Difference between revisions of "User talk:Aschlafly"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Essay: Gallery of obese atheists)
Line 116: Line 116:
Thank you so much for your consideration.  I will be notifying [[User:Conservative]] about this discussion momentarily.  [[User:GregG|GregG]] 15:36, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
Thank you so much for your consideration.  I will be notifying [[User:Conservative]] about this discussion momentarily.  [[User:GregG|GregG]] 15:36, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
=== Kudos to Ed Poor's Gallery of obese atheists! Olé! Olé! Olé! ===
Andy, I sent an email to Ed Poor about hanging tough and not caving in to atheists and to their liberal atheist sympathizers as for as his masterful work of comedy [[Essay: Gallery of obese atheists|Gallery of obese atheists]].
Cave in to atheists an inch and their liberal atheist sympathizers and they will take a mile!
[[File:Matador1.jpg|alt=machismo|thumbnail|377px|Kudos to Ed Poor's [[Essay: Gallery of obese atheists|Gallery of obese atheists]].  <big>'''Olé! Olé! Olé!'''</big>
<br />
<br />
<small>(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/naturales71/4384748931/ Flickr], see: [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement])</small>]]
== Get ready for a "formal complaint" against User: Conservative ==
== Get ready for a "formal complaint" against User: Conservative ==

Revision as of 16:04, 30 June 2012

Archive Index

Broken HTML in MediaWiki text for permanent links

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

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

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

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

Category:Speedy deletion candidates

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

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

Gary Johnson

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

An Appeal for the Resurrection of the Conservative Bible Project

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

Supreme Court cases

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

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

Can't undo vandalism

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

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

Aethelwine ( a question for Ed Poor)

@User:Ed Poor: Though this article wasn't of utmost importance (and a similar list can be found at wikipedia), what does it make non-encyclopedic? I just ask because I improved the format of this article, and checked whether the information in it was factual. I would not have bothered if I had known that it was to be deleted. Ed Poor, may I say: you have created quite a few articles with less information - so where do we draw the line between the encyclopedic and the non-encyclopedic?

(BTW, Ed Poor, could you take a look here / here? Thanks!) --AugustO 10:36, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

Editing talk page archives

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

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

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

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

Two Requests


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

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


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

User Name Change

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

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

Your wikilink on MPR is broken

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

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

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

Main page table of contents

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

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

I know you like editing over talkpages but...

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

Essay: Gallery of obese atheists

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

Therefore, I request that

Additionally, I would like to have investigated

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

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

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

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

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

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

(photo obtained from Flickr, see: license agreement)

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

Andy, as you are aware when people with liberal ideas badly lose debate exchanges with User: Conservative, a complaint is sure to follow and sometimes even more "formal complaints"

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

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

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

Can we check what was said in these 'debates' that you won? Or have you oversighted and deleted them as you did with SharonW's 'debate' with you? Davidspencer 15:53, 30 June 2012 (EDT)