight over this article. I'm back and I see that it still stands and that the offending statements are left unchallenged.

I believe in God the Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth, but I know there is evidence in the rocks of our planet for an Earth that is billions of years old. That does not necessarily mean the Earth is billions of years old, but to ignore those observations and the science of generations of geologists is to look foolish and appear ignorant. Everwill 07:02, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

April Fools Day

Please forgive me an annual joke or two. --Ed Poor Talk 09:52, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

I don't mind an April Fool's Joke. But I do mind everything being so American-centric (which does not mean that I don't like America or Americans), and it's now 2nd April in this part of the world! Philip J. Rayment 10:10, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Old Assignments

Yo, Schlafly, I need Writing Homework Two, please.[22]--Steve 21:17, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

I'll find and post it now. Thanks for letting me know.--Aschlafly 22:22, 1 April 2008 (EDT)


Humble excuses

I salute you sir, and beg you to accept my humble excuses. Please forgive me for anything I have done that upset you, and made you ban me (the former TheWriter account). I would like to know what it was, so that I shall not do the same mistake ever again, may God help me.
I would also like to congratulate you on this extraordinary and ambitious project, Conservapedia. Please do me the honor of answering my humble question, and please forgive me for any edit you might have considered as inappropriate. Writer 05:43, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Please don't ban me, I have no intention to vandalize! I beg you, forgive me for anything I might have done with the TheWritter account (typo, I know). I-BEG-YOU. I would also like to ask you about homeschooling - my history teacher soon won't be able to teach me anymore. I talked to my parents, and they like the idea of you sir, being my new teacher. But first I want to make sure you will forgive me for anything I might have done here, you considered offensive - I had no intention, please believe me.

Liberals and academia/Good source

Andy, I suggest incorporating this articles information and citing it in your new article in regards to liberals and academia: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html Conservative 10:48, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Good suggestion, but Ed Poor started that entry. I'll add the link.--Aschlafly 10:57, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Open letter

I wanted to say a few things. Now, I try to stay civilized here, so please at least read this to the bottom, even if you plan to remove it later on.
First I want to say about the frequent news like "Conservapedia's article X had grown in Google's rankings.". Do you actually believe that makes an article good? I mean, take Wikipedia for example. Almost anything you look for using Google/Yahoo! gives you a Wikipedia page in the first 3 finds, even if the page is a stub.
It might be just me, but does Conservapedia actually try to put Wikipedia in a bad image, with articles like "Example of Bias in Wikipedia", and many others? Why exactly do you feel the need to do it? Maybe, even if you won't admit, you realize that Conservapedia really stands no chance against Wikipedia, and that's why you open all these articles. And BTW, somewhere you said an user was baned from WP because he was a Christian - not true. WP actually has user-banners with "I'm a Christian"; the reason why he was banned was because of his behavior. But you knew that, didn't you?
Another thing is that Wikipedia has an encyclopedic page about criticism of it; so it's pretty obvious that they don't try to make any kind of propaganda; does CP have a page like this, or better: would you accept a page like this?
Now I wanted to say about the former introduction on the main page that said "CP has [...] comprehensive [...] articles". I don't know about accurate and the rest, but surely not comprehensive - I mean, just by clicking the Random Page button, I get almost only stub pages. -- The new introduction is "Conservapedia has had over 53,600,000 page views and over 414,000 page edits. The truth shall set you free.". How exactly do the edits and the views guarantee me the truth?
Conservapedia actually makes me ashame I'm a Christian, and would make me ashamed of being an American, if I were one.
Now you can do two things:

  • Beat me at my own game, by giving me some counterarguments, and prove you are as intelligent as you say.
  • Delete this and ban me, so that no one could see it and prove that you too know Conservapedia stands no chance against Wikipedia.


Which one do you choose? There are countless other things I have to object about CP, but I'll want to see your response, and I think you can give an intelligent, civilized one.

All the best,
Wikipedian.



