User talk:Aschlafly/Archive4

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

License

Under what license do I have rights to copy content from this wiki?

Our license is broader and simpler than the 3,200-word Wikipedia license. We grant a revocable license to reuse and copy without any restrictions, and with or without attribution, unless noted otherwise in the entry itself. The only contemplated basis for revocation would be in self-defense, such as preventing harm to an editor or preventing application of a copyright against Conservapedia for material copied from it.--Aschlafly 19:16, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
If Conservapedia's license isn't compatible with the GFDL (eg. Conservapedia's license doesn't require attribution, the license can be revoked), then from a legal standpoint, material can't be copied over from Wikipedia to here. So, at the very least, something like [1] (which is an exact copy-n-paste from wikipedia) should mention that it's licensed under the GFDL, or it should be removed as a copyvio. --Interiot 13:35, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
We don't allow copying from Wikipedia, primarily because of its content rather than its copyright policy. That said, it's copyright policy is too burdensome is not really the free-use copyright that people claim. But what do you think is a copy-n-paste from Wikipedia here? Vandals who do that are blocked as soon as we recognize it. I tried your link and could not find anything. Please be more specific so that any copying from Wikipedia that remains can be removed, and the person who did it will be warned or blocked.--Aschlafly 14:37, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
This version (you have to click "edit" to see the larger amount of wikitext that was copied) is a direct copy of this (again, you have to click "view source"). I think it would be less of an issue if that page made it clear that specific content was licensed as GFDL rather than the default license you outlined above. --Interiot 18:37, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
OK, your complaint is quite tendentious as it complains about hidden and straightforward source code rather than expressive text, and I couldn't find any instance of this template actually being used here. But we don't want the Wikipedia stuff anyway, and I certainly don't want its burdensome licensing requirements. We are far more generous in allowing people to copy our material than Wikipedia apparently is. Nevertheless, I've warned the user who posted this unused template (he's not someone I know), and I'll delete the template soon.--Aschlafly 19:14, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
There is a proposal here. http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Geo.plrd/copyr2 --British_cons (talk) 04:30, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia Identity Crisis

"We disclose our point-of-view, while Wikipedia denies it" To be fair... we really don't. All the front page says about our point of view is that we give full credit to America and full credit to Christianity. Oh, and we're called "Conservapedia." What exactly is our POV and where do we state it? Myk 15:06, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I seem to have gotten lost in the shuffle here... where would be an appropriate place to ask this question? Myk 22:28, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Sysop Request

Please see my post under Citations from Wikipedia, below. You can see another example of the problem by looking at the history of Margaret Thatcher. Sysop goes in, removes good content that I added, leaves the entry gutted...no response from him (Austin) in spite of several requests. You can also see my edits on Rudy Giuliani for another example of my work.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Margaret_Thatcher#Is_this_a_joke.3F

My internet connection has been down so I was unable to respond or address concerns. This has now been done.--AustinM 11:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Yes! Thanks Austin....you had quite a chase on your hands tracking all of the vandals last night. I wish I had the ability to lend a hand in blocking people, but Aschlafly appears to have his hands full, and I haven't heard from him about my request, so bow to his judgement, as he knows, better than I, what he is looking for in sysops. --TK 18:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)


  • Mr. Schlafly, I have re-edited (actually populated would be more accurate) the Fox News Channel page. I also noted there wasn't a page for the Great Depression, and I created it. I welcome your comments and ideas. --TK 22:57, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Thank you for the generous words, Andrew, and thank you for the enhanced abilities. Let me know whenever you get out West. --~ Terry Talk2Me! 08:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

obscenity

I just cleaned up some obscenity by User:Urdicks. I delted User:Mtur to get rid of it but you can still see it in deleted edits. I think his post meets the definition of unlawful obscenity and COPPA. Recommend prosecution. Geo. 01:09, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Are you going to forward this for prosecution? Geo. 00:27, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
The user Ur____ posted his edits from within the federal jurisdiction of the District of Maryland, based in Baltimore. His IP address is 71.179. . . His ISP is Verizon Internet Services. I have not yet reviewed all his recorded edits here for obscenity.--Aschlafly 22:08, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

A strong recommendation

As someone who has written for many different wikis, watching the "recent changes" traffic here seems to tell me something: there's a real need for some kind of vetting of people before they are given accounts. This is not hard to do -- you can ask for a valid e-mail, you can ask for credentials -- and I think it will be well worth it. Here's why:

1) Easily 60% of sysops' time is spent reverting vandalism 2) With the current system, nothing prevents anyone from opening a new account 30 seconds after their old one was permanently blocked 3) There are plenty of people with extra time on their hands who can force Conservapedia to spend all its time dealing with them, and it sabotages the overall project. 4) If you want to control high-profile articles (or prevent the creation of new embarassing ones), this is much more time-efficient

That's just my thought -- but I thought it worth posting.

Boethius 20:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Article Improvement Drive

On a non-sarcastic note (though thank you Sid for bringing it up), are there any plans for something similar to Wikipedia's "Featured Articles" to be put on the main page? Right now we don't have too many candidates, though Bible is quite thorough. I would be willing to take the reins of a project like the Article Improvement Drive (a group of editors who vote on one article, and then devote a week to bring it up to Featured status). I think this would be a good community-building project, and greatly help improve the articles which recieve lots of traffic. Do you think this is a good idea, and if so, do I have your permission to run an experimentation of this project? We can test it out on an article like Jesus Christ. --Hojimachongtalk 20:29, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Sounds like a fantastic idea. Let's replace the media references on the front page with links to top articles, which is what this is all about. Even a vote for top contributors or articles would be helpful.--Aschlafly 22:10, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Your participation would be welcomed at the newly created Conservapedia:Article Improvement Drive. Please contact me with any questions, I think this can be a great idea! --Hojimachongtalk 22:56, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Agreed! If we can first get the editing down some, so that the pages are not trashed as soon as put up! Hojimachong messaged me, via IM, and seems someone who is dedicated to doing things the Conservapedia way, Andrew. --Terry 00:22, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Lego link

I only saw a small portion of it, and I thought it was cute. But I'll take your word as to the bad parts and remove them now. Karajou 00:29, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

user permissions

What do you think about denying regular users from creating new pages, but still allowing them to edit. That might help get rid of some spam. Then if they wanted to create new pages, they would have to be part of a special user group. Also, we could deny them permission to move pages unless they were part of that special group. Sound good/bad? --Ymmotrojam 00:29, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

