Difference between revisions of "User talk:Aschlafly"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Standard Model and gravity well)
(Faith-Based Achievement: new section)
Line 536: Line 536:
[[Creation magazine]] should be titled [[Creation (magazine)]], as the title of the magazine is ''Creation''. The word "magazine" is not actually in the actual title. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:02, 16 August 2012 (EDT)
[[Creation magazine]] should be titled [[Creation (magazine)]], as the title of the magazine is ''Creation''. The word "magazine" is not actually in the actual title. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:02, 16 August 2012 (EDT)
== Faith-Based Achievement ==
Hi Andy,
I can't help but notice that, at this point, there's a lot of data in various articles related to differences in achievement between those with faith and those who lack faith.  Of course, there are the articles on differences in academic achievement, and now, with the Olympics, there's a solid look at athletic achievement.  Is there enough data at this point, do you think, to create a unifying article examining the difference faith makes in overall success?  Such an article could also examine achievement in other areas--for instance, it could certainly point out that the most profound and enduring contributions to science have been made by scientists of deep Christian faith.  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:24, 16 August 2012 (EDT)

Revision as of 11:24, 16 August 2012

Archive Index


Broken HTML in MediaWiki text for permanent links

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

I noticed that the permanent link feature to the most recent revision of a page on Conservapedia has text that contains broken HTML. As an example, take a look at http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=985620. The pink box reads (links omitted, text linewrapped but otherwise displayed exactly as it appears):

This is the current revision of <a href="/Talk:Main Page" title="Talk:Main Page">Talk:Main Page</a>
as edited by DavidVilla (Talk | contribs | block)  at 10:27, June 11, 2012. This
<a href="/Uniform_Resource_Locator" title="Uniform Resource Locator">URL</a> is a permanent link
to this version of this page.

The HTML tags should not appear as text in the webpage but should be functioning hyperlinks. I just wanted to point this out so that you (or the CP webmaster) can fix this issue which may confuse visitors and detract from the professionalism of this encyclopedia. Thanks, GregG 13:33, 11 June 2012 (EDT)

Category:Speedy deletion candidates

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

I have added dozens of pages created during this morning's vandalism spree to this category. There are now 8 categories and 57 pages that need to be reviewed, and I think someone should delete these pages. I would do it myself (and I would have just deleted the vandalism pages outright instead of tagging them for speedy deletion while they remain on this encyclopedia with libelous titles), but I do not have the permission to delete pages. Thanks, GregG 11:35, 18 June 2012 (EDT)

Gary Johnson

Is it worth covering him more? He's polling at between 6 and 10%, numbers unseen since Ross Perot, and he's far more fiscally conservative than Romney. His views on abortion and marriage may not be conservative mainstream, but he rates extremely high on fiscal conservatism. And he's not as pro-abortion as most pro-abortionists - he outlawed late-term abortions in New Mexico and required parental notification for minors (though he says the latter is an issue for the states to decide and he would not act further on it as President). He also opposes all government funding for abortion groups. While he opposes government funding for almost everything, he considers abortion funding to be a special issue, not just lumped in with the "cut everything". At the very least, he could influence the election. He's drawing significant youth vote from Obama. Perhaps young people are getting tired of Obama and the "change" he promised, or perhaps they just want a fiscal conservative, socially liberal as they may be. Gregkochuconn 21:28, 18 June 2012 (EDT)

An Appeal for the Resurrection of the Conservative Bible Project

Mr.Schlafly, I'm writing to you to appeal for the Resurrection of the Conservative Bible Project on the Front Page of the website. It's just about the most important project the site ever embarked upon, and is exactly the type of thing that couldn't be achieved in any way other than by using internet technology - the real collaborative nature of the web allowed that project to explode for a time, and progress was very rapid. I learned so much about the Bible through it - about how translations could change the meanings of His Word over time, about history, about language, about how the Bible had been manipulated for political purposes, and so much more. It was really fascinating for a time. But for a long time now, progress has been almost nil, and I believe the main reason is that people who might come to the site never see or hear about it - despite the project being one that garnered you, and Conservapedia, a lot of attention. The activities of a noisy and troublesome 'single-agenda' user have forced the Main page 'Contribute to the Conservative Bible Project' paragraph to the very bottom of a pile of single-issuse nonsense, and the result has been practically no contributions from the Best of the Public. I urge you to consider moving the section containing the CBP appeal for contributions back to the top of the Main Page, and permanently pinning it there, and not allowing that user to move it down again. I believe it would be the best thing for this site, and for the Bible itself. Thank you for your attention. JanW 13:55, 20 June 2012 (EDT)

Supreme Court cases

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

I saw that you have written Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association. I would suggest that an article be written on AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, which is another important case from the previous OT10 term. I might get to writing a bit on this, but if you wish to contribute, it would be a welcome addition to Conservapedia (to help counteract the mainstream media attacks on arbitration. Thanks, GregG 22:12, 20 June 2012 (EDT)

Can't undo vandalism

Please undo last by MummRaTheEverLiving at Talk:Atheism and obesity. EJamesW 16:06, 23 June 2012 (EDT)

Thanks - I just reverted it.--Andy Schlafly 18:51, 23 June 2012 (EDT)

Editing talk page archives

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

Recently, User:Conservative substantively edited his comments on Talk:Main Page/archive96. I want to know how to proceed:

  • Revert the changes made (which an admin will have to do, as I am blocked by the spam filter)
  • Move the edited topic back to Talk:Main Page
  • Do nothing

I appreciate your advice. A sensible policy would be that once talk pages are archived, their comments are not to be changed except in the case where leaving them may have legal consequences for the wiki. Thanks, GregG 16:15, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

Two Requests


Firstly, due to living in a time-zone very different to the United States, usually when I try to edit, editing has been closed for the night. As a result, I would like to be able to edit at night-time, and as I understand it, you are the only one who can grant this.

Secondly, recently User:Jbo12 joined the website. After making two edits on Talk:MainPage, he was blocked for a year under the 90/10 rule. I would like this to be reversed on the basis that two edits is not enough to reasonably judge whether someone will make no substantive contributions, which is the basis of the 90/10 rule.


