Difference between revisions of "User talk:Aschlafly"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(iPSC therapies: Allowing stem cell treatment on only 5 persons every 3 years (the study won't complete until 2014) is so little that it is almost nothing.)
m (archiving)
Line 12: Line 12:
::Thank you for clarifying. --[[User:MorganBT|MorganT]]
::Thank you for clarifying. --[[User:MorganBT|MorganT]]
== 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. [[User:LucoDaw|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, [[Counterexamples to Relativity|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]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:46, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
::In what way is the Theory of Relativity illogical? [[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 19:29, 9 September 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 [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Starlight_problem#Gravity_well here?] (And by the way, there is no time dilation in Newtonian physics.) -[[User:AndyFranklinson|AndyFranklinson]] 13:24, 14 August 2012 (EDT)
:Andy, I don't mean to be rude, but why aren't you responding? --[[User:AndyFranklinson|AndyFranklinson]] 15:49, 19 August 2012 (EDT)
::I highly doubt that the Standard Model explains all of particle physics.  If it did, then why would so much work be spent on other theories, such as string theory?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:46, 19 August 2012 (EDT)
:::I said all experimental data. You're right--it doesn't solve the quantum gravity problem. In fact, it has nothing to say about gravity. It can't explain dark matter, and it also has the hierarchy problem. Moreover, it's kind of messy. So, people have been looking for differences from the Standard Model in particle accelerators but everything matches the Standard Model's predictions. Also: how does the gravity well work if GR is "liberal claptrap?" --[[User:AndyFranklinson|AndyFranklinson]] 20:51, 19 August 2012 (EDT)
::::Andy, would you please answer me? --[[User:AndyFranklinson|AndyFranklinson]] 19:13, 25 August 2012 (EDT)
:::::A [[gravity well]] is a model for planetary motion.  It can be explained as easily by a classical model as by [[General Relativity]].  But both may be wrong in favor of other theories, such as ones that recognizes the [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth|fallacies in the old universe theory]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:15, 25 August 2012 (EDT)
::::::Here is what I was talking about--Russell Humphreys proposed a cosmology which said that the universe is finite, so the earth is in a gravity well. If this is true, then there should be some time dilation resulting from the gravity well. However, '''time dilation is present only in general-relativistic models!''' And you say that GR--and SR--are liberal claptrap. So...how can this work? Without general relativistic time dilation, Humphreys' model '''is not consistent with the Bible.''' --[[User:AndyFranklinson|AndyFranklinson]] 08:56, 26 August 2012 (EDT)
:::::::Andy, I'd really appreciate an answer here! :) --[[User:AndyFranklinson|AndyFranklinson]] 19:02, 3 September 2012 (EDT)
::::::::I'm not a defender of Humphreys' model, and I've wondered why some creationists believe in [[General Relativity]].  Regardless, I'm not sure that time dilation effects depend entirely on relativistic models.
::::::::I guess I wouldn't rely on hokey relativity to justify the timing described in the [[Bible]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:06, 4 September 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::So you're saying you believe in something like Humphreys' model but with time dilation resulting from something besides GR? --[[User:AndyFranklinson|AndyFranklinson]] 08:49, 5 September 2012 (EDT)
::::::::::No, I'm saying that there are too many [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]] to doubt that the universe is, in fact, quite young.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:41, 5 September 2012 (EDT)
== Blocked for too much talk ==
[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] blocked me after only 4 edits with the reason being that I broke the 90/10 rule. However, 25% of my edits were to article space. Actions like that scare away new editors and is detrimental to Conservapedia. Is this the right place to request revocation of blocking privileges? [[User:AcomaMagic|AcomaMagic]] 15:51, 25 August 2012 (EDT)
:The 90/10 is not an absolute formula. We're looking for people who support this project, not trolls or clueless people. Read the rules before making any further edits. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 16:12, 25 August 2012 (EDT)
::People aren't going to support the project if they're expected to contribute immediately and can't discuss at all. The 90/10 rule was obviously inappropriately used here since they hadn't even made 100 edits, so how can 90 of them have been talk page ones? There should be no exercise of the 90/10 rule before 100 edits are made, and the rule is being abused. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 00:32, 4 September 2012 (EDT)
::AcomaMagic is entirely right that ridiculous blocks like this are harming Conservapedia's reputation and driving away potential editors. No matter how many logical arguments and reliable sources I provide Conservapedia, it won't matter if people resent unfair and abusive blocks like this one, and refuse to edit accordingly, or are unable to. This block was made claiming a rule violation that never occurred, and needs to be reversed right away. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 00:54, 4 September 2012 (EDT)
:::How was the block ridiculous? This fellow comes in the site, talks talks talks, adds figures of evolutionary "science" knowing full well this is Christian creationist site. How does that not merit the original block or the ''block of a Senior Sysop you reverted''. By the way, don't do that without asking the blocking sysop first. Also, 90/10 isn't a mathematical formula requiring 100 edits; it's a general principle that states that things ''like'' 90% talk and 10% edits is unacceptable. And mathematically, it would even only require 10 edits.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 05:05, 4 September 2012 (EDT)
:::: Mathematically it would only require one edit, assuming we mean 90/10 or more, and not exactly 90/10 - it's ridiculous to assume someone who made 99 out of 100 edits would not be in violation of the 90/10 rule because 99%, not 90%, of their 100 edits were to talk pages. But one single edit is not a good sample size. I'd say four isn't either, but without seeing the edits (and I need to go get breakfast and get to my 8 AM class, so I don't have time to) I don't know for sure. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 06:45, 4 September 2012 (EDT)
:::::For some reason I was thinking the guidelines said 90 edits, not 90%, but in looking now I see that's not the case. Like Gregkochuconn said though, one edit or four edits is a ridiculously low sample size, and the rule is still being used wrongly. By that standard, anyone can be banned for anything if they come on the site and make a single talk page edit, or in AcomaMagic's case, make four edits and one gets reversed.
:::::The solar system edit was reversed as it was from an evolutionary POV I noticed, otherwise he would have made four edits, three of them to talk pages.[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Solar_System&diff=prev&oldid=1000912] So only by not counting that one edit could you consider him to violate the 90/10 rule, or he would have made 75% talk page edits of his first 4 edits. I guess the thing is though, if you're going to ban him for changing the page to reflect a macroevolutionary view, then you should say so when blocking, don't cite the 90/10 rule. Because the 90/10 rule shouldn't be used like that, after four edits, three to a talk page. That looks ridiculous.
:::::Who came up with the 90/10 rule, anyway? Philip J. Rayment, a now-retired user?[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia%3AGuidelines&action=historysubmit&diff=428003&oldid=331665] Why do we have a debate section at all if the site discourages "talkers" and "incessant talk"? Does the rule apply to debate sections? Because if so, it looks really bad that we have a debate section at all. This rule was poorly thought out, is ill-defined, and allows banning for any reason or no reason.
:::::If he was banned for changing a page to support evolution, so be it, but at least say that's what he was banned for. Don't claim a rule violation of the 90/10 rule when he made 75% talk page contributions over 4 edits. This is a clear case of abusing the rule to ban over another issue. I don't mind seeing a banning over pro-evolution editing, but at least say that's what it's for, and make sure the guidelines are clear that pro-evolution editing is not allowed, and can result in lengthy bans like this. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 07:47, 4 September 2012 (EDT)
== fast antivandal script ==
I have an antivandal script, available. It allows for a rapid reversion, undo, block, and delete of a vandal's edits. This script can be run on any sysop's computer with groovy installed. If you like, I can run it continuously from my account.
* The person running it must be a sysop, or have block, rollback, and delete rights.
* The person running it must have Java with the groovy plugin
The source code can be found here: [[User:Brenden/revertscript]].
Thanks for noticing
[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 18:12, 1 September 2012 (EDT)
:That's interesting, Brenden.  I'll review this further.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:48, 1 September 2012 (EDT)
== question ==
Hi, I had a question here, but it was in a conversation that was mostly trolling/vandalism so it got deleted. Anyway, I came across a couple of pages that were set up purely as vandalism, and I couldn't quite work out what to do with them.  Is deleting pages possible from all accounts or is it restricted to certain ones?  If it is possible to delete pages, how does that work, and if it is not possible, is there a way of informing someone that can delete it?  (I think the pages I was talking about were deleted pretty quickly anyway, but if there is a way of speeding that up then that would be useful to know) thnx[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 09:37, 3 September 2012 (EDT)
:Please insert <nowiki>{{speedy}}</nowiki> into the entry, and then it shows up in the category of "speedy deletion candidates" for easy removal by an Administrator.  Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:53, 3 September 2012 (EDT)
::Deleting pages is restricted to certain accounts. There are a lot of junk pages that need to be deleted. I have an interesting suggestion: perhaps accounts could be promoted to be able to delete pages with fewer than three or so revisions in order to delete garbage like that? That way, users with extended privileges can delete pages spammers/vandals make. --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 09:54, 3 September 2012 (EDT)
::Ok, cool.  So just put that template at the top of the page or whatever?[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 04:15, 4 September 2012 (EDT)
== Username Change ==
Can you change my username to JZambrano? I would say JoshuaZ but apparently another user already has that, interestingly. Anyway, I'd like to abide by site username policy. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 12:15, 3 September 2012 (EDT)
:User name changed as requested.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:01, 3 September 2012 (EDT)
::Alright, thank you! --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 13:08, 3 September 2012 (EDT)
== CBP & Further Review ==
A month ago, I decided to stay away until I find signs that I'm not the only one left who is interested in the [[Conservapedia Bible Project]] - or until something happened at the ''further review'' of my block-rights (you remember, when you took them away your wrote in the comment ''pending further review of the disagreement'')
*not all interest in the CBP seems to be lost, so here I'm again!
*unfortunately you have still not given any result of the review - I'd rather be interested in your reasoning. I think that ''more than six weeks'' should allow for settling this rather simple matter...
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:09, 4 September 2012 (EDT)
== Comment on American Government lecture ==
Dear Mr. Schlafly,
I left a comment at [[Talk:American Government Lecture Two#Intellectual property]], and I'd appreciate it if you'd take the time to read it.  Thanks, [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:22, 8 September 2012 (EDT)
==Page move==
Could someone please move [[Ray Garofolo]] to [[Ray Garofalo]].  The editor who created the page made a typographical error when creating it. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 06:39, 10 September 2012 (EDT)
== Thanks for the promotion.  ==
Thanks. [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 20:26, 12 September 2012 (EDT)
== [[User:Conservative]]'s main page comment and possible trolling ==
Dear Mr. Schlafly,
Recently, [[User:Conservative]] added a comment at [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=1006108&oldid=1006107] that is clearly trolling and does nothing to advance the discussion nor provide useful information that I had requested regarding Conservapedia's dispute resolution process.  I therefore, after careful consideration, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=next&oldid=1006108 removed the comment] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Conservative/mail&diff=prev&oldid=1006110 explained the situation on his talk page].  Despite this admonition, [[User:Conservative]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=next&oldid=1006109 reverted my deletion of his comment].  If [[User:Conservative]] were not an administrator, I would certainly block the account and remove the comment again.  However, since he is an experienced administrator, and since letting him edit for the time being will likely not cause much harm, I am asking you for advice on how to handle this situation.
Your prompt attention in this matter is appreciated.