That sounds like a beneficial idea, to me, especially about moving things. New people creating new pages, has run amuck. Ideas for new pages could be run by a Sysop, who is assigned to coordinate a particular user-group. There could be a special user-group assigned to assess new users, and their abilities as well, and incorporate the page revision group as well. --Terry 00:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm thinking there could also be other restrictions, such as one cannot upload images unless part of this special group. We could even make it so one can only use the talk pages if not in this group. --Ymmotrojam 12:08, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
I see your reasoning, but I tend to disagree with your suggested actions. Your changes would of course prevent vandalism in its current form, but it would not stop vandalism in general. As long as you can do ANY sort of editing on the site, there will be vandalism (mostly because we're dealing with dedicated and slightly organized vandals here). At the same time, it only adds more hurdles for people who are genuinely interested in helping the project. --Sid 3050 15:51, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Well of course this wouldn't be the only thing. There are technologies that we can put in place to help with this. We can have a captcha to stop floods of registrations, we can block open proxies, we can install the checkuser extension to track a user's IP address, we can install the newuserlog to track user registrations in recentchanges, we can block keywords, etc etc. There are so many things that we could do to prevent spam, and right now we basically have no protection at all (except human of course). And the human protection really is just not enough. Actually all of these things can be designed in such a way so it only is a nuisance to those outside of that special usergroup. The captcha for example. --Ymmotrojam 16:00, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Fully agreed there. Such anti-spam measures strike me as much more reasonable since they tend to prevent spam while being less of a hassle for legitimate users. :) --Sid 3050 16:05, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
I would suggest some sort of "time-probation", such as; users may not create pages for the first four days (by when they must have 50 edits), upload images for the first seven days (must have 100 edits), move for the first fourteen (must have 150 edits), etc. This would encourage users without supporting a kind of way-too-blatant elitism. What do you think? --Hojimachongtalk 16:14, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Those are all good suggestions well worth considering. It depends a lot on what the Wiki software allows, however. Also, while the vandalism is a nuisance, restrictions on new users have high opportunity costs that may be even greater than dealing with vandalism. We do have great SYSOPs like Hojimachong now, after all!--Aschlafly 18:38, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

You seem to have missed something

I see that you archived part of your page. You seem not to have noticed the message I left for you in relation to the evolution talk page. As per your request I posted on that page and a number of people have responded. I am sure that they would be interested in your point of view. It is under the heading "Rallying Point". See you there. --Horace 01:43, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

User Mageoflulz/Eljoe

Both (possibly the same person) have repeatedly vandalized the Rudy Giuliani page this past night. Can they be banned? Below is an example of their work:

Added "cross-dressing" to the list of Giuliani's hobbies.

Giuliani's views on sexuality are often a topic in the press. The Catholic Church annuled Giuliani's first marriage between he and his then wife, Regina Peruggi, because Giuliani discovered that they were in fact second cousins. While he and his second wife Donna Hanover were separated he moved out of Gracie Mansion and moved in with two gay friends. Guiuliani has appeared several times dressed as a woman at public events. He appeared in drag in an episode of "Queer As Folk." He also wore a blond wig and pink dress for the 1997 Inner Circle dinner in New York. He then appeared again on national television on "Saturday Night Live" cross dressing. . /news/article.html?2001/10/19/3

--TK 03:45, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Check out the Conservapedia:Abuse page, TK. I'll post this over there. No need to bother aschlafly with these things.Myk 03:57, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Sorry Myk and Aschlafly, forgive a newbie...I kept seeing posts here about the issue. --TK 04:10, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

New Layout

Hey, just logged on this morning. Love the new layout. However, 1 thing that is really bugging the hell out of me...

Why is it that the shade of blue for the box surrounding the page title is a different shade of blue than the box surrounding Navigation, Search, and Toolbox?

Was that purposeful or just an accident. Because it really hurts my eyes when I look between the two.--Elamdri 10:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

The new layout is fabulous! I noticed on the main page, that the page heading is a different shade that the "Welcome to Conservapedia" bar, but the difference is very subtle. ~ SharonS Talk! 10:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
No, I like it too, it distinguishes from Wikipedia. Maybe its my bad eyesight though, but those subtle difference in the colors just hurt my eyes is all.--Elamdri 10:30, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
I think it looks great also! Thanks so much to our webmaster.
Elamdri, I'll pass your comment along to him also.--Aschlafly 10:33, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
I just noticed that in the alert box that displays when you have new messages on your talk page, the color of the writing is very close to the color of the background. The new layout is great because it distinguishes us from Wikipedia, while still enabling us to utilize the features of the monobook skin. ~ SharonS Talk! 11:14, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Nice work, even though I have to use some Firefox User CSS to tone down some of the more colorful things (visited links and diff view especially). --Sid 3050 14:18, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Unlock Moon Page

Aschlafly, I've shown that one critical point in your Moon point #4 is incorrect. Please unlock the page so a professional can correct it.--Macronking 14:21, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree--Sm355 14:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
This discussion belongs on the Moon talk page. I've review the comments and reply there.--Aschlafly 14:29, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

John McCain

Hey... please check out my comment on Talk:John McCain. I'm just looking for some direction as someone who wanted to do some serious clean up on the politicians pages. I'm not questioning the factual content, just the formatting and encyclopedic nature of it. Also check out the work I did on Rudy Giuliani and 2008 Presidential Election. Myk 15:10, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Myk, I can't tell if you're trying to be helpful or disruptive. The information I added to John McCain's entry is highly important and factual. Don't remove it. Somebody removed important stuff that I had concerning Giuliani also. I hope it wasn't you. And way, pray tell, did you add "liberals" to a list of media outlets widely considered to have liberal bias? That strikes me as vandalism.
You may disagree with the views of many on this site, which is fine, but do not remove factual material consistent with our rules and do not add silly edits. Thank you.--Aschlafly 15:20, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
I did add liberals as an item that has liberal bias. I maintain that it is true. I did NOT remove the factual information from the McCain or Giuliani page. I deleted opinions which is a practice backed up by the commandments. I do not edit factual content as my political views are clearly not in sync with the views of your forum. I'm just trying to help you get one little niche looking somewhat professional, then you can put in whatever content you desire, though I hope you would remain consistent with your own commandments regarding opinion, gossip, and citations. Myk 15:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Oh, if you're going to ban me, wait until after I finishConservapedia:Manual_of_Style/Politicians... you might find it useful. Myk 15:27, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
OK... it's "done." If you want to ban me, that'd be fine, but it's a heckuva way to treat a nice liberal that came over here to help y'all look professional. Myk 15:58, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Myk, don't worry, there are no plans to block you (unless someone else sees a problem that I don't). No one is banned here for ideological reasons. I think Wikipedia blocks more people over ideological disputes than Conservapedia does.
I genuinely thought that your addition of "liberals" to a list of media outlets known for liberal bias was vandalism. But you explained that it was not.--Aschlafly 18:33, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Andy, you might want to check out the talk page on McCain and Rudy. and offer some guidance. If we are going to include "Electability" on one page, it should be included in the other possible candidates, no? --TK 19:29, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
I think electability should be there, particularly when supporters of the candidate claim that as a reason to vote for them (as in the cases of McCain and Giulani). Of course, speculation should be avoided. But my entries on electability for McCain was based on facts and citations.--Aschlafly 19:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Cool, you and I don't disagree on the facts you added. What I think the others are saying (hinting at) is if you want it there, and obviously you do, then out of fairness we should search and do the same (add a section entitled "Electability") for the other potential candidates. Someone else can do Newt, please. I don't need more hate mail from friends who are running! :p --TK 19:45, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Tsumetai