- JamesCA 23:59, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

I don't see any edits by you since June 28. Requests denied, but if you start editing again then the request can be made again.--Andy Schlafly 16:00, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

User Name Change

I was told to request a change in username. Is my name really that offensive? I'm just expressing my identity; trying to show I'm one of the good guys, but not necessarily one of the collinear guys, if you know what I mean. Is that too much to ask?

First off, User:Gayservative, please sign your name with four tildes (that ~ thing) at the end of your posts. Thanks. Second, I don't think it's so much offense as not your real name. Conservapedia requires that you use your real name or a form of it (for instance, "JohnS" instead of "John Smith") as your username. While a few old accounts such as User:Conservative are grandfathered in, this is the current policy. So, offensive or not, the username violates Conservapedia policy. Sorry if you took offense by whichever admin made those comments. Gregkochuconn 19:29, 27 June 2012 (EDT)
In addition to Greg's remark, user names that attempt to express a message are disfavored, particularly if that message is contrary to the Bible.--Andy Schlafly 19:36, 27 June 2012 (EDT)
User:Gayservative, do you have a request for an alternate name to which User:Aschlafly can migrate your edit history? I look forward to your response. With regards, AnupamTalk 23:16, 27 June 2012 (EDT)

Your wikilink on MPR is broken

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

On Template:Mainpageright, the wikilink to U.S. Supreme Court is broken. GregG 20:21, 27 June 2012 (EDT)

Great catch - I didn't notice it with the bolding. Thanks for letting me know so I could fix it promptly.--Andy Schlafly 20:26, 27 June 2012 (EDT)

Main page table of contents

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

In this edit, you accidentally removed the magic words __NOTOC__ __NOEDITSECTION__ which prevent the table of contents from displaying on the main page. GregG 10:57, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

Good catch. I think it's fixed now.--Andy Schlafly 16:01, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

I know you like editing over talkpages but...

I was wondering if you wouldn't mind explaining why you reverted my edits on the over-rated sports stars page. I gave reasons for each removal and was wondering as to why they were re-added. FernandoTorez 20:20, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

Essay: Gallery of obese atheists

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

Therefore, I request that

Additionally, I would like to have investigated

  • Conservapedia's protection policy, especially as applied by User:Conservative to articles created or edited by that user
  • The propriety of removing deletion tags from an article while a good faith debate as to whether the article should be included is in progress
  • EDIT The process by which a permanently protected article can have a deletion discussion initiated.

Thank you so much for your consideration. I will be notifying User:Conservative about this discussion momentarily. GregG 15:36, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

Kudos to CPalmer's Gallery of obese atheists! Olé! Olé! Olé!

Andy, I sent an email to Ed Poor about hanging tough and not caving in to atheists and to their liberal atheist sympathizers as for as his masterful work of comedy Gallery of obese atheists.

Oh, and User:Conservative? I personally would have sent the email to User:CPalmer, since he was the one who created the page. But hey, go right ahead and compliment EdPoor for it anyway. SharonW 17:44, 30 June 2012 (EDT)

Cave in to atheists and to their liberal atheist sympathizers an inch and they will take a mile!

Kudos to Ed Poor's CPalmer's Gallery of obese atheists. Olé! Olé! Olé!

(photo obtained from Flickr, see: license agreement)
Thank you for proving my point for me, User:Conservative. There is nothing but ill-intent with regards to your writings about obese people. Don't try to pretend it has anything to do with atheism - it doesn't. I am neither an atheist or a "sympathizer", and I find these articles and comments replusive and bullying. --SharonW 17:26, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
Cave in to atheists and to their liberal atheist sympathizers I'm neither an atheist nor an liberal atheist sympathizer. But for me GregG's points ring true. AugustO 18:42, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
I see my eye did not go down far enough the list of edits to see that CPalmer created it. My apologies to CPalmer. Conservative 19:35, 30 June 2012 (EDT)

Get ready for a "formal complaint" against User: Conservative

Andy, as you are aware when people with liberal ideas badly lose debate exchanges with User: Conservative, a complaint is sure to follow.

GregG appears to be upset because the Apostle Peter believed in a global flood and castigated scoffers/doubters who do not. In addition, GregG's inability to defend evolutionism is also getting under his skin.

So you might want to brace yourself for a formal complaint from GregG and remember that it is just window dressing for his sour grapes on losing our brief debate exchanges so badly.

Anyways, enjoy your July 4th and try not to let the upcoming formal complaint ruin your holiday. Conservative 15:38, 30 June 2012 (EDT)

Can we check what was said in these 'debates' that you won? Or have you oversighted and deleted them as you did with SharonW's 'debate' with you? Davidspencer 15:53, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
David, we all know that if there is one thing that Roman Catholics of the liberal persuasion cannot countenance. It's Protestant Bible believers showing them that the Apostle Peter believed in global flood and castigated those who do not. It drives them crazy. They go into User: Conservative Obsessive Compulsive Disorder overdrive and create enormous tome like formal complaints. I was afraid this would happen. Soon a whole new wiki may be launched. Conservative 18:44, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
Perhaps User:Aschlafly is aware of an occasion "when people with liberal ideas badly lose debate exchanges with User: Conservative". Frankly, I havn't seen such a thing yet - though I have only followed his debates here on Conservapedia, where it is hard to find people with liberal ideas. But perhaps User:Conservative could link to a debate where he thinks that his opponents (liberals or not) have lost? Thanks. AugustO 18:40, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
All of them and it's not due to my debating prowess, but merely due to the ease of defeating specious liberal "arguments". It's child's play really and quite an embarrassment to liberalism. Once liberals run out of federal government money in the United States which is going to happen in the next 5 years or so, American conservatives will naturally prevail quite easily over liberals. Conservative 18:52, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
I just read Talk:Olympics_2012#Math.27d_--_Gay_marriage: that one you have definitely lost. AugustO 06:40, 3 July 2012 (EDT)

Andy, get ready for a large tome like rant of liberal wordiness!

True to liberal form, GregG employs liberal wordiness and has created an enormous tome like rant against User: Conservative. I didn't read it as it no doubt has a very low substance to word ratio. No doubt you will not read it either!

