User talk:Aschlafly/Archive5

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Sysops/Admins & Some Organization....

Wouldn't it make sense to somehow organize the Admins here into some sort of hierarchy, some intermediate steps, levels, and some sort of Top Authority/Authorities, who would be responsible to, and communicate with Aschlafly, directly?

I see more and more shoved onto this page, and I can't imagine Andrew can be in all places at all times in a organized or productive way, with so much of his limited time taken up by housekeeping chores, or being cast as Solomon, everyone demanding his attention, and wanting even petty decisions to made by him. Seems it must be a very frustrating chore for him at times....

The solution arrived at many sites is delegation. There should indeed by some page dedicated to the Admins, out of public view, where they could interact freely, without publicly posting unverified information that could injure innocent parties. Disputes between Admins could be handled there, decided by one or more, (perhaps a panel) of the more experienced people. That area for Admins would also allow Mr. Schlafly to communicate his thoughts on style and content directly to those charged with patrolling and editing content.

Finally, it might be helpful if the Admins were identified, in their signatures, as I have edited mine for this post. Too many new faces are warned, or given instruction without them knowing who exactly the person giving the instruction/warning is. I don't know if the software allows for this, otherwise anyone who registers could add to their signature the words Sysop or Admin. Maybe some sort of graphic. And a page, listing who is a Sysop would be of great help. --~ Sysop-TK Talk2Me! 21:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

As I told Conservative, there is a page with all sysops. It's kinda sad, some sysops here know how to ban, but not how to unban, don't even bother to check into the Special pages, and do more things I won't even bother to mention. Wouldn't it be awesome if sysops here were taught more than just "If the user vandalizes a few articles, dish out an infinite ban"? Here you go, Mr. Sysop: Special:Listusers/sysop --Sid 3050 05:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
And you don't have to be a sysop to help people or to warn them when they do something stupid or vandalize. Oh, and "those charged with patrolling and editing content" are ALL EDITORS. The only thing that practically sets a sysop apart from a non-admin is the power to lock, delete, and block (plus the reverse actions). Editing, reverting, helping, and guiding can and will be done by others, too. --Sid 3050 06:26, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Yes, Sid, all that is true, however I don't know how long you have been here, most likely much longer than I have, but I would imagine, given the tenor of some, they would be very combative being told, or even instructed, no? It does absolutely no good, to have those pages, without the person being told, upon being made a Sysop, their location, etc. I think Mr. Schlafly needs to add some links to his Congrats post when he appoints someone. --~ TK (Sysop) Talk2Me! 06:59, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Well, I see two issues at work here:
  1. Biased articles that only push the YEC view and simply omit any pro-evolution information.
  2. Articles that claim to show the scientific (or unbiased) view and then twist words and mine quotes to spread as much doubt and misinformation as possible.
I could give you examples for both cases, but they should be easily recognizable.
If Andy gave clearer rules and goals about what content and style he wants to see in articles, the cases of the first type would certainly lose some of their heat. Right now, people argue there because Conservapedia claims to show facts, but doesn't admit its extreme YEC bias (and its complete anti-evolution view) while at the same time using these views as unwritten content rules. Some people point at the Conservapedia Commandments when reverting sourced paragraphs, but the rules they think of simply aren't in there. If Andy just said "Conservapedia does not accept the evolutionary position as fact. Evolution is completely wrong." in the Conservapedia Commandments, it would solve the content debate for those articles.
The second type of problems will not be solved by this, though. Some articles are/were horribly misrepresenting scientists and science in general. This went on to the degree of using a paper that proposed scientific tests of a hypothesis to "prove" that the hypothesis is untestable. This is not tied to some sort of bias, this is plain wrong, and people will continue to fight against this.
One consequence of such a content/goal clarification may very well be that some contributing editors will simply leave the site because of the confirmation that they're fighting a lost battle. But those people might also leave because of Conservapedia's "We present the truth! ...with truth meaning the Bible, but we won't admit that openly." position.
The current complaint is that Conservapedia is enforcing things that aren't stated as rules or guidelines. Regardless of context, that is a very bad thing and should be fixed (either by putting an end to these acts or by explicitly stating these things in the rules). --Sid 3050 07:59, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Well, knowing full well we are passing ideas back and forth here, instead of talking about the subject of the post, and it is Andrew's page, let me give you my impressions. I haven't had any conversations or emails with Schlafly about this, but all I have read from Andrew is that he wants to make sure Christians and Conservative thought isn't given short-shrift. Now some who are not so inclined, it is as difficult for them to be unbiased about what they might well consider "those wacky Christians". Same for devote fundamentalists who just know those poor secular devils are going to burn. I haven't read anything by him that makes me suspicious he's at all some wacko fundamentalist. And yes, I can assure you even Christians sometimes wince at what some of our Brothers and Sisters say. Schlafly is kinda weird about McCain, I give you that. But in truth the guy (McCain) just freaks me out. I don't know if he's wound too tight, or his whole prisoner-of-war deal has had some long-term effects, but it gives me a feeling. I once worked for a politician who was a big football star, in his day. Sometimes he was just weird, like maybe he played a game or two without a helmet. I think some who are not religious get a weird feeling around devote Christians. And maybe that is what is happening here. Maybe some people's perceptions of what he is wanting is getting in the way of doing what it is he really wants, namely just making sure those who are denied a voice in the so-called mainstream (like Wikipedia and the established networks)media, get a fair deal. But reading what some of those who he has made Sysops have to say, I rather think he's much more open to things than most people think...and I don't see him banning any of them right and left. Hell, he even made me one! He doesn't know it yet, but I was saying stuff like Coulter says before she was out of grade school! So, if he can tolerate me, he's probably more open-minded than he should be. ;-)
Now, let's get back to what I was saying about training and some management structure for Sysops...... --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 08:59, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Agreed about the cutting of the tangent. And yes, a sort of intro page for admins would be nice. Since the system is the same (minus a few extensions), we could link to the Wiki Help pages for the more complex issues. No need to re-invent the wheel when it comes to writing a manual. Same goes for editors who want to improve things as a whole but don't know where to begin (or don't have the time for major edits). There are quite a few helpful pages that often get overlooked, I think. --Sid 3050 09:30, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Here is the Wiki tech pro I told you about.

