User talk:Aschlafly/Archive8

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Liberal academia is almost a redundant phrase. Cheney's wife wrote a book detailing hundreds of episodes of liberal bias dominating classrooms and even professors being fired for daring to challenge liberal dogma. Give me a minute to start the entry, and then see Telling the Truth. --Ed Poor 18:20, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Look Andy, the claim on the main page is an uncited, unencyclopedic POV statement that should be panned per Commandments 2 & 6. Follow the rules you create. Also, it implicitly equates liberalism (or Brown) with racism. If you want to open that can of worms, then just admit that this site isn't NPOV, and admit it loudly on the front page.

And Ed, does it tell you something that most academicians are liberal?-AmesGyo 19:09, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

AmesG, are you really asking me to provide a citation for what is completely obvious and not disputed? The students and faculty of Brown University probably voted for Kerry over Bush by a 2:1 or higher margin. Nobody doubts this. Look yourself if you seriously doubt this.--Aschlafly 19:14, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm sorry Andrew, but you just backed up your unsourced claim with an unsourced guess. That doesn't follow any logical rules I'm aware of. Myk 19:19, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Please (1) then cite it from the main page, and (2) you fail to address my complaint of the implicit link between liberalism and racism that your commentary suggests. Since you're teaching to impressionable young students, I'm sure that teaching such bigotry is not your goal... right?-AmesGyo 19:17, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Andy, this deserves a reply and your immediate attention.-AmesGyo 19:38, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

2+2=4, When you have posting originating from a Brown U IP, logic dictates that the person must be a student or faculty member of said school. By posting it front and center, Brown is more likely to actually find the person(s) responsible. Geo. 19:44, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Geo, the goal of posting it there and phrasing it in that way is nothing of the sort of retributive justice of "getting the guy caught." Please. The phrasing clearly indicates the goal is to slander the university as a "racist pack of liberals." -AmesGyo 19:46, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, logic dictates that, all right. Unless the computer is running a proxy. Then, pretty much anybody could've done it. So spare me your "2+2=4" stuff to make it look trivial. Apparently, there have been copy machines distributing "The Two Towers" online, so FEW things are given in situations such as this one.
And Andy could've just, you know, mailed the guys there with the info. If he did (which I assume), then posting it on the front page helps in what way? Ponder, ponder. Oh, I know! NO WAY! It just heightens the chance that people there might go "Well, *bleep* you, too. If you attack us like that in public, why should we help you?". --Sid 3050 19:52, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't see the big fuss here. This was racist vandalism. It's like spraypainting the "N" word on the side of a building. The victim is not so much the building, but the group targeted by the racism. In this example from the Brown University, American Indians and Jewish people are targeted. That's what is offensive about it. By the way, I had previously heard that Conservapedia was a topic on the Brown campus.
The fact that this racism was the obviously the result of significant effort only makes it even more objectionable. The author was obviously amused by himself. Doesn't that make it worse?
If someone was seen spraypainting a racist comment and returning to his dorm room at Brown, wouldn't a reporter publish that? You bet he would. He should.--Aschlafly 23:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
There was a racial incident in the dorms of a Christian college near Kansas City. It was reported in the media and denounced by the university. Also, the chancellor spoke at my church one day and mentioned his regret for the incident. If dealt with, it shouldn't impugn the whole college. Somehow, I don't see Brown being as apologetic in this case, but I'm saying it can happen. MountainDew 01:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

For the record, the issue was (settled now, right?) not that reporting racism is bad. The issue is that the method of your reporting is done to slander a group of people, only one of whom possibly committed the vandalism, while the possibility still existed that NOT ONE on the Brown campus was responsible! As was pointed out above, IP spoofing is rampant among web users. You can't say with certainty on the internet that "that guy was from Brown!" and even if he was it's inappropriate to publicly hold the university culpable for the actions of one of its students. Andy, this is a basic legal doctrine. I'm sure you agree. And for the record, of course Conservapedia is an issue at Brown. It's an issue at any institute of higher learning where objective discussion of science, etc., is carried on. For the record, I'm pretty sure you banned some members of my girlfriend's club at Rice - would you like to say, "a vandal at Rice University attacked this site" on the front page? Why not, "a vandal from the United States of America attacked Conservapedia"? -AmesGyo! 15:30, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