While at Wikipedia long emotional rants with links to a myriad of diffs may be fashionable, conservatives are far less ruled by emotion. :) Conservative 18:21, 30 June 2012 (EDT)

AugustO 18:36, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
Liberals have a hard time understanding the concept of employing general principles while at the same time understanding the concept of strategic and tactical flexibility. There is a reason I created the article with the precise length I chose. :) Unfortunately for liberals, they will never know the reason! :) Conservative 19:05, 30 June 2012 (EDT)

Perhaps if atheists were not so into denialism, I would not have put together such a large collection of evidence on the matter to prove my point! From demographic data which contrast Western atheists (who largely follow Darwinism) with world Christendom to studies to an ever growing collection of prominent obese atheists. Of course, one does not have to look very hard to find prominent obese atheists. You really can't miss them once you start looking for them.  :) Conservative 19:18, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
Well, Atheism and obesity reads like an emotional rants with links to a myriad of web-sites. AugustO 19:23, 30 June 2012 (EDT)

Not everyone who disagrees with your articles is liberal, or an atheist, or gay. Some of us just think your articles on obesity and (fill in the blank) are a bunch of hooey. SharonW 20:07, 30 June 2012 (EDT)

Sharon - I'd like be able to say that I think those articles exhibit a distinct lack of machismo, but I'd probably be banned (again) for that very thing if I did WilcoxD 19:07, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
User:Conservative, why didn't you read it if it had a low word to substance ratio? That would mean that it was very efficient in terms of how many words he used compared to substance. Or do you mean "high"? Gregkochuconn 16:09, 6 July 2012 (EDT)


So do you plan on responding to User:GregG's complaints about User:Conservative or are you just going to pretend it's not there and let it drift away to the archives? As the owner of this site your input is expected. There is obviously a situation here, why aren't you addressing it? Please try to show User:GregG some respect and respond to him on the matter.

Sincerely, --KMikeT 15:33, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

That are many words there to review and ponder - Rome wasn't build in a day. Both editors in their dispute are entitled to full respect.--Andy Schlafly 15:41, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
I feel the only proper response is to ban User:GregG. He is obviously a liberal parodist who seeks to disrupt this site and to damage the reputation of one of its oldest and most respected contributors. --RonC 23:02, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
I appreciate your taking time out of your busy schedule to consider my concerns, and I wish to thank you for that, regardless of what you decide to do. GregG 11:44, 3 July 2012 (EDT)

Evidence that Christianity increases a countries Olympic medals while atheism and liberalism reduce gold medals won

Andy, although it is true that Communist countries have gone out of their way in the past to pour money in the Olympic gold winning efforts (Soviet Union)[5], it is also true that a higher population size and a higher GDP positively affect the number of gold medals that a country wins.[6]

Atheism reduces a countries population size while religiosity increases a countries birth rate: http://conservapedia.com/Decline_of_atheism#Decline_of_atheism_in_terms_of_global_adherents_is_expected_to_accelerate

In the journal article Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: Associations, explanations, and implications psychologists McCullough and Willoughby theorize that many of the positive links of religiousness with health and social behavior may be caused by religion's beneficial influences on self-control/self-regulation.[7][8] Athletes with more self-control have more mental toughness. Athletes with more mental toughness tend to perform at higher levels.[9] See also: Psychology, obesity, religiosity and atheism

Also, all other things remaining equal, religion in the Western world tends to promote more self-discipline and healthier behaviors when it comes to mental and physical health: See: Atheism and health and Psychology, obesity, religiosity and atheism and Atheism and obesity

Also, while it is true that a country that is doing well can have "fat and sassy" atheists as a result. On the other hand, if there is religious freedom in a country a country can have high levels of religiosity even with high incomes such as the United States. See effects of prosperity on rates of atheism: http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Conservative/atheism-research#Effect_of_prosperity_on_rate_of_atheism

I am sure you can find data to support that capitalism causes a country to have higher incomes than socialism/liberalism over the long term.

Lastly, liberalism promotes abortion and small family sizes where conservative religion does not. Conservative 17:07, 1 July 2012 (EDT)


Could you delete user_talk:sonyaOz and user_talk:CurtPbf please?brenden 00:32, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

's-Hertogenbosch, Arnhem, Delft, South Holland and North Brabant

  • User:Ed Poor, you wrote: If you can't contact an administrator by email or edit their user talk page, you can always post here or on Andy's talk page.

A week ago, User:Ed Poor proposed to merge 's-Hertogenbosch, Arnhem, Delft, South Holland and North Brabant with the article on the Netherlands. I stated my objections on the respective talk-pages, User:Ed Poor hasn't given a reason for such a merge. So seven days after the merge-templates were introduced, I'll delete them.

AugustO 04:56, 3 July 2012 (EDT)

I didn't think your objections made much sense. In particular, I didn't see the advantage of having several one-sentence or three-sentence "articles". So I merged all the provinces into the Netherlands. (Don't assume silence means agreement.) --Ed Poor Talk 18:25, 10 July 2012 (EDT)

Hey, don't know if this is the correct place to say this, but I always thought that the short articles were there in the hope that someone would expand them. So if it's a subject that could have a good article about it then it would save time for the next person that knows something about the subject if there was still an article about the subject that they could add to instead of having to start from scratch.Cmurphynz 19:28, 10 July 2012 (EDT)
They are just as easy to expand where they are now, and much easier to find. In general, obscure topics are best collected into a section of a better-known article.
If it actually happens that any of these Dutch places gets too big to be contained in the Netherlands article, I'll be happy to use the For a more detailed treatment, see [[{{{1}}}]].
template. Meanwhile, less arguing and more writing, please. --Ed Poor Talk 19:42, 10 July 2012 (EDT)


User:Guitarsniper's name is obviously in violation of our username policy. However, he appears to be making productive edits, so I don't think we should block him. Should we make him change his username, or just let him be since he's a good editor? Gregkochuconn 12:15, 7 July 2012 (EDT)

I was going to ask the same thing about you. --Ed Poor Talk 19:43, 10 July 2012 (EDT)
@Greg K. Mr. Schlafly said that enforcement of the username policy is discretionary. I do understand, though, that requiring an established user to create a new username may be a bit demeaning.
GregG 20:49, 10 July 2012 (EDT)

I understand now that Greg Koch is at UConn (University of Connecticut). --Ed Poor Talk 21:36, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

Images for articles

Hi Andy (I hope you don't mind the familiarity - I'm Jim by the way) I'd like to add some images to the articles I'm working on. Is there an image bank I can choose from or could you allow me to upload some pictures? EJamesW 16:14, 7 July 2012 (EDT)