Hi, I don't mean to be rude or anything but how can you make User:Tsumetai a sysop? He's a liberal, and evolutionist, and he's going to use this new power to bend pages toward his skewed viewpoint. Just to let you know Scorpionman 15:28, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I have read several examples of his work and editing, and haven't noted bias that stands out. Sometimes, as much as we would like to make facts more palatable, things are just what they are, and a good face cannot be put on them. So long as Evolution isn't presented as the only theory, and Creationism isn't denigrated, that should be fine, no? --TK 18:49, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
There are some liberal SYSOPs, and we value them. The SYSOP power is there primarily to combat vandalism and improve the site, not to enforce an ideological viewpoint. I think everyone realizes that we're different from Wikipedia and our pages are not going to parrot the substance of Wikipedia. The beauty of the wiki software is that everyone can how each person edited an entry, and things can be undone when appropriate.--Aschlafly 19:07, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

I am saddened that you appear to be allowing this potentially excellent project to falter. The locking of various pages and the domination of those pages by blinkered individuals is ruining this site. Don’t you pay any attention at all to what your editors are writing? You have ignored my representations in relation to the Evolution page. That page is a disgrace. So is the Homosexuality page. Your intention was to create a conservative resource that would show up Wikipedia. Instead you are creating a laughing stock. You are achieving the opposite of what you set out to do. You are dragging conservatism through the mud.

Be a man. Open the pages. --Horace 19:13, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Horace, very few pages are locked. I have some concerns about the homosexuality page myself. But Rome wasn't built in a day. Over time, I'm optimistic that most of us will agree on the substance of the vast majority of the pages. In a few cases we may have to agree to disagree. Debate and disagreement is not always a bad thing.
Be patient, my friend. Channel your tremendous energies and intellect into new entries that can be then merged with other pages, or linked to them. Thanks.--Aschlafly 19:16, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Mark4, please see your own User page for a response to your comments.--Aschlafly 08:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Deletions

I wish there was a way to delete articles or user names without those names actually showing up. If deleting something with an obscene name, there's just no way around letting it show up again. I can understand why that's the case, because it prevents people from surreptitiously deleting articles and nobody finding out, but it's still unfortunate in these cases.

And I understand that this does not directly apply to what you wrote on my talk page about. MountainDew 20:27, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Please explain the rules. You say there is no evidence of humans before about 3500 BC. I add something that refers to humans 30,000 years ago (Lascaux paintings). You take it down because it's unsupported. How is your 3500 BC claim supported? What does it take to support a claim?

I sent you a email to your AOL account and I also improved the kangaroo article

I noticed you were online. I sent you a email to your AOL account.

Also, I know the kangaroo article gets a lot of internet traffic so I beefed it up as far as the creationist position. I hope you like the changes. Conservative 21:36, 17 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

...it should be mentioned that the Kangaroo page got this much traffic because tons of blogs and news articles in several countries basically mocked it because of the extremely obvious creationist view. As such, adding more creationism material doesn't exactly "improve" the article in the intuitive sense of the word. --Sid 3050 21:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Oh, I love the Kangaroo page. --Jack 21:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Sid, I put a link to the Theory of evolution article plus showed there were no transitional fossils leading up to kangaroo plus has a link that highly suggest the whole fossil record doesn't support the evolutionary view. I also made another change. All in all, I think the page much better supports the creationist view now whereas before it was weak. Conservative 21:54, 17 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Yes. That's the point. You emphasized the creationist PoV in an article that is already being mocked for its creationist PoV. --Sid 3050 22:00, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
I think it is important that you keep in the part about the land bridge connecting Europe to Australia after the flood. I think that is the most plausible explanation.--Jack 22:02, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

IRC

I believe that we should have an IRC channel. If you don't object, I'll register #conservapedia with freenode. Geekman314(contact me) 22:49, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Could you explain what an IRC channel is, and the consequences are? Thanks.--Aschlafly 22:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
IRC stands for Internet Relay Chat, it is a form of web based communication. Geo. 23:03, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
It's similar to instant messaging, but can have as many people at once as the server can accommodate. It also allows some degree of anonymity, because "nicknames" are not stored at a central registry. A potential problem is that it's easy for smut to get on an IRC channel, but offenders can be easily kicked off, and/or banned. It's a good way to discuss articles and such in real time, to chat with other users, to hang out, etc. Geekman314(contact me) 23:09, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
I've opened the channel. Crackertalk 23:16, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Aw, I was going to. Can I have mod status? Geekman314(contact me) 23:29, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, if you want to see how IRC works, you first need an IRC client. Wikipedia (sorry about this) has a list of IRC clients, which can be utilized to great effect. I believe that a decent level of IRC participation would benefit the project, and allow an aura of community to exist, which is currently lacking, except, to some degree, amongst the highest-ranking editors. Trust me, when you talk to a bunch of people for 20 minutes in real time, you develop a much greater feeling of amicability towards them. It also allows off-topic discussions, which are out-of-place on the website, but which seem to occur anyway, to some extent. Geekman314(contact me) 09:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)


I'm ready for it. What a great idea, as long as people don't abuse it. Palmd001 12:25, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm all for it. I'll even be a mod for it if you let me. It sounds like an excellent idea.NSmyth 17:00, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
  • What is the advantage for group communication, over existing clients like Yahoo, MSN or AIM instant messengers? Since Yahoo and MSN have merged their systems, it is easy, uncomplicated process, and you can chat with over a dozen at a time, or more, and most people have one of the two already. I know many major corporations use them as well. Please forgive my ignorance about the IRC deal...I only remember back in the day it was considered unsecure and a danger because worms and trojans were passed by it. --TK 22:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
    • On Wikipedia, the technical admins hang out there because 1) IRC is better-liked by the tech crowd, and 2) they needed someplace easy for a larger number of people to sync up when the servers went down, and they obviously couldn't use the wiki to communicate at that point. Is it easy for MSN/AIM to do this sort of thing (eg. have a room set up that's not associated with any single user, so that it's available 24/7, whenever the wiki might go down, and that others can easily join)? --Interiot 00:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Thanks for the info, Interiot....its been years since I was on IRC. I wonder if one would truly need an open channel 24/7, and since you can have well over 15 in a self-made IM chat box, ones could be invited and added as need be. Either way, not a problem either way, I guess. I was just thinking that most wouldn't have the IRC client downloaded is all...and how does one stop one of the vandals from getting into the IRC channel....--TK 03:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
    • Vandals are handled much like on-wiki, they can be banned by IP or name as needed. It creates two different sets of blacklists, but many vandals stick to the wiki, so it's not that big of a deal. And that's actually easier than individuals having to give out their IM address publicly and each person having to separately block unwanted contacts. Anyway, if the wiki isn't down very often, and there's not a big group of people, IRC may not be the best choice, I don't know. --Interiot 09:35, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Uploading pics

Is it possible to have a fill-in block on the "Upload File" page in which to write in the page link for the picture in question? I have tried to place a couple pics, but I am not able to. Karajou 23:06, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Stuff

  • First, disregard my last email.
  • Second, check out the Conservapedia:Manual of Style (rename if you like, the name was ripped from Wikipedia) and add your stylistic guidelines (spelling, grammar, citing sources, formatting, etc.). We can link it to the main page when it builds up, if it works out. I'm having fun making these nifty Conservapedia: namespace tools! --Hojimachongtalk 01:24, 18 March 2007 (EDT)