OMG it's still on the frontpage. -AmesGyo! 16:16, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Brown University is apparently on spring break. I think we've beaten this horse to death, so I'll take it down from the front page as soon as I have a chance.--Aschlafly 17:28, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks Andy!!!-AmesGyo! 17:30, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, the longer we leave this up there, the more we're begging for more vandalism. The buzz around the Internet is that people think that this whole thing is funny. MountainDew 18:24, 27 March 2007 (EDT)


I requested that someone create a Template:Disambiguation, which someone did, but it is copied from wikipedia. Could someone remove it and construct one of our own?--Elamdri 15:23, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I've made an attempt at rephrasing it. --Sid 3050 17:20, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Richard's Hit List

Sysop Richard is abusing his authority and creating a generally hostile environment by keeping a public list of editors and what he perceives as their biases. He is also questioning qualifications without giving any of his own, and I must admit to taking personal offense at his attack on my qualifications. He really should be stopped from his intimidation tactics.Palmd001 18:11, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Well is he some anonymous Internet persona, or someone who (like me) has the guts to use his real name? I work at ABC. You can reach me by phone, etc. A lot of wiki-folks just want the fun without the accountability. --Ed Poor 18:19, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
That's unfair. It doesn't take "guts" to use your real name on a Wiki. It doesn't take anything. In addition to that, you are evading the request, even though I suppose it wasn't meant for you. GofG ||| Talk 18:25, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
OK, ill pick up the gantlet then...Ill post un-anonymize myself, and if Richard or anyone else has the guts, go for it. If I receive any harassement, phone calls, mail (excluding e-mail), I hold you morally, but not legally, responsible.Palmd001 18:39, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

This was resolved by User:Palmd001 self identifying. He still managed to maintain his sense of umbrage. To be clear I'm not arguing anyone should be forced to identify but on my user note page of probable and confirmed liberals those who give qualifications that are not backed up by citation deserve extra watchfulness for Essjay-ism. I did not call him a liar or anything else, just "trust...then verify". Richard 19:29, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

This list has a user copyrighting his contributions and forcing others to use his license. Should I wipe the license? Geo. 19:37, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
I do think there should be a commandment against what Frijole is doing, nonetheless his McCarthy work really got some good work started. I'm slightly wary of "copyleft"ing as it is called. Richard 21:17, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Ok, so in other words, he wants only those whom he identifies as liberals to give their bona fides, but not anyone else. What an idiot. Also, some Frijole guy is threatening to block me because of what he sees as liberal edits. Also Richard left off on his little list the reason I added my name...not because of my politics, but because I object to the list. Andy, you really should do something about these guys. PalMD 20:05, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Yknow I added myself to this list, just because I don't agree with singling out people for their beliefs, be they religious, political, or whatever. I am a liberal, but I like editing this site, I like stopping vandals, and I can play nice with everyone here. I see no reason to single out people just because they are liberal.--Elamdri 21:53, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