Standard Model

Uh oh...Is the Standard Model (and quantum field theory in general) now a liberal conspiracy because it "relies heavily on materialism"? (You added that to the article right?) AndyFrankinson 12:30, 9 July 2012 (EDT)

There needs to be more dissent in academic physics, not less.--Andy Schlafly 08:45, 17 July 2012 (EDT)
So is the Standard Model wrong? What's the problem with it? That it "relies on materialism?" If so, quantum field theory is also wrong, right? QFT also uses Feynman diagrams and stuff, and I assume that's your problem with the Standard Model. Come to think of it, you have to reject all of field theory (which includes classical electrodynamics, though that's already bad since it contradicts nonrelativistic physics). --AndyFrankinson 15:16, 20 July 2012 (EDT)
All right, Schlafly, tell me what's wrong with the Standard Model... --AndyFrankinson 20:34, 24 July 2012 (EDT)
So do you think the Standard Model is wrong? What's wrong with it? --AndyFranklinson 09:36, 28 July 2012 (EDT)

Edit request


Could you edit this page MediaWiki:Revision-info.

Currently it looks like this:

This is an <a href="/Help:Page_history" title="Help:Page history">old revision</a> of this page, as edited by $2 at $1. It may differ significantly from <a href="/User talk:Aschlafly" title="User talk:Aschlafly">the current revision</a>.


<div id="viewingold-warning" style="background: #FFBDBD; border: 1px solid #BB7979; color: #000000; font-weight: bold; margin: 2em 0 .5em; padding: .5em 1em; vertical-align: middle; clear: both;">This is an <a href="/Help:Page_history" title="Help:Page history">old revision</a> of this page, as edited by <span id="mw-revision-name">$2</span> at <span id="mw-revision-date">$1</span>. It may differ significantly from <a href="/{{FULLPAGENAME}}" title="{{FULLPAGENAME}}">the current revision</a>.</div> <div id="viewingold-plain" style="display:none;">Revision as of $1 by $2</div>

This sucks. Can you replace that with:

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by $2 at $1. It may differ significantly from current revision.

fixed code:

<div id="viewingold-warning" style="background: #FFBDBD; border: 1px solid #BB7979; color: #000000; font-weight: bold; margin: 2em 0 .5em; padding: .5em 1em; vertical-align: middle; clear: both;">This is an [[Help:Page_history|old revision]] of this page, as edited by <span id="mw-revision-name">$2</span> at <span id="mw-revision-date">$1</span>. It may differ significantly from <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}}} current revision]</span>.</div> <div id="viewingold-plain" style="display:none;">Revision as of $1 by $2</div>

i.e. please copy & paste the fixed code to MediaWiki:Revision-info. Hopefully this will fix it, although I can't say for sure. Best regards, Cipe 08:22, 11 July 2012 (EDT)

Unexplained Reverts

Perhaps you could help me out by explaining a few things to me. Why did you revert my edit to the relativity page? Moreover, why did you revert the edit to the relativity page without explaining your reasons for doing so?

Nominees for the Nobel Prize are NEVER, EVER announced, the first thing you hear about it is a phone call from the committee to tell you that you've won. The runners-up never know. The only exception to this is the Nobel peace prize. Robert Dicke certainly would have only ever been considered for a physics prize, given he was an electronic engineer.

Secondly, Robert Dicke devised some of the most stringent tests for relativity, but I have not seen any evidence for him being a critic of it? If he was, then by all means, have it in there.

Finally, what is the problem with relativity? I don't understand how the physical theory is in contradiction of the christian faith? Is there one? Could you please explain it to me because this is really bugging me - the theory of relativity has been used to develop significant technologies that could not function if it were false. Has there been a serious misunderstanding in the community of some connotation of moral relativism? This is the only logical conclusion I can come to, and I am really baffled. The opening sentence should be a simple description of the theory and its originator. Instead there is what can only be paraphrased of "Everything you read about this theory is false.". Far too much space is dedicated to Robert Dicke. This is an appeal to scientific authority (i.e. "This position must be true because a prominent scientist believed so") and should not be used by school children, let alone an encyclopaedia.

I'm struggling to get an answer from someone on these points. I don't think censorship is really a part of what Wikis like this aim to achieve. I am particularly interested to know what, exactly, isn't compatible between relativity and christianity. (At least, more so than Quantum Mechanics or a Discrete Fourier Transform - the articles of which on both don't seem to insist those theories are false.)

If, like I suspect, this is because of the position against Moral Relativism (I am not interested in philosophy and have no position on this), then please understand this: Moral Relativism and The General or Special Theory of Relativity are completely, utterly, unrelated. They share no common elements, one does not support the other in absolutely any way whatsoever. At all. None. Nadda. LucoDaw 15:39, 11 July 2012 (EDT)

On your first point, what is your point? Robert Dicke was the greatest American physicist of the 20th century. If he wasn't considered for a Nobel Prize, then that simply further proves the bias.
On your second point, Robert Dicke is widely known to have rejected the Theory of Relativity as formulated and imposed by academic physicists.
On your third point, the "problem" with the Theory of Relativity is that it is illogical, disproven by the evidence, contradictory with the Bible, imposed through use of censorship to silence any criticism of it, and promoted by left-wingers. Other than that it's not a bad hypothetical mathematical exercise.
On your additional comment, even President Obama is credited with helping write an article that does link the theory to moral relativity, even abortion.--Andy Schlafly 21:46, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

What happens when a contributor is uncooperative?

For the record: there is no doubt that the official name of the capital of the Dutch province of North Brabant is 's-Hergogenbosch, and that it is unofficially referred to as Den Bosch. Hertogenbosch is only a part of the full name: If you look for Hertogenbosch in the current Britannica, you will be transferred to 's-Hertogenbosch, if you look up Hertogenbosch (between Hertnit and Herton) in the index of the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911 you are redirected to 's-Hertogenbosch (between Shersten, Wilts and Shervarayar Malai). The Merriam Webster transfers you from Hertogenbosch to 's-Hertogenbosch (indicating as next word Sherwood Forest and as previous word Sherman).