[[User:GregG|GregG]] 19:09, 13 September 2012 (EDT)
== Delete Extraeneous Talk Page ==
Could you please delete [[Talk:Phoenix Blossom Festival]] as the article was deleted as a hoax? Also, is there any way to make this process automatic in the future? I believe TOW does that, one of the few things they do better than us. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:05, 13 September 2012 (EDT)
::Done. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:31, 13 September 2012 (EDT)
== Page Move ==
Could you please move [[List of homosexuals transgendered or transsexuals in the media]] to [[List of homosexuals, transgendered, or transsexuals in the media]]? The title needs commas. Thanks. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:30, 13 September 2012 (EDT)
::Done. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:51, 14 September 2012 (EDT)
== Edit rights ==
Could you grant me the edit right? yesterday, for a period of 3-4 hours, the site was uneditable for me. Thanks for considering,
[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 15:39, 14 September 2012 (EDT)
:Usually an editor has more substantive edits before an account promotion as you suggest.  Can we revisit this issue again in a few weeks?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:54, 14 September 2012 (EDT)
== Could you explain this edit: [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Attack_Ads&curid=122202&diff=1006578&oldid=1006561] ? ==
All I was doing is adding categories to a page formerly lacking categories. --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 12:30, 15 September 2012 (EDT)
:I think it was a mistake, as he [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Attack_Ads&diff=next&oldid=1006578 reverted his own edit] immediately.  [[User:GregG|GregG]] 14:08, 15 September 2012 (EDT)
::Greg is right - the reversion was a mistake, which I quickly corrected.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:37, 15 September 2012 (EDT)
== Why was I unable to edit for a few minutes ==
Why was I unable to edit for a few minutes today? The edit button didn't show up. I kept checking and a few minutes later it returned to normal. I checked several pages, including [[University of Connecticut]], this talk page, and several random pages. Perhaps I got caught up in an IP block if some troll from UConn was trolling. Unfortunately, I have no choice but to use UConn IPs. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 14:10, 15 September 2012 (EDT)
:Not sure what happened, there.  You should always be able to edit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:05, 17 September 2012 (EDT)
== [[CP:VIP]] ==
This is a proposed essay, that could be included in the <nowiki>{{warning}}</nowiki> template. Could you read over it and give some feedback, or direct me to someone who is also willing to read it? Thanks,
[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 22:03, 15 September 2012 (EDT)
== Error in [[American Government Lecture Two]] ==
Interesting lecture - I've just had a read through.
Just wanted to point out that the paragraph beginning "Canada, England, and nations in continental Europe..." is incorrect regarding England. The correct term would be United Kingdom. While we tend to use the two interchangeably, a government class should really stress the difference between England and the United Kingdom in political terms (the first as a subset of the second). The current wording may lead people to believe that England has its own separate legislative branch, which it does not (but Scotland, Wales and NI do under [[devolution]]).
I would change it, but I'd rather not alter your (otherwise excellent) lecture.
Kind regards,
[[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 22:36, 17 September 2012 (EDT)
:Edit: This would also apply to the wording of Question 7. [[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 22:42, 17 September 2012 (EDT)
::Your point is well-taken, but "England" is what Americans use to refer to the British political system.  I understand that there are important distinctions between the "United Kingdom" and England for folks who like there.  But in common usage, for the purposes of an American Government course, "England" suffices as a general term.  If one wanted to get technical, he might object to entitling the course "American Government" too, but such terms need not be so precise in a political class.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:04, 17 September 2012 (EDT)
:::North America nonetheless is not a political entity, whereas both UK and England are. America and the USA are understood to be the same thing, whereas even most Americans would deny that Edinburgh is in England. My concern is mainly that in your previous lecture, you emphasise the difference between the state and country level when forming laws. England does not have the power to create its own laws without the permission of the rest of the UK, whereas Scotland does. New Jersey can create many laws without the permission of the federal government. It just seems a bit odd to stress the distinction in the US, and then make such a fundamental mistake regarding the government of the UK. It really is only a small change, but it's a fundamental one in meaning when we're talking about government. Conservatives should stress the objective truth, rather than the a convenient interpretation of it. [[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 13:16, 20 September 2012 (EDT)
==Browser issues==
Mr. Schlafly, I am not blocked but cannot open Conservapedia from my home computer. I can open Conservapedia from the public library. Can something of a technical nature be done to let me into Conservapedia from home? Thanks, B. Hathorn [[User:BHathorn|BHathorn]] 17:07, 20 September 2012 (EDT)
:Do you use the same browser at both home and in the library? What browser do you have at home? Do you have a javascript plugin installed in your browser? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 06:05, 21 September 2012 (EDT)
== Further Review ==
On this day '''10 weeks ago''', you stripped me of the blocking rights ''pending further review of the disagreement''.
*Has this ''further review'' been concluded? Then why am I not informed about the outcome?
*If this ''further review'' hasn't been concluded, then why not? Ten weeks should have been more than ample time.
Common courtesy lets me expect now either a prompt reinstatement - or at least a well-reasoned decision on this review. Thanks. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:18, 21 September 2012 (EDT)
:Aschlafly, you have repeatedly stated that granting rights is your way of acknowledging good work. Taking such rights therefore feels like reprehension. I'm not aware of having done something wrong, so please stop ignoring this matter and address the above! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:17, 22 September 2012 (EDT)
::Aschlafly, I hope you are not delaying this review because of our current difficulties at John 3:16! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 04:58, 23 September 2012 (EDT)
Aschlafy, did you come to a conclusion? Which one and why? And if yo havn't reached a conclusion yet, why not? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:33, 23 September 2012 (EDT)
:Is it to much to expect a lawyer who has announced a ''further review'' to perform this ''further review'' in a timely manner? It should take only a couple of minutes to check the blocks I made. If there are any questions or something seems to be fishy, you can ask me - and I'll answer to it (''et altera pars audiatur''). You could meditate about your decision and in a couple of days it would be all over.
:What are you waiting for? That I break the 90/10 rule - or that I lose my temper completely about some especially sacrilegious mistranslation in the CBP - so that there would be a pretext to get rid of me for good? That's not the style of a meritocracy, so I don't think so.
:A four year old boy is allowed to close his eyes and cover his ears going "lalalala" to shut out all the things he doesn't like to register. He will learn over time that such a behavior is costly: he looks stupid and may ignore helpful information.
:I'm not in the position to tell you how to run your project. But even in the internet, at least the appearance of "truth in advertising" is preferred. So if you call your product a meritocracy, make it look like one!
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:38, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
I'm waiting for 75 days now! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:59, 27 September 2012 (EDT)
Just answer the man's question! You don't have to say yes you know. [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 18:09, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
:No chance. Just look at his inaction in the face of Ken's trolling; there's no chance of him responding to something as small as August being unjustly demoted. The phrase "intellectual bunny hole" comes to mind.--[[User:BillyReuben|BillyReuben]] 18:22, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
== Two edits ==
Please edit the main page where it says "the traffic in India will no doubt increasing", changing "increasing" to "increase".
Also, on the [[Roe V. Wade]] article, which is fully protected, it says the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act is the first law that banned abortions to be upheld "since Roe V. Wade". However, this makes it sound too much like Roe V. Wade upheld abortion bans, when the opposite is true. I'd recommend changing "since" to "after" to make that more clear. But the page is protected so I can't do it myself. On a side note, does this site have semi-protection like TOW where only experienced editors can edit but it's not limited to sysops? It might not be a bad idea - that's really one of the few things they do better than us IMO. If our software has that capability, we might want to implement it for controversial articles (like Roe V. Wade, the homosexuality article, the atheism article, etc., rather than leaving them open to anyone including new users who purely vandalize or limiting them to just sysops. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:42, 21 September 2012 (EDT)
: Edit: Apparently the page with a capital V never existed until I just created it as a redirect. I'd recommend putting whatever protection (full or semi if it exists) on the redirect page that you have on the main article. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:43, 21 September 2012 (EDT)
::<s>The lawyers and journalists will cringe when they see a capital V. in a court case name. Can that be fixed?</s> This talk page is the only page that now uses the capital V. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 06:36, 22 September 2012 (EDT)
:: The capital V is a redirect. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 10:10, 22 September 2012 (EDT)
== [[User:Conservative]] & trolling, redux ==
Dear Mr. Schlafly,
I thought that the [[#User:Conservative's main page comment and possible trolling|previous incident]] regarding [[User:Conservative]] and trolling was a mere lapse of judgment, but today [[User:Conservative]] has once again [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:EvoWiki&diff=1008176&oldid=1008127 resorted to trolling] and intentionally being unhelpful to fellow Conservapedians.  Again, although I think that [[User:Conservative]] would be blocked if I were running the site, I am posting this on your talk page so you can handle this situation yourself.  I really appreciate it.
(By the way, I just wanted to ask since it's been about 3 months, but what is the status on your review [[User:GregG/Formal complaint about User:Conservative]]?  If it would help, I can update it with more recent/relevant examples of the sort of behavior that [[User:Conservative]] has engaged in.)  [[User:GregG|GregG]] 11:25, 22 September 2012 (EDT)
::Horace, is not a Conservapedian.  You know this. I was not being unhelpful to Conservapedians. Second, you wrote "if I were running the site". Your not. Despite how much you wish you were. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:35, 22 September 2012 (EDT)
:::First of all, [[User:Horace]] has a registered account here, so he is a Conservapedian, even if he is indefinitely blocked (or, as appears to be the case, he has proclaimed himself as a troll).  The remarks you made to a 5-year-old comment by [[User:Horace]] are very similar to the remarks you made to me, which was certainly unhelpful advice directed at a Conservapedian (to be fair, though, I don't know whether you knew that CPanel was defunct/historical when you first suggested I contact CPanel, unlike what is at issue here).  Second, I don't see anything wrong with stating what I want to have happen in a request to Mr. Schlafly or giving my own opinion as to what he should do.  But if we had to withhold our opinions on how CP is to be run since we don't own the site, then Mr. Schlafly would be far busier than the already busy man he is.  [[User:GregG|GregG]] 14:04, 22 September 2012 (EDT)
The reason why your complaint was ignored was that it was largely motivated by your errant Darwinist views. Judging from [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates|prominent evolutionists ducking public debates after losing hundreds of public debates]], [[Kenneth Miller]]'s non-response to your email about the [http://creation.com/15-quuestions 15 questions for evolutionists] and your unwillingness to debate [[Shockofgod]] and/or VivaYehshua in a oral debate which would be recorded and distributed to tens of thousands of people, these are spurious evolutionist views that you and [[Kenneth Miller]] are unwilling to public defend in a creation vs. evolution debate.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:09, 22 September 2012 (EDT)
:This has absolutely nothing to do with my or your belief on the origin of life.  [[User:GregG|GregG]] 14:12, 22 September 2012 (EDT)
'''ADDENDUM''':  Here's another instance of [[User:Conservative]] posting a comment that I consider to be trolling [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AMain_Page&action=historysubmit&diff=1008285&oldid=1008194] (although in this case [[User:Conservative]] did not mislead Conservapedians about CP policy).  [[User:GregG|GregG]] 18:28, 22 September 2012 (EDT)
: For what it's worth, it's not just GregG who thinks this. When I first joined here, I almost reported Conservative to Andy for being a parodist troll in the style of Steven Colbert (only worse), masquerading as a crazy conservative to make real (perfectly sane, reasonable) conservatives look bad. Then I realized he was a sysop, and that presumably this behavior was therefore condoned by the site. Having seen several others complain, including at least one who specifically mentioned Colbert and several others who had the same theory, I am beginning to question whether Conservative's actions are really helping this site. If liberals and atheists read some of the things Conservative rights [sic; should read, ''"writes"''], it only furthers their belief that all conservatives are crazy extremists. That doesn't help the cause of conservatism or Conservapedia - it hinders it. As well-intentioned as his actions might be, they're damaging us more than they help us. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 15:00, 25 September 2012 (EDT)
::By the time someone completes 12-20 years of formal schooling, it often becomes difficult for him to realize that perhaps 50% or more of what he learned in school was false.  It was difficult for me to accept this, but it's a wonderful revelation when the mind is opened to it.
::Some of User:Conservative's statements, like the view that the world was created only 6,000 ago, are very difficult for many to open their minds to.  There was a time when I was not even aware that anyone held such beliefs.  But logic is powerful, and there is nothing illogical about that observation or many of User:Conservative's other remarks.  Whether or not such logic may temporarily alienate some people, logic does eventually prevail.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:36, 25 September 2012 (EDT)
:::GregK, we agree on fiscal conservatism and limited government.  Also, this wiki is not libertarianpedia. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:22, 26 September 2012 (EDT)
:::: Your point is well taken, Conservative. I recognize that, which is why I try to stick to articles we are in agreement with, or at least try to explain the libertarian perspective in certain articles, for instance [[marriage privatization]], where I am the main contributor. However, none of this has anything to do with the subject at hand.