This list and the way it's worded are a disgrace to this site. McCarthyism, anyone? MountainDew 01:44, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I consider McCarthyism accusations to be a compliment albeit hyperbole. McCarthy was a great man. Richard 08:21, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Agree with Mountain Dew and request the removal of the page. There must be a better way for you to keep track of "people you are watching". If you need technical help, ask someone for it (me, for example). Interiot seems pretty knowledgeable, too.
The point is to refrain from saying or doing anything which hurts other contributors' feelings. --Ed Poor 13:27, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
I apologize for being habitually politically incorrect. I do not know why simply noting their liberal stance would hurt their feelings. It is a mere fact. Why does the truth hurt? Richard 13:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
You really don't get it. It is not that anyone minds truth, it is that when selectively using the "truth" to intimidate that you cross the line. If you really want to do it right, have a list where everyone can attempt to self-define their "handedness", although not all of us fall into an easy category, and while youre at it, perhaps we should give our race. After all, Im not ashamed of my racial indentification, and it certainly influences my view on the world, so why not make it public for all to see? BTW, you should remembe to read my Eco article, the link is still up on my pagePalMD 14:07, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm okay with a public resource....but you seem to be engaging in a bit of hyperbole so I'm unsure that you're serious. If you like feel free to copy the page to the Conservapedia: namespace and add discussion pages where folks can respond to whether they are liberals or not. However I think we've been judicious in this (myself and the other couple of sysops who use this guide) you seem to be engaging in a slippery slope argument and have a lot of MSM poison as to what McCarthyism was all about. Makes for an interesting debate topic. I think the Dies Committee should be reconvened to weed out terrorists. No one has brought up race but you. There are conservatives in every ethnic group. It might be helpful if we identify athiests and anti-creationists but that isn't my project (for one my views aren't young earth) Richard 15:40, 27 March 2007 (EDT)


If he is willing to be productive, I will parole him. I just didn't want a vengeful user making a mess. Geo. 19:37, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Perhaps if this happens again (when it happens again), the process should include the other Sysop's instead of taking unilaterial action? I say this because Andrew never told me one Sysop had more authority than another, except for Bureaucrats. If one follows your logic, Geo, any other Sysop would be justified in removing the blocks of another, without consultation. I am fairly certain you wouldn't have liked it had I reversed your block, right? --~ TerryK MyTalk 21:12, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
  • I personally feel leaving sysop's to their own devices, if they are to be banned, I feel that's Andy's Decision or the Webmaster.--Elamdri 22:05, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't understand the comment..... --~ TerryK MyTalk 22:07, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
I was basically agreeing with you.--Elamdri 22:09, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Perhaps you will contact me, then, so that some discussion can be initiated about giving the Sysop's as a whole, more direction and unity, directed purpose. --~ TerryK MyTalk 00:48, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
When I banned him he wasn't a Sysop. Geo. 01:17, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Well, that is certainly good enough reason to ignore my suggestion, lol. Sorry, but with or without Tmtoulouse, the issue remains, and injures the progress here. There is a need for rules of conduct and procedures for Sysops. I would submit there is room for only one benign dictator at most sites, and everyone else involved in its administration need clearly spelled-out rules of conduct and a known channel of communication with each other. So long as any Sysop feels it their right to act unilaterially to resolve or deal with conflicts, even with each other, the uproar will continue.--~ TerryK MyTalk 01:27, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Terry, go easy, please. Geo's right. And since then TmToulouse (sp?) has reconciled with me by private email.
We're not a bureaucracy and we don't want to become one. Each Sysop has power to block people. We don't agonize over it. We're here to build a superb encyclopedia, not haggle and argue with each other. I made you a Sysop because your Fox News entry was so superb. Could you please enter some more like that? Thanks much.--Aschlafly 01:30, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Should I unblock him then? Geo. 01:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT

He didn't specifically ask for that, but I'd welcome him back. He is a good guy underneath all the disagreements. I'd like to see him again here.--Aschlafly 01:43, 27 March 2007 (EDT))
Now hang on, when did we have a superb Fox News entry? Oh, and I think the problem is, Andy, for editors like me, not sysops at least, that our editing work is being stifled. Not as much at all, and I appreciate it (I can't tell you how much, really), but still the Theory of evolution article and things like it need work, and I'd like to see that my work is respected before I contribute too much more :-/. -AmesGyo! 01:38, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
AmesG, I think your work is top notch, but we disagree oh so often! What can I say.  :-) --Aschlafly 01:43, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Disagreement is good...if it is over ideas, super, if it is over facts, they must be supported. That is why, for instance, I think that the proposed structure for the evolution article is a great starting place. Too many editors want to insert their opinions in a section on facts.PalMD 01:47, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I am going to parole Tmtoulouse. We can't afford to lose someone like him. Geo. 01:48, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Andy, I like you too. I got along with your Mom as well, the several times I was fortunate enough to meet her, back in the day. But like you, I am a public person, with integrity, and you telling me, essentially, to butt out, and get back to writing articles is a shocking lack of respect, as is your ignoring my emails. I have restored several articles in my week (10 days?) of being here, aside from the Fox article, and I am glad you like it. You may not want a bureaucracy, but your failing to acknowledge that you really do won't make it go away. There needs to be rules, clear-cut. Saying what you have, would I have been within my rights for blocking Conservative? Certainly he made many errors in judgement, religious and political doctrine. I ask to illustrate the point. Besides, some structure unifies purpose, of the collective whole. Public "Watch Lists" and the like are humilating and bring media scorn on this project. Now excuse me while I get back in the kitchen.....errr...back to writing articles. --~ TerryK MyTalk 02:08, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Couldn't agree, more. You are in fact one of my favorite contributors here.
Let's create a Conservapedia:Sysop guidelines page and then submit it for approval. You know, like they do at Wikipedia. Start the project page as an 'essay' or 'suggestion'. If it gains in authority, it can be labeled as "policy". I'd love to work with you on this, because I've raced ahead and started applying my own policy ideas, but I see I run the risk of turning into a maverick or worse a loose cannon. I'd rather have something in writing I can turn to.
Also, lots of discussion amongst sysops is good. We can do this in public, on a protected page - only sysops would be able to edit it, but anyone in the world could read it. For private discussion there is email. I've also created a sysop-only IRC channel. Hojim has the password - email either of us for it! --Ed Poor 12:24, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Brown IP thing

Hey Aschlafly, my objection to the Brown idiot thing is a bit different. It just seems odd front page material that this one liberal idiot gets the spotlight. He probably likes it too! Why not create more of a "Liberal Idiot of the Week/day/month" type thing and make him a little less special. Richard 21:11, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I would absolutely support a column for a well supported "liberal bias of the day" thinggie. It seems a little silly, but I think it is in line with the goals of the site, and if done well, it can be informative. It must be well supported and not just someone getting drawn in to a hoax, or misinterpreting neutral facts.PalMD 21:14, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Why give them any notice whatsoever? Unsupported, biased material should simply be removed. Supposedly our purpose of being, the idea the Kids had, was a place where Conservative/Christian thought was acknowledged, not ignored. I never read where Liberal/Secular thought was to supplant Conservative/Christian thought in being ignored, or suppressed. To Ridicule their thoughts puts us on their level. Some of you need to check your reality, and remember vengeance, pay-back, isn't yours to give. Their ideas have always collapsed in practical execution, that is our advantage. --~ TerryK MyTalk 21:21, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, youre starting to convince me, terry, but if they want to do it, they should at least do it right. I am inherently distrustful of Ricky Brown-Shirt.PalMD 21:22, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Well, keep in mind, I am not so Liberal about name calling......the Nazi reference is inappropriate, especially since the Nazi's were anything but Conservative! --~ TerryK MyTalk 21:35, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

How were the Nazis anything but conservative? I'm not taking a stance, I think saying "Blank is as bad as Hitler!" degrades the people that died because of Hitler and those who died to bring him down, but I'm legitimately curious.-AmesGyo! 22:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

  • The Nazi's stood for a strong, centralized government, and a welfare state. How is that "Conservative"? --~ TerryK MyTalk 22:10, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Nazis were neither conservative nor liberal, but t in the classic sense. Some of the ideas of m are reflected in certain tactics used here, and since Nazism is the best-known example of m, it is worth mentioning sometimes. See PalMD 23:18, 26 March 2007 (EDT) Oh and btw warning, the source of the quote is VERY LIBERAL. That is in the interest of full disclosure. The article itself is quite good, so don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. See especially point number 4.PalMD 23:19, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Without generating greater obsfucation or drama, the point remains, Nazi's were not "Conservative" in any way, shape or form. All such references are the work of those who are more interested in political tactics and manuvering than stating truth. --~ TerryK MyTalk 00:50, 27 March 2007 (EDT)