This all has been discussed at length at Talk:'s-Hertogenbosch or Talk:Den Bosch or Talk:Hertogenbosch. So, the article is at the moment mistakingly placed at Hertogenbosch by senior admin Ed Poor. Generally this wouldn't be much of a problem: as Ed Poor states on his home-page:

I believe in being bold, a habit I learned to cherish at Wikipedia. But I also believe in correcting my mistakes.

But instead of correcting his mistake, he started to merge numerous small articles with the article on the Netherlands, ignoring the arguments against such a merge. IMHO the effect is not pleasing to read - see Netherlands#Major cities and Netherlands#Provinces.

And suddenly it seems to be a no-no to include (in brackets) the indigenous names of cities, places, etc. That's quite a surprise (my take on this can be read here.) Until now it was to be a quite advantageous practice to include such information. Besides being respectful to the fellows who dwell in all these foreign places, it is helpful for American visitors, too - at least as long the natives have this annoying habit not to use proper English names on all of their road signs...

Earlier I wrote:

For me the whole thing has becoming at litmus-test for Conservapedia: I was put on probation over this non-issue, at least on[e] other editor was blocked indefinitely. And this over a point which isn't debatable, 's-Hertogenbosch is the official name of the city, Den Bosch isn't. There is no conservative or liberal interpretation of this point (as it is the other way round for The Hague). Is User:Ed Poor not able to correct his mistake - or at least allow his mistake to be corrected?

It is not debatable that Hertogenbosch isn't the name of 's-Hertogenbosch - as York isn't the name of New York. This is a mistake. It should be corrected. Those who point out the mistake shouldn't be punished for just pointing it out.

AugustO 19:43, 11 July 2012 (EDT)

You're missing the point. I can only assume it's deliberate.
I've already told you that you have to follow admin instructions as well as general rules, but you are pretending that (a) you need not comply and/or that (b) you are the sole arbiter of whether you are in compliance.
This won't be tolerated, so you are banned until you agree to do as told. --Ed Poor Talk 19:59, 12 July 2012 (EDT)

Personal Comments

Mr. Schlafly, why are personal comments sometimes allowed on talk pages, but other times must be immediately removed? (That seems to be the precedent being set by this reversion of yours, combined with many of Ed Poor's recent edits.) --AndreaM 12:38, 14 July 2012 (EDT)

I reverted your editing of other persons' signed comments. Does the reason really require an explanation???--Andy Schlafly 17:02, 14 July 2012 (EDT)


Dear Mr. Schafly,

I took a look at Template:Delete (as transcluded on Gallery of obese Christians), and I noticed that there are underscores in the page name. I looked at the source for the template, and it uses the MediaWiki magic word PAGENAMEE. The correct magic word, to avoid converting spaces and punctuation marks to characters that can safely appear in a URL, is PAGENAME. Could you please make this change? Thanks, GregG 20:00, 14 July 2012 (EDT)

Greg, good suggestion and I tried to correct the entry. If further correction is needed, please feel free to say so.--Andy Schlafly 22:12, 14 July 2012 (EDT)

Spam filter.

Hey, for some reason your spam filter dislikes the word 'p.u.e.r.i.l.e'. Is this a mistake, or does it actually mean something that I didn't know in America? (actually it kind of sounds dirty, it's a bit like the god Priapus or something, but how can a computer tell that?) Anyway, I don't know if you are the right person to ask, but if this is actually a mistake maybe you should change the settings on the spam filter a bit. (or maybe I should start using the common versions of words :))Cmurphynz 06:01, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

Try a synonym dictionary. The word means inane or trivial, right? We who are college-educated need not show off our vocabularies but ought to write at the high school reading level. --Ed Poor Talk 08:44, 15 July 2012 (EDT)
Problem fixed. "Puer.ile" is no long blocked, as this posting proves.--Andy Schlafly 10:08, 15 July 2012 (EDT)
actually I just tried to add a comment to this section, and it wouldn't let me, I had to break up the word in your comment first. Maybe the problem is with my browser or something. But Ed Poor is right, it's not really a word I'll ever need, 'childish' is essentially an exact synonym.Cmurphynz 01:13, 17 July 2012 (EDT)

Further Review

When you took away my block right, you stated in the comment:

pending further review of the disagreement

Does this refer to the disagreement about 's-Hertogenbosch? Or the merging of small articles? And what about the other party which took part in the disagreement? If you wish further input from me for your review, please let me know: et altera pars audiatur --AugustO 11:22, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

August, please continue to edit. The review concerns only whether your account should have "blocking" rights at this time. I expect that your blocking rights will be restored at some time in the future. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 14:00, 15 July 2012 (EDT)
@Aschlafly: Reviewing my blocks shouldn't pose much of a problem: if there is a question about any of my (un)block actions, I'll happily answer to it.
AugustO 19:29, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

How is the review going on? Will there be any results soon? AugustO 19:00, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

Will there be an official verdict? I'm now waiting for three weeks... AugustO 11:09, 2 August 2012 (EDT)

My Apologies: An error of judgment

Coming via the CBP, I had ignored that Conservapedia is not only intended for the use of high-school (home schooled?) pupils, but that these teenagers play an active rôle. I realized this when I had to monitor my nephew's internet activities these weekend (overstepping his internet privileges had earned him this cruel and unusual punishment...) I was confronted with quite a few editing teenagers. I think that I now understand Aschlafly's more lenient approach to some members of this wiki: though these may be bright young men (and women?), we can't expect from them the same degree of maturity to which we hold ourselves. I apologize for my error of judgment […]

AugustO 11:53, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

Outdated images

Mr. Schlafly, a while ago, I requested that Glenn Beck's image be updated per his show being dismissed from Fox News on the talk page. Ron Paul's Congressional portrait should be also updated: the newer one is here. I also have a bunch, and so do others on the requests page. I realize you are a very busy man, and probably don't have time to look at these, but I would at least like another admin to look at these. Many thanks. In Christ, --James Wilson 14:10, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

I uploaded a 2007 photo for Ron Paul (see right).
Ron Paul photo 2007.jpg
. Where is a public domain photo for Glenn Beck?--Andy Schlafly 14:25, 15 July 2012 (EDT)
Thanks much! However, in the Commons I didn't find a public domain image of Beck. His former Fox image was also not public domain. This image here is under a CC licence and seems to allow for reuse on other sites. Other similar fair use photos have been uploaded into the site, so I would believe this to be acceptable. Thanks again, --James Wilson 14:42, 15 July 2012 (EDT)
OK, I've uploaded the Glenn Beck photo (see right).
Glenn Beck 2010.jpg
.--Andy Schlafly 15:06, 15 July 2012 (EDT)
Thanks much!!! --James Wilson 15:14, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

A more creative approach to solving the Netherlands cities dispute issue

Why not come up with a game plan on expanding the Netherlands city articles so they are more substantial articles that can stand on their own? Here is a workspace you can use for example: User: Conservative/Eindhoven.