Here is the Wiki tech pro I told you about: User:Ed Poor I hope he can help with the database issue we discussed. Conservative 21:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Should I email you my phone number? I helped another encyclopedia project organize its database using MediaWiki. --Ed Poor 13:49, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Reply to all of the above

I don't have all the answers. That's what makes these issues interesting, and worthy of further thought. But I do know this: we don't want to become more like Wikipedia. That's not why we're here. No one will visit a Wikipedia wannabee either.

60% of Americans accept the Great Flood as described in the Old Testament. Maybe the other 40% think that's cuckoo, nutso, bonkers, and too silly even to recognize. Maybe the liberal blogs can amuse themselves all day and night mocking that 60% majority. But you know what? That 60% fights in our wars, pays for our government, donates to our blood banks, and fills our churches. I welcome them to our site. The liberal bloggers are welcome, too, and I'm sure more than a few of them have heard things they never heard before. That's what this is all about.--Aschlafly 22:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I certainly have heard things here that I never heard before. But you fail to mention that only 45% believe in some form of creation/ID, and much less than that are YECs, and this site is directed towards YECs.
That said, let's assume arguendo that America is 50/50. You know what the other 50% do? They decode the human genome, fight cancer and disease (recognizing that bacteria and viruses evolve), they plumb the depths of the universe, they landed us on the moon, they answer the mysteries of quantum physics, they cure you when you're sick, and they give you computers to type on when you're well, and they keep you well in case Alzheimer's or Parkinson's catch up with you some day. And they keep America at the cutting edge, because at the end of the day, it's our scientific prowess and curiosity that made America great, and make sure that we stay that way.
Oh, and that other 50% doesn't like to be called a bunch of "liberals" or "evolutionists."-AmesG 23:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
One of the things I admire about Andy's statement is that it acknowledges the problem so-called liberals have with disrespecting religious conservatives. One thing I think can be accomplished at this site is to have information that does not talk down to or insult that 60 percent or whatever it may be. Still, fact is fact, science is science, and these need to be respectfully communicated. I am certainly a sinner in this regard, but I am always fighting my baser nature.Palmd001 00:07, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

regarding Wiki tech pros

I am not sure if the links I gave you in the email message worked as hotmail acts up.

Here are the two gentleman:

1. Chris Ashcroft at CreationWiki

2. here is another Wiki tech pro: He is the head administrator for an Intelligent Design board.