That's great! What a super table of English-American spelling differences.
I love your suggestion! Please add a link to it as desired.--Aschlafly 17:01, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Block User:Conservator

He's not responding to comments, and is continuing to post massive amounts of content on pages, making those pages inoperable. --Ymmotrojam 16:41, 18 March 2007 (EDT)


Conservator was just blocked by "Conservative" for infinite duration. Thanks for the tip!--Aschlafly 16:53, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

The poll regarding the new color format

The poll you requested regarding the new colar format is located here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#A_poll_requested_by_Aschafly_regarding_the_new_color_format

huh?

your kidding right? its a real life thing. please dont be like wikipedia and go PC on me would it be better if i labeled it "disaster preparedness" in a more PC manner?...one might also note you said no cussing on this acronym before you didnt say no posting of it...can you show me where in the commandments i created a violation? i'm looking hard at all 7 and i am not seeing it...and whats with the block comment i have'nt "repeatdly" done anything wrong...from one christian to another...thanks --Wally 19:21, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

OK, Wally, I apologize and withdraw my objection. Thanks.--Aschlafly 20:42, 18 March 2007 (EDT)


Conservative 19:18, 18 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

I sent an important email to your AOL account

I sent an important email to your AOL account. Conservative 20:51, 18 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Statement of Faith?

What do you think about developing such a statement? --Ymmotrojam 21:47, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

What do you mean? Faith by whom, in what?--Aschlafly 21:54, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Well, I just thought that since this site already claims to be Christian, than why not develop a statement of beliefs or faith that all content has to abide by. I can forsee that preventing a lot of arguments in the future. --Ymmotrojam 21:56, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
No, we're not an exclusively Christian site, and never have been. We are not just the choir.--Aschlafly 22:08, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
The statement "give full credit to Christianity" may need to be expounded upon then. What does "full" and "credit" mean as it applies to the average article? --Ymmotrojam 22:12, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't see how it could be any clearer. Perhaps some examples help. It means a date based on Jesus' birth use an abbreviation referring to Jesus. It means a description of The Renaissance include how artists were inspired by Christianity. Descriptions of scientists inspired by Christianity should reflect that. And so on. There won't be any censorship of Christianity either.--Aschlafly 22:21, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Okay, so on the Physics article, it's okay to say "God's universe" rather than "the universe"? --Ymmotrojam 22:26, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
It's fine with me, although it I've never heard that term used before. It may lead to an edit war, but conflict doesn't bother me.--Aschlafly 22:46, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Actually it already did cause a minor edit war ;-). But if it's truthful, it shouldn't matter what the majority thinks. --Ymmotrojam 22:49, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Numbers

I noticed numbers after each edit - a new feature I gather. What do they mean exactly? --<<-David R->> 22:19, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

The number of words that changed, I think. That makes it easier to spot some types of vandalism. (Our webmaster knows the precise answer.)--Aschlafly 22:21, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Oh ok. I get it. It's actually the number of characters. That will probably prove to be very useful in the future. --<<-David R->> 22:23, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
It's actually the number of bytes changed. I guess that's the same as number of characters. --Hojimachongtalk 23:53, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Goals of Conservapedia

Discussion of goals vis-a-vis wiki format, please come in and contribute! (moved comments about goals to appropriate page Conservapedia:What exactly is Conservapedia?

IRC

FWIW I have been holding #conservapedia open for 36 hours now, it's on irc.freenode.net (I'm using brown.freenode.net) this will allow real time conversations. I use mIRC as my client though if one perfers a webbrowser client I hear good tings about chatzilla. Crackertalk 12:03, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
How about #conservapedia-admin for private discussions? Or at least a mailing list only for admins, if they need to put their heads together without someone looking over their shoulders. --Ed Poor 14:19, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Sounds like a great idea. I don't know how to do that, however. I'll ask our webmaster. If you have any tips for how to set up a SYSOP-only entry, that would be appreciated!--Aschlafly 14:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
I am setting up the #conservapedia-sysop IRC channel for you, and it is ready to try out now. Perhaps you'd like to send someone technical to verify that it is working properly. --Ed Poor 14:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Thank you

I'm truelly humbled. I never expected this. Thank you again. RobS 13:13, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Thank you again. I hope we're getting some increased traffic off this stuff; actually much of it is just not available, at least in any one single place, anywhere on the web. RobS 22:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Technical question

I have just become a sysop on CreationWiki. Their leader is curious about how to set up reference processing--the <ref></ref> and <references/> tags, to be precise. How did you get that set up? Thanks in advance.--TerryH 13:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure (Never set up a Wiki myself), but this might be a good starting point... --Sid 3050 13:47, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Your comment invited

I have initiated a discussion about the quality of references at Conservapedia_Discussions#References. If you wish to, your input would be helpful. Terryeo 15:21, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

personal page


on our personal page can we put anything we want as long as its clean and fairly polite? I.E such as politcal preferences, hobby websites, quotes, jokes etc..etc..?

by fairly polite i mean i am no friend of the current secular liberal movment in the USA and wanted to state something along those lines but liberals might cry :(...
--Wally 17:00, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Sure, Wally, it's your page, after all!!!! Post whatever you want, as long as it is clean. Welcome to you!--Aschlafly 17:29, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I sent you a email to your AOL account

I sent you a email to your AOL account. Conservative 19:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Lulz

Np chief, all in a day's work.--Elamdri 20:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Editing Help

Hey, on the "editing help" page where it gives the wiki code for certain effects, we don't have a section on how to do references. I don't know how and we've already had someone post asking it be added. If you could add it, it would be a big help to me and others.--Elamdri 20:13, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure if this is what you seek, Elamdri, but I do references by inserting in the text where the footnote should go:

< ref >links and/or text< /ref > (without the spaces within the brackets).

Then to make sure the shows up at the bottom of the page, I insert a heading for "References" by clicking the oversized "A" button on the toolbar and inserting "References" there as a heading, and then a few lines lower I add:

<references/ > (without the space before the bracket)

Others smarter than I might explain this better.--Aschlafly 20:39, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Nope, thats what I wanted. Any way to put that on the Help:Editing page?--Elamdri 20:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Will do, right now. Thanks Elamdri!--Aschlafly 21:02, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
While you're at it, could you include this?
  • When a reference is used more than one time in an article, you should use <ref name="RefName">...</ref> for the first call and just <ref name="RefName"/> for the following calls. An example of this can be seen in Saint Patrick.
I believe it's quite helpful, especially in longer articles. Also eliminates the need of all those "Id." references :)
(Oh, and you can quote HTML tags and such by placing them between <nowiki>...</nowiki> tags.) --Sid 3050 21:12, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

User Ymmotrojam

Hi Andy, I'd like to mention to you that, by creating an article alleging that evolution is its own atheistic religion, Ymmotrojam (apparently a sysop, too?) has offended me, and a number of other editors and administrators. You can see this here[2] or at the corresponding talk page, or here, at the AFD page on it[3]. I know that you have taken corrective action against users who have deliberately mocked religious beliefs. Ymmotrojam has mocked my own religious convictions by alleging their nonexistence. Surely, although the shoe is on the other foot, this merits some corrective action.