Earlier this year I spoke to someone in the Netherlands and I am sure she would like to see me resolve this dispute so her country can have more substantial encyclopedia articles. :)

Sometimes disputes can be solved better through creativity than through drama. :)

Feel free to contact me when you have decent size articles for these cities which feature original content and not merely wiki cut and paste jobs: http://conservapedia.com/User:Conservative/mail Conservative 04:19, 17 July 2012 (EDT)

The question: why has an article on a Dutch town to be longer than an article on another subject (like a CSS term) to be called substantial? The article on Eindhoven - as it was - was longer than 30% of Conservapedia's articles, yet it was too small for a standalone article...
article length <100 bytes <200 bytes <300 bytes <400 bytes <500 bytes <600 bytes <700 bytes <800 bytes <900 bytes <1000 bytes
percentage of articles 1.5% 7.51% 15.17% 22.74% 29.26% 34.76% 40.14% 46.12% 49.77% 52.94%
If the same standards were used for all articles, Conservapedia would be reduced to perhaps 25,000 - 27,000 articles - I can't see this happening.
Again, I think of short articles as seed corns, and obviously, so do others.
(I used Special:ShortPages to get the values, thus redirects are excluded and only articles in the main space are counted.)
AugustO 06:13, 17 July 2012 (EDT)
Also relevant is point 5 of How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia: "We encourage conciseness here, like a true encyclopedia." I don't see anything inherently wrong with short pages, if they give all the essential info. And if they don't, they can be added to in the future.--CPalmer 06:22, 17 July 2012 (EDT)
While I think mediating disputes can be a noble endeavor, I am learning more each day to "pick my battles" so I get more done. I can't see myself spending much time to mediate a dispute so that stub articles or copy and paste articles can be created. If someone else wants to fine, but I am not going to do it. Conservative 18:56, 17 July 2012 (EDT)
Mediating conflicts is generally hard work, and rare are the instances when a conflict is solved by a single stroke of genius. A mediator should also try to appear impartial: this is not about the creation of stub articles or copy and paste articles. AugustO 05:05, 18 July 2012 (EDT)


In the underline row of the table, can you please change the opening <i> tag to a <u> tag? I was trying to make this change but I triggered the spam filter due to the page's inclusion of the name of the HTML property for changing an element's background color. Thanks, GregG 20:28, 17 July 2012 (EDT)


I must need an eye exam, but the Captcha is getting more difficult to answer. My reorganization of the Wikipedia bias list would be assisted if you could waive captcha for my account. Thanks, Wschact 00:07, 18 July 2012 (EDT)

Account promoted. Thanks for suggesting it.--Andy Schlafly 00:41, 18 July 2012 (EDT)

Bias in Wikipedia

I tried to edit Wikipedia on bestiality and I believe that the page is locked. However, I updated one paragraph and moved it to the Bias in Wikipedia#Bestiality/zoophilia section. Perhaps someone can copy that updated example back to the original page. Thanks, Wschact 23:45, 18 July 2012 (EDT)

Also, could you please consider uploading the photo at http://www.flickr.com/photos/51132506@N00/1954358144 ? I believe that it would do a good job of illustrating the bias in Wikipedia article as seeing the photo helps the reader understand how silly the battle was over its use. It is subject to a CC BY 2.0 license, and also appears on Wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Girls_Netball_Team.jpg Thanks, Wschact 10:55, 19 July 2012 (EDT)

I know everyone is very busy but help with the image and help with the (unrelated) locked page from any admin would be appreciated. Thanks, Wschact 19:38, 21 July 2012 (EDT)
Done, go ahead and make the necessary changes. [10] --Jpatt 19:48, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

Luke 1-8 (Translated)

The whole translation is riddled with errors, some quite obvious, others more subtle.

  • Obviously many verses were "translated" without even looking at the previous or the next one. The result is not pleasing, even for those who aren't native speakers like me. (Example)
  • Many of the mistakes could have been spotted by using a kind of four-eyes principle (no need for 140 eyes...)
  • Other mistakes are somewhat intentional, they have a new meaning in mind. These are the most dangerous.

I intend to check these sections paragraph by paragraph and give my rationale on the talk-page and the edit-comments. But I'd be grateful if these edits are inspected and discussed, to prevent further errors.

AugustO 03:01, 19 July 2012 (EDT)


Hey, I just saw that the Edward II article was pretty bad, and I have access to a number of sources on him at the moment so I was going to fix it up a bit, providing I have enough time. I have a question though: in your manual of style or somewhere it says that we should avoid mentioning a person's sexuality unless they have self-identified as something. As it stands the entire article basically spends it's time skirting around the issue of his sexuality, without either addressing it directly, or talking about anything else. The question I was wondering was how should I fix this? As I see it the options are to remove mention of it completely (this is the less satisfactory option as his sexuality was considered politically important at the time and also in modern works) or to move discussion of this part of his life to a separate section where I would (very) briefly outline the arguments in recent scholarship both for and against his supposed homosexuality (or bisexuality or whatever they had back then) and why this is at all relevant. If you could tell me which would be more appropriate from a policy standpoint that would be good.Cmurphynz 06:57, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

This post should really be at the relevant talk page. From my knowledge of Edward II I would say that his possible sexuality is relevant because rumours of it had a big impact on his reign. He was clearly very close to certain men who then took on important roles within his administration. I should caution that there is no real credible evidence that he was actually homosexual - rumours and innuendo were apparently as rife then as they are now, and all "accounts" of his homosexuality tend to come from much later biographers. I would put it in a section at the start, and then tie in the issue to his administration and its legacy later on in the article. --DamianJohn 08:16, 21 July 2012 (EDT)
Put it on the talk page and we'll discuss it there.AlanE 19:58, 21 July 2012 (EDT)
Just copied to Edward II AlanE 20:13, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