:::: I think Conservapedia has the potential to be a great site. I think you and I both want that. However, as good as your intentions may be, they are not helping the site. Steven Colbert's character, as conservative as he claims to be, does not help the cause of conservatism, because he makes ridiculously extreme arguments that make conservatives look like idiots. It's one thing to say "The world is 6,000 years old." I disagree personally, but that's not too extreme to work here. It's another thing to claim that not only is the world 6,000 years old, but anyone who doesn't think that is an atheist, and is therefore probably obese, since most atheists are obese, and to then go on a long rant about that. It's one thing to say "homosexuality is morally wrong." Again, we disagree, but as this is Conservapedia, we'll have to agree to disagree while working together on what we agree on. I'll tolerate that view for the sake of fiscal conservatism, gun rights, etc. And of course, that is a legitimate conservative view, and this is Conservapedia, so it does belong here whether I like it or not. I accept that. But it's another thing to tie just about everything possible to homosexuality, no matter how vague the connection, and to use that vague connection to further your political agenda through every possible area, however, mundane.
:::: I saw your Olympics analysis, how a correlation coefficient of 0.7 with regards to same-sex marriage and Olympic performance must indicate that homosexuality causes poor athletic performance. First off, the Olympics article should be about the Olympics, not politics. Second of all, 0.7 is not a statistically significant correlation; it simply indicates that you need to do more testing to find if there is significance. Second [sic, should read, ''"Third"''], correlation does not equal causation-the true cause could be anything from liberalism to increased parity. In any case, there was no need to turn the Olympics article into a crazy rant against homosexuality. At the very least, you could have created a separate page while devoting the Olympics page to Olympics coverage. Frankly, thanks to your work, the page looked (and still looks) like how a parody of a conservative news site would report on the Olympics. However useful the information may be, that doesn't help us as a source of credible information.
:::: I know you're not malicious, but I don't think work so extreme helps Conservapedia. If you were to tone it down a bit - still presenting the same causes, but in a less over-the-top way, that would be what Conservapedia needs. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:10, 26 September 2012 (EDT)
::::::GregK, you are going to have to better document some of your accusations. For example, I am aware that theological liberals, deists, agnostics and many Roman Catholics hold to an old earth position. Please refrain from making accusations about me in the future without fully supporting them. Thank you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:33, 26 September 2012 (EDT)
:::::::In reading User:Greg'S comments it appears he was making suggestions how to improve the site, not "making accusations". He clearly stated, "I know you're not malicious...", so in good faith there should be no cause to take suggestions to improve the site and site users editing skills as "accusations".  [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 08:25, 27 September 2012 (EDT)
These are unsupported accusations: "It's another thing to claim that not only is the world 6,000 years old, but anyone who doesn't think that is an atheist, and is therefore probably obese, since most atheists are obese, and to then go on a long rant about that. It's one thing to say "homosexuality is morally wrong...But it's another thing to tie just about everything possible to homosexuality, no matter how vague the connection, and to use that vague connection to further your political agenda through every possible area, however, mundane." 
For example, he needs to show that my homosexuality material is incorrect in terms of the claims it makes. I don't believe he can do that.  I have no problems with legitimate critiques, but I do have a problem with time wasting critiques which are baseless in character. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:29, 27 September 2012 (EDT)
:You missed the point you quoted [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 17:11, 27 September 2012 (EDT)
==Removed from edit==
Apparently I have been removed from the edit group for some reason and without any prior notification. Did I do something wrong, or is this simply a glitch of some sort? And if a glitch, I would appreciate it being fixed.--[[User:DTSavage|DTSavage]] 14:06, 22 September 2012 (EDT)
: Perhaps someone mistook you as a [[Dan Savage]] troll? I'm so glad right now my parents didn't name me Edward. Or Adrian, which is what my grandmother wanted them to name me. Because then I'd probably go by Ed since Adrian is an awful name for a 20-year old to have. But anyway, you'd probably think I was a New York City Democrat troll. I don't know. Sorry for rambling, I tend to ramble when I'm tired. Perhaps liberals should get more sleep to avoid [[liberal wordiness]]?  [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 00:02, 23 September 2012 (EDT)
::Dunno what happened, but I can now edit normally. I've noted that I have similar initials to Dan Savage on my user page, and specified that I have no connection to him.--[[User:DTSavage|DTSavage]] 00:35, 23 September 2012 (EDT)
== Obama's middle name ==
Obama's middle name is Hussein, not Husein. The main page has this incorrect spelling. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 00:06, 23 September 2012 (EDT)
:It seems to be Hussein now.  I suppose someone fixed it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:06, 23 September 2012 (EDT)
:: It appears we are looking in two different places. It is spelled correctly once. However, it also says "Barack Husein Obama...mmm, mmm, mmm!" The creepy, visual history of a personality cult: [16] where it should be Hussein. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 02:37, 23 September 2012 (EDT)
:::Corrected the spelling.  Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:58, 23 September 2012 (EDT)
== Technical issue regarding [[AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion]] ==
I started an article with the title "AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion".  However, when I [http://www.conservapedia.com/AT%26T_Mobility_v._Concepcion try to access the page] I just created, I instead get the page for AT and the deletion log message for that page.  Can you please fix this?  Thanks, [[User:GregG|GregG]] 09:49, 23 September 2012 (EDT)
:The "&" symbol does not work in titles of entries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 23 September 2012 (EDT)
::I don't think [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Mobility_v._Concepcion Wikipedia has this issue]; it may be due to differences in the Apache server configuration.  Anyways, what do you suggest as a page title for Conservapedia's article on this important case?  [[User:GregG|GregG]] 20:36, 23 September 2012 (EDT)
:::AT&T is sometimes stylized as "ATT." Perhaps create the article at "ATT Mobility v. Concepcion" then redirect [[AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion]] there? [[User:Biblethumpinjosh|<span style="color:#0000CD;font-family:Harlow Solid Italic">''Biblethumpinjosh''</span>]] 
== Two Requests ==
*Please change the links in the left sidebar (world history: [[World History Lectures]] [[World History Homework]]) to the current course, i.e., American Government: [[American Government Lectures]] [[American Government Homework]]
*Please address this section above: [[User talk:Aschlafly#Further Review]]
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:42, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
== "A popular gameshow" ==
I've removed [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Underdog&action=historysubmit&diff=959166&oldid=959156 this] addition. I'm mentioning it here since it was your contribution. If you revert it, please would you be able to at least say what gameshow it was, and preferably put a source in.
Kind regards,
[[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 21:05, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
== Model Behavior ==
I expect you to be a rôle model for the teen-aged sysops on this site. But what an example are you setting by ignoring valid inquiries for weeks? Surely, you have your reasons - but then you should state them! Otherwise [[Occam's razor]] leads us to the conclusion that the reason for such a behavior is either laziness or cowardice, and such an impression should be avoided, shouldn't it? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:58, 25 September 2012 (EDT)
Aschlafly, if you see Conservapedia as a mere paste-time, you have every right to pick and choose the items you want to address. But if you take it a little bit more serious, showing some professionalism would be nice! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:36, 26 September 2012 (EDT)
== Claim on Main page poorly worded ==
On the main page, you say "It appears that American history is deficient in liberal academics." What this statement means as written is that there are a lack of liberal academics in American history. This is arguably true (depending on whether you mean "any academic" or "good academic") but it has nothing to do with the Michelle Obama article. What I think you mean is "It appears liberals are deficient in America history." [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 10:31, 25 September 2012 (EDT)
I am afraid I may have broken you rules:
I have two accounts
User:PatMc    and
Please accept my apologies, It was done on purpose but innocently, as I forgot my password but have since remembered it.
Is it possible to remove user patmac and keep user PatMc, again I offer my sincere apologies.
Also could I submit an essay on hymns?
In particular hymns important to British/English culture such as Abide with me and Jerusalem?, I ask because written English is a weak spot in my education and not sure it would come up to the standards set by Conservapaedia. Also I am not very aware of American English nuances so spellings, etc would be in British English which I know is frowned upon.
Many thanks --[[User:Patmac|Patmac]] 23:44, 28 September 2012 (EDT)
==If I could work faster...==
I could probably contribute more. I've been trying to correct a few grammatical errors, typos, and update the poverty rate in the Obama article for 45 minutes. Can any of the hindrances and problems to contributing ever be addressed?  It would seem if editors did not get the idea working here was a total waste of time, content and participation may increase.  [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 10:56, 29 September 2012 (EDT)
:What problems are you referring to?  In general, this site is for substantive, encyclopedic contributions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:02, 29 September 2012 (EDT)
::Specifically right now, Autopatrol. More Generally, 90/10 is an impediment to collaboration. For example, I've been trying to update the cites (which are two years out of date) in the Intro to the Obama article, but the weight of the page (114 kbs) makes it run slow. To ask for help, or discuss elsewhere making pages load faster, I get penalized 9 mainspace edits for each comment.
:: This could take all day. By tomorrow when I return, there's always the danger whoever responded will have their comments removed and blocked by an uninvolved third party, and I've wasted one or two talk page edits. Then I must try all over again just to update a weighty page with slow uploads, taking several more hours or several days.  [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 15:47, 29 September 2012 (EDT)
===Another problem===
Now I'm being trolled by tag teams of users who were granted blocking rights to block their own socks. This again, does not promote constructive editing or help build content. It's waste of time and chases off good faith editors who give up in frustration.  [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 17:13, 29 September 2012 (EDT)
==="recession he inherited"===
Autopatrol was working yesterday, but a soon as [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&action=historysubmit&diff=1009775&oldid=1009761 I started rewriting the Obama apologetics] about the "recession he inherited", a gang of tag team members with enhanced blocking rights reverted me and began adding fresh content to make restoration more difficult. So there's no less than three users with enhanced rights promoting Obama apologetics and harassing users attempting to set the record straight on Obama's economic and foreign policy failures.
How would it be possible to do productive editing and gain enhanced rights under such circumstances?
These users promoting Obama apologetics appear to have gained their enhanced rights by creating sock accounts, and blocking their own vandalism. They now effectively control your wiki. [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 08:52, 30 September 2012 (EDT)
== Downtime ==
Conservapedia was down for quite a while today. Is it just a server side bug, or something else?[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 20:06, 30 September 2012 (EDT)
== Perpetual Motion Machine ==
Mr. Schlafly, when you get a chance, could you please defend your reversion of the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] article? As I mentioned on that [[Talk:Second Law of Thermodynamics|talk page]], I don't believe there is a valid reason for removing the information I previously added. Thank you. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 17:00, 2 October 2012 (EDT)
: Perhaps mention Randall's reason and the other reasons Andy alludes to, rather than leave no explanation? Also, do those other reasons relate specifically to the Second Law? If not, a simple mention that there are other reasons in addition would be fine. If they do have to do with the Second Law, they all deserve mention, both Randall's and Andy's. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 19:19, 2 October 2012 (EDT)
== Watchlist ==
Why were all items removed from my watchlist? [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 18:04, 3 October 2012 (EDT)
== Vector skin ==
What happened to it?  I see that I'm now in the default skin.  [[User:GregG|GregG]] 18:50, 3 October 2012 (EDT)
== Get a grip ...please? ==
Mr Schlafly, I hesitate to say this, being a teenager and so on, but I really feel you need to get a grip on the main page of your encyclopedia. The left-hand side is filled with stuff about a crazy YEC group that doesn't seem to do anything, just talk talk talk, and the right-hand side is filled with links to a conservative op-ed blog. There are hardly any entry points into your encyclopedia and those that there are are way below the crazy stuff. Just saying my piece, it's for you to decide. [[User:StaceyT|StaceyT]] 19:50, 3 October 2012 (EDT)
:To echo the sentiment, I prefer the [[User:GregG/New_Main_Page]] over what is there now. The purpose of the main page is to draw in and keep readers. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 10:21, 4 October 2012 (EDT)
==About page==
The [[Conservapedia:About]] page needs updating.  One way to avoid having this be a burden is to use variables.  For example, you could change the sentence, "We have received over 250 million page views!" to "We have received {{NUMBEROFVIEWS}} page views!" (<nowiki>We have received {{NUMBEROFVIEWS}} page views!</nowiki>)
You could add some other statistics such as "Conservapedia has {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} articles." (<nowiki>Conservapedia has {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} articles.</nowiki>)
I cannot make these revisions because the page is locked. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 10:17, 4 October 2012 (EDT)
:Interesting suggestion, but I don't think the large number of significant digits used by the template would be an improvement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:27, 5 October 2012 (EDT)
::I understand your point about significant digits.  My concern is that using these system variables will keep the information current rather than selling the website short by failing to update the page manually. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 06:35, 12 October 2012 (EDT)
== Book discussion group. ==
Hello Aschlafly, Andy. My name's Jim - user EJamesW - I'd going to start a book discussion group [[Conservapedia book group]]. I've begun the group to discuss the book of 'Wild Swans: Three Daughters of China'. As the founder of this website, may I invite you to suggest the book for November?