You do know that newspapers won't even allow unsigned letters to be printed, right? Yet you somehow expect that here..... --₮K/Talk 16:28, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

  • Who said anything about newspapers. "Open letter" is just a figure of speech in this case. I wished you'd answer my questions here. SecondMe 16:32, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
    Sorry, my mistake, I didn't read it clearly. My actual answer is: since when does Conservapedia print. I just want some opinions/ answers from the main admin of CP. SecondMe 16:54, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
Your encouragement of profane vandals is not appreciated. Bohdan 16:59, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
  • I assumed so. In any case, I won't vandalize, because CP helped me improve WP in sometimes. So please don't ban me, until this discussion is over - i still want it to remain civilized. SecondMe 17:06, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
Just a comment: If you have time for this open letter why don't you use it to make this place greater as we are committed to do. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 17:49, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
My guess is that, by calling into question several of the main markers for "success," SecondMe is trying to improve the encyclopedia. Often, dissent is the only way to improve something. See American Revolution. And with due respect, people tend to shun, on this site, most of the good ways to improve Conservapedia (i.e., enforcing "true & verifiable," and not letting blogs stand as "fact").-ArcturusM 17:51, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Both Arcturus and SecondMe have been given temporary blocks for violating our 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk. Joaquin is exactly right: improve, then suggest.--Aschlafly 18:06, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Wikipedia/SecondMe, I agree that Wikipedia doesn't ban people just for being Christian. But I don't believe that Conservapedia says otherwise (although I think there is a user page that says otherwise). Please let me know where we say that, and I'll check it out. Use the e-mail this user link to contact me if you like. Philip J. Rayment 21:26, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

upload rights

For some reason my upload rights were taken away, why were they taken away? -- 50 star flag.png User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 23:10, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

No particular reason other than lack of use. You can get them back as soon as Sysops recommend it. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 23:44, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

since my posts are deleted

I'll post on the Abuse page. AdenJ 00:00, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

AdenJ....your original post here on Andy's talk page was discussed and resolved. And you know that. If you don't get the results you are determined to get, posting it 100 times in 100 places isn't going to change the outcome. --₮K/Talk 00:32, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, none the less, it is still shocking that such a thing was allowed in the first place and no discipline was handed down. Others will follow suit unless the appropriate action is taken. I am sure no one wants that from this site. AdenJ 00:36, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Contest

Hi Andy,

My workload has subsided to the point that I can participate in another contest if there is a desire to have one.

Thanks

Learn together 12:38, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Christian Majority Ethnic Groups

I have done a lot of research and have discovered a large number of Asian tribal/ethnic groups that practice Christianity, for example Taiwanese aborigines, Angami, Chakhesang, Chin people, Dolgan, , Garo, Hmar, Kadazan, Koireng, Kuki, Mizo, Naga people, Norteiro, Paite, Poumei, Rengma, Rungu, Sumi, Vaiphei, Yakut, Zo, Zomi etc. can I make category called Category:Asian Ethnicities with Christian Majorities

-- 50 star flag.png User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2008 (EDT)


can I make a category called Category:Asian Ethnicities with Christian Majorities? -- 50 star flag.png User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

I wish Deborah would not create categories and stubs. Better to make a big, long article, detailing each of the groups. Then, if any group's entry gets so large that it merits an article of its own, we can do what Wikipedia calls "summary style" and turn that entry into a standalone article. --Ed Poor Talk 17:35, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
Is this the sort of stub article that you object to? Philip J. Rayment 21:24, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

90/10 rule block

Well, as you have now blocked me twice for violating the '90/10' rule, from now on, I will be directly editing articles, and will refrain from even attempting to discuss them on the Talk page, as , if I try to do this, I will probably once again violate the 90/10 rule. However, if, as has happened with other editors, I am blocked for, basically, making edits that particular people disagree with, I will simply take this as confirmation of quite literally being damned if I do and damned if I don't. Urushnor 16:45, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