Conservative 22:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

If you guys need any help with that stuff, I'm also ready and willing. See my user page. --Ymmotrojam 23:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
WOW! You are one conservative Wiki tech dude!!! LOL Conservative 23:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Andy, don't miss the post above. You have found your Wiki tech pro!

Take a look at this guys user page and the post above: User:Ymmotrojam

You have found your Wiki tech pro!

Conservative 23:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative


I accidentally blocked Noodles, I misread the logs of his actions and blocked him for spam that he actually removed. Could you please unblock his account. I can't figure out how.--Elamdri 05:50, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

For future reference, just go to Special:Ipblocklist, find the block you want to remove, and click 'unblock.' Tsumetai 05:53, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Natural Disaster Talk page

Its getting kinda outta hand. Could you take a look at it? I don't want it to get ugly.--Elamdri 12:33, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

That's seems kind of amusing. It is an obscure entry and there doesn't seem to be any harm in the dispute. I'd let them argue back and forth for a while. But I trust your judgment.--Aschlafly 12:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm making them move it to a debate page, so I don't have to play mother hen anymore. It was fun for a while, but I'm too tired to care anymore.--Elamdri 12:45, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
That's smart. I should have suggested that!--Aschlafly 12:47, 21 March 2007 (EDT)


The Judaism article is currently locked on a highly inaccurate and preposterous version, which claims that the Jews are descended from Satan and the Celts and Germans are descended from the Israelites. Dorpfeld 12:38, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I'll check it out. Sounds like vandalism.--Aschlafly 12:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
I unlocked it for you. But if inappropriate edits are made, then it will be locked again. The personal opinion should be removed, and I question the accuracy of one of the Bible quotes. So please fix. Thanks.--Aschlafly 12:47, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
I didn't mean to lock it on that version. One of the Hitler vandals had just changed it to their standard vandalism about 9/11, and I reverted it without reading the entire thing. I apologize. MountainDew 14:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

More on CP:AID

See Conservapedia:Article_Improvement_Drive#Germany_Chosen_as_First_AID_Project.21 for the first round, and notify people as you see necessary (a main page link might be nice, but then again, this opens up to vandals). I'm pumped up for this! --Hojimachongtalk 20:52, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I've written about the reformation there already tonight (Germany)--Aschlafly 22:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I figured you might like to look at the proof of the print version of the logo I put together. It's visible on my talk page. Any suggestions for improvements are welcome. --BillOReillyFan 20:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

It looks fantastic. By the way, was your other version hacked into?--Aschlafly 22:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Bill fan, our webmaster confirms that your new version is clean. I assume you're OK with releasing all rights to your design, for the good of this project. Could you confirm? Thanks.--Aschlafly 22:43, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Regarding two versions of an article on the Theory of evolution

An article is being developed regarding the Theory of evolution written from an evolutionist perspective. Here it is: I don't think we should have two articles. The evolutionists would link to it rather than the present article on the subject. We would have links to a pro-evolutionist article all over the place (in articles such as bee, cow, dog, cat, Maple tree, etc etc etc) and have no links to a creationist perspective in a WHOLE LOT of articles. By the way, I am sending an email to your AOL account. Conservative 22:09, 21 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

I agree it should, be deleted.--TimSvendsen 22:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
What does Conservatism have against that scientific theory? Conservapedia does not have a bias against facts, right? Myk 22:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Evolution is not proven Fact, therefore the lack of a bias against facts has no bearing on dicussion. --TimSvendsen 22:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
You would contend that the biblical creation story is a proven fact? --Mtur 22:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Is the article presenting evolution as fact or is it presenting factual arguments supporting it? Myk 22:30, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Having competing entries seems like a bad precedent to me. If someone creates an entry called "Richard Nixon", then can someone else create an entry called "The Real Richard Nixon"? Real encyclopedias would not have competing entries, so we shouldn't either.--Aschlafly 22:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
The next most reasonable approach would be to merge the two, but in a away that preserves the information presented in Scientific ToE. As it stands, the various pages about evolution are very one sided and locked. If the creationist standpoint gets to refute each point of evolution, shouldn't evolution be allowed to present the proper facts (and refute the creationist standpoint?) --Mtur 22:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
I did merge the 2 right before i deleted the 2nd version. (which was immediately recreated) --TimSvendsen 22:49, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
I see very little of the material integrated in. There was a change to one paragraph with minimal facts and one citation merged in. --Mtur 22:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
There is no such thing as "refuting" the truth. Conservapedia Webmaster 22:47, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
May I interpret that, Conservapedia Webmaster, as saying that this site has a pro-creationist bias? Two theories that aren't "Facts" but one is "true" and the other is not seems pretty biased. Myk 22:52, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I think it's important to distinguish the two definitions of "evolution". On one hand, "evolution" is shorthand for "evolutionary theory", which is indeed a theory. But when referring to the actual observed evolution of bacteria in a laboratory, the word "evolution" describes a fact. Just my $0.02. --Hojimachongtalk 22:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