If you're agreeable, could you suggest a rota for senior admins to suggest a 'book of the month' to be discussed?
Best wishes to you and your family,
Jim [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 16:59, 5 October 2012 (EDT)
== Main page Right ==
Yikes, it seems user:conservative has sabotaged the main page! What is going on? Are you still in control of this blog? [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 17:31, 5 October 2012 (EDT)
:A "blog"?  No, this isn't a blog.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:25, 5 October 2012 (EDT)
== Main page archive 117 ==
Dear Mr. Schlafly,
I created an archive of the discussions removed at [[Talk:Main Page/Archive index/117]].  Could you please add a link to [[Talk:Main Page/Archive index]]?  Thanks, [[User:GregG|GregG]] 21:32, 5 October 2012 (EDT)
== Demotion ==
Could you remove my extended privileges? I'm very ill at the moment and will not be contributing to Conservapedia further. Many thanks. Regards, --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 09:25, 6 October 2012 (EDT)
== What is the actual aim of this website? ==
Hello Andy. It was disingenuous of me to call this site a 'blog'. I apologise. However, you hopefully can appreciate that the use of the main page by user:conservative and Terry Hurlbut has sullied this website. Apart from some of the news items posted by yourself, the items posted by these users invariably link to three outside sites. The 'Question Evolution! blog' (very frequently), 'Creation Ministries' and 'Conservative news'. All these sites, in my opinion, have have a particular unsavoury extremist flavour to them.
I may be an atheist but I'm fascinated by religion. It seems makes the world a more agreeable place. Many difficult questions about existence are easily addressed and some incredibly simple writings lead to complex interpretations. I find these two quotations very powerful;
'Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these' [[Mark 12:31]] and 'But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.' [[Matthew 5:39]]
Brilliant, powerful, mind blowing stuff, if only we could all live by these two adages.
And yet in the same book is the following instruction: [[Deuteronomy 21:18-21]]
18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
Yikes, the Bible says kill naughty kids! It's this type of verse that negates any moral superiority the Bible purports to have.
By the way, did you know that Confucius wrote “What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others” about six centuries before Matthew? He also wrote “Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated.”
I do appreciate the privileges you've granted me. Especially as I'm viewed as one of the 'enemy'. That's really open minded of you. I do actually care about the direction this website is taking. So what exactly is the aim of this website? Here are three generalisations...
'To preach to the choir' - reassure current fundamental believers that their beliefs are true and correct.
'Radicalization' - Persuade moderate believers to adopt increasingly extreme interpretations of religious belief.
'Re-education' - Aim to disprove any scientific theory that conflicts with Biblical infallibility.
The last one, obviously, is the greatest challenge for this website as it requires the suspension of the [[scientific method]].
But there's also another consequence of this website's actions - mockery.
I would like to see this site flourish. If you truly want to make changes, I suggest you do the the following;
Promote the following users to senior sysops:
If you think I could continue to make a positive contribution to this site, I would be happy to serve as a sysop.
You will also need to reduce the privileges of the following users - Ed Poor, Terry Hurlbut, Brian McDonald and user:conservative. They are only doing harm to this website and it's reputation.
If you made these changes, I'm sure that this site be far more effective.
As always, best wishes to you and your family. [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 18:58, 6 October 2012 (EDT)
p.s. please give my book group a go...
I would tentatively agree with some of the suggestions that [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] makes above, in that I think there are a few dedicated users that would do well as Sysops and a few sysops that could do with, if not outright demotion, at least a moderately-strong reprimand. Though I've only known about CS for a scant week and a half and been a member for a few days, I can see certain patterns play out that I have seen on Wiki projects before, including at the "Big W." No-one likes to see power misused (though I think "abuse" is still too strong a word to use), and a moderately-worded reprimand would do a world of good. Some new blood wouldn't hurt either.
But then again, I'm just the new guy. What do I know? :)
[[User:JGrant|JGrant]] 19:46, 6 October 2012 (EDT)
:I've been here since '09, have a clean block log, and everyone pretty much knows I'm a true conservative and not a parodist. I realize I'm not on here 24/7 (due to not collecting entitlement checks and not being old enough to retire), but why should those users be promoted to senior sysop over myself. Not that I'm asking for it, just saying. This is a meritocracy. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 08:45, 12 October 2012 (EDT)
== Edit request ==
On the [[liberal stupidity]] article, it mentions the Joe Miller incident where a newsperson was unfamiliar with his "on-off button". However, that should say "end call button", as he would not have needed to turn his iphone off, only disconnect the call. I cannot edit it since it is protected. Also, is there any way we can create a new page category of semiprotection so experienced editors who are not sysops can edit those pages? It would be very useful so I don't have to do things like this anymore. If the software can do it, I'd definitely recommend it. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 19:01, 7 October 2012 (EDT)
== Main Page Left ==
The title of the left hand side of the main page is: ''Featured on Conservapedia'' Sadly, at the moment the top items lure the visitor away from Conservapedia to other destinations in the - you have to use your browser's page-back function to get back to Conservapedia.
Ideally, the "main page left" should interest visitors in content on Conservapedia and the links should mainly go into this site. Items could be a featured article and picture (masterpiece of the week?), announcements for the current courses and of course links to the CBP (perhaps a chapter of the month which is under observation/retranslation?)
This was discussed [[Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/117#Main_Page_Left_-_general_thoughts|here in some detail]].
To put it succinctly: '''linking into Conservapedia good - linking away from Conservapedia bad''' - seems to be an easy-enough concept.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 06:43, 8 October 2012 (EDT)
== Spam filter. ==
I was blocked from editing a couple of pages due to the spam filter, and I was wondering if you would be able to change them for me, or get someone else who is able to do so to do that.  I was adding macrons to the word 'Maori' but the page [[Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateapokaiwhenuakitanatahu]] contains the name of a welsh town with four consecutive 'l's so i can't do that, also the [[Occupy Wall Street]] page has a couple of typos and weird catagories but I can't edit it as it also contains a reference to the activity formerly known as 'onanism'.  If you could bypass the filter somehow that would be good. (here's Māori with the macron in case you have to copy and paste like I do.) [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 01:14, 11 October 2012 (EDT)
:Should work now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:22, 11 October 2012 (EDT)
::yeah, worked fine. thanks. [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 02:49, 12 October 2012 (EDT)
== [[Template:Mainpageleft]] ==
Aschlafly, please do something about [[Template:Mainpageleft]]:
*the top item now links to a blog-post where someone announces ''Starting tonight, which is October 10, 2012, a member of our [group] is  going to read a classic 350+ page book on reaching people in the internet age in a wide variety of media including venues outside the internet.'' That's pathetic.
*The top items don't link to content at Conservapedia, but to other blogs.
Alternatively - if it doesn't bother you - you can always change the title: '''''Featured on Conservapedia.''''' to '''''Featured on blogs elsewhere'''''...
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 05:40, 11 October 2012 (EDT)
::August), I can understand that you are upset that American creationism rose 6 percent recently and European creationism is growing too. [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/06/american-young-earth-creationism.html][http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/a-collection-of-our-articles-on.html]
::I think you need to relax though and bow to the inevitable.
::The [[Question evolution! campaign]] is grassroots movement which will highly proliferate once the Question Evolution! book and a host of free Question Evolution! material comes out. It will inoculate countless people against evolutionary indoctrination. 
::The Question evolution! campaign will ride on a mighty wave of biblical Christianity sweeping the globe (See: [[Global Christianity]]), while the dead wood of so called "[[liberal Christianity]]" which advocates evolutionism will die on the vine as many of them are not having kids.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/05/why-are-years-2012-and-2020-key-years.html]
::AugustO, why are you upsetting yourself instead of bowing to the inevitable? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:23, 11 October 2012 (EDT)
:::Conservative, you haven't answered August's point (the same point as I made higher up this page). MPL is meant to be a link to interesting pages on CP, not to your blog - isn't it? [[User:StaceyT|StaceyT]] 16:12, 11 October 2012 (EDT)
Turning to MPR, I think that more readers are interested in current newsworthy events affecting conservatism (like, for example, yesterday's unanimous decision by a three-judge panel in DC to pre-clear South Carolina's voter ID law beginning in 2013) than that some blogger essentially issued a press release.  I was also wondering whether there is an organized method of submitting candidate news articles for MPR (I've posted both the news regarding Texas's voter ID law block and SC's approval, but neither has been responded to).  [[User:GregG|GregG]] 09:47, 11 October 2012 (EDT)
:Those news items are interesting, and probably worthy of front-page coverage.  But there is competing news, like the VP debate.
:In response to your question about procedure, the best place to post suggested news items is on [[Talk:Main Page]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:25, 11 October 2012 (EDT)
:: Perhaps [[User:Conservative]]'s blog posts just belong under "News" and not "Now On Conservapedia" since, after all, the blog is not part of Conservapedia. I think that would be a fair compromise, assuming the items are newsworthy. As Andy said, the debate is probably more newsworthy at the moment, but when things die down after the Election, we could see more of those. But they belong under "In the News", not "Now on Conservapedia". [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:47, 11 October 2012 (EDT)
:::*Aschlafly, are you talking about Mainpage'''left''' or Mainpage'''right'''? My point is the Mainpage'''left''' doesn't fulfill its function to show items '''featured at Conservapedia''', but leads the visitor away from Conservapedia - resulting in visitors who only visit the front-page, but don't see any further pages on this site.
:::*As for Mainpage'''right''': the night of the VP debate the top news item is:
::::::'''''Will future historians see May through August of 2011 as being a major turning point''' in the [[Christianity]] vs. [[atheism]]/[[evolution|Darwinism]] culture war.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/10/will-future-historians-see-mayjune-of.html]''
::::Certainly one of this items of ''competing news''!