The 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk is simple and objective. As long as more than 10% of your ongoing edits are substantive -- which is not a difficult requirement -- you won't be violating it. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 17:22, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
Well, the vast majority of my 'talk, talk, talk' has been pointing out and/or discussing flaws and errors in articles or news items, and replying to points raised by people when I did this. Which, exactly, are not 'substantive'? Urushnor 18:32, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
Follow the Conservapedia Commandments and you won't get blocked. Its really quite simple. Bohdan 18:33, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
Didn't work for me. I got a day's block for "time-wasting remarks" without being anywhere close to 90% talk. (Why don't you guys just be honest and rename it the "Shut Up Rule"?) Following Commandment 2 and putting {{fact}} tags on articles seems to be a popular way to get a Mod Smackdown. Following Commandment 5 when you think there's a real dispute usually results in some Mod accusing you of breaking Commandment 7, as Urushnor complains, so the few actual honest, diligent editors this site hasn't already driven away in disgust are stuck either way. --Gulik5 00:56, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

headache

I don't know how you can put up with these criminals all day. It's got to be draining. --FrankRingo 19:28, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

It's part of cleaning up the internet. The vulgar ones are reported to internet and legal authorities. It's amusing how some vandals think that crimes on the internet are somehow not crimes.--Aschlafly 19:33, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
Agreed. -- Mitch U/T/C 19:37, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Violent video games

A statement of this magnitude certain requires some source, any source. Why did you delete my simple request for a source?

"Violent video games teach and encourage the players -- typically children -- to engage in horrific virtual violence. Examples include:"

The first sentence doesn't make any sense. Violent video games do not teach them to engage in horrific virtual violence; but they can certainly influence a weak minded individual to engage in horrific real violence because of repeated exposure. Notice the difference between virtual and real?

If this site want to gain any credibility, it needs to understand that it cannot fall into the same trap that Wiki did; that is, revert edits and block users out of sheer boredom or disagreement.Donaldson

Your objection makes no sense. Of course violent video games teach and encourage participants to engage in horrific virtual violence. That's what the games are. It's unclear which word you object to, because nothing in that sentence is disputable.--Aschlafly 23:23, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
My objection makes perfect sense. But you didn't respond as to why such a bold statement doesn't require a source? The rules of CP say:
Uncited Material at Conservapedia Completely Uncited Article or Completely Uncited Section of an Article If you see a article or section of an article that is completely uncited please feel free to put a uncited tag on that particular article or section of an article. Also, when placing a uncited tag on a article or section, please feel free to send the person or persons who wrote that section a friendly and gentle reminder regarding the uncited material plus a friendly thank you for contributing to Conservapedia. Having cited material helps insure that Conservapedia material is true and verifiable plus it provides a resource so readers can found more information on a subject.

So is this not the case? Donaldson 23:34, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Tautologies do not need citations. Neither do statements of logic, obviously.--Aschlafly 23:44, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
Videogames are going to Destroy America's Youth, it seems. The same way pinball, Jazz music, and hula-hoops did.
I know I'm hardly an average person, but I'm rather fond of some fairly violent and horrific video-games, but I'm a VERY non-violent person in real life. Since accprding to the Department of Justice, violent crime rates have plummeted in the last decade, I may not be the only one. --Gulik5 00:48, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Confirming my email address

I finally got it to work! Hallelujah! Jinxmchue 13:03, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Wikipedia Change of Policy