Also, I wanted to tell you that Conservative continues to be a problem for me, and for your site in general. Earlier today, the article Dinosaur was unprotected by an administrator, and I reverted the page to its former construction, prior to Conservative's tampering, which included a balanced treatment of the subject. Conservative then obliterated my changes and re-protected the article. In the process he made light of cited facts merely because he personally disagreed with them. This has invoked community outrage, again, although the entire article continues to evoke similar outrage. You can see an example here[4].

I have accepted that on this site, creationism and science are to be treated on equal footing. I also see your reason for doing so: to allow your student children to choose which worldview they accept. I have tried to edit articles towards this end, correcting one-sided presentation where it existed. However, my efforts, and those of others on this site, have been stymied time and time again. I hope that your commitment to "equal time" and "teaching the controversy" re-emerges, and I hope you will take appropriate action.

I am sorry if I am addressing these concerns in an inappropriate forum. If you believe they are inappropriate here, please transfer them to somewhere appropriate. However, please do not delete them.--AmesG 20:50, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

AmesG, I'm not ignoring you, but you use your insight and intelligence to add a dozen entries or so before we start bickering? I'll try to do likewise. Thanks.--Aschlafly 21:26, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't understand. But also, I have. See Fourteenth Amendment or Augustus Caesar or Middle Ages or Evolution or Dinosaur. Oops, the last two were blanked or deleted, but the others seemed fine. Do you mean my complaints aren't yet relevant?--AmesG 21:29, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
A quick look at the talk pages (both of the draft and the original article) and the AFD would show that you're not exactly the only one who is offended by the implications of the article. It seriously goes too far and insults every Christian who believes in God but also supports evolution. --Sid 3050 21:32, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Those pages that Sid references certainly make obvious that these are global concerns, and I hope you agree that they merit your attention.-AmesG 21:55, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
I think it's disrespectful to ignore your users' valid complaints.--AmesG 23:09, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Without your intervention, Andy, it's just going to get worse. Compare Chimpanzee with the previous version before Conservative got into it. He obliterated pages of facts, calling them "evobabble," which is also vaguely insulting, to boot...--AmesG 23:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Famous editors

Amazing, Ann Coulter (talk contribs count) has graced us with a few contributions. Does Conservapedia have any issues with usernames like this? The way Wikipedia handles it is that well-known people can't be used as usernames, unless it's confirmed that the user really is that famous person [5] Does that sort of thing make sense here? --Interiot 21:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

What do the entries look like? She is a friend.--Aschlafly 21:26, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Does she know the intricacies of Mediawiki category membership? Because many other editors here struggle to figure it out sometimes, and I end up having to fix that same problem pretty frequently here. And her first edit was to make her homepage a bluelink. So, if the real Ann Coulter knows Mediawiki syntax and customs pretty well, then great, otherwise... --Interiot 21:39, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Doppelgänger Accounts

If you don't mind, I'd like to register some Doppelgänger accounts. These are accounts created pre-emptively to prevent vandals from impersonating somebody (e.g. User:Jimbo Wales or User:George Bush). That way, a trusted user has the password, and everybody knows who is controlling the Doppelgänger, because those who create will be required to register. Do I have your permission? --Hojimachongtalk 21:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Great idea. Toss in some religious names (e.g., JesusChrist) and some obscene names if you like.--Aschlafly 21:26, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Hmmm... for some reason, some users thought it would be fun to harass me due to this idea. --Hojimachongtalk 22:30, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
It's a good thing we've gotten rid of the impersonating accounts. Jesus H. Christ 22:38, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Dear FDC Servers.net, Chicago, IL 60604: "Your customer, IP address 67.159.xx.xx (complete address given in original email), has disrupted my web site with an inappropriate user id. and posted messages. Please take immediate action, and report to legal authorities as appropriate, to prevent continued abuse by this user of my site and other websites, and confirm your action with me. Thank you."--Aschlafly 23:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Please let us know too if they take the reporting seriously. I'm actually curious if this is worth their time. Jrssr5 23:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Are you joking? That ISP is responsible itself if it continues to allow vandalism from its platform. If it has half a brain, and I bet it does, the ISP will protect itself from liability.--Aschlafly 23:24, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
I was serious, I know you interpet the codes as saying this stuff counts as vandalism, but I still have my doubts. I don't think the ISPs can be held responsible for users' actions. If I remember correctly with the whole sharing music thing the ISPs only had to give up the user's identity (which I still think is wrong). If I was to make a prank phone call, Verizon wouldn't be liable for me using their network, just expected to identify who I am. Jrssr5 14:30, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Date of the Exodus

Another new article. Had trouble loading some pictures that I would have liked to have included, but this page is essentially done and ready for inclusion to Conservapedia. Karajou 21:44, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

It's a magnificent entry. Just the type of thought-provoking material that intelligent people want to read, ponder and discuss. WELL DONE! I've added a link to it from the brief Exodus entry.--Aschlafly 21:53, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
There may be a bit more to add, just minor additional info as time goes on, but the point is every effort should be given to make every article on Conservapedia a standout article. I tried doing that on Wikipedia, and succeeded in some, but there's just no quality control over there. Makes a good writer just yank his own hair out over it all! Karajou 15:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

IRC

If you have any idea about anything relating to IRC, we got some idiots who have hijacked #conservapedia... They're pissing me off. --Hojimachongtalk 22:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Now I'm telling them how even though the law may not have any real bite, it would still cause much more of a headache then they may be willing to deal with. --Hojimachongtalk 22:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
We have check user and can trace and report IPs for all users. I can give you check user privileges. Would that help with the IRC?--Aschlafly 22:50, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
I already seem to have CheckUser privileges XD. I'm working on registering something. I need you to email me the Address of Conservapedia headquarters, and the official phone number. The email this user link is enabled. If you don't feel comfortable giving me this info, I can send you the link regarding channel registration. Thanks! --Hojimachongtalk 22:55, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
OK, that's fine. How do I email you, though? Your email seems disabled. Can I IRC you?--Aschlafly 22:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
On Freenode/IRC, IP addresses are by default visible to everyone. If you do this little song-and-a-dance to set up a hostname cloak, then people can't see your specific IP addresse anymore (eg. Hojimachong can't see my IP address in IRC because I got a cloak, but I can see Hojimachong's IP there). I don't know if on-wiki checkuser would be useful in this case, since even finding on-wiki users and blocking them wouldn't necessarily convince them to give up ops on the channel... --Interiot 23:03, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
One of the vandals just edited here as User:Gen-Italy, IP being 71.225.61.184. --Hojimachongtalk 23:04, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
"Dear Comcast: Vandalism by one of your customers, IP address 71.225.xx.xxx (full address included in email), has been reported to me. Please take appropriate action to ensure that this user does not vandalize my users, my site, or other sites. Please report to the legal authorities as appropriate, and confirm with me. Thank you." --Aschlafly 23:12, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