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 05:09, 12 October 2012 (EDT)
::::Liberal theists like AugustO and atheists have so many common views, I could see why AugustO sees no culture war. Birds of a feather, flock together! RobS was very cozy with atheists too, before his departure. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:49, 12 October 2012 (EDT)
::::: AugustO, I was saying put it on MPR, beecaus it doesn't belong on MPL since it's not part of Conservapedia. We do need further discussion on what qualifies as "news", but pending that I think we can put that on MPR. But MPL is supposed to be "Featured on Conservapedia." Unless we want to rename it to "Conservapedians' work elsewhere". In which case we would have included my newspaper article about the budget in which I called Democrats horrible and Republicans only slightly better. And any other press Conservapedians or Conservapedia itself get. Like if Andy goes on Fox News again. At the same time, the MPR could deal with press not directly related to Conservapedians or Conservapedia, like the election. But with the present name, Conservative's blog posts don't belong there. Either move them to MPR or change the name of MPL. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 11:54, 12 October 2012 (EDT)
== Permanent protection of [[Barack Hussein Obama]] ==
This morning, [[User:Conservative]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&diff=next&oldid=1012033 indefinitely protected] [[Barack Hussein Obama]], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=1012033 immediately after replacing] [[:File:President Barack Obama.jpg|the public domain portrait of the President]] with whatever [[:File:OBAMA MUSULMAN.jpg|this is]] (allegedly fair use).  Regardless of the appropriateness of [[User:Conservative]]'s content edits to the article, it does seem fundamentally inappropriate to restrict editing so that only senior sysops can edit this high profile article and update it as the campaign winds down to Election Day.  I would respectfully request that either the protection be removed from that article, or that the protection be made less restrictive so that autoconfirmed users can edit the article.  Thanks, [[User:GregG|GregG]] 11:31, 14 October 2012 (EDT)
== Recommendation for blocking rights ==
Dear Mr. Schlafly,
I have been seeing [[User:Dvergne]] helping out by replacing spam articles with the spam template and marking suspicious accounts.  This user doesn't have the block right yet, which means I have to clean up by blocking spammers, trolls, and accounts violating the username policy.  I think that Dvergne would be able to be even more effective if he were able to block spammers and trolls, and therefore I would like to nominate him to earn the block privilege.  I personally think he has definitely earned it.  (Apologies if this is not the right forum to make such a request.)  Thanks, [[User:GregG|GregG]] 11:49, 14 October 2012 (EDT)
:That's a good suggestion, Greg, and I think User:Dvergne is close to a promotion in account privileges to blocking rights.  A review of his edits demonstrates that he's contributed less than a month, and a bit more substantive edits would be welcome from him before a promotion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:16, 14 October 2012 (EDT)
::Thank you for the reply.  I appreciate your consideration.  [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:38, 14 October 2012 (EDT)
:::He's been contributing additional substantive edits.  Please remind me if I don't give his account additional privilege(s) soon.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:51, 14 October 2012 (EDT)
:::: Hi, blocking rights would be greatly appreciated along with editting writes. If I had them I could have stopped the liberal vandal last night instead of getting into a bloking war with him (although that did only limit his abuse to one page) [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 22:03, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
:::::Nope. He'd just have created another account. Anyway, how do you know he's a liberal? Plenty conservatives think User:Conservative is a **** too.--[[User:MackTK|MackTK]] 22:06, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
:::::: I disagree with some of what he says and does (like the article wrote yesterday), however I don't think personally abusing someone is the right way to create change. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 22:10, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
::::::::You have a better suggestion? People have been asking Andy Schlafly for ''months'' to do something about Ken. Not only has he done nothing, he hasn't even acknowledged a single one of the requests. He simply ''doesn't care'' what Ken does as long as he gets pageviews. Of course all the pageviews Ken gets are people like me, who come to laugh at him. Recently he's got even worse and is actively trying to pull visitors away from here to his own blog; remember the mainpage right farce a couple of weeks ago? He's going to destroy Conservapedia unless Schlafly gets rid of him, and while I'm an atheist I think a Christian conservative wiki has a valuable role to play. Just, right now, not this one.--[[User:MackTK|MackTK]] 22:16, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
It would have also helped with the latest spammer. Is it possible to make it so new users can't post links on their talk page? [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 23:41, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
::I would like to vouch for Dvergne too[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 08:09, 19 October 2012 (EDT)
== Inappropriate news item on the main page ==
Dear Mr. Schlafly,
I am not only offended by the blog post linked under the heading "Big creationist families will rule the earth" but I'm also embarrassed that such scandalous works are linked to from our front page.  Please see [[Talk:Main Page#This is absolutely disgusting]] for further details.  I would appreciate not only the post being removed, but I think a reprimand against such postings would be appropriate.  Thank you for your consideration, [[User:GregG|GregG]] 00:00, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
:Tonights top items at the main page are
:*Right: '''Science proves that [[conservative]] men and young earth creationist men have more [[machismo]] and liberal,''' evolutionist women are often distant, fussy, cold fish![http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/10/science-proves-that-conservative-men.html][http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/10/8-reasons-why-young-earth-creationists.html] 
:*Left: '''Big creationist families will rule the earth''' [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/10/8-reasons-why-young-earth-creationists.html 10 reasons why creationists have bigger families]
:Are there no competing news out there?
:Are you trying to repel your visitors? If you follow the link to the '''anonymous blog''', you will find quite a disturbing essay! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:17, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:17, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
== Main Page ==
I've repeatedly criticized the state of the main page, especially its left side: it doesn't feature Conservapedia's content, but lures the visitor away to other sites - in this case mainly an anonymous blog. IMO [[:Template:Mainpageleft]] should provide a visitor with many links into the project - especially in this election year. To illustrate this here a contrast of the top items in a new version (left hand) and the current top items (right hand).
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:45, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
:I like AugustO's suggestion of featured content to include.  As I've stated before, my [[User:GregG/New Main Page|new main page design]] is free to use, and I can help implement it on this site if that's what you want to do.  As the first page most visitors will see (and a common portal page for regular visitors and contributors), the main page, in my opinion, should be attractive, professional, and conducive to readers' encountering our over 38,000 articles, essays, debates, and other educational pages.  [[User:GregG|GregG]] 08:49, 18 October 2012 (EDT)
== Mainpage (again) ==
Aschlafly, are you ''really'' determined to let User:Conservative destroy your wiki? Because if he remains as a sysop after his latest attack on the mainpage I think it's all over bar the fat (so probably atheist) lady singing.--[[User:MitchellJ|MitchellJ]] 15:05, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
== Mainpage ==
Are you in denial or something? The talk pages are in an uproar over User:Conservative's latest barrage of vile abuse and you just quietly ignore it and hope it all goes away. It won't. What's going to go away is your editors, unless you get rid of that creep. It was bad enough when he was posting his "essays" about atheism and obesity, but now he's insulting Catholics, any Protestant who doesn't agree with him 100% and practically everyone who dares comment on a talk page. If you can't see what he's doing you must be one hell of a bad attorney. People are asking you to ''do something'' here, as the leader of this project, and you're just ignoring them then quietly deleting their comments. Don't you ''care'' that a mentally deficient ape is abusing all your contributors? Instead of posting your item about abortion to mainpage right, which at this point in time is sticking a Band-Aid on an ax wound, why don't you strip Conservative of his rights then delete all the links to the QE! blog?--[[User:BillyReuben|BillyReuben]] 17:14, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
:Actually he doesn't seem to have been on much since people started complaining.  It would take some time to deal with all the arguments, so perhaps he is waiting till he has more time to devote to the issue.  Anyway don't assume that it is being ignored out of malice, until the issue has been unaddressed for a number of days.[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 17:23, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
::He's on right now and this issue has been ignored for ''months''. Keep an eye on Recent Changes and you'll see exactly what he does about it: Nothing.--[[User:BillyReuben|BillyReuben]] 17:30, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
:::Frankly I have given up to wait for any direct answer by Aschlafly - the best I can hope for is a [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=John_1-7_%28Translated%29&action=historysubmit&diff=1009557&oldid=1008928 tacit admission] of the [[Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)#Addressing_Aschlafly.27s_points_one_by_one|validity of my position]]. Not enough to get my block-rights back, I'm afraid (Aschlafly is now [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Aschlafly&page=User%3AAugustO&year=&month=-1 reviewing my case] for '''three months'''.) --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:46, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
== Ostrich, much? ==
Talk about burying your head in the sand. Almost all your active editors are now complaining about Ken's blog links and you do ''nothing''. Where's your moral courage, Schlafly?--[[User:JonasEldred|JonasEldred]] 18:37, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
== Alexa ==
I was feeling a bit bored on the bus on the way home from work and discovered that there has been a pretty noticeable increase in the readership at conservapedia over the past few months. I think that this should get some sort of mention.  (OT please read my response regarding edit+block rights) Regards [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 01:27, 18 October 2012 (EDT)
== Please do something about [[User:Conservative]] ==
As I mentioned above, [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/10/8-reasons-why-young-earth-creationists.html Conservative's post] was utterly inappropriate, in very bad taste, and reflective of very poor judgment.  A lot of users agree with me (see [[Talk:Main Page/Archive index/118#This is absolutely disgusting]] and the following sections).  Can you please reprimand [[User:Conservative]] so that this doesn't happen again?  We certainly don't need to have one of our senior admins temporarily turn Conservapedia into a laughingstock that [[liberal]]s can trot out whenever the topic of conservatism arises.  Thanks, [[User:GregG|GregG]] 08:43, 18 October 2012 (EDT)
:For the record, the original blog post appears to have move [http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2012/10/10-reasons-why-young-earth-creationists_18.html here].  I have no idea whether the new blog post is a copyright infringement of the original, but in any case, it appears to be up there for the time being.  [[User:GregG|GregG]] 20:58, 18 October 2012 (EDT)
:::Greg, a university study and the historical record both show a decline in morals associated with evolutionism: [http://creation.com/morals-decline-linked-to-belief-in-evolution University study: Morals decline associated with evolution] and [[Social effects of the theory of evolution]].  A loss of morality does impact individuals and societies in unpleasant ways. I realize that you like to oppose these creationist claims without examining the evidence. When it comes to Darwinism, it seems as if you always find time to oppose/complain, but conveniently never have time to examine the evidence behind the claims. I regret to say this,  but it appears that in the case of evolutionism you form your opinions without due diligence and then obstinately stick to errant ideas. Consider going where the evidence leads in this matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:13, 18 October 2012 (EDT)
::::The evidence clearly points to a stunning lack of judgment and taste on your part in picking external web articles to feature on our '''main page''' and a canny inability to make an on-topic response to critiques.  I would think good judgment and taste on picking main page content and professionally responding to issues that arise on Conservapedia are essential for dutifully carrying out the rights and responsibilities of a sysop.  [[User:GregG|GregG]] 23:41, 18 October 2012 (EDT)
Bottom line: You never seem to be "in the mood" to examine the evidence as far as our differences, but you are are very good at being moody. I am not impressed. I am also not impressed with [[Kenneth Miller]] who you will never hear back from. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:20, 19 October 2012 (EDT)
:No, the bottom line is that you have shown time and again that you will abuse sysop powers to put this project in disrepute.  I, and several other editors, am not impressed, nor am I impressed by your ''non sequiturs'' that have nothing to do with the propriety of the blog post you linked to.  [[User:GregG|GregG]] 08:43, 19 October 2012 (EDT)
'''Bottom line for everybody:''' user Conservative stays; everyone else had better deal with it or leave.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:03, 19 October 2012 (EDT)
::Why? Why ''should'' he stay? What do you think he's contributing? All he's doing is making Conservapedia into a laughing stock, first with his stupid "essays" and now with hijacking the mainpage and linking everything to his idiotic blog. Anyway it's up to Aschlafly if he stays or not, not you, and your aggressive and bullying treatment of other editors is nearly as bad a problem as User:Conservative's insanity is. If Aschlafly wants this wiki to recover he'll get rid of you both.--[[User:MunziA|MunziA]] 12:23, 19 October 2012 (EDT)
:Of course - User:Conservative stays. He should! That was never a question for me. But the main page should be less User:Conservative-centric. User:Karajou, what [[:Template:Mainpageleft]] from the [[User_talk:Aschlafly#Main_Page|section above]] do you think is better for Conservapedia (and not only the Question Evolution! - campaign) , especially with the upcoming election? Or did User:Conservative make this debate a question of him staying at Conservapedia (a la:  ''either I have full editorial reign over the main page or I take my considerable contributions elsewhere...'') Only in such  a case I would always advise not to cave in and thereby encourage a childish trait. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:00, 19 October 2012 (EDT)
::Suggestions for the main page layout should be directed to Aschlafly.  The only thing I would say about it at this time is that the page proposal should be as professional as possible.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:05, 19 October 2012 (EDT)
:::Yeah, nah, I'm more than fine with him staying, of course he should.  but Conservative, I just would ask, would it be possible to just answer a couple of peoples concerns directly, rather than using every post to try to prove that belief in evolution causes problems?  a number of us would agree with you about that, they just had concerns that they felt were not adequately addressed by this method.  thanks in advance, [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 10:13, 19 October 2012 (EDT)
::::August), you used the word "User:Conservative-centric".  Are you trying to create a new word? :) Next, you are going to refer to '''User:Conservative'''ism. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:19, 19 October 2012 (EDT)
'''@User:Karajou''': I don't propose a new design for the [[:Template:Mainpageleft]], I just want to have the following common-sense approach implemented: '''[[:Template:Mainpageleft]] shows items featured on Conservapedia, these items therefore should provide (only) links to further content on Conservapedia.''' The main advantage is obvious: any visitor who comes via the main page should be invited to read more of Conservapedia's articles. This doesn't happen when the most prominent links at the main page take him away to other site - which don't give him a link back BTW. The place for such links is [[:Template:Mainpageright]].