Women's Soccer

Andy, could you please either provide an explanation at 2012 Summer Olympics as to why the women's soccer team might be expected to underperform, or remove it from the table? There are no reasons in the article, and some people on the talk page (not me) are starting to make negative comments about the site as a whole as a result of the discussion. Gregkochuconn 18:09, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

The team seems to be politically correct. I'll add more comments to the entry.--Andy Schlafly 20:41, 24 July 2012 (EDT)
Excellent. I'd suggest doing it tonight if possible, since the team's first game is tomorrow (soccer prelims start early because the tournaments are so long). If we add something after that, it might look to some people like we're predicting something after it's known. Gregkochuconn 20:47, 24 July 2012 (EDT)
See my response on the talk page to your edits. Feel free to revert if you object. But be careful not to undo my fixing of your wikilink to U.S. if you revert it. Gregkochuconn 21:12, 24 July 2012 (EDT)


I notice a lot of blocks have been occurring due to usernames not using first names with last initials. Maybe this could be solved by changing the User Creation process itself? Having users input their first name and last initial in two separate boxes for the User Creation process, and then combining this to make their username. It would probably eliminate a lot of confusion and energy spent on blocks if this could be done. Maybe a MediaWiki extension or something could achieve this? --Joshua Zambrano 08:50, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

Actually, I know a wiki already that uses a similar format - Citizendium. See how they have their Account Creation set up:
Even something as simple as changing the input box from 'Username' to 'First Name, Last Initial - e.g. JoshuaZ' would go a long way towards making people create correct accounts so fewer blocks are needed. Right now, anything that reduces the need for all these constant blocks would be a plus, in my opinion. --Joshua Zambrano 08:57, 25 July 2012 (EDT)


Hope I'm not annoying you with the suggestions, but one other I'd recommend is that you consider not showing blocks on the recent changes area. They'll still be visible in the Special Pages:Block List[11] for anyone who needs to see the information, but for those just trying to edit the wiki and see what page changes are being made, all the info about blocks could get distracting and frankly cause confusion and uncertainty about why so many blocks occur all the time. I don't know that most people want to know about every administrative action all the time, and probably just use the Recent changes page to figure out what pages are being edited. Maybe a link could be put at the top of the Recent changes page giving a link to the Special Pages:Block List for those who really want to see the info. --Joshua Zambrano 09:04, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

Hide Text By Ddfault

Andy, does this website have the capability to hide text by default, and then you click on "unhide" to show it? I'm thinking we might want to use it from about 7:00 PM tonight until midnight or so on the 2012 Summer Olympics article, because Beckham will have either lit the torch or not lit it by then, but it won't have aired in the USA on NBC yet. Or maybe even hold off on completely unhiding it until 3 AM when it airs on the West Coast. I'm trying not to find out who lights the torch until I see it on NBC tape-delayed, and I'd be mad if Conservapedia (or anyone else) spoiled it for me. Others may be on here looking for the info once it happens. Plus it wouldn't ruin it for most people outside the USA, who would have already seen it - NBC is pretty much the only network who waits until prime-time to show it, regardless of the time zone. Is this possible technically, and if so, what are your thoughts on it? Gregkochuconn 16:15, 27 July 2012 (EDT)

I don't know how to hide text as you suggest.--Andy Schlafly 18:59, 27 July 2012 (EDT)
Very well. I will add the answer (which I know thanks to iPhone alerts, but I won't spoil it for you), tomorrow morning. I'm not staying up until the West Coast broadcast ends at 3 AM Eastern. Gregkochuconn 20:18, 27 July 2012 (EDT)

Username change

Hello. Can I please change my name to AndyFranklinson? Thanks! --AndyFrankinson 16:58, 27 July 2012 (EDT)

Done as requested.--Andy Schlafly 18:57, 27 July 2012 (EDT)
Thank you! --AndyFranklinson 19:11, 27 July 2012 (EDT)

Latest Wikipedia scandal

Talk:Main_Page#ArbCom_bans_the_chairman_of_Wikimedia_UK – Can you please add information regarding this to News section of the Main Page? --Michaeldsuarez 10:37, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

Thanks for mentioning that story. I suggest that this news would be best included in a Wikipedia-related entry first, and then perhaps on the front page when there is less other news.--Andy Schlafly 10:56, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/08/01/50-shades-wikipedia-uk-head-banned-after-bondage-porn-ties/ – Foxnews.com is covering the story. --Michaeldsuarez 14:01, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

With the Olympics and Tuesday's elections in Texas, there have been many other important stories this week. But thanks for mentioning this issue with the Foxnews link.--Andy Schlafly 14:21, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

Username policy

I realize now that my username is in violation of policy, and can't see how to change it myself. If you or another admin could change it to DTSavage, that'd be great. Thanks!--Guitarsniper 10:57, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

Your user name has been changed as requested.--Andy Schlafly 14:23, 31 July 2012 (EDT)
On second thought, maybe his old name was better. People might mistakenly assume he's Dan Savage trolling us. Which raises an interesting question.... If someone's real name is similar to an anti-conservative term, should they use it, or not? After all, not all people with surname Darwin are Darwinists. And there are many women named Gay who were born before that term got its current connotation. And in this case, people who don't know what Dan Savage's middle initial is (and it's not T) might think that "DTSavage" is Dan Savage or one of his supporters trolling us. I've seen a few people with "Darwin" in their username blocked with no edits, and I've often wondered if any of them were really named Darwin, and were actually not Darwinists. Gregkochuconn 21:24, 31 July 2012 (EDT)
Or for that matter, what if my parents named me Edward instead of Gregory? Would you have blocked me on sight for my name, thinking I was a Democratic troll from New York City just because my name was the same as the former Mayor? That worries me. Gregkochuconn 21:28, 31 July 2012 (EDT)
That's something interesting to think about, which is partly why I have my full name up on my user page for people who care to look. Also thanks, Mr. Schlafly.--DTSavage 10:43, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

I need some lawyering help!