User:Conservative

Andrew, I have to ask you again to try and rein in Conservative. He is abusing his sysop power to lock pages and wipe cited material simply b/c he doesn't like it. It looks bad for this site to have someone going on a borderline rampage like this. No other SysOp engages in this kind of activity. Please, PLEASE have a talk with him about this.--Dave3172 23:46, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

See my comments above. It's quite ridiculous. I hope you decide to address it.--AmesG 23:59, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
I agree. At last count we're looking at Theory of evolution, Homosexuality, Chimpanzee, Dinosaur... am I forgetting any? Myk 00:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I must also agree. Conservative makes some valuable additions, but his deletions cause major problems. Sysops are supposed to be the "janitors" so to speak, not the ones who lock pages simply because they don't agree with some of the stuff.--Hojimachongtalk 01:06, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I agree as well. Being a sysop doesn't mean you should go on a power trip. MountainDew 03:28, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Indeed. 'Sysop' and 'editor' are two different capacities. If a sysop locks a page they are involved in editing, they should place a full explanation of their decision on the talk page, as well as be prepared to defend any changes they make to the article while (or immediately before) it is locked. Tsumetai 06:37, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Andy, it's still getting worse. More and more of your admins are trying to undo or at least open to public debate a lot of Conservative's changes. I think you should look at dinosaur particularly. It's been unprotected by two different admins today already, and then re-protected by Conservative soon thereafter. I think Conservative is damaging sysop unity as well as your Wiki's integrity.--AmesG 14:10, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Global Warming.....

Andrew, and everyone...perhaps some comments on the talk page are needed. The article seems it could have been written by Al Gore. I am going to be editing it, but it is another problematic page. [[6]] --~ Terry Talk2Me! 01:50, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Checkuser

Finally it is enabled. Will you need any new Checkusers? Geo. 03:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT) Oh, I already have it. Sorry for bothering you. Geo.

April Fool's day is coming

I notice that Wikipedia is having its annual discussion of how to batten down the hatches for April Fool's day. I can't imagine Conservapedia getting any more prank edits than it gets already, but... might be worth thinking about. Dpbsmith 06:49, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Protection

Given the ongoing controversy over page protection, I think it would be a good idea to draw up some guidelines as to when that power should be used. I've drafted a proposal to that end. Tsumetai 07:00, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Administrator Noticeboard

It would be helpful to have somewhere for sysops to discuss matters in private when necessary. I believe there are extensions to MediaWiki which allow the creation of pages with restricted viewing rights; might be worth looking into. Tsumetai 07:19, 20 March 2007 (EDT)


Scopes

Thank you.--Fpresjh 10:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Why Block?

May I ask why you blocked User:Binary. The user's only two edits were the removal of a superfluous word from the moon article, and correcting an inconsistency in the the manner that distances were recorded in the Australia article. Both were positive, if minor, changes. Nematocyte 11:32, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I posted a note on the user's talk page. niandra 11:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes, but why were they blocked in the first place? They only made correct edits. Nematocyte 11:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Read the reasoning: "inappropriate edits". User-Aschlafly has obviously seen these edits as being negative. As I've put on their talk page, if the user seems decent enough to return, perhaps unblocking the user may happen in the near future. niandra 11:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I'd like to hear exactly why the removal of a superfluous word and the correction of an inconsistany are "inappropriate edits". We risk alienating enthusiastic contributors. Nematocyte 11:41, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Binary also added a page entitled 'vulva.' I imagine it was that for which they were banned. Doesn't show up in contributions because the page was deleted. Tsumetai 11:41, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Thank-you. The other edits were very much not inappropriate. Nematocyte 11:43, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I too have to question this revert. Those seemed like perfectly reasonable edits. I really have to question the administration of this site. You claim to be running an unbiased encyclopedia, but in reality you're only allowing information and changes which YOU like. This supposed "unbiased" site, is more biased than wikipedia could ever be. Perhaps you need to reexamine your values, because quite frankly, it appears that you have none. I know this may sound harsh, but I believe it represents the views of many of the users of this site.
Tsumetai's exactly right. You're really sharp, Tsumetai! I mean it. I apologize for not adding "obscenity" to my stated reason for blocking "Binary". I often say "inappropriate edit" when there are other reasons. Here, the user id name was silly and he made a pointless switch in the order of US v. metric units, which served no purpose except to demonstrate a problem with attitude. Neither of those would have justified the block, but they reinforced the need to address this problem sooner rather than later.--Aschlafly 11:49, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
(The vulva article aside) He didn't make a 'pointless switch'. As was said before, he was fixing an inconsistency. if you look at the actual edit he made on the Australia page, you'll see. Same goes for the Moon page, he/she made a contribution there. The truth is, you reverted without even confirming it, which was irresponsible on your part.Dunny 11:52, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
This is a clean site. The rules are clear, and he was blocked for violating those clear rules. The other stuff, like the silly user id. and silly edit, simply reinforced a block that would have occurred anyway.--Aschlafly 12:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

American History Lecture: Starving Time?

Since the "Starving Time" is by most historians considered to have lasted from about 1609-1610-11, how could John Smith, who left Virginia in 1609, have become a leader of the colony afterwards? --PF Fox 13:15, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