'''@User:Conservative''': Please, tell us why you think that your version of the [[:Template:Mainpageleft]] from the [[User_talk:Aschlafly#Main_Page|section above]] is better than my proposal.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:26, 19 October 2012 (EDT)
:AugustO, is it true that your liberal homosexual denomination is going to lose its evolutionist influence in Germany thanks to the explosive growth of a small church attended by a guy from Hong Kong I chat to online? If you dispute that Pope Benedict XVI was directly responsible for Hitler's conversations with Charles Darwin and the resulting fact that liberal Protestant women are all fat baby-eating lesbians with STDs why won't you debate popular internet Christian superhero Shockofgod at his chatroom? Also see my repetitive arguments [[sheep|HERE]] and [[Fish and chips|HERE]] and [[dog|HERE]]. <s>[[User:Conservative|Conservative]]</s> [[User:MunziA|MunziA]] 13:32, 19 October 2012 (EDT)
::Impressive, User:MunziA - it could have worked, but I came here via [[Special:RecentChanges]]. I changed the authorship to acknowledge your contribution. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:45, 19 October 2012 (EDT)
:::The main thing is, did I get the style right? :-) --[[User:MunziA|MunziA]] 14:01, 19 October 2012 (EDT)
::::The main thing is: Are you a troll? I'd think so... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:03, 19 October 2012 (EDT)
::::Well, we wouldn't mistake it for his actual writing, but we could tell who it was supposed to be.[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 04:14, 20 October 2012 (EDT)
== Main page layout ==
Dear Mr. Schlafly
I don't know whether you have already considered (and rejected) [[User:GregG/New Main Page]], but if you have not, I would like to propose this redesign of the main page.  It has gotten [[User talk:GregG/New Main Page|many positive reviews]] from editors, and I think it keeps the portal structure of the current main page (especially the news section) that I like while directing readers into the site and our articles, essays, and debates, rather than away from it.  Again, I am willing to help implement this change if you want to feature this redesign on the front page.  Thanks, [[User:GregG|GregG]] 10:23, 19 October 2012 (EDT)
== Neanderthal ==
hey, I imagine that it would get a fair amount of vandalism, but could you unlock [[Neanderthal]] for a while?  It need a few spellings, and some odd grammar fixed. (actually it need sources too, but I'm not the one for that) [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 10:35, 19 October 2012 (EDT)
: This is why we need semi-protection like TOW, assuming that's possible on our software. I've said a number of times that it's one of the few things that they do better than us and never get a response. If it's impossible with our software, just say so. But if it's possible, we should do it so controversial articles like Neanderthal, [[homosexuality]], and [[evolution]] could be opened up to experienced Conservapedia editors without allowing drive-by trolls to vandalize them. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:07, 19 October 2012 (EDT)
::There is an intermediate protection level which prevents, for example, editing by unregistered users.  My preference is too unlock as many articles as possible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:54, 19 October 2012 (EDT)
::: Would it be possible to make it so only those with night editting rights can edit those pages ? If that can be done that would probably be the best solution as it would allow for corrections but not be open to vandals . [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 22:56, 19 October 2012 (EDT)
:::I would respectfully suggest reducing the permanent protection on almost all our indefinitely fully-protected pages to semi-protection.  I don't know whether there is a special list of protected pages, but this would be great.  I know some administrators have indefinitely protected pages as a matter of course to prevent improvement and merciless editing by others.  [[User:GregG|GregG]] 08:34, 20 October 2012 (EDT)
:::: The question is whether our software can handle two levels of protection-I do think a few pages like [[Conservapedia Commandments]] should still be fully-protected. But if we can have both a fully-protected and semi-protected level, that would be great. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 12:21, 20 October 2012 (EDT)
:::::Good suggestion.  I've just tried an intermediate block level for this page, to see who can (or cannot edit).  This should block new and unregistered users from editing this page, as a test.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:25, 20 October 2012 (EDT)
:::::: I'm able to edit this page, as this confirms. Is it ok if I create a new account to test it further? I would clearly mark it as a dummy account used for testing this. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 23:20, 20 October 2012 (EDT)
::::::: Please do test it with a new account.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:22, 20 October 2012 (EDT)
:::::::: I cannot create an account as there is no link on the "login" page like there normally is. When I tried to access the page directly by typing it into the URL, I was told only Administrators could create new accounts. I'm guessing that's because it's night. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 23:29, 20 October 2012 (EDT)
::::::::: Sorry ... you should be able to create a new account now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:40, 20 October 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::: Testing [[User:Gregkochdummyaccount|Gregkochdummyaccount]] 00:01, 21 October 2012 (EDT)
::::::::::: Hmmm.... I edited my talk page first. Maybe that's why. [[User:Gregkochdummyaccount|Gregkochdummyaccount]] 00:02, 21 October 2012 (EDT)
::::::::::: Nope, I can still edit with this one and I haven't edited my talk page yet. Perhaps limit it to those who have night edit rights instead of those who are autoconfirmed. [[User:Dummyaccountgkoch|Dummyaccountgkoch]] 00:03, 21 October 2012 (EDT)
:Possibly localsettings.php was not configured to allow autoconfirming to work? (check if the parameter is there, or commented out with a #)[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 00:21, 21 October 2012 (EDT)
I'm obviously not a real account, and I can edit fine.[[User:Andysmum|Andysmum]] 22:17, 21 October 2012 (EDT) PS. I'm not your real mother.
: As I proved earlier. Andy, perhaps try my approach and/or Brenden's? I'd recommend trying Brenden's approach first, and if that fails, try mine and limit it to peopl with night edit rights. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:24, 21 October 2012 (EDT)
== Main Page Correction ==
On the main page it says
"I was only following orders". Isn't this what the evolutionists followers of Adolf Hitler said? See: Social effects of the theory of evolution
It should be "evolutionist followers". The plural is incorrect, since in this case "evolutionist" is being used as an adjective. Please fix this. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:01, 19 October 2012 (EDT)
== Please get a grip (reprise) ==
Mr Schlafly, it now looks like the whole of your Main Page, left and right, is being taken over by links to an obscure YEC blog. When are you going to regain control over your own encyclopedia? [[User:StaceyT|StaceyT]] 09:38, 21 October 2012 (EDT)
::It is not an obscure blog. It has a better Alexa ranking than [[Larry Moran]]'s Sandwalk blog and the blog has indicated that it is planning on doing aggressive blog marketing based on best practices.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/10/scientific-consensus-and-evolutionary.html][http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-question-evolution-campaign-is-fast.html] (Granted, Larry Moran has been [[Evolutionists who have had problems with being overweight and/or obese|weighed down with some personal problems]]).
::No doubt at the right time, it will institute aggressive blog marketing based on a well designed plan.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/our-groups-plan-strategy-and-tactics.html]  "The quality of decision is like the well-timed swoop of a falcon which enables it to strike and destroy its victim." - [[Sun Tzu]]. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:32, 24 October 2012 (EDT)
::: Whilst Alexa is probably the best of the siteranking site, its data becomes wildly inaccurate once it gets down to sites ranked 100,000+ as not many people have the Alexa tool bar and people can quite easily fudge the rankings by getting readers of that site to all install the alexa toolbar.
:::Also I checked and QE! blog is ranked around 1.6 million, which is well within the inaccurate region. Whilst the Uncommon descent is rated at about half a million, hence it is alot more popular, although the data is probably still a bit dodgy. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 00:43, 24 October 2012 (EDT)
'''[edit]''' ????? Seems you changed the blog you where comparing it to whilst I was writing my response, however there is now edit history of you doing that. How does that work ? Is there some bug in the server or something ? [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 00:50, 24 October 2012 (EDT)
::::The QEC has an Alexa ranking of  1,161,115 which is better than [[Larry Moran]]'s Sandwalk blog which has a ranking of 1,314,195 via Alexa. [http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/]  I do realize that Larry Moran has been [[Evolutionists who have had problems with being overweight and/or obese|weighed down with some personal problems]] though. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:53, 24 October 2012 (EDT)
::::: Yes I realize that, but you originally said the Uncommon Descent blog, which is about 1 million higher up the rankings. However it seems the edit history for that is gone. Either something odd is going on or the server isn't picking up all the changes correctly. Also I'm pretty sure that blogspot localizes it's blogs (ie if u viewed it in the uk it would be: blogname . blogspot.co.uk and in australia it would be blogname . blogspot.com.au) Shouldn't you add those viewer numbers to the total ? [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 01:00, 24 October 2012 (EDT)
:::::::If you try to strike down one of my post it will always elude your grasp and come back stronger than you ever imagined. :)  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:00, 24 October 2012 (EDT)
I wasn't really aiming to strike down your post, more a bug of mine that I have with Alexa in that the rankings below about 200,000 are wildly inaccurate as it all depends on whether the viewer has the toolbar or not. Quancast is even worse so don't get me started on it :) [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 01:04, 24 October 2012 (EDT)
== Rollback ==
Could I get rollback rights, to help out with vandals, that often leave multiple edits at a time?[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 15:45, 22 October 2012 (EDT)
:Have you seen this yet?[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 15:57, 24 October 2012 (EDT)
:: You can do that without rollback. Just go to the edit history, click on the last good edit, and hit "save". Where this doesn't work is if a vandal vandalizes, someone else doesn't see the vandalism and makes a good edit, and then the vandal vandalizes again (or doesn't, I guess). But usually it work. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 13:51, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
== Night Editing Rights ==
Hi, would I be able to get night edit rights ? There are times when I am able to add stuff but can't due to night mode being active. This and blocking rights (so I can stop and get rid of vandals instead of just having to keep on reverting their work) would be greatly appreciated. Cheers [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 23:37, 23 October 2012 (EDT)
:I also support night editing rights for Dvergne and AlanE.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:40, 23 October 2012 (EDT)
== TOR vandals ==
I'm beggining to suspect that these vandals are using The Onion Router, essentially a massive proxy. There are extensions that block tor, however.[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:11, 24 October 2012 (EDT)
: I had a look and a lot of the blocks for the horace sock accounts are going to run out soon. Do you want me to extend those blocks as it seems the account he used today was previously blocked but then expired. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 20:42, 24 October 2012 (EDT)
::In response to Dvergne, shorter blocks are preferred.  No need to extend the other blocks.  I posted to your talk page recently about this.