in response to notice of an email by a SYSOP:

Do I sense a purge?Palmd001 23:18, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

No.--Aschlafly 23:25, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Palmd001, read my thoughts above in Sysops/Admins & Some Organization. I think on what matters most to the Founders here, You could certainly say there is a tilt towards what the majority of Americans believe. That includes a general, if not a 100% literal, belief in Creation. That includes a general belief that the United States is a noble (not infallible) country, one that has given more blood and treasure to others throughout the world, than any country in all history, one that has freed more people, and kept them free, than any nation that has ever existed. Now, to start from that premise isn't bias, as it is fact for most of us. Bias would be failing to note and include the thoughts of others. One can be a judge, in a court of law, and still render fair and impartial verdicts, even if disagreeing with the defendant's action(s). Wikipedia doesn't even entertain the possibility that other than the secular progressive idea of things exists. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 23:49, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Well, I agree with much of what you say, however, when writing factual articles about science (my area of expertise) fact is fact, unpleasant or otherwise. To give a non-science example, I agree that in general, the US has been a huge force for good in the world. The My Lai massacre doesn't chage this general trend, but it cannot be ignored either, as it happened, and we can learn from it.Palmd001 00:00, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
TerryK, sure, almost all believe that God had a hand in creation, but maybe 10% are YEC. That's it. Also, regardless of beliefs, evolution is the backbone of modern biological science. If you want China to eat us alive, or England, or - God help us - France, then by all means let's teach creation in schools. But it is IMPORTANT that people are aware of the scientific basis of evolution. Thankfully, the law agrees. God bless it.-AmesG 00:30, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
  • I wonder how many factual scientific papers have been written over the last two hundred years or so that have been latter shown to be crap? You don't have to agree with the basic premise of the Conservapedia to abide by the rules here. Much like some people want others to remove their shoes before entering their house. It doesn't make you wrong for wearing them in your house, does it? --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 00:33, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
I just want to be told flat out why this information can't exist on this site. As the facts supporting evolutionary theory are not politically charge, I assume the problem is based in religion. Is that the case? The webmaster appears to be saying so. Myk 00:36, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Comment: I think there are two basic problems with the current position. One, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of quality control. There's a significant credibility gap between, say, Kent Hovind and Answers in Genesis. It's not the mere presence of pro-Creationist arguments that I object to, but rather the fact that some of the arguments getting through are truly dire.

Secondly, creationist arguments should be given only after a coherent description of whatever the argument is actually about. In the Dinosaur article, we get all of two sentences describing what dinosaurs are, before launching into pages of creationist arguments. Indeed, we're told that creationists reject the mainstream view before we're actually told what the mainstream view is!

So in my view, what science articles about contended issues should look like is this:

  1. A detailed description of what the mainstream position is. Not stated as fact, not peppered with 'this is wrong!' commentary. Just lay out what the material being disputed actually is.
  2. A discussion section/sections where arguments for both sides are fleshed out in a sensible, coherent manner.
  3. Further reading section with literature representative of both sides.

I would hope that's a suggestion that both sides can get behind. Tsumetai 06:07, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

That's all I've wanted from this site, and I think it's objectively fair. Andy, in refusing to do this, if that's what you're doing, you should realize that you're going against the majority consensus of your users and your admins. You and user:Conservative are I think the only sysops opposed to a balanced perspective, and even if there are more, the sysops in favor of balance still far outweigh, I think. The only alternative is admitting your pro-YEC bias openly and in an easily-viewable manner.-AmesG 17:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
AmesG, no matter how you analyze it, there is no way to scientifically refute that the human species all descended from one single common parent. RobS 22:12, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Actually, looking at the rate of drift in genetic mutations, it has been shown that today's human population are all descendants of a small family group[1]. Science is not trying to refute that. --Mtur 22:18, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Pending issues

Fixing the math (LaTex) is top priority right now. We want that capability and we want to build math entries here.