Hello Andy. I was just wondering whether there are laws that you know of that prohibit the consumption of anything? I know there are laws against possessing drugs, and in some countries that includes testing positive for drugs, which I guess is a de-facto law against consumption, but are there any specific laws disallowing a human being from putting something in their body? Sambiam

This site does not answer questions like that. This is an encyclopedic site. Also, please abide by the 90/10 Rule.--Andy Schlafly 14:40, 2 August 2012 (EDT)
Oh, my apologies Andy, I was just looking for some information that I thought you might be able to help with, given that you probably know far more about the law than i do. I only ask because of edits i've made to the marijuana page, that I want to make sure are factually accurate and I can't find a clear answer to my question any where on the internet. Sambiam
I really don't want to run afoul of the 90/10 rule Andy, I only ask in an effort to make better, more substantive contributions. I was only asking for help Sambiam
There are laws against drug use in all states (although Colorado has a referendum to change that for marijuana, and Washington and Oregon might as well). Unless someone sees you using it though, it's likely they'll just charge you with possession. The scent of marijuana is considered probable cause enough for a warrant for possession (even though it might be "marijuana air freshener"), but it isn't considered proof of use, since someone else could have done it in your room/house/whatever, or you could have burned some of it, which isn't use. But there are laws on the books banning the use of marijuana in all 50 states (for now). Many cities have tougher laws then their states while some, most notably Ann Arbor Michigan, have made the laws far looser than the state laws, which, while not truly legalizing use, has required state police to make arrests if they want to charge drug users. Why Topeka couldn't have done that with marijuana instead of domestic violence last year is beyond me. Gregkochuconn 04:58, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
Thank you Greg for your response, whilst it is helpful, I still believe those laws only relate to possession of a controlled substance, as opposed to the consumption. I believe this is a good thing however, whilst it is bad enough that the federal government can tell you what you can or cant do in the privacy of your own home, I think it would be a step too far for them to tell us what we can put into our bodies. Sambiam
I stand corrected. here are the laws in Connecticut. You can use the drop-down on the right to find other states. Assuming by "use" you mean "for personal use" and not "sell", there is no distinction between that and possession in Connecticut. Other states may be different. Also, in many cases, people on probation or parole can go to prison if they fail a drug test. And I agree with you. Gregkochuconn 08:20, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

1st commandment question

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

Are talk page posts required to comply with Conservapedia's first commandment: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable"? If it applies, I would like someone to check this post for compliance with our first commandment and to take appropriate action if necessary. Much appreciated.

P.S. By the way, I apologize for my previous comment regarding the article "False flag operation: what would it look like?" that was removed. It is not my intent to use words that could be construed as attacks on authors who are also editors of Conservapedia. GregG 16:29, 3 August 2012 (EDT)


This user should recieve the SkipCaptcha priviledge. (S)He seems to be interested in the citing and referencing in good faith. Thanks for considering, brenden 14:52, 5 August 2012 (EDT)

OK, thanks for the suggestion. I'll add those privileges now.--Andy Schlafly 14:56, 5 August 2012 (EDT)

citation policy question

when citing from personal knowledge, is it necessary/preferred to find other sources to provide proper citation. For example, a week and a half or so ago I edited the page for sailing based on some information that was incorrect. I know it was incorrect because I am a sailor and teach sailing. In cases such as this, when an editor has personal expertise or knowledge that is not necessarily from some link-able source, is it necessary to find a corroborating source online to provide a citation? thanks!--DTSavage 00:56, 7 August 2012 (EDT)

Abuse of Power

Andy, I notice that user:Karajou has blocked user:DHouser under the 90/10 rule, when 20% of DHouser's edits have actually been to improve articles. As the guy in charge here, could you ensure that Sysops don't overstep their remit? Many thanks. --KarlP 13:23, 11 August 2012 (EDT)


User:Nacacube has signed my username] on a talk page. He obviously didn't just copy-paste and change the comment, since the timestamp is different. What's more, the time on it is wrong - he left it at 11:57 AM according to the history. I left him a message on his talk page, since he appears to be new and may not be entirely familiar with the editing process. What further action, if any, should be taken? Also, I'd like to know how he managed to sign my name. As I said, it clearly wasn't a copy-paste error (though I don't know why he'd copy-paste my comment, delete what I said, and insert his own, in the first place), since the timestamp is different. Also, the timestamp is off by half an hour or so, so it wasn't some weird glitch with the four tilde thing. I'm slightly disturbed by this. People can't go around affixing my signature to things, especially since policy requires me to use my real name on here. I'm not pleased at all. Gregkochuconn 14:59, 11 August 2012 (EDT)

He just posted on my talk page "I did sign it with my name. Must have been an error with the site. Regardz. [sic]" Could you look into this? If a site error is effecting signatures and affixing improper names, that needs to be looked into, ASAP. If it's not a site error and he's lying, then that's fraud and I'm the victim, and I'd like to see something done about it. Gregkochuconn 18:41, 11 August 2012 (EDT)

Congratulations on 1 million edits

This edit marks the one millionth edit on Conservapedia. Congratulations for the achievement, and my best wishes on many millions more. GregG 19:45, 12 August 2012 (EDT)

Thanks, but are you sure about the number? Special:Statistics doesn't seem to show that.--Andy Schlafly 21:54, 12 August 2012 (EDT)
The edit linked above has ID number 1000000. Of course, there might be fewer revisions in the database if certain edits are deleted (such as through oversight or deletion and recreation of a page). I haven't read up on the MW details to see how that affects the edit count in Special:Statistics. GregG 22:02, 12 August 2012 (EDT)

Standard Model and gravity well

Is it OK for me to add that the Standard Model explains all the experimental data of particle physics? And, I don't mean to be impatient, but can you please answer my question here? (And by the way, there is no time dilation in Newtonian physics.) -AndyFranklinson 13:24, 14 August 2012 (EDT)

Article to be renamed

Creation magazine should be titled Creation (magazine), as the title of the magazine is Creation. The word "magazine" is not actually in the actual title. SharonW 11:02, 16 August 2012 (EDT)

Faith-Based Achievement

Hi Andy,

I can't help but notice that, at this point, there's a lot of data in various articles related to differences in achievement between those with faith and those who lack faith. Of course, there are the articles on differences in academic achievement, and now, with the Olympics, there's a solid look at athletic achievement. Is there enough data at this point, do you think, to create a unifying article examining the difference faith makes in overall success? Such an article could also examine achievement in other areas--for instance, it could certainly point out that the most profound and enduring contributions to science have been made by scientists of deep Christian faith. --Benp 12:24, 16 August 2012 (EDT)