Sorry, Andy, I was just trying to start making some clarifications, including consolidating the actual evolution explanation and consolidating the explanations against evolution. I was not planning on altering the arguments against, just isolating the initial explication of evolution itself. It really needs reorganization, and Hojimachong has a good idea.PalMD 23:14, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

See User:Hojimachong/EvolutionOrganization. --Hojimachongtalk 23:16, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Andy, we are drafting a petition in re evolution to submit to your Conservapedia Panel. You can access it from my user page. -AmesGyo! 12:28, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Hell and the conciousness of souls

Mr. Schlafly, I had a purely theological question I wish to ask; When a soul goes to hell, is it conciously aware that it is damned to hell because of the actions it committed while on earth? Or is the soul unaware that they are being punished, since hell is the only thing that they have ever experienced? Could you point me to any websites which shed some light on this? Thanks, --Hojimachongtalk 01:45, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't know the theological beliefs, but personally, if a soul is not conscious of the fact that it is being punished, then what is the point?--Elamdri 02:35, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Good point, Elamdri. More generally, it is usually critics of Christianity who emphasize punishment, "damned to hell," etc. Only rarely is affirmative punishment mentioned in the New Testament, and it is almost never heard in Christian churches. The more obvious punishment is simply a loss in love and the resultant depression, despondency, addiction and, sadly for some, suicide. Inherent in the concept of love is the free will not to love, and that's when self-inflicted punishment enters the picture. At least that's my view!  :-) --Aschlafly 13:15, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Um, you may need to expound more on what you mean, but I totally disagree that the New Testament "rarely" refers to "affirmative punishment". Some have said that the bible in general talks more about hell than it does heaven. Here are just a few examples.
"Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;" --Mt 25:41
"If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire." --Mt 18:8
"If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than, having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire," --Mk 9:43
"His winnowing fork is in His hand to thoroughly clear His threshing floor, and to gather the wheat into His barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." --Luke 3:17
"These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." --Mt 25:46
The gospel cannot be separated from the bad news. If we did not have the bad news, why would Christ need to die for us? --Ymmotrojam 14:42, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm aware of those references, several of which are duplicates of the same passages. They are a tiny percentage of the Gospels and Jesus's teachings. They are rarely emphasized in Christian churches. Critics of Christianity talk about (and distort) "eternal damnation" more than Christians do.
Moreover, those passages don't negate my comment that the "damnation" is often self-inflicted. Hate is destructive of the person who hates, for example.--Aschlafly 17:29, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Do you want me to provide every reference in the NT? Those were only a few examples. Anyways, what are you getting at by saying that it is "rarely emphasized in Christian churches"? Are you approving of its lack of being emphasized? I think it should be emphasized more. Also, you seem to be emphasizing what you call the tiny percentage of references to it in scripture. Even if there were very few, does how many references there are matter as much as the fact that it says it at all?
Self-inflicting: I kinda see where you are coming from, although I would word it differently. I would say Hell is God's judgment of our poor choice of not trusting in His son Jesus Christ, therefore God is the one inflicting the punishment for eternity. It is certainly our fault that we are there, but we are not inflicting our punishment on ourselves. --Ymmotrojam 17:56, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Andrew is on point with his answer. Billy Graham has written, when asked about Hell:

Q: I know people ask you from time to time what you think heaven is like, but I'd also be interested to know what you think hell will be like. I have a friend who says he's looking forward to hell, because all his friends will be there and they'll have one big party. He's not right, is he? — R.A.

No, he certainly isn't right. If he could have only a brief glimpse—even just a tenth of a second's look—at what hell is like, he'd never say again that he looks forward to going there.

Not one word in the Bible suggests that hell is a pleasant place, or a place where anyone would ever want to go. Jesus called hell a place of "outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matthew 25:30, KJV). In one of His parables, Jesus told of a man who was in hell, begging for someone to come and "cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire" (Luke 16:24). The only companions anyone will have in hell will be "the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41).