Thanks to the person who identified an error that had crept into one of my lectures, due to editing by someone else. I've fixed it.

Queen's-English vs. American-English

There seems to be genuine anger from Australia, England and elsewhere about our American English rule. Maybe our rule goes too far. Is there a middle ground on this that still avoids the anti-American excesses of Wikipedia? Maybe our rule should be limited to entry names, not contents, in respect of our friends who stayed with the Queen's spellings. Comments welcome here, or if someone wants to start a new entry on this.--Aschlafly 23:25, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't think we need to have American-English only entry/article names per say. We can have redirects going from the Queens-english article names to the American-english entries/articles. Conservative 23:31, 21 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
I think it's the redirects that are the main cause of contention on wikipedia. The sense that the wiki is telling you that your spelling is wrong following a redirect. How would that help our British and Australian users? Myk 23:43, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
There are plenty of conservatives and christians in the Commonwealth who we have no need to alienate. The two spellings should be interchangable, as we all understand what is meant. Pro-Americanism should be reflected more in content than in spelling. Palmd001 23:45, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
As far as quotations, proper names, etc. goes, I think the original source needs to be copied verbatim, which means if it was written in Queen's English, it should stay. Otherwise, stick to the commandment, it gives people something to hunt for... pacifices the masses :D. --Hojimachongtalk 23:45, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Redirects would help Brits because they might not be aware of an American-english spelling. Conservative 23:47, 21 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
I briefly had a discussion with a self identified Non-American conservative who saw our site and he said he would never be a contributor because he was offended by our making such a big deal about spelling (American vs. British). I also think it is excessive nationalism on out part to make such a big deal about the issue. Afterall, the brits are one of the few countries to help us in our Iraq situation. Conservative 23:52, 21 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Agreed. In the great scheme of things, it's a complete non-issue, and is here purely for symbolic reasons, is it not? --Hojimachongtalk 23:53, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm always happy if there is an issue I can agree with Conservative on. For instance, when we get around to an estrogen article, the brits spell it oestrogen and could get quite lost. Palmd001 23:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Quoting original pieces shoud, of course, be exact, not corrected for American English. I think the main point is, as stated above, that the general catagories, page headings, and sub headings be in American English. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 23:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
  • The question is an interesting one. I suggest that the only real compromise is to allow spellings in either form. If an article is written with an American English title then have a Quenn's English redirect and vice versa. In the body of an article either version should be left as written by the editor. --Horace 00:04, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
I think I have to eat crow on this one. Let's sleep on this but I think we should either delete the spelling rule altogether, or confine the rule to American English spelling of titles of entries.--Aschlafly 00:39, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
As often as you and I are at odds, Asch, I see no harm in the American spelling rule. Confining it to titles of articles might be a good idea; having different spellings would be objectively harmful to the encyclopedia's accessibility, after all, but the harm could be argued to end there.-AmesG 00:45, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
I think this could be characterized as a "procedural" commandment rather than a "substantive" commandment. Haha, I looooove Erie doctrine. Just hoping to get a laugh out of you, Andy, since we're fellow "law talkin' guys," as the Simpsons would call us.-AmesG 00:50, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Thats too bad thier offended. I say America first, everyone else take a number. If they want the "Queens-English" let them go elsewhere. --Wally 00:55, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Wally! There should be an apostrophe in "That's". And "thier" is spelled "their". There is no hyphen in Queen's English (but there is an apostrophe). Or are you just pulling my leg with your post? Get with the programme! --Horace 01:02, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
I am for removing the spelling rule altogether. We can use redirects to go to the American-English entry. The is no sense in prominently offending lots of Queen's English individuals. Conservative 13:07, 22 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Colour redirect

Thanks for quickly spotting my request at Talk:Colour when I made the edit last night. However, I was hoping the main page (colour) would be protected, not the talk page, specifically to avoid the inevitable forking and reverting from occurring on a daily basis. So if you could protect the other one (as a redirect), that'd be great. Thanks. --Interiot 00:31, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Sorry. That was an inept mistake on my part. I've fixed it now.--Aschlafly 00:37, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Anti-Semitism from Berlin, Germany