I assume you remember me. Go ahead, glance down at my signature. In any case, I figured that I would bring to your attention that Wikipedia sysops now have the green-light to block users from editing the user: and user_talk: namespaces if they have a 90/10 edit ratio, or something to that extent. This is similar to conservapedia's 90/10 rule, except that rather than getting a full ban, they are forced to only edit the mainspace for a certain amount of time. A case of this can be seen here. Godspeed. GofG ||| Talk 10:28, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Oh, are we rubbing off on the competition? --Ed Poor Talk 10:51, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
I was staggered reading this. Until I checked the link. First, this is an ad hoc decision applying to a couple of users only. Second, it's not clear that this has been decided; it's headed "final proposal". Third, and most importantly, they are not restricted to only editing mainspace. They are, in fact restricted to only editing talk and user talk namespace! That is, they are banned (for six months) from editing articles. This is completely different to Conservapedia's rule about unproductive editing. Unless of course you linked to the wrong thing. Philip J. Rayment 11:05, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
What we'd call in math a "sign error". In other words, their report was 180 degrees opposite from the truth. Typical liberal distortion, I guess.
Reminds me of Al Gore noting the correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature. He's been telling everyone for years that CO2 causes temperature to go up, while actually CO2 levels follow temperature changes by a few centuries. He was correct about the existence of the correlation, but he got the causation part wrong. No wonder he flunked out of grad school and went into journalism! --Ed Poor Talk 11:10, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
Perhaps instead of comparing me to Al Gore, and calling what I said Liberal distortion (I don't know what about it was liberal), you could perhaps reread the linked page, and find that it does, in fact, say that the user is barred to only edit the"article-, talk- and user talk-space". That is, the namespaces that are necessary for writing articles, and no other. This is a step in the direction of what Conservapedia is doing, and I did not paint it as anything but that.
He is not, in fact, barred to only edit the talk: and User_talk: namespaces, I don't know why you got that impression, Philip. Perhaps you missed the "article-" part of the paragraph? GofG ||| Talk 11:14, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
Okay, my mistake. On my screen at least, the comma after "article-" was at the end of the line, and I read it as "article-talk and user-talk space". However, user-talk is not really a necessary page for writing articles, and it doesn't appear to be much of a restriction (without knowing the history), because apart from their own user pages (are they not allowed to do that?) and, say, templates, there's not really much restriction, is there? Further, it doesn't say anything about it being due to a 90/10 edit ratio, and given that they can still edit the talk and user talk pages, doesn't seem to have any relevance to that. Philip J. Rayment 11:49, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

GofG, thanks for the information. I welcome Wikipedia's partial imitation of our 90/10 rule and I hope Wikipedia reforms its system in other significant ways, such as disclosing the liberal point of view of its decisionmakers.

By the way, GofG, I don't recall ever having a quarrel with you and from your history it seems you had several run-ins with a former Sysop. Welcome back and I hope to learn from your edits.--Aschlafly 13:10, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

If you actually check the history, you had several disagreements with him, for defending Wikipedia policy and procedures, and arguing against your own statements about WP. --₮K/Talk 20:38, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
This is, sadly, true, Andy. We've disagreed several times in the past, almost to the point of an indefinite block for me. (I'm almost positive I'll get blocked as you realize that i'm on RW). In any case, I wouldn't call what I had with TK a run-in, rather a misunderstanding. When both of us realized the mistakes made, we pretty much made up, so to speak. I notice he isn't a sysop anymore, I hope I didn't have anything to do with that. GofG ||| Talk 15:32, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

Edits

According to the edit counter, you have already reached 20,000+ edits. Are you not counting the talk edits? -^_^- Fuzzy|AFD

You're right! Thanks for letting me know. I'll update it now ....--Aschlafly 14:51, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Can you delete Category:United Kingdom Towns and Cities and Category:Logical fallacies? -- 50 star flag.png User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Can you delete Category:Abraham, Category:Children of Adam and Eve, Category:Children of Noah , Category:Children of Terah -- 50 star flag.png User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Topics

Hey Mr. Schlafly. I think that a good writing homework topic would be: Was John the Apostle a child? Thanks, ~BCSTalk2ME 15:43, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Great idea, Bethany! I find that issue to be fascinating, and I've created an entry on it here: Mystery:Was John a Child?. I also have included it in the draft list for Writing Homework Nine.--Aschlafly 16:10, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Can you delete Category:Egg-laying mammals Category:Children of Joseph (Genesis) Category:Children of Jacob Category:Children of Isaac Category:Celtic Mythology Category:Adam and Eve Category:Artist Biographies Category:Artist -- 50 star flag.png User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Preference

Do you have a preference for Bible translations? (KJV, NLT, NIV, etc..) I'm just asking you here since I rarely seem to remember when I have other chances to talk to you. -^_^- Fuzzy|AFD 22:49, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

I prefer NIV, but we don't have any clear rules about that. You can use what you prefer.--Aschlafly 22:53, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
Well, I just randomly asked Phyllie today and she wasn't sure. -^_^- Fuzzy|AFD 23:18, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
Personal tools