request your help

I considerably beefed up the dinosaur article just now. i think you will like the brand new information. I tried to reach a compromise with the evolutionists and reasonably ask that they not have only one disclaimer and then go on stating "fact" after "fact" after "fact". I reasonably said "according to creationist scientists". They refuse to do something similar regarding the claims of evolutionary scientists even though I took the time to put in front of their "facts" the phrase "according to evolutionary scientists". I protected the article until they agreed to do that. Another Sysop User:Niandra unlocked the article. I would appreciate your support. Conservative 14:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Do you comprehend that you're using your SYSOP permissions to basically dictate the dinosaur article now? I recommend having your SYSOP permissions revoked. At least until you have realized how to use them properly. Locking that article back up within 15 minutes was just plain rude. niandra 14:37, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Conservative, all you've done is butcher and delete the information you personally don't agree with. It was all citied and treated on an even level with your creationist information. In short, it WAS an article that embodied what is supposed to be the goal here: an unbiased view of the topics. But your ham-handed edits have turned the article into a joke. More than one SysOp has commented on your proclivity to block and edit articles, in essence turning them into your personal playground. It's an abuse of your authority. --Dave3172 14:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Wow, that article was unblocked for 13 minutes before Conservative went and reprotected it. How is anything constructive supposed to be done if anyone but Conservative's opinion is removed. I second Niandra's recommendation of revoking his SYSOP permissions. Jrssr5 14:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I support revoking Conservatives sysop permissions given the number of articles Conservative has locked and edited to fit his view. This is Conservapedia. Not Christian/Creationapedia. I have no problem supporting Christian views, Creationist views, etc. but when what is regarded around the world as scientific fact, it deserves to be mentioned. Yet, Conservative keeps editing such information out to fit his personal views. Sysop privileges are not for enforcing one's point of view, they are for preventing vandalism and misuse of the site. Many of the most Christian and/or conservative people I know are huge supporters of evolution and the currently accepted theories of cosmology. If one doesn't support such views, fine; write a section refuting such views and I will never complain about it being included in the article (if relevant, cited, and accurate). There is quite a bit of potential in Conservapedia, and if the abuse of privileges is stopped now, this can be a good site. ColinR 15:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Please stop fighting about this stuff. It is Conservapedia. We're not trying to give both sides evenly. Conservative was right in protecting the article. Conservapedia Webmaster 14:46, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Ok, so you're saying that the official stance of Conservapedia is that evolution did not happen, should never be discussed and that all Christians are conservative and all believe the bible happened explicitly as it was written? I don't want to waste time editing an article if it will immediately be reverted because it doesn't follow the one belief structure you're pushing. Please clarify Jrssr5 14:50, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
The problem is that there aren't just 2 sides. One can be a conservative and still believe that the theory of evolution is correct. --Murray 14:52, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Is that supposed to be some kind of joke? "It is Conservapedia. We're not trying to give both sides evenly". What about the complaints about bias on Wikipedia? I thought Conservapedia was supposed to be better than that. --Horace 14:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
To the broader issue, I have to defer to our Webmaster on this. I might add that "Conservative" has put a great deal of effort into the "dinosaur" entry and it ranks #6 on our most-viewed statistics. It ranks high because it is not like Wikipedia's entry. There is no point to trying to import Wikipedia-type material into the entry. People can go to Wikipedia for that. That said, Conservapedia is responsive to factual, evidentiary suggestions made on the talk page. We are neutral to facts.
As an aside, I am curious about Murray's claim that "one can be a conservative and still believe that the theory of evolution is correct." Do you have some specific examples to support that claim? I have found nearly a 100% correlation between belief in evolution and opposition to classroom prayer, for example. But I'm open to any evidence you might have. Thanks.--Aschlafly 15:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Of course it ranks #6 - we've all been going to the page over and over to gawk at the train wreck it has become.--Dave3172 15:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
It would be quite interesting to see the referral logs, actually. Just to see if any blogs and such link to it as an example of how ridiculous some articles here are. The Kangaroo (currently #5) article definitely got that sort of boost. --Sid 3050 15:27, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Having gone to a religious high school where creation was only mentioned in biology class as "something that is not taught in science class", I find your claim of a 100% correlation very surprising. Even the school priest, when asked, supported evolution and an ancient universe. --Mtur 15:16, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

A Schlafly: I have known many political conservatives who believe in evolution and find your claim about that 100% correlation astonishing. --PF Fox 15:08, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm equally shocked that Aschlafly would make that claim. Especially since being conservative is a relative term. To steal my buddy's example Bill O'Reilly is conservative compared to John McCain, but liberal compared to David Duke. Jrssr5 15:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm sure you can find a near 100% correlation between anything if you look hard enough, but it doesn't mean they're related. Take for example, as the number of pirates has gone down in the world, the average global temperature has gone up. Does that mean that the two are related? No, it's a coincidence and doesn't prove anything, just like belief in evolution and opposition to classroom prayer. Jrssr5 15:30, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Here's a New Republic article where the author asks a number of well known conservatives about their views on evolution and intelligent design. http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=36lbcs5H7aTsisv%2FkIB4i3%3D%3D --Epicurius 15:19, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Thank you, Epicurius. Aschlafly, I would think that the TNR article should be sufficient evidence.--Murray 15:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
That list consists mostly of libertarians, not conservatives. One purpose of this site is so that people can be informed and tell the difference, which is like the difference between night and day. The Toronto Star article erred on this, as do many others who are otherwise well-informed.
The only clear conservative I recognized on the entire list was Pat Buchanan, who of course confirmed that he rejects evolution.
In response to Jrssr5, one cannot find nearly 100% correlation "between anything." Try finding a 100% correlation between conservatives and communism, for example.--Aschlafly 15:56, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
If you wish to re-define conservative, that's fine, but the people mentioned are self-identified conservatives, and are also widely known as conservatives.

Palmd001 15:59, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Not a 100% example, but what about Shakers? They're very conservative, but believe in the sharing of everything in their communal settlements. That's a very nice blend of communism and being conservative. Jrssr5 16:15, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Krauthammer, Buckley and Kristol aren't conservatives? Interesting response.--Murray 16:00, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Murray, stick around and you'll appreciate the huge difference between a libertarian, neoconservative and a conservative. Kristol, for example, is given as an example of a neoconservative. Then you won't make the error of the Toronto Star and declare Ayn Rand (an atheist) to have been a conservative.--Aschlafly 16:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Wow, I think we ARE trying to redefine "conservative". If so, please open a page that shows the difference between the commonly-understood term used the US, and your new definition, and you might also consider emailing millions of conservatives and let them know of their error. Palmd001 16:19, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

That's witty and I appreciate that! Thank you. To the extent you're serious, the definition here is the "commonly-understood term" and you don't cite any specific objections. Check out a conference of conservatives or the platforms for the Republican Party in some conservative states. If you're in the U.S., just ask some of your neighbors or co-workers. I'm sure many of them meet the definition easily. Among frequent churchgoers, a high percentage are conservative per the definition here.--Aschlafly 16:27, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I certainly wouldn't deny that regular church-goers are more likely to be Republican. However, that does not impact the definition of conservative. Once again, I'm not interested in creating the definition that will be used here, just clarifying it. I understand that many people would wish to "un-couple" Libertarians and Conservatives. That is not a bad idea, but hasn't really been done yet in this country. Perhaps we need a new term here, like "non-libertarian, reliously-minded conservatives (NLRMCs).Palmd001 16:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
The problem doesn't lie as much in Conservative's edits, but the fact that he is closed to any kind of discussion. Anything that goes in which he does not agree with 100% is soon reworded into such a disastrous sentence that it either doesn't support the original view, or is completely incoherent, filled with creationist rant. There are many types of conservatives and many different types of Christians, and Conservative's view of Christianity is certainly not the only way to interpret it (theistic evolutionists would certainly disagree with Conservative). If we can't learn to have open dialogue about content on an article, we won't be able do get anything done amidst the edit wars. And ownership of articles (such as Conservative is doing to Homosexuality, dinosaur, etc.) only serves to alienate the community and turn away many potentially good editors. Imagine what a fork of Conservapedia would look like! --Hojimachongtalk 18:16, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Fixed link in your post to what I think you mean - I admit it's easy to lose track of the various "hot" articles right now :) --Sid 3050 18:32, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Hadrian's wall

Hi, I did not add anything to this article and certainly didn't copy anything from wikipedia, I only changed the layout of the paragraph titles. Excalibre 14:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Democrat party

I have been trying to correct the name of the Democratic Party to the Democrat Party. User:ColinR threatened to ban me for doing this. Is this right? Repub 15:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

The name of the party is the Democratic Party of the United States. Members of the party are called Democrats. Calling it the "Democrat Party" is neither gramatically or factually correct.--Epicurius 15:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Repub,you are attempting to make a non-factual edit (also known as a lie). You might as well change Republican to "The Fucia Flower Cultivators of Northwest Connecticut". Palmd001 15:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