Here's something sobering: new user "Hawt Sauce," from an IP address in Berlin, Germany, (I have the full address), ISP Strato Rechenzentrum AG, just moved "Jews" to "Oven" and did likewise for the talk pages. Isn't that a serious crime today in Germany? It should be. German speakers, can you help me follow up on this in your country?--Aschlafly 00:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

I think that's actually holocaust denial, which is something like 10 years in prison. I don't know about anti-Semetism, but remember reading a debate about it somewhere. I'll go read up on this, and pull up a reference. --Hojimachongtalk 01:41, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Didn't the Germans just throw somone in jail for this? Geo. 01:43, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Yes. It is very much against the law there, and other European countries. Holocaust Denial carries a fine or 1 month, up to a maximum of 5 years in Germany. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 02:07, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
On free speech grounds, I'm opposed to such laws, but as long as such laws exist, I would have no problem with prosecuting this. It makes me angry that somebody would do this on our project. MountainDew 02:18, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

While I (as a German) agree that it's tasteless (and could count as antisemitism - not sure what the legal situation in that regard is, although I'm fairly certain that Germany does have laws in this area), could somebody explain to me how moving "Jews" to "Oven" counts as "Holocaust Denial"? The guy you're thinking of claimed that the Holocaust is all a big lie to blackmail Germany or something. That's a slightly different level. You of course shouldn't tolerate this sort of move vandalism, but that's no reason to use AA guns against sparrows. --Sid 3050 05:46, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, moving "Jews" to "Ovens" of course is a metaphor. Or perhaps the sick humor of someone with the mentality of a boy, about age 12. ;-) --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 05:51, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Agreed about the maturity of the vandal. ;) And I just now noticed the obvious (Give me a break, I just woke up, and my brain's still in first gear =P): Ironically enough, moving "Jews" to "Ovens" is pretty much an argument against a "Holocaust Denial" motivation. --Sid 3050 05:56, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm glad that Aschlafly doesn't consider this to be trivial, even if this particular edit might be just someone young trying a breaching experiment. This is only a leading indicator, but it's only a matter of time before the sorts of groups that Bill O'Reilly calls "neo-Nazi" discover Conservapedia. Dpbsmith 06:11, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

This document [2] states,

In Germany, for example, it is illegal to promote Nazi ideology. In many European countries, it is illegal to deny the reality of the Holocaust. Authorities in Denmark, France, Britain, Germany, and Canada have brought charges for crimes involving hate speech on the Internet.

So it makes a disctinction between Holocaust denial and promoting Nazi ideology in Germany. RobS 22:04, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Mexico / 404 problem

This problem was discussed on your talk page previously, but there didn't seem to be any resolution to it. The problem appears to be that any page that ends in "ico" returns a 404. For instance, Mexico, calico, even things like Special:Whatlinkshere/RandomGibberish/MoreGibberish/Rico. However, if the pages are accessed via index.php: [3] [4] [5], they load without problem. To me, it seems like the Apace webserver is causing the problem, but I may not be knowledgeable enough about it. Would it be possible to have your webmaster look at the problem? --Interiot 02:03, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

The problem may be down to a mistyped RewriteRule in .htaccess; there ought to be an exception there for files with a .ico extension. Possibly the dot is missing/not escaped. Tsumetai 11:02, 22 March 2007 (EDT)


I do plan on being up at least for another 30 minutes, so I can take care of it. MountainDew 02:37, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

The name isn't necessarily bad, because the phrase "I like big Bibles" is prominent in a popular Christian song. But I am being vigilant. MountainDew 02:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Aschlafly, I do not think that will be necessary. Also i'm curious as to why you think my 'edits and name highly suggest the need to block.' Cheers. Ilikebigbibles 02:50, 22 March 2007 (EDT)


I made a new username. could you make it a sysop. I emailed you about it. --Cnserv.Admin.TSSBBP 10:19, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't know if using a username like that is allowed... Conservapedia Webmaster 10:20, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

How about this one --CPAdmin1 12:05, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

  • So a user would assume CPAdmin1 is the head administrator? --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 16:41, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
  • I agree with Terry. That's confusing and potentially misleading. MountainDew 16:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

It appears as if our Conservapedia logo may have an obscene message inside.

It appears as if our logo may have an obscene message inside.

