User talk:Aschlafly

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by StaceyT (Talk | contribs) at 19:50, 3 October 2012. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

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

Unexplained Reverts

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

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

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

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

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

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

On your first point, what is your point? Robert Dicke was the greatest American physicist of the 20th century. If he wasn't considered for a Nobel Prize, then that simply further proves the bias.
On your second point, Robert Dicke is widely known to have rejected the Theory of Relativity as formulated and imposed by academic physicists.
On your third point, the "problem" with the Theory of Relativity is that it is illogical, disproven by the evidence, contradictory with the Bible, imposed through use of censorship to silence any criticism of it, and promoted by left-wingers. Other than that it's not a bad hypothetical mathematical exercise.
On your additional comment, even President Obama is credited with helping write an article that does link the theory to moral relativity, even abortion.--Andy Schlafly 21:46, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
In what way is the Theory of Relativity illogical? 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 here? (And by the way, there is no time dilation in Newtonian physics.) -AndyFranklinson 13:24, 14 August 2012 (EDT)

Andy, I don't mean to be rude, but why aren't you responding? --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?--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?" --AndyFranklinson 20:51, 19 August 2012 (EDT)
Andy, would you please answer me? --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 fallacies in the old universe theory.--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. can this work? Without general relativistic time dilation, Humphreys' model is not consistent with the Bible. --AndyFranklinson 08:56, 26 August 2012 (EDT)
Andy, I'd really appreciate an answer here! :) --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.--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? --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.--Andy Schlafly 09:41, 5 September 2012 (EDT)

Blocked for too much talk

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? 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. --Ed Poor Talk 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. --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. --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.--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. 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.[1] 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?[2] 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. --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

brenden 18:12, 1 September 2012 (EDT)

That's interesting, Brenden. I'll review this further.--Andy Schlafly 19:48, 1 September 2012 (EDT)


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) thnxCmurphynz 09:37, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

Please insert {{speedy}} into the entry, and then it shows up in the category of "speedy deletion candidates" for easy removal by an Administrator. Thanks.--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. --James Wilson 09:54, 3 September 2012 (EDT)
Ok, cool. So just put that template at the top of the page or whatever?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. --Joshua Zambrano 12:15, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

User name changed as requested.--Andy Schlafly 13:01, 3 September 2012 (EDT)
Alright, thank you! --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...

--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, 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, Wschact 06:39, 10 September 2012 (EDT)

Thanks for the promotion.

Thanks. 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 [3] 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, removed the comment and explained the situation on his talk page. Despite this admonition, User:Conservative 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.


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. Gregkochuconn 22:05, 13 September 2012 (EDT)

Done. 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. Gregkochuconn 22:30, 13 September 2012 (EDT)

Done. 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, 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?--Andy Schlafly 22:54, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

Could you explain this edit: [4] ?

All I was doing is adding categories to a page formerly lacking categories. --James Wilson 12:30, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

I think it was a mistake, as he reverted his own edit immediately. GregG 14:08, 15 September 2012 (EDT)
Greg is right - the reversion was a mistake, which I quickly corrected.--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. Gregkochuconn 14:10, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

Not sure what happened, there. You should always be able to edit.--Andy Schlafly 23:05, 17 September 2012 (EDT)


This is a proposed essay, that could be included in the {{warning}} template. Could you read over it and give some feedback, or direct me to someone who is also willing to read it? Thanks, 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, HumanGeographer 22:36, 17 September 2012 (EDT)

Edit: This would also apply to the wording of Question 7. 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.--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. 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 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, 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. 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! 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! 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? 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!
AugustO 02:38, 24 September 2012 (EDT)

I'm waiting for 75 days now! AugustO 02:59, 27 September 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. 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. Gregkochuconn 22:43, 21 September 2012 (EDT)
The lawyers and journalists will cringe when they see a capital V. in a court case name. Can that be fixed? This talk page is the only page that now uses the capital V. Wschact 06:36, 22 September 2012 (EDT)
The capital V is a redirect. Gregkochuconn 10:10, 22 September 2012 (EDT)

User:Conservative & trolling, redux

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

I thought that the previous incident regarding User:Conservative and trolling was a mere lapse of judgment, but today User:Conservative has once again 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.) 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. 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. 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 prominent evolutionists ducking public debates after losing hundreds of public debates, Kenneth Miller's non-response to your email about the 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. Conservative 14:09, 22 September 2012 (EDT)

This has absolutely nothing to do with my or your belief on the origin of life. GregG 14:12, 22 September 2012 (EDT)

ADDENDUM: Here's another instance of User:Conservative posting a comment that I consider to be trolling [5] (although in this case User:Conservative did not mislead Conservapedians about CP policy). 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. 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.--Andy Schlafly 23:36, 25 September 2012 (EDT)
GregK, we agree on fiscal conservatism and limited government. Also, this wiki is not libertarianpedia. 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. 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. 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". 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. Conservative 11:29, 27 September 2012 (EDT)

You missed the point you quoted 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.--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? 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.--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. Gregkochuconn 00:06, 23 September 2012 (EDT)

It seems to be Hussein now. I suppose someone fixed it.--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. Gregkochuconn 02:37, 23 September 2012 (EDT)
Corrected the spelling. Thanks.--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 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, GregG 09:49, 23 September 2012 (EDT)

The "&" symbol does not work in titles of entries.--Andy Schlafly 11:55, 23 September 2012 (EDT)
I don't think 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? 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? Biblethumpinjosh

Two Requests

AugustO 12:42, 24 September 2012 (EDT)

"A popular gameshow"

I've removed 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, 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? 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! 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." Gregkochuconn 10:31, 25 September 2012 (EDT)

Sir: I am afraid I may have broken you rules: I have two accounts User:PatMc and User:Patmac. 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 --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. OscarO 10:56, 29 September 2012 (EDT)

What problems are you referring to? In general, this site is for substantive, encyclopedic contributions.--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. 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. OscarO 17:13, 29 September 2012 (EDT)

"recession he inherited"

Autopatrol was working yesterday, but a soon as 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. OscarO 08:52, 30 September 2012 (EDT)


Conservapedia was down for quite a while today. Is it just a server side bug, or something else?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 page, I don't believe there is a valid reason for removing the information I previously added. Thank you. --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. Gregkochuconn 19:19, 2 October 2012 (EDT)


Why were all items removed from my watchlist? Gregkochuconn 18:04, 3 October 2012 (EDT)

Vector skin

What happened to it? I see that I'm now in the default skin. 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. StaceyT 19:50, 3 October 2012 (EDT)