The Democrat Party has been called the Democrat Party by Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich, Frank Luntz, Tom DeLay, and George W. Bush. Why am I being threatened with being banned for making Conservapedia reflect what conservatives call things? Repub 16:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
The Democratic Party has been called the Democrat party as a derogatory term to make the party appear undemocratic. ColinR 16:06, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Because none of the people you mention belong to said party, or have the power to change the registered name. Either you are trying to stir up trouble, or you are just too dumb to understand.Palmd001 16:07, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

  • They have been called the Democratic Party ever since they were the Democratic-Republican caucus in Congress. :p - And why is this on this page, as opposed to the proper page? --~ Terry Talk2Me! 18:59, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Interiot

I recommend you grant sysop status to Interiot given the high number of maintance edits he's made and the complete abscence of controverisal edits as far as I can tell. This will allow him to categorize locked articles which as of now he has to request be done on the talk page and wait. ColinR 16:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Slavery

This article needs serious scrutiny. There's a sub-text at play here that slavery is somehow permissible and that, for example, slavery can be justified because of a perceived reduction in quality of life that descendants of slaves have experienced compared to their ancestors. The word "negro" is used, which is unacceptable, and there is an implication that the freedom of slaves was a socialist act rather than a humanitarian act. I do not want to touch the article because it is such a sensitive issue and I am simply not knowledgeable enough on the subject to write anything authoritative but it is written in a very suspicious tone. Airdish 18:11, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

  • I quite agree with you. Seems many have been busy since Aschlafly contributed some good stuff there. I posted in talk, hopefully you and some others will overhaul it. If you need help, contact me. --~ Terry Talk2Me! 18:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
  • I replaced "Negroes" with "blacks" though some might find blacks offensive. The reasoning behind my choice of words is that not all black people are African, American, or a combination of the two. ColinR 18:22, 20 March 2007 (EDT)


Dinosaur

Is Conservative the only Sysop who is allowed to determine what pages are protected or unprotected? Two sysops have tried to unprotect this page today (I haven't though I think it should be), and he has made this judgment. I think that he shouldn't have executive power. MountainDew 18:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Reply re: locking

It takes some thought how to reconcile the open-access features of wiki with the need to lock to address vandalism and irreconcilable ideological differences. I'd be curious how Wikipedia handles this. Some professional courtesy towards the person who developed the entry is warranted; some recognition that people come to us to read the conservative point-of-view is desired; and some appeal mechanism is probably desired. One question I'd ask is this: is the material sought to be added unavailable on Wikipedia?

Personally, I developed the Moon and Moon Theories entries and have unlocked them, but there have been many changes to omit undisputed facts and distort the entries for ideological purposes. The editor of the Bible entry had to block someone for repeatedly insisting on the same change. The people who develop good and popular entries, as Conservative has, deserve deference about their work. Agree or not, Conservative is giving visitors what they seek here and cannot get on Wikipedia. Make those entries more like Wikipedia's and the value of this site to internet users declines.--Aschlafly 18:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

So you are basically saying that this site will have a bias - a point of view on topics that will favor one explanation over another? If so, just say it and make it a Commandment and then we'll all know where we stand.--Dave3172 18:56, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I must say, nowhere in the commandments (which are stated as the only rules to editing Conservapedia) does it say "write with x bias, omit y). And the Dinosaur article is certainly not a good, popular entry; are you aware of how many blogs, news websites, IM messages, emails, etc. linked to the "Dinosaur" page here saying "rofl look it's soooo funny" (that was from the second of four emails I personally have recieved of this nature). Same is true with the Kangaroo and Moon theories article. They're so poorly written in some peoples eyes, that they are laughable. I really hope that isn't the direction we hope to be going in. --Hojimachongtalk 19:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I think the "write bias X, omit Y" gig comes from the definition of "inappropriate edit" and "non-factual"/"non-sourced". Everything that goes against the "conservative" (in Aschlafly's sense) view is being regarded as falling into these categories and can thus be reverted on sight. The thing that's slightly confusing is that Aschlafly's view of "conservative" seems to surprise quite a few people who consider themselves conservatives. Same goes for the "Christians believe in everything the Bible says" assertion.
Have to agree with the rest, though. These pages aren't so popular because they're so good. I've seen the Kangaroo entry being mocked in official news outlets of... I think four countries by now (US, Canada, Germany, France - the UK might have done it, too). And that's not even counting blogs, forums, etc. --Sid 3050 19:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Evolution, et al

We got some people here who prefer to butt heads rather than write a good article, so I added my own thoughts on the talk page as to how this article should be done, and it means a lot of people are going to have to swallow their pride and just get to work. What I wanted was a concise, authoritative, and well-written article on evolution, along with anything documented that contradicts it. I want the average student to read an absolutely great article presenting both sides of the argument. Your thoughts on it would be helpful. Karajou 19:49, 20 March 2007 (EDT)


I sent you a email to your AOL account

It is regarding the tech aspects of Wiki administration which you are looking for. Conservative 20:41, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Is a wiki realy the best choice?

Given the debate and locked articles that reflect a single viewpoint, is a wiki really the best choice for this project? Would it be better to have a group of people who follow the core tenants sit down and write a bunch of pages (that could be a wiki) and then publish them as a single unalterable set of pages for others to use? The reason that I ask this is that with constant fear of vandalism and infiltration by rational thinkers evolutionists, this site is ultimately reflecting that singular view, rather than the community view that a wiki typically demonstrates. The mission statement becomes easier and those who read it will likewise have a better understanding of who is doing the writing and what is being written about. --Mtur 20:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Alternately, you could announce on the front page that it's biased towards YEC views. If you admit the site's not neutral, I think many editors like me would stop trying (and failing) to make the site actually neutral!-AmesG 20:56, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I started the same discussion, its at Conservapedia:What exactly is Conservapedia?Palmd001 21:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Regarding my current dispute with User:RightWolf2

You got the last word. :-) --Aschlafly 19:47, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I thought it was a very healthy debate.Palmd001 19:48, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Hi Andy, I have appreciated editing here. This account was created to express the extreme views at the end of the conservative spectrum as a thought experiment to see if Conservapedia really was Conservative. After review of todays foray, it is our opinion that this project does not differ from Wikipedia significantly. Same people, same culture, same issues. We will forward a copy of our report to interested parties and the press. The Foundation did not sponsor our involvement here, another group did. We wish you the very best and success in your endeavors here. We have elected not to support funding of your project, and recommending other conservative groups do the same. Sincerely. User:RightWolf2
No wonder. You kept editing the Fred Phelps article to make it look like Fred Phelps was a mainstream Christian. We don't need the support of anybody who's going to do that. MountainDew 20:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
RightWolf2, I wish you all the best. With all due respect, I think we do differ significantly from Wikipedia, as recently identified here. Time will tell, I suppose. Regardless, we welcome you back at any time in the future.--Aschlafly 20:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
AmesG, give it a rest. Please.--Aschlafly 20:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd like to know who this shadowy group Right represents is. I think he is just flaming to upset people. This project is clearly not like Wikipedia.Palmd001 20:50, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, he just admitted that he didn't really believe what he posted. MountainDew 20:51, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

As much as I usually disagree with Andy, he's put a lot of hard work into this, and made this very different in all but superficial format from The Big Wik.Palmd001 20:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Personal tools