::In response to Brenden, can you recommend a specific extension?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:49, 24 October 2012 (EDT)
:::I would suggest [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:TorBlock Extension:TorBlock] [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 14:59, 25 October 2012 (EDT)
== American government lecture 7 ==
Dear Mr. Schlafly,
I made several edits to [[American Government Lecture Seven]] this morning.  [[User:Dvergne]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=American_Government_Lecture_Seven&diff=next&oldid=1014417 reverted] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=American_Government_Lecture_Seven&diff=1014417&oldid=1014416 one of my edits].  I started a discussion at [[Talk:American Government Lecture Seven#"Nearly ever single study analyzing abortion has shown it to cause breast cancer"]]; you're more than welcome to participate.  Thanks, [[User:GregG|GregG]] 18:58, 24 October 2012 (EDT)
== Current state of the main page ==
Less than two weeks before the Presidential election, the main page of Conservapedia still looks ridiculous (and mainly interested in the minute details of the Question Evolution! campaign)
So many lost opportunities to lead visitors to content at Conservapedia! Therefore, again my proposal for the top items at [[:Template:Mainpageleft]]:
{|style="border-spacing:8px; margin:0px -8px;"
|style="width:50%; border:1px solid #ffdcdc; background:#fffbfb; vertical-align:top; color:#000;"|
{|width="50%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background:#fffbfb;"
! <h3 style="margin:0; background:#ffdcdc; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #ffa4a4; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Featured on Conservapedia[http://www.conservapedia.com/wiki/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageleft&action=edit .]</h3>
'''''[[Conservapedia]]''': Over <big>'''450 million'''</big> Views & <!--as of 08/11/11-->'''970,000''' Edits.
===[[American Government Lectures|Current lecture]] ===
The [[American Government Lecture Seven|seventh lecture]] of [[Andrew Schlafly]]'s current course on the [[American Government]] is freely available now, covering the electoral process. This series of lectures is especially useful in this [[election|election year]].
===[[Ohio|Featured Article]]===
''[[Swing state]]s like [[Ohio]] and [[Florida]] are crucial in the upcoming election. Therefore the featured article for October 2012 is '''Ohio'''. Please help to improve this article!''
[[File:Ohio_State_Flag.gif|thumb|left]]'''Ohio''' is located in the [[Midwest]]ern region of the [[United States]] and on March 1, 1803, became the seventeenth state. The capital of Ohio is [[Columbus (city)|Columbus]].  Other large cities in Ohio include [[Cincinnati]] and [[Cleveland]]. Ohio borders the states of [[Indiana]], [[Kentucky]], [[Pennsylvania]], [[Michigan]], and [[West Virginia]]. The current [[Governors of Ohio|governor of Ohio]] is [[John Kasich]], a [[Republican]]... ([[Ohio|Read more]])
===[[Presidential Election 2012]]: The Candidates===
|width="25%" style="background:lightblue"|[[File:President_Barack_Obama.jpg|thumb|150px|center|[[Barrack Obama]]]]
|width="25%" style="background:pink"|[[File:MittPortrait.jpg‎|thumb|150px|center|[[Mitt Romney]]]]
=== ... ===
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 04:05, 25 October 2012 (EDT)
Pink? Are you calling Mitt Romney a "Nancy boy"?  Awfully suspicious!!! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:59, 26 October 2012 (EDT)
: That's the pastel color scheme.... Red shows up as pink, blue as baby blue. Do you have any criticisms other than the color scheme (which is identical to the present one)? [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 13:31, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
The colors can be changed:
{|style="border-spacing:8px; margin:0px -8px;"
|style="width:50%; border:1px solid #ffdcdc; background:#fffbfb; vertical-align:top; color:#000;"|
{|width="50%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background:#fffbfb;"
===[[Presidential Election 2012]]: The Candidates===
|width="25%" style="background:darkblue"|[[File:President_Barack_Obama.jpg|thumb|150px|center|[[Barrack Obama]]]]
|width="25%" style="background:darkred"|[[File:MittPortrait.jpg‎|thumb|150px|center|[[Mitt Romney]]]]
But what do you think of the idea to link to Conservapedia's articles on the candidates from the main page? Instead to <s>your</s> some blog? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:37, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
== Can you please add the Voter ID story to MPR? ==
See [[Talk:Main Page#News pick: Tenn. Court of Appeals upholds Voter ID, allows Memphis library card]].  I certainly think this item is more timely than some of the items pertaining to Richard Dawkins that currently grace MPR.  I'm worried that, like my previous news picks, it's going to be ignored until it becomes stale if it is just posted at [[Talk:Main Page]].  Thanks, [[User:GregG|GregG]] 11:19, 26 October 2012 (EDT)
== Do you wish to sound desperate and blasphemous? ==
I'm not sure about your intentions when it comes to [[Mystery:Did Jesus Write the Epistle to the Hebrews?]] Do you wrote this as a parody of Liberal translations of the Bible? Then you have succeeded:
*Especially a phrase like "The last verses could have been added later" - without any evidence other than that it fits the agenda - seems to be typical of a lax approach to the Bible: From here it is only a short step to claiming that "You shall not commit adultery" may be a later addition to the commandments just to fit the needs of a primitive tribe.
*Over the last 1700 years, no one has ever claimed that the letter is the first of the epistles. In fact, the general opinion is that it was written in 63 A.D. - or even later. To come up with a revolutionary new date should take more than just chuzpe, it should take evidence. It is certainly not conservative to claim that something deserves attention just because it is new!
So, if this article is meant to serve as a satire, then it is well done. But I would appreciate it very much if it was marked more clearly as humor.
OTOH, if you really think that you have risen a valid question, then I have to say: Think about it, pray about it, read the Bible! When you answered to my statement that  the verse "He (God) spoke to '''us''' through (his) son" (ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ). implies that this text wasn't written by Jesus with: "Writers at that time (and even some today) spoke about themselves in the third person.", the whole thing starts to be ridiculous, as any astute reader of the verse will see that the writer used the first person - he just didn't include Jesus (the Son) in it.
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:34, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
Aschlafly, I see that you took the idea that the [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] ''"was written by Jesus, or based directly on His writing"'' from the essay-space over to the [[Conservapedia Bible Project]]. When doing so it should be stressed that you are virtually the only person in the history of Christendom to give this idea some credence! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:12, 28 October 2012 (EDT)
== Can't undo changes to socialism article. ==
May I suggest if you're going give users blocking rights, it might be a good idea to give them 'rollback' privileges as well if you wish us to continue to police this website. [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 17:52, 28 October 2012 (EDT)
== CyberLink Power Director ==
Here is the software package for the video editing software which I told you about:
It would be really great to create some pro-life videos and upload them to general video sharing websites like YouTube and also to conservative video sharing websites. You could also embed these videos on Conservapedia.
You are a power wiki user. It is time you became a "Power Director"! Lights, action, camera! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:01, 28 October 2012 (EDT)
::Also, if you want to do image composition, image authoring and photo retouching to incorporate images into your videos, here is a free program to do that: http://www.gimp.org/  You could create classic images such as this: http://www.conservapedia.com/File:GoreFireBreathing.jpg  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:08, 28 October 2012 (EDT)
== Can you look at these edits ==
Hi, User:Masterbratac is making a lot of edits, mainly to references and changing the layout. I don't know if what he is doing is good or bad as what he is doing is technically correct but don't know if it's what we want. It also seems he was banned a while ago by someone called TK for incivility.
Hope you weather the hurricane sandy, I have been in a number of cyclones (what we call hurricanes here in Australia) and it ain't that bad, we basically just went to a mates place and had a big piss up. Although I suspect the infrastructure in FNQ is alot better suited than that in the US.  [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 22:56, 28 October 2012 (EDT)
== Hurricane Sandy ==
Just wanted to say good luck, and godspeed, Mr. Schlafy, with Hurricane Sandy. Hope it isn't too bad -_- [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 23:50, 30 October 2012 (EDT)
:Thanks.  Doing fine, considering the ferocity of the storm.  The winds felled many trees.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:24, 31 October 2012 (EDT)
Hi. Currently, there is a user vandalizing the Robert Mugabe page. I have been undoing their edits, but someone may want to block them.
Thanks.[[User:WilliamWB|WilliamWB]] 14:58, 31 October 2012 (EDT)
== Michael Moore vs. Michael Myers ==
Thought you might like this, in honor of Halloween [http://notalwaysrelated.com/halloween-is-for-sickos/23776] [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 20:28, 31 October 2012 (EDT)
==Favor to ask==
Several of the concepts in the articles I'm writing (e.g. the structure of [[RNA]]) would be better explained if I could add images to accompany them.  I have several images from the open-access literature which I would like to use.  Could you grant me the ability to upload them myself?  Alternatively, if I e-mailed them to you, would you mind uploading them for me?--[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 00:51, 4 November 2012 (EDT)
== Main page - minor points ==
I'm glad that the top item on the [[:Template:Mainpageleft]] is no longer some announcement of  a non-event at the Question Evolution! campaign. It could be much better, but here are some little improvements:
*between (30% annual growth by Conservapedia for the month of October in unique visitors!) and (Obama v. Romney: 237 to 235, with 7 states undecided) should be a horizontal line
*[[Wisconsin]], [[Iowa]], [[Colorado]], [[Virginia]], [[New Hampshire]], [[Nevada]] and [[Ohio]] should be wiki-linked to the states, '''electoral votes''' wiki-linked to [[Electoral College]]
*The second and the fourth column of the table should be aligned to the right: This is the Main Page, so it doesn't hurt to attend to the details (yes, I know, I'm nitpicky again)
*the font-seize of the last sentence ("Obama is likely to finish 3 electoral votes short of what he needs to win.") is different. So, either separate it from the previous paragraph or resize it.
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 04:18, 4 November 2012 (EST)
Here are the improvements:
<div style="width:45%">
'''''[[Conservapedia]]''': Over <big>'''450 million'''</big> Views & <!--as of 08/11/11-->'''970,000''' Edits.  Free courses are [[Conservapedia:Index|here]].
<big>'''30% annual growth by ''Conservapedia'' for the month of October in unique visitors!'''</big>
=== [[Barack Obama|Obama]] v. [[Mitt Romney|Romney]]: 237 to 235, with 7 states undecided ===
270 [[Electoral College|electoral votes]] are needed to win the [[presidential election 2012]]; [[Obama]] needs 33, and [[Mitt Romney|Romney]] 35, from the following undecided states:
{| class="wikitable"
![[Electoral College|Electoral Votes]]
!% [[Early voting]]
|Toss-up, but VP Ryan is from this State
|leans Obama, but all major newspapers endorsed Romney
|Toss-up, but little [[early voting]] favors Romney
|[[New Hampshire]]
|Toss-up, but little [[early voting]] favors Romney
|leans Obama, but unemployment is very high
|leans Obama, who has focused enormously on this State
'''[[Liberal]] panic: [[conservative]] [[Todd Akin]] moves into a statistical tie against the [[Dem]] [[U.S. Senator]]''', despite all the [[media bullying]] against Akin for his [[pro-life]] comment. [http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/27/missouri-senate-poll-shows-mccaskills-lead-narrowing/]
'''[[Obama]] can exploit [[early voting]]''' to win [[Ohio]] (18 electoral votes), [[Nevada]] (6) and [[Iowa]] (6), but that gives him only 267 [[Electoral College]] votes. 
<big>'''Obama is likely to finish 3 electoral votes short of what he needs to win'''.</big>
==Conflict of interest==
I am sure that we all have pet causes or that members of our immediate family may be working for worthwhile organizations.  However, having a good set of conflict of interest rules is important for maintaining the credibility of this project.  I am troubled by a recently [http://www.conservapedia.com/Project_200_plus created page] that was written by one CP editor with sources to that editor's blog.  Assuming that there should be an article on the subject organization, this editor should not be the one to write it.  However, the article brings up the larger point that CP lacks clear guidelines on conflict of interest.  People should not write their own biographies and should not write articles about their employers, etc.