Please click this link:

Please also click this link:

I am not too technical but someone look into this. Conservative 12:18, 22 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Ha! Thats actually pretty funny, its true, I did the same thing, you can test it yourself, just download imagemagick and open up the image. Tmtoulouse 12:33, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
We are aware of this and have been for a few days. We are not sure if OReilly is responsible or it is vandalism. However, the logos on this site are for the most part "clean" versions. CPWebmaster 12:36, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Hey, its your, urm, site so your call! Tmtoulouse 12:41, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
The version currently showing top-left is most definitely not a clean version. I also don't see how anyone could have altered the image, given the upload logs. Tsumetai 12:46, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
I noticed it when the grey-ish background image had still been there. :D With my contrast settings, you could just see the lower message (and when I got curious and opened it, it showed the upper message, too). Whoever did it has my respect for the creativity and execution! --Sid 3050 12:43, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't know what I would be more impressed with, if someone sneaked one in over the Billoriely submission,or if he himself has been taking this whole site for a ride. Either way its classic. Tmtoulouse 12:47, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
It's clearly visible on the first version of the logo uploaded from BillOreillyFan... you just have to know to look for it. [6] The history is pristine. Myk 16:49, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Confirmed for me as well. --Ymmotrojam 17:01, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Is the consensus here that BillOReillyFan is likely responsible for the obscenity, rather than a later hack? I'll ask him for an explanation. I'd be against using this, if true.
I've been thinking that it might be nice to have something American in the logo, such as a symbol from the flag. One of the logos on the draft page did have that.--Aschlafly 17:26, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
The one linked in my previous post [7] is clear without any alteration and has a file history of exactly one user. If it's a hack, it's a legitimate hack and not just standard wikivandalism. Myk 17:29, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Request Page Protection

We respectfully ask you protect the following pages:

Pursuant to Federal and State Privacy Laws, We also request that you purge our IP information from CheckUser and Conservapedia's logs and your database. We do not give consent for release of any of our private information to third parties.




Ok, that kind of comment from an anonymous user is threatening, unfriendly, and downright rude, and Andy should not be intimidated by it. I don't think he really knows the law anyway.Palmd001 15:08, 22 March 2007 (EDT)


And we wish you the very best in your future endeavors. RightWolf2 15:10, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Who is this mysterious "we" again? This guy is a gutless, cowardly crank who just wants to intimidate you. I hope he is not from my end of the political spectrum. He should be ashamed of himself. An yes, Wolf, you can quote me, and I'll give you my real name, you coward.Palmd001 15:11, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

I think when he refers to himself as "we", he means himself and his computer, and possibly his cat. He can disprove that by coming out of the anonymity closet.Palmd001 15:13, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Opinion from a non-lawyer: I'd like to see the specific laws that say that the IP address has to be deleted or that a talk page should be locked. Surprise, you effectively agreed to share your IP with the server the moment you came here. And registering a user account for your experiment or whatever only tied that IP to the disruption of yesterday's work flow. Whoops, but that's not Conservapedia's fault, I think. The choice was yours. --Sid 3050 15:47, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

I protected their user page, which redirects to their talk page anyway. niandra 15:52, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

This seems rather odd to me. The talk page is traditional used to hold a conversation with the user for which protection is rather silly. Wouldn't it be more useful to have the content on the talk page moved to the user page and then protected there - so that one can still communicate with the user in the event they decide to come out of retirement in the future? Otherwise, there will be no way to communicate changes in policies or address disputes that may be had. --Mtur 15:57, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Their user page is protected, you can still contact them on their talk page which is not protected. This means that vandals cannot change the redirection and page contents of the user's proper page. niandra 16:15, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
CPAdmin1 made a reasonable change - the content at the user page is a duplicate of what is at the talk page currently and that content is protected. The talk page is still available for people to edit and discussions to be held as necessary. It would be silly to protect a talk page. --Mtur 16:21, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
I wonder if the person making that request understands the History feature? I wonder if he meant to request deletion rather than protection?
On Wikipedia, the standard response to this sort of thing is to point out that by posting anything to Wikipedia you have agreed to release it under the GFDL, and therefore no longer have any control over it (you can't "take it back.") On Conservapedia, the situation is murky. Dpbsmith 16:38, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
We've honored the request by protecting the pages. We don't release IP addresses except in rare cases of reporting abuse or self-defense.
I consider this matter closed and this exchange will be archived from this page later today.--Aschlafly 17:09, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Personal tools