There is much we don't know about hell—but we know all we need to know. And the most important thing we know about hell is that we don't have to go there! Yes, we have sinned, and we deserve only God's judgment. But God loves us, and Christ came to deliver us from hell and welcome us into heaven forever.

Don't take hell lightly—but don't take Christ lightly, either. Instead, by a simple prayer of faith ask Him to forgive your sins and come into your life today. The Bible's promise is true: "There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (Romans 8:1).

Q: I suppose you believe hell is something that happens to us after we die, but I think it must be right now. Don't you think this might be a possibility? After all, a lot of bad things happen to us in this life. — F.D.

"You are partly right; bad things certainly do happen in this life. But sometimes they happen to good people who don't seem to deserve it, while bad people sometimes escape with hardly a scratch. How do you explain this, if God's judgment is only limited to this life (as you believe)?

The Bible, however, paints a different picture, for it tells us that in eternity all the injustices and evils of this world will be judged. Someday every nation and individual will stand before God, and to those who have ignored or disobeyed Him, He will say, "Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41).

Those are sobering words, and it would be foolish (as well as dangerous) for us to ignore them. Hell is real, the Bible says—just as real as heaven. No, I don't know exactly what hell will be like—but not one word about it in the Bible would ever make me want to go there. Jesus called it a place of "darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matthew 22:13).

It is true that how we live influences the quality of our lives; our lives will be better if we do what is right, and our lives will be worse if we insist on doing what is wrong. The Bible warns that "the way of the unfaithful is hard" (Proverbs 13:15).

But listen: You don't have to go there! God loves you, and Christ came to open heaven's door for you. Only one thing will keep you out of heaven, and that is your sins. But on the cross Christ took upon Himself our sins and the punishment we deserve. Don't let another day go by without Christ, but by faith give your life to Him and trust Him alone for your salvation. "

American Civil War article

Minor problem...maybe... It's big. Real big. And I haven't even touched on the war yet! Will Conservapedia allow an article of this (impending) size, or are you willing to say "screw it...let's break the server!" Hey, I'm all for detail, and I'm having fun doing it! Karajou 10:09, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

As Wikipedia and most other wikis do... when an article gets to a point where Conservapedia decides it's "too big" (based on whatever criteria Conservapedians decide), a set of related detailed information can be split out into a separate subpage. (eg. individual battles, etc). Category:American Civil War has already been created to hold these. --Interiot 10:27, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Individual battles within this article won't enjoy much detail, as it would detract overall from the article itself. Further, all battles simply cannot be within this article due to size, so I'll probably restrict it to those battles involving the war's overall strategy or simple fame. At this moment I am sitting just two miles from the site of the Battle of Stones River in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. As it stands, this battle would probably merit no more than a sentence in the article, but it still get major detail within it's own article. Karajou 10:59, 27 March 2007 (EDT)


Mr Ashafly, I would like to bring your attention to the most marvellous template that i have created, using the height of my linguistic wit, and have released into the public domain for the use of your humble website. Mr Poor thought you would be honoured to know. Link: Template:vandalcandidate. Best of luck with the encyclopedia, I am right behind you 110% of the way. Ilikebigbibles 10:40, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

That could be considered to be an invitation to vandalism. MountainDew 15:21, 27 March 2007 (EDT)


I've been trying to build up the legal section of the site and try to put in some common legal terminology and the like, but I have been adding a lot of the Latin terms because thats the proper way to refer to the concepts in the legal world and if a student is interested in knowing the term, he or she needs to know the Latin. However, before I add anymore, I just wanted to make sure that this was alright. If you wanna look at them, they're Jus soli, Jus sanguinis, Jus civile, and In dubio pro reo.

This is superb. This will be very useful to me and many others. Months ago I think I have may have inserted a few terms like this. Thank you, Elamdri, and please continue!--Aschlafly 14:49, 27 March 2007 (EDT)