::First socks, then shoes. You first need to show who the contributors to that blog are. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:34, 8 November 2012 (EST)
It seems user:HaroldDwayne  has been vandalizing articles. I lack the ability to block, but I have been undoing his changes.  Thanks for your attention to this matter. [[User:WilliamWB|WilliamWB]] 16:02, 6 November 2012 (EST)
== MPR broken ==
Dear Mr. Schlafly,
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&curid=123765&diff=1017218&oldid=1017178 Your edit to MPR] inadvertently removed a closing comment delimiter, causing the content to disappear.  [[User:GregG|GregG]] 21:34, 6 November 2012 (EST)
:Thanks - it was an inadvertent placement of apostrophes (for highlighting) within the comment delimiter.  It's amazing how a misplacement can appear to erase an entire column!  I corrected it quickly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:42, 6 November 2012 (EST)
== Everything you post must be true and verifiable. ==
"''Everything you post must be true and verifiable''" is one of Conservapedia's commandments. Therefore I'm surprise that you, Aschlafly, have a tendency to make statements which aren't verifiable. I'm not talking about [[Mystery:Did Jesus Write the Epistle to the Hebrews?]] (anyone reading this instantly sees that it is mere speculation), but about statements like:
*"the equivalent of 2 million or more voters switched from the Dem to Republican side between 2008 and 2012." and  "Millions switched from supporting Obama in 2008 to voting against him"
*''Extrapolating in a sensible way from the linked article, there may have been 250,000 non-Americans who voted in California alone, for example.'': so 2.5% of all votes in California could have been casted by non-Americans - and no one has spotted or reported at least dozens of cases? <ref>[http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/11/voter-fraud-not-among-top-concerns-of-california-voters-today.html Voter Fraud not among top concerns of California voters today]</ref>
I'd appreciate it when you could state reliable sources for such statements. Thanks. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:59, 8 November 2012 (EST)
<references />
== Greetings ==
Unable to post anything earlier, I emailed you at the address given on this help page [[Conservapedia:Desk#403_Errors]], but I thought I should take the opportunity to introduce myself here too, as I can't be sure you've received it. I look forward to contributing.
Regards, [[User:SaraH|SaraH]] 17:19, 8 November 2012 (EST)
== Karl Rove ==
Mr. Schlafy, I have attempted to contact a few other Conservapedians about unlocking the [[Karl Rove]] entry so that it might be updated to reflect his Rino Backer status, as well as the 1% return on investment.  Please note, I am the author of the most recent talk-page comment, however I forgot to sign it when I left it on Wednesday.  I am placing this message here since I noticed you edited the Main Page to include this information.  Thanks for any help, [[User:WilliamWB|WilliamWB]] 08:40, 10 November 2012 (EST)
:It's unlocked now.  Thanks for bringing that to my attention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:07, 10 November 2012 (EST)
== Conservative and the front page==
Dear Mr. Schlafly,
I made the following request in light of [[User:Conservative]]'s recent contributions to the main page:
:If I were Mr. Schlafly, I would certainly review whether [[User:Conservative]] should continue to be allowed to post main-page items.  This isn't the first time that [[User:Conservative]] has edited the main page inappropriately:
:# Conservative deleted his post about Gen. Petraeus being wimpy because of a supposed lack of reliable sources, not a sincere understanding that calling people (much less military people or generals) wimps is inappropriate.
:# Conservative linked to an anonymous blog post spewing hateful insults against liberal Protestant women.
:# Conservative replaced [[:Template:Mainpageright]] with a link to a Blogspot blog, and then deleted all the old revisions of that page.  (And yes, I have the [[User:GregG/Evidence that User:Conservative replaced MPR with a link to a blog|post from the RSS feed]] in which Conservative replaced a comment by AugustO about deleting MPR with link to said blog.)
:Unless something is done, I'm afraid that Conservative will continue to make edits in bad taste to our main page, reflecting badly on this project.  Please do something about this.  Thanks, [[User:GregG|GregG]] 13:03, 17 November 2012 (EST)
This was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&curid=108781&diff=1019303&oldid=1019290 removed as a "non-substantive posting<nowiki>[]</nowiki>"].  Perhaps it was inadvertently removed.  But even if not, I would respectfully resubmit a request on whether [[User:Conservative]] has ben editing the main page appropriately, especially in light of [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageleft&diff=1019065&oldid=1018997 his linking] to yet another inappropriate anonymous blog post in which women are compared to "drippy faucets."  I understand that you must be very busy, but I appreciate your attention in this manner.  Thanks, [[User:GregG|GregG]] 13:27, 18 November 2012 (EST)
::Regretably, I must concur.  The purpose of this website is to produce a family-friendly product.  The recent material is not what I would want children to read.  The main page should attract readers and draw them into reading the rest of the website. Please hold the main page to the highest standards and take action on this matter. Many thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 15:58, 18 November 2012 (EST)
Just as a reminder, I find it very hypocritical that every liberal and their little sisters have called General Petraeus by the slander word "Betray-us" when he was a commander in Afghanistan ''under Bush'', and these same liberals want to change their tune by calling him a "great American general" ''under Obama''?  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:42, 18 November 2012 (EST)
:The technique is called coating criticism with a complement.  Avoid being labeled as anti-military or anti-intelligence community by saying, "I know he is a great general, BUT I am glad he is gone."  Arguments based on making fun of someone's name or conflating a person with a national policy are rarely influential. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 16:06, 18 November 2012 (EST)
== "trim non-substantive postings" ==
[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&curid=108781&diff=1019303&oldid=1019290 That] was the most ''"wimpy"'' action in the whole sad affair. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:14, 18 November 2012 (EST)
== Way to stop the spammers ==
Yesterday after I prayed an idea came to me (most likely from god) to stop the spammers from registering the spam accounts. If we can move away from user captcha and instead use a question that requires some knowledge (for example what team does tim tebow sit on the bench for or which team did he turned around) as the spambots will be completely flummoxed by this. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 09:16, 19 November 2012 (EST)
:The questycaptcha is excellent for this purpose. It stops ocr bots, and most paid spammers. The code would be:
  require_once( "$IP/extensions/ConfirmEdit/ConfirmEdit.php" );
  $wgCaptchaClass = 'QuestyCaptcha';
  $arr = array (
        "A question?" => "An answer!",
        "What is this wiki's name?" => "Conservapedia",
        'Who is Tim Tebow' => 'An athlete',
  foreach ( $arr as $key => $value ) {
        $wgCaptchaQuestions[] = array( 'question' => $key, 'answer' => $value );
Which you would place in /rootfiledirectory/localsettings.php[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 15:54, 19 November 2012 (EST)
::On a side note, Speedy Deletion Candidates still has some 30 pages to delete.[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 15:55, 19 November 2012 (EST)
What do you think about this option then Andy, Given brenden has given you the codes could you implement it ? Given I believe the Idea was a message from god, I beleieve we should do this. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 18:40, 20 November 2012 (EST)
== A message to my many detractors who fail to appreciate true conservatism!  ==
[[File:Matador1.jpg|thumbnail|center|300px|Conservative ladies love [[User: Conservative]]'s material - especially the smart ones! Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D. at [[Concerned Women of America]], cited the portion of the [[Planned Parenthood]] article which User: Conservative created.[http://www.cwfa.org/familyvoice/2011-02/FamilyVoiceInsight_February2011.pdf]  Olé! Olé! Olé!, [[User: Conservative]]! ]]
This is second time I have been cited by [[Concerned Women of America]].  :) The largest women's lobbying organization in America. :) American conservative ladies love me! Olé! Olé! Olé!, [[User: Conservative]]! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:18, 19 November 2012 (EST)
== Stealth Editing  ==
Aschlafly, neat trick: I see that you [[Special:Contributions/Aschlafly|have edited a couple of articles]]  during the last minutes - without appearing on [[Special:RecentChanges]]. Why, oh why? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:41, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
:Because he's trying to hide the fact that he's ignoring the situation with Ken. This way he hopes nobody will notice that he just kept on editing and did nothing about the problem. It's complete cowardice.--[[User:JonasEldred|JonasEldred]] 18:45, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
:::AugustO, there is no problem.  You are looking for problems where they do not exist. If you looking for big problems, I suggest looking right under you nose in Germany. Your liberal Protestant denomination in Germany is shrinking due to feminism, evolutionism, pastors blessing homosexual "couples" plus a myriad of other problems. Get the logs out of your Germany denomination's eye before you try to remove the specks out of Conservapedia's main page that supposedly exist due to my editing of the main page.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:42, 20 November 2012 (EST)
:*I address a problem whenever I come across one.
:*You don't belong to a parish, you aren't attending church services, you have no personal experience of being involved in the actual community of a church. I doubt that you are capable of giving any helpful advice on the struggles of my church.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 04:44, 21 November 2012 (EST)
::::AugustO, excerpt from a 2009 news article: "The evangelical and Pentecostal churches associated with creationism are bucking Germany's downward trend in church attendance, according to Detlef Pollack, professor in the sociology of religion at the University of Münster. Although they are still a small presence in Germany, attracting less than three percent of the population, they are the only Christian denominations that are growing."[http://www.thelocal.de/society/20090326-18267.html]
::::So I would translate the [http://creation.com/15-question 15 questions] for evolutionists tract into German and start handing them out at your church. 
::::Next, don't tell my pastor I don't attend church services. I don't think he would believe you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:46, 21 November 2012 (EST)
:::::Sorry if I misremembered an earlier conversation about your church-going habits.
:::::Do you belong to an evangelical or Pentecostal church?
:::::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:53, 21 November 2012 (EST)
[[Template:University]] is locked.  Most people want to know a university's endowment size.  Could you please add:
{{#if:{{{endowment|}}} | <!--then:-->
{{!}} '''Endowment '''
{{!}} {{{endowment|}}} | <!--else-->
to the template? Many thanks! [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 08:33, 20 November 2012 (EST)
:Added to the template as requested.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:06, 20 November 2012 (EST)
::Thanks. I shall backfill some endowment data. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 08:19, 21 November 2012 (EST)
:::How about unlocking it for 24 hours? I want to tweak the template and the documentation. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 10:47, 21 November 2012 (EST)
::::Good suggestion.  Unlocked as requested.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:07, 21 November 2012 (EST)
==iPSC therapies==
==iPSC therapies==

Revision as of 17:35, 21 November 2012

Hi! Thank for for creating this website.

Archive Index

Question about Government Homework

Mr. Schlafly,

When I went to post my homework answers last night, Conservapedia did not allow me to “edit” the page. Does the website have a curfew? And for the future, when precisely are the homework assignments due? Thanks. --MorganT 17:42, 21 September 2012 (EDT)

Editing was turned off by the system for a few hours yesterday. Sorry for any inconvenience due to not being able to post. Assignments are due on Wednesdays, but it's not a problem that this homework was late.--Andy Schlafly 17:58, 21 September 2012 (EDT)
Thank you for clarifying. --MorganT

iPSC therapies

Sorry to belabor the point, but I thought you might find this interesting. There are currently fifteen active clinical trials in the United States using patient-derived stem cells ("adult stem cells") to treat spinal cord injuries. At least one of these trials uses induced pluripotent stem cells derived from terminally-differentiated cells. In spite of the astronomical cancer risk associated, this is an active area of clinical research in the United States.--JHunter 17:58, 20 November 2012 (EST)

The link says the location is South Korea, not the United States.
Anti-life types have not, and will not, allow meaningful therapy with adult stem cells in the United States for victims of paralysis.--Andy Schlafly 23:06, 20 November 2012 (EST)
Fair enough. This is a current clinical trial at Baylor using bone marrow derived stem cells to treat spinal cord injury.--JHunter 00:01, 21 November 2012 (EST)
You're right that this clinical trial is in the United States (Texas). Thanks for finding and linking to it. But look at how small and limited the study is: only ten people, and perhaps half of them would receive a placebo rather than the stem cell treatment. Allowing stem cell treatment on only 5 persons every 3 years (the study won't complete until 2014) is so little that it is almost nothing.
It is surprising that the study excludes non-English-speaking patients.--Andy Schlafly 17:30, 21 November 2012 (EST)

Panera Bread

This company must cater to the liberal/harassment crowd, including the one on Mowry Avenue, Fremont; they have that certain "homosexual execution" accuser sitting there now. Should we give them a call? Karajou 14:06, 21 November 2012 (EST)


I would recommend granting him delete privileges, as he has shown himself to be a fair sysop, and always vigilantly watching for spammers. Also, please do something about the 30 odd pages that still need to be deleted. Thanks, brenden 15:52, 21 November 2